Support NeoGAF

[NullPointer]

You're talking about games with 20 weapons vs games with STATS, gear, and insane variability in their weapons all on top of it. The two things are not REMOTELY comparable.

I just compared them. They're comparable:

Destiny weapons.
Battlefield 4 weapons.

Level differences and RNG aside, they are comparable. Or you can take the RNG aspects of Destiny and apply them to BF4 weapons as well, and the list would expand just the same.

 

[KAP151]

Biggest turn off factor for me. The gun play was horrid in the Beta.

 

[Cabbagehead]

Biggest turn off factor for me. The gun play was horrid in the Beta.

"Gun play is Horrid" amazing feedback.

 

[Woo-Fu]

Sponge disappeared soon as I started headshotting with a marksman rifle.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

I just compared them. They're comparable:

Destiny weapons.
Battlefield 4 weapons.

Level differences and RNG aside, they are comparable. Or you can take the RNG aspects of Destiny and apply them to BF4 weapons as well, and the list would expand just the same.

I'm not sure what your point is with this. They're not comparable because the games aren't comparable. They're completely different genres. We might as well add in Samus' various arm cannons since all firearms in games are comparable and they most likely share a number of those stats.

Plus there's only a little over 100 guns in the BF4 page while there's around 120 in Destiny...on the first page out of 8

 

[TheYanger]

I just compared them. They're comparable:

Destiny weapons.
Battlefield 4 weapons.

Level differences and RNG aside, they are comparable. Or you can take the RNG aspects of Destiny and apply them to BF4 weapons as well, and the list would expand just the same.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? There are vastly more weapons than that in The Division, Destiny is also 'bullet spongey' so not sure what you're trying to prove comparing it to that, btu it's neither here nor there: the point is when you have say, 50 weapons in a game like Battlefield (a lot of weapons for that sort of thing) you've got exactly 50 points of granularity you're striving for, and you don't have to make things any more different than that.

Flipside, something like The Division you've got to make sure not only that the highest weapon damage in the game feels meaningful (some sorto f powerful sniper rifle) compared to everything else, but ALSO that it feels meaningful to stack Attack vs Stamina vs Electronics. So now you've got the range of max attack value sniper rifle vs no attack value sniper rifle (for example) on top of every single other type of weapon in the game having that same metric, So if a max attack sniper is going to be meaningful, you can't have lower weapons suddenly 'realistically' headshotting mobs too, or there's no point to it existing. It already has plenty of other drawbacks (fire rate, mag size). Reality is, you CAN ALREADY DO THAT SHIT in the beta, people had shit gear and expect progression from it, then the enemies aren't going to fall over dead when you breathe on them without equipment, that's all it comes down to. Once you get equipment basically any worthwhile gun can take down any non-boss mob in a single burst, as it should be, and bosses have a lot more survivability - because they're bosses.

 

[NullPointer]

I'm not sure what your point is with this. They're not comparable because the games aren't comparable. They're completely different genres.

I am comparing things you don't seem to think are comparable, but they are. What conversations do you think they had at Massive when they set out to design an RPG third person shooter hybrid? That it was impossible to even discuss? No, they examined different systems across genres and came up with something they thought was a good mix of elements.

Plus there's only a little over 100 guns in the BF4 page while there's around 120 in Destiny...on the first page out of 8

8 pages of different sets of numbers for the same weapon models. Apply that same logic to BF4 applying several different sets of numbers to the same model and you can go through pages and pages of those too. Or, to put it the other way, if each Destiny weapon had only one set of stats, the full arsenal between both games would be comparable.

We're getting lost in the weeds here.

The original point is that bullet sponges are a direct result of level scaling of damage, which posters have declared in this thread to be not only a requirement but the only justification for acquiring new weapons and gear. I disagree and think that you could incentivize players to collect more gear to both increase their lethality - through collecting higher powered weapons through higher level missions and enemies, as well as utility, by having more options at their disposal in terms of more specialized equipment. A form of this is already at work in the big multiplayer shooters. What I'm talking about is splitting the difference between the two: multiple stat versions of each weapon, but not scaling damage.

