New concept is for damage that hits multiple damage types (ice,holy,slash,etc.).

Disclaimer (I am aware that no one is a real fan of this word) :
Some weapons may become slightly weaker from this, while others slightly greater. Vuln(resist) bonus(penalty) damage percentages are easily changeable as well. Alliance weapons that are affected by this would be handled however Jaggus would decide to allow, but he has always been fair in the past so I wouldn't be too concerned with this as an alliance player. Overall, I'd like responses to be based on the concept more than the specific numbers, as those would change based on testing anyways.

Concept:
A weapon that hits multiple damage types *could* only get a partial vuln/resist modifier. An example would be a weapon such as Glamdring that has a material of mithril (hits silver vuln) and damage noun of divine power (hits holy vuln). If used against a mobile with no resists and only vulnerable to holy damage, than Glamdring's vuln bonus would be cut in half. Against a target that was vulnerable to both silver and holy, it would get the full vuln bonus. (Note: The vuln bonus I'm talking of is not necessarily the +50% we currently have. We can change this number, based on testing, so that hitting the maximum number of vulns is actually more damage than currently.)

Basic formula:
The total number of vulns hit by a weapon minus the number of resists hit = m.
The total number of damage types on a weapon = n.
Vuln bonus modifier = m/n.

Bigger example:
Super-Omega-Sword does ice, shock, holy, slash, and silver damage.
Weirdo-Mob is resist silver, vulnerable to ice, holy, slash, silver and fire.

The Super-Omega-Sword would hit 4 of the vulns and 1 of the resist (m=3), and has a total of 5 damage types (n=5). Therefore, *if* the vuln bonus damage was considered to have a base of +100%, then this would do 3/5*100% bonus damage, so +60%.

Reasoning for this idea:
It seems to make sense that if you hit 2 vulns and 1 resist, they shouldn't cancel out (the way the current system has it) but rather it should be a partial vuln hit. Also, it allows for a lot more creativity when creating weapons (for both builders and leaders), and realistically ( ) limits weapons with too many damage types (like a lot of current weapons, which are light+slash+holy for example).

So why would we ever get a weapon with more than 1 damage type?
We could offer small bonuses on weapons with multiple damage types, so that against a mob that is vulnerable to cold and holy damage, a weapon that hits both the cold and holy vulnerabilities could get some bonus damage compared to a weapon that hits just 1 of the vulns. (Maybe each vuln you hit gives an automatic +5% damage, so a specialized weapon to target 1 areas mobs that have 3 vulns could get a bonus +15% damage. -5% for each resist.)

Ideally, this would be more congruent with what one would expect from vulns/resists, make damage a little less linear against a vast range of targets, allow more customization for weapon construction (from a building point of view), and allow more differences between areas/weapons.

Opinions, questions, concerns? Remember, this isn't a nerf, but rather a new spin on the combat system. Certain items will change (if the builder wishes them to change) so that weapons that hit 3+ vulns currently don't become less valuable.

P.S. I'd obviously fix the system flaw that only takes into account the first two materials listed on a weapon, so a weapon could have more materials that actually work.

I do not think materials should be figured in to this, as there are materials that cannot hit vuln/res/imm anyway, such as glass or stone. Also, I like materials to be based on RP rather than being worked around. I am also not sure this would even be wanted, given that we will end up fixing our weapons more specifically anyway in order to do the most damage. It's a good concept, but I don't see it being used much, and builders who build those weapons can expect that their weapons will simply not be used in favor of buying alliance weapons for every situation, and players prizing more specific weapons since they'll do more damage.

The only materials that would be counted are those with an associated damage type.

I agree, however I think builders will still build RP viable weapons, and the AI would still be in charge of validating the RP value of any weapons ordered. Also, the only way the system could work is with materials unless we wanted to do something weird where weapons can have multiple damnouns (impossible in current system, for those that may not know).

I disagree here. I think it would be greatly used, creating more weapon choices and more mob choices (for builders). I don't see how it would change (for the worse) how our current system allows any weapon built by a builder to be copied verbatim by an alliance.

Perhaps I misunderstood part of your post? I personally like the idea of having more than just 2 or 3 weapons that you switch between for 95% or more of your targets - hunting or questing.

This proposed system sounds very unique. I do agree with Flake that Alliance Leaders will simply build "favorable" combinations of materials and damage types; it's just human nature to want the best. That doesn't necessarily make the proposed changes bad, since that's always been the way items are built by Alliance Leaders anyway. I do believe there will be a quagmire of complaints along the lines of:

"OMG you broke our weapons," or

"WTF where's our retro refund!?"

But that's the nature of a changing beast, I reckon. :p The hp/mana change was a success in my opinion, and the adept skills are looking like gold. I see no reason to doubt your ability to pull this (pretty major) change off.

Do you think an Alliance Vote is in order for a change of this magnitude?

If it seems that a vast majority of players don't want the change, then I don't suppose that I'd go ahead with it. I would like to hear more voices before making a decision either way, and with my list of current projects, it looks like people will have time to contemplate, ask questions here on the forums, get answers, and contemplate some more. (I feel like an ent saying that...)

Here is what I meant: Everyone's weapons will be material metal or glass and then only use the damnoun for that specific vuln, so as to do the most damage to that mob. This was essentially how it was before alliance leaders were allowed to completely build their items, so to me it looks like another way of changing that. My point is, nobody wants to use a weapon that does 4/5 damage on a vuln when they have one that does full damage, so any weapons like that will be obsolete.

I absolutely agree with flake here, thats exactly how i would order my weapons, to benefit from the max damage possible

Ah, I see what you mean now.



Example:
A hill troll would be an easy kill.
Hp: 15605/15605 Mana: 335/335 Lv: 100 Align: -500
Resist: piercing
Vulnerable: slashing fire light

So you could get a glass material weapon that does slashing damage, and get the regular vuln bonus at 105% (1/1 as a modifier to the bonus + 5% for hitting 1 vuln). Meanwhile, someone else can make a sword with slashing damnoun, fire and light material (and some RP to support it). They are going to hit 3 of the vulns, and the weapon only hits 3 damage types, so their vuln bonus would be 115% (3/3 + 5% * 3).

So specialized weapons for specific mobs would do even more damage, which is what I imagine leaders will order in order to maximize their damage against hunt mobs and common quest mobs. This same fire/light/slashing weapon would NOT be as good against a mob only vuln slashing, as it would only get 38% of the vuln bonus (1/3 modifier + 5%), so you may want some single damnoun weapons.

In all, this means more weapons will be used, and they will be specialized to specific mobs, which would then make sense for them dealing more damage.

Note: The 5% bonus per vuln is just a number I threw out in a previous post. It could very well be 10% per vuln, or whatever seems to be best during testing.

I like this idea.