Current formula computes a linear reduction percentage capping at 80%. Compare this with Morrowind's:

Attacker's Final Damage = (Attacker's Damage^2)/(Attacker's Damage + Defender's Armor Rating)


The difference, for the mathematically minded is this:

Let's say you have Armor=100. In Skyrim, this will make your survivability increase some ~20% or so (i.e. ~20% damage reduced; you get 80% at the cap 500+ armor). This is independent of who is hitting you for how much damage: rats or giants, you get the same ~20% increase to your survivability.

In Morrowind, someone hitting you with 10 raw damage would only deal 1 effective damage (1 = 10 * 10/(10+100)) and someone hitting you for 100 raw damage would do 50 effective damage (50 = 100 * 100/(100+100)).

I.e. you would nearly immune to rats and would be squished by giants.


Relatedly, armo CAPS in skyrim.
With smithing and armor perks, you hit an armor cap ridiculously early.
With Morrowind formula there would have been no cap, only a slowing of returns which becomes vital once someone heavy starts hitting you.



Unfortunately, this isn't a simple matter to mod: all damage balances are made according to the same formula. The entire damage, hit point balance, as well as destruction damages need to be tweaked to get a sensible balanced system like in Morrowind.

So what is the problem with Skyrim?

Also, you still are nearly immune to rats, and Giants can OHK you.

What's this got to do with the price of tea in China?

Another step focused on the casuals.

Tooooo....much............math.....!!!!!!

Is there something wrong with that?

I see you haven't spent much time here. Intellectual mastvrbation is the name of the game, and you'd best not forget it.

No friend, there is nothing wrong with the fact that you haven't played TES since it first came out and don't consider yourself a superior entity because of it. I prefer to fight and not do math. Those who disagree are welcome to do my homework.

GAH!

I approve.

You might be looking for this:

http://skyrim.nexusmods.com/downloads/file.php?id=4073

I can't tell if it works or not as I tend to be warily of mods that "rework" calculations using workarounds. I would very much prefer a SKSE version that directly modifies the engine's formula if possible.

Full armour, displayed rating 567, actual rating 667.
You get hit for 300 damage (ancient dragon bite).
Flat reduction : 60 damage.
Damage weighted reduction : 93 damage.

At 225 damage (elder dragon bite) :
Flat reduction : 45 damage.
Damage weighted : 56.75 damage.

At 45 damage (snow bear) :
Flat reduction : 9 damage.
Damage weighted : 2.8 damage.

Looks fine. Heavy hitters do more damage, works for cap armour. Until you read the OP. 100 armour. Hit for 100. Flat reduction damage, 80. Weighted, 50. Your 20% armour just got a lot better for most enemies.
Let's look at that bear again. Base damage (and yes, they do much nastier power attacks, I know), 45, armour 100. Flat damage, 36, weighted 14. Your 20% armour made you effectively immune to snow bears normal attacks.

I'm not stupid, I know it can be made to work with tweaks to the formula, but why posit it as an improvement, for the mathematically minded, if you haven't done the math, or realised you are not comparing like for like? The mod posted which alters armour value alone would be more effective, and mathematically simpler (and apparently therefore for casuals, oh dear oh dear).

One of the complaints about Skyrim are the difficulty spikes, you get one-shotted, after wading through loads of enemies you yourself one-shotted. The damage weighted damage reduction would exacerbate this, all enemies become a walkthrough, until the guy who killed you in two hits before now kills you in two bigger hits.

Eh, the morrowind end result may be a little more "realistic" or whatnot, but it had it's flaws also.

Really the best system would be something in between.

To the math haters, this is a game forum and so math is going to happen here. I myself dont get involved in it, there are other people who get paid to do it for a living instead, and others that enjoy messing with the background stuff like this as a hobby.

I care about the end result. I agree that Skyrim has a bit of a flaw as the progression is to linear. I also feel it is much more fiendly a system to low level characters and beginer players. Morrowind had a very good end result with much harsher learning curves. I would prefer something in the middle. Something that gives you a "simple" linear progression for a little while but then branches off into a more complicated system to make battles more diverse. it would make what you figth meaningful as you level up.

math away!! i await your findings later.

He's also not taking into consideration, that in Morrowind, even though an attack could appear to be a hit graphically, there was a "dice roll" involved to determine whether the hit actually landed. You could swing your sword right through someone, or directly stab them with your spear, but because of the "dice roll", your opponent wouldn't be "hit", and therefore, take no damage. This isn't so in either Oblivion or Skyrim. If it looks like a hit (As in your weapon/arrow actually connects with the opponents "sprite/hitbox"), then it's a hit.

Personally I liked the DT/DR system that was implemented in New Vegas. To do anything but very minor damage you had to break through the enemy's damage threshold, and then damage resistance was applied to whatever bled through that.

Which meant that if you took a shot at a Giant Radscorpion with a .32 pistol, all you would do is piss him off. Come back with a hunting rifle with armor piercing rounds, though, and you'd splatter him all over the landscape.

it has less to do with feeling elitism of being a long time fan, and more to do with the quality combat system gradually degrading to meet a larger volume of demographic that is more interested in button mashing rather than preparation and strategy.

That was because there were no 'miss' animations, unlike today's games.

Skyrim combat animations and Morrowind combat mechanics would be a nearly perfect pairing, since you'd have the best of both worlds. I say 'nearly', because accuracy-based combat models are often brutal in the early levels because you miss almost all the time, and a fair number of people don't care for the inherent difficulty increase.

Don't make the mistake of mistaking luck-based dice-roll dodging as preparation and strategy. A luck independent game (like chess) is a much better platform to demonstrate preparation and strategy.

The problem is it's not MORROWIND!!!

Aiieeee....run and get the zanex!!!

p.s. It's also 2012...

I prefer the math to be hidden, but I want the math to be RIGHT. So the OP is doing us a favour if something is wrong and hopefully Devs will see and fix.

I want to know that things are being calculated correctly and logically. I do sometimes wonder if these days, Bethesda Devs actually have everything correctly worked out under the sheets. I don`t want to be wondering if this weapon or spell or whatever actually doing what it should be when pitched against this enemy`s armour?

Because I don`t like things that are mathematically wrong.

No matter how much detail and thought you put into the combat mechanics in Morrowind, the difficulty boiled down to ONE thing - Speed.

The difficulty on lower levels was high because you moved slower than a pregnant yak, once you had done enough hoping around, you were so fast that you were basically invulnerable since nothing could hit you. Didn't matter what armor or formula you use when nothing ever comes near to hit you.

There is no 'set formula' for the perfect combat equation.

Some people just have to anolyse things...their prerogative...but telling developers they got it wrong because you don't like it is a different matter. They don't have to care that you don't like it, which is the reality of things.

Again, I'll say it, just because Morrowind was a particular way, doesn't mean that the rest of the series has to follow, otherwise you would be playing a 200? game in 2012.

Amazing the number of hostile replies to a little bit of comparative argument.

Let me try a simpler one:
In Skyrim armor caps easily, rendering useless heavy investment in armor perks or smithing with no further return.
A better armor model (e.g. like in Morrowind) would have given a trailing benefit, permitting a further line of high level enemies against which smithed-enchanted-heavy armor would have been beneficial.

Instead, we have:
"You can wear leather armor and have the same protection as daedric enclave power armor."

You really think that is better?

yeah, the game mechanic changed a lot in these 10 years, but it's not necessarily a bad thing IMO

Morrowind again trololol.