What I'm talking about isn't rocket science, its simply a much shallower direct power curve to keep things grounded. Numbers of weapons has nothing to do with it like you say (I attached the links to compare distinct weapons because in terms of content creation they are comparable), its a matter of granularity. You can expand that granularity by tying weapons to RPG levels or RNG ranges, or by Division's core stats, or you can add more systemic depth to the combat model and expand granularity with those systems- the "dimensions of loot" I described before.

Doesn't matter though, because ultimately you have decided that having the capability for a level one player to take out a max level enemy with first level weaponry is a non-starter no matter what gameplay systems and scenarios presented. So I think we're just talking past each other and I've been wasting my time trying to describe alternate paths.

 

[Cabbagehead]

I am comparing things you don't seem to think are comparable, but they are. What conversations do you think they had at Massive when they set out to design an RPG third person shooter hybrid? That it was impossible to even discuss? No, they examined different systems across genres and came up with something they thought was a good mix of elements.


8 pages of different sets of numbers for the same weapon models. Apply that same logic to BF4 applying several different sets of numbers to the same model and you can go through pages and pages of those too.

We're getting lost in the weeds here.

The original point is that bullet sponges are a direct result of level scaling of damage, which posters have declared in this thread to be not only a requirement but the only justification for acquiring new weapons and gear. I disagree and think that you could incentivize players to collect more gear to both increase their lethality - through collecting higher powered weapons through higher level missions and enemies, as well as utility, by having more options at their disposal in terms of more specialized equipment.

What I'm talking about isn't rocket science, its simply a much shallower direct power curve to keep things grounded. Numbers of weapons has nothing to do with it like you say (I attached the links to compare distinct weapons because in terms of content creation they are comparable), its a matter of granularity. You can expand that granularity by tying weapons to RPG levels or RNG ranges, or by Division's core stats, or you can add more systemic depth to the combat model and expand granularity with those systems- the "dimensions of loot" I described before.

Doesn't matter though, because ultimately you have decided that having the capability for a level one player to take out a max level enemy with first level weaponry is a non-starter no matter what gameplay systems and scenarios presented. So I think we're just talking past each other and I've been wasting my time trying to describe alternate paths.

Yeah kind of not really going to change much, good discussion never the less. Did like some of you're suggestions.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

There’s few, if any, role-playing games set in a modern war setting. It’s a genre that’s obsessed with fantasy and sci-fi. But what initially seems an odd choice for a brand famously associated with cold war thrillers and future tech espionage, may actually turn out to be the most refreshing take on the Clancy brand in years.

I think they're largely missing why RPGs largely stick to those two settings. One setting doesn't really have firearms (one may point out that you shouldn't be able to tank arrows and swords, but they're much more "abstract" in the modern day), and the other is better able to handwave being bulletproof.

Bullets are seen as being the last word in weaponry, so it's going to feel weird if they're getting deflected by a beanie.

 

[Cabbagehead]

I think they're largely missing why RPGs largely stick to those two settings. One setting doesn't really have firearms (one may point out that you shouldn't be able to tank arrows and swords, but they're much more "abstract" in the modern day), and the other is better able to handwave being bulletproof.

Bullets are seen as being the last word in weaponry, so it's going to feel weird if they're getting deflected by a beanie.

Beanies are cosmetic anyway.

 

[Septic360]

The sponging is a legit complaint/concern though as much as others argue otherwise. In a game supposedly ground in reality, there should be no way that an enemy wearing a scarf soaks up so many bullets to the face.

But the main problem is, this so called ROG focus now; well when they first showed off the game it had a strong survival element to it. And they NEVER showed off this sponging element. Watch the first gameplay reveal.

So Ubisoft are at fault for the confusion its caused to an extent.

For me, it is disappointing but it doesn't break the game.

However, what a shame that this game isn't a survival game like it could have been. So much potential there. Ah well, that's a rant for another day.

 

[Sorc3r3r]

I'm interested to know how pvp unfold with maxed out characters.

