So I think the best system for a damage based hit boxes would be for each arrmor area to be a damage hit box. Being hit in these areas will have damage block/ weakened depending on the armor on these areas.. Also the armor hit would take damage. Also damage and armor types would take effect. This also needs to have your players stats to come into effect in a big amount.

Edit: of course all I can do is wish as the games seems to be so far through development that they should be in the testing stages by now..

I found this funny because Bethesda actually made it so that arrows can't stick out of your head.

Arrows, when you shoot them, move away from the head, the neck, and the heart, until you get a killing blow, then they'll land and stay wherever.

You are probs right, maybe it was a bug or iv gone crazy..

Either way, they did things in Fallout 3 that made characters limp when you damage them enough in one (or both) leg(s) (therefore slowing them down), dropping weapons and being less accurate when you cripple their arms, being much more vulnerable if you damage their torso, and getting concussions if you damage their head. :thumbsup:

Locational damage is something Bethesda's done by now, so we can (hopefully) expect it in Skyrim.

Certainly would make combat more involving so I say yes.

This is a little bit off topic but I would really love to have arrows and blades slide/bounce off of massive armor like this: http://www.aurorahistoryboutique.com/products/C000538_L.jpg To me this would really add a lot of immersion and realism. If you hit the right spots (underarms, back of legs, shoulders, etc.. basically anywhere where things need to freely move) with a good upper-slice or downward slice, then you could do some serious damage. I'm not sure why this would be so cool to me. i think it is because in Oblivion it basically felt like there was no point to where heavy armor personally.

Yeeap now everyone will say Oblivion didn't have hitboxes. :facepalm:

I don't think you mean 'hit boxes', as Oblivion already has hit boxes. So did Morrowind infact. What you are referring too is a regional hit box. One that not only defines which regions (boxes) are part of a player, but also what each of those boxes represents.

As for your poll I'm undecided. Certainly, adding a head-hit box would make Marksmanship a more realistic experience, but it's still supposed to be an RPG. In an RPG a 'head shot' would be represented by a critical hit, and a critical hit is controlled by the character's skill; not the player's skill.

I've never seen people walk around with arrows in their heads, in Oblivion even when you hit the head, the arrow will be placed somewhere else, it is only the killing blow that gets placed in the head.

If you mean for the playable character, well than I don't know, but I want location based damage anyways

Only if they do it for the better of gameplay and tactics. Soldier of Fortune 2: Double Helix had gore, decapitation, and mutilation to the point where you could dismember an enemy and cut their face up into little pieces until only a stump was left.

This contributed nothing to fix the fact that combat in action was terrible.

Candy.

That's sorta the idea, open helmets should give worse protection than a closed helm, it makes sense and would give heavy armor an actual heavy feel to it. I do however agree wiht the each part of the armor protecting only that part of the body, makes sense and sounds really fun

This, as without a hitbox you can't hit your opponent at all. Oblivion simply uses just one

Either way, if people decide not to wear a helmet because they're playing the game as a dress-up one, it's a risk they take. Heck, bind your helmet to a hotkey and take it off when you're not in combat?

Also, @WerewolfNeverine:
This tech only works to a certain degree. It won't detect if an arrow actually hits armor or not, but it'll detect which limb is being hit and then the game checks the presence of armor for the respective limb.
Therefore, an open helm could still be better than a closed one, depending on its stats.

Still, it makes sense if closed ones protect you better, right

They could give you the option to hide your helmet so you still get the armor/enchant bonus but don't have to see it (like in WoW).

OOOH, you mean location based hitboxes.

This topic made absolutely no sense till I realized that.

This would be ideal.

For hardcoe mode.

Yes I mean hit boxes for location based damage! I will add to the op

Yes! I would love to see location based damage. It always made me sad that I couldn't shoot people in the legs with my ranger to slow them down, or shoot them in the arm so they drop their weapon. And I always thought headshots not giving you a "critical hit" was a bit silly, If the target isn't wearing a helmet of course.

I don't know who Candy is, but I voted for her anyway.....

Locational damage (having MORE than one hitbox) could be a good thing, if implemented along with a means of preventing any "novice" character from just cheezily headshooting everything. Just remember, that whatever goes for your attacks on the NPCs also goes for their attacks against you.

Having open faced helmets protect less than full visored helmets might seem like a "realistic" option, but in that case, they'd need to add in the visored helmet's drastic obstruction of vision to balance it. Nobody would want that. Hopefully, there are people here who realize that "open faced" helmets were worn by many, if not most, combat troops, although visors were clealy the best option in tightly controlled "jousts". There were no decent "iron skullcap" type helmets in the earlier games that I can remember, which should be adequate head protection in most cases.

Which is equally ridiculous, because then you have a corpse full of arrows in non-vital areas. And thus, the legend of Achilles was born.


"I don't want that, because it means that open helms are weaker then closed helms." ...open helms are weaker than closed helms.

Blowing the limbs off zombies in L4D2 is fun.

Do you want the game to be a TES RPG or a fight simulator? I vote no to the latter.

You can have deep or shallow combat, and the choice is yours.

rpg player would want locational damage, at least a purist would. This is what critical hits actually are. Or at least were originally meant to be.

except it's been forgotten, this is the kind of ridiculousness that happens when everyone clones DnD PnP systems into games... and then continues to do so for decades. The purpose of it is lost. instead of random critical damage to simulate this, actual critical damage based on location.