There is someone on Gaf that has played end game pvp on closed test and not under nda?

My fear is that pvp fights with all those talents and skills available will bring to way too long fights, where the tension is sucked up and the fun with it.

I think I'm not interested to play a game where i have to shoot someone for 10 minutes, that continues to heal himself, revive and shield and cloak, my be fun for some time but on the long run I'll avoid those encounters like a plague.

 

[Silvard]

Its a Clancy game right?

Tom Clancy wasn't a game designer. He was writer who, in the context of games, wrote and developed scenarios and settings. Actual licensing and naming aside, a "Clancy game" isn't a term to describe a given set of game mechanics or even a given genre of games (unlike what your Forza analogy implies), it describes a game set in a narrative that follows a certain conceit that this game's setting appears to capture perfectly. Your inability to abstract the gameplay and mechanics from the setting doesn't make that any less true.

By the way, the game you're talking about was already made: it's called Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Shadow Wars. It was a great game. Not widely called an RPG however. You must have been livid about it having levels and HP scaling too, though.

As a fan of Clancy's settings and of loot RPGs, I'm really looking forward to this game. It could still fail miserably as either a loot RPG (crappy loot progression, tedious game play, being vanilla D3) and/or as a Clancy game (the virus attack was orchestrated by a time traveling wizard from the moon, and you must learn to use the Force to beat him), but to claim the gameplay doesn't fit the the Clancy moniker, or a modern/near-future setting for that matter, is both inane and shortsighted.

I am comparing things you don't seem to think are comparable, but they are. What conversations do you think they had at Massive when they set out to design an RPG third person shooter hybrid? That it was impossible to even discuss? No, they examined different systems across genres and came up with something they thought was a good mix of elements.


8 pages of different sets of numbers for the same weapon models. Apply that same logic to BF4 applying several different sets of numbers to the same model and you can go through pages and pages of those too. Or, to put it the other way, if each Destiny weapon had only one set of stats, the full arsenal between both games would be comparable.

We're getting lost in the weeds here.

The original point is that bullet sponges are a direct result of level scaling of damage, which posters have declared in this thread to be not only a requirement but the only justification for acquiring new weapons and gear. I disagree and think that you could incentivize players to collect more gear to both increase their lethality - through collecting higher powered weapons through higher level missions and enemies, as well as utility, by having more options at their disposal in terms of more specialized equipment. A form of this is already at work in the big multiplayer shooters. What I'm talking about is splitting the difference between the two: multiple stat versions of each weapon, but not scaling damage.

What I'm talking about isn't rocket science, its simply a much shallower direct power curve to keep things grounded. Numbers of weapons has nothing to do with it like you say (I attached the links to compare distinct weapons because in terms of content creation they are comparable), its a matter of granularity. You can expand that granularity by tying weapons to RPG levels or RNG ranges, or by Division's core stats, or you can add more systemic depth to the combat model and expand granularity with those systems- the "dimensions of loot" I described before.

Doesn't matter though, because ultimately you have decided that having the capability for a level one player to take out a max level enemy with first level weaponry is a non-starter no matter what gameplay systems and scenarios presented. So I think we're just talking past each other and I've been wasting my time trying to describe alternate paths.

I don't disagree with you, but the 'alternate' paths you're presenting describe a fundamentally different type of game from what The Division is and has been described as since day one. What you're saying is that the game could be like Battlefield in progression except with dropped guns instead of unlocks, which is true, it could be, but it's not. As you say most of the big multiplayer already do this to an extent so it's no surprise that, yes, The Division could have been made to be more similar mechanically to a plethora of existing shooters with a similar setting, so if anything the alternate path is the whole loot RPG progression with damage scaling. It's actually rather refreshing that it is the case. If you don't like the loot RPG gameplay loop of grinding to find that lucky roll of damage + perks + preferred weapon type then you won't enjoy this, but it doesn't make it a problem to fix.

 

[Tecnniqe]

Tom Clancy wasn't a game designer. He was writer who, in the context of games, wrote and developed scenarios and settings. Actual licensing and naming aside, a "Clancy game" isn't a term to describe a given set of game mechanics or even a given genre of games (unlike what your Forza analogy implies), it describes a game set in a narrative that follows a certain conceit that this game's setting appears captures perfectly. Your inability to abstract the gameplay and mechanics from the setting doesn't make that any less true.

By the way, the game you're talking about was already made: it's called Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Shadow Wars. It was a great game. Not widely called an RPG however. You must have been livid about it having levels and HP scaling too, though.

As a fan of Clancy's settings and of loot RPGs, I'm really looking forward to this game. It could still fail miserably as either a loot RPG (crappy loot progression, tedious game play, being vanilla D3) and/or as a Clancy game (the virus attack was orchestrated by a time traveling wizard from the moon, and you must learn to use the Force to beat him), but to claim the gameplay doesn't fit the the Clancy moniker, or a modern/near-future setting for that matter, is both inane and shortsighted.

Clancy came from the moon!


And I do agree with this, but reading the last page here I'm confused as to what people are trying to argue, with Battlefield vs Destiny and how many weapons such each got. It seems like we've hit every genre against each other at this point.

 

[Evolved1]

You know tbh when you shoot dudes that are your own level they die as fast as you'd expect. At least for the encounters I played. You can beat the beta mission with the default starter pistol.

 

[NullPointer]

Tom Clancy wasn't a game designer. He was writer who, in the context of games, wrote and developed scenarios and settings. Actual licensing and naming aside, a "Clancy game" isn't a term to describe a given set of game mechanics or even a given genre of games (unlike what your Forza analogy implies), it describes a game set in a narrative that follows a certain conceit that this game's setting appears captures perfectly. Your inability to abstract the gameplay and mechanics from the setting doesn't make that any less true.

By the way, the game you're talking about was already made: it's called Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Shadow Wars. It was a great game. Not widely called an RPG however. You must have been livid about it having levels and HP scaling too, though.

As a fan of Clancy's settings and of loot RPGs, I'm really looking forward to this game. It could still fail miserably as either a loot RPG (crappy loot progression, tedious game play, being vanilla D3) and/or as a Clancy game (the virus attack was orchestrated by a time traveling wizard from the moon, and you must learn to use the Force to beat him), but to claim the gameplay doesn't fit the the Clancy moniker, or a modern/near-future setting for that matter, is both inane and shortsighted.

I'm not livid BTW, but this is a topic I'm interested in, and I'm perfectly cool with abstracting game design and have been trying to do so in this thread quite a bit. Seems like claiming you can have an RPG shooter without damage scaling is one abstraction too far for most.

But you have to admit, across 40 some odd Clancy titles its reasonable to find a through-line that is made up of not only the setting of the Clancy-verse from all those books, but the more grounded combat mechanics that makes up those games as well. You're specifically excising that grounding from the equation now, and that's convenient for The Division, which is fine, but I don't share that view.

But hey, thanks for calling me inane and short-sighted. Have a great night.

 

[deoee]

You know which Tom Clancy game also involves shooting and unrealistic, bullet spongy enemies?

Spoiler

HAWX

What now?

 

[Silvard]

Clancy came from the moon!


And I do agree with this, but reading the last page here I'm confused as to what people are trying to argue, with Battlefield vs Destiny and how many weapons such each got. It seems like we've hit every genre against each other at this point.

I'm not entirely sure on what the point of that comparison is, either.

But I understand that the gist of the argument is that The Division could have a different progression system that is closer to what dozens of modern shooters have had before, where the incentive to get more guns is to get guns with different characteristics instead of just more damage. But if you think about the argument it's a bit of a tautology, yes it could be like that, which would make it some sort of TPS, multiplayer S.T.A.L.K.E.R. clone instead of a loot RPG, but it's not. The way it is right now is a conscious design decision. It's why Destiny is Destiny and not Halo, or why Mount & Blade is Mount & Blade and not Elder Scrolls.

Stating that there are alternate paths which would change the genre and fundamental raison d'etre of the game as well as make it more similar to already existing games is no feat. Would it be better? I don't know, maybe by virtue of it being well trodden ground.

 

[Tecnniqe]

You know tbh when you shoot dudes that are your own level they die as fast as you'd expect. At least for the encounters I played. You can beat the beta mission with the default starter pistol.

This is my problem with this whole thread, I played from the start and even skipped a few missions first time around and found nothing spongy at all, the only guy that was tough was Five-O as he did crazy damage, he killed me once and by then I figured him out and what I had to do to take him down.


As long as you don't run straight to the last missions and at least do a couple on the way, you are the same level as the AI with equipment and gear you need to take them in a few seconds. At least with a steady Headshot aim.
Even maxed out playing Hard missions i found a challenge more so than sponge, to me it was just right. However endgame is where its at and we simply don't know anything about the scale at that point, which will be the deciding factor, for me at least.

And the explanation of the game has always been it's an looter shooter RPG first. A lot of these arguments is more revolved around what could have been, instead of what it is.

 

[Silvard]

I'm not livid BTW, but this is a topic I'm interested in, and I'm perfectly cool with abstracting game design and have been trying to do so in this thread quite a bit. Seems like claiming you can have an RPG shooter without damage scaling is one abstraction too far for most.

But you have to admit, across 40 some odd Clancy titles its reasonable to find a through-line that is made up of not only the setting of the Clancy-verse from all those books, but the more grounded combat mechanics that makes up those games as well. You're specifically excising that grounding from the equation now, and that's convenient for The Division, which is fine, but I don't share that view.

But hey, thanks for calling me inane and short-sighted. Have a great night.

I'm not calling you inane and shortsighted, I'm calling the claim that. I apologize if it came across as a personal attack, it wasn't my intention.

I'm not excising anything. "Grounded combat mechanics" isn't an universal thing across Clancy games. Maybe if you've only played Ghost Recon or Rainbow Six (and only the shooters at that, and not even Splinter Cell). But gameplay abstractions in Clancy games aren't a new thing with The Division, and it's not even uncommon outside of the Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six shooters.

Again, of course you can have an "RPG" shooter without damage scaling, there are dozens of examples of them, shooters with "RPG" elements. But that's not what The Division is.

 

[NullPointer]

Again, of course you can have an "RPG" shooter without damage scaling, there are dozens of examples of them, shooters with "RPG" elements. But that's not what The Division is.

Thanks for clarifying BTW. I won't take it personal ;p

What I was trying to describe was not actually a shooter with RPG elements, and yeah, we have plenty of those. I really do mean an RPG, where player stats, gear and proper character skill use decide the matter, just without damage scaling. I brought up the big multiplayer shooters like COD and Battlefield strictly regarding their unlock progressions, which you noticed above, to say that you don't necessarily need strict levels and damage scaling to drive a hunt for new equipment to increase your arsenal or to optimize your build.

The Division is the game it is, and my diversions into some other ideas of where they could have taken it isn't really to say that Massive shouldn't have made it or anything, only that "Its an RPG" shouldn't be taken to mean that its got to play like Destiny or Borderlands. That there's room in the definition of that genre to tailor specific gameplay systems to (in my opinion) better fit the setting and license. At least it'd be a better fit for me (looking our for #1 here), and I originally expected something more along the lines of what I'm describing as opposed to what we actually have.

 

[Silvard]

Thanks for clarifying BTW. I won't take it personal ;p

What I was trying to describe was not actually a shooter with RPG elements, and yeah, we have plenty of those. I really do mean an RPG, where player stats, gear and proper character skill use decide the matter, just without damage scaling. I brought up the big multiplayer shooters like COD and Battlefield strictly regarding their unlock progressions, which you noticed above, to say that you don't necessarily need strict levels and damage scaling to drive a hunt for new equipment to increase your arsenal or to optimize your build.

The Division is the game it is, and my diversions into some other ideas of where they could have taken it isn't really to say that Massive shouldn't have made it or anything, only that "Its an RPG" shouldn't be taken to mean that its got to play like Destiny or Borderlands. That there's room in the definition of that genre to tailor specific gameplay systems to (in my opinion) better fit the setting and license. At least it'd be a better fit for me (looking our for #1 here), and I originally expected something more along the lines of what I'm describing as opposed to what we actually have.

I understand the gear variety you are proposing, at least that much is similar to currently existing multiplayer shooters. I think the perfect example is Destiny's Crucible (I'm unclear if this was the point you were trying to make with the comparison), where weapon damage is normalized, so it comes down to random perks or base archetypes of weapons. This however isn't progression per se, at least definitely not linear. And it doesn't apply outside of PvP. On the PvE side the most similar example (of what I understand your proposed system to be) I can think of is S.T.A.L.K.E.R., but no one calls that game RPG.

Could you flesh out how your idea differs?

 

[masud]

For a game with "Tom Clancy's" title, set in a "reallistic near future", the fact that a guy with a headscarf takes a full clip in the head and survives is utter nonsense.

It breaks immersion and it's simply not fun.
The game's a 3rd person cover shooter RPG.
You should die pretty fast if you break cover and take a SHOT IN YOUR UNPROTECTED HEAD. >(

I really hope they sort out this for launch.
:/

Dude there are Tom Clancy turn based strategy games, if you think high hp enemies break immersion wait until you have to wait your turn to move...

 

[Klyka]

I stacked firearms skill and used a marksman rifle with a +50% headshot damage modifier and I basically OHK every non yellow enemy with a headshot and yellow enemies took like 3-4 headshots.

Bulletspongy it was not.

 

[Tecnniqe]

I stacked firearms skill and used a marksman rifle with a +50% headshot damage modifier and I basically OHK every non yellow enemy with a headshot and yellow enemies took like 3-4 headshots.

Bulletspongy it was not.

I one shot yellows in 8-8 bracket DZ with my MM rifle, so again, proper aim to crit spots is the way to do.

 

[storafötter]

Yeah I notice the sponge effect when I tried the higher difficulty areas. It is ridiculous to fight against thugs and several headshots doesnt kill them. Feels like they have some invisible shield going on which breaks the immersion.

 

[Tecnniqe]

Yeah I notice the sponge effect when I tried the higher difficulty areas. It is ridiculous to fight against thugs and several headshots doesnt kill them. Feels like they have some invisible shield going on which breaks the immersion.

Welcome to any RPG ever?
Does medieval RPGs also break your immersion having to hit them with 5 spells and 20 sword swings?
Or the fact that in an era where you have personal shields you don't have a weapon that effectively negates the shield at all?

It's a very person to person basis but the game is not bulletsponge if you play in the area your supposed too at the right level with appropriate gear.

I ways found the whole "immersion" to be a silly argument.

 

[Cleve]

I'm interested to know how pvp unfold with maxed out characters.

There is someone on Gaf that has played end game pvp on closed test and not under nda?

My fear is that pvp fights with all those talents and skills available will bring to way too long fights, where the tension is sucked up and the fun with it.

I think I'm not interested to play a game where i have to shoot someone for 10 minutes, that continues to heal himself, revive and shield and cloak, my be fun for some time but on the long run I'll avoid those encounters like a plague.

That person would need to have played something under a NDA, and probably couldn't comment unfortunately. I will say that from the 'end game' of the beta with a super geared lvl 8 I was putting players down with 2 headshots(or 1 headshot 1 bodyshot in some cases) from a rifle in the DZ. How that reflects on the actual end game where both sides are geared out, I don't know.

Yeah I notice the sponge effect when I tried the higher difficulty areas. It is ridiculous to fight against thugs and several headshots doesnt kill them. Feels like they have some invisible shield going on which breaks the immersion.

I hit guys in plenty of games with a 2-handed weapon bigger than they are that would turn them inside out, helmet or no, and they don't even blink. RPG mechanics. Is it simply the present day setting that has people so thrown, is it just off limits for a rpg? That seems like a shame.

 

[Woo-Fu]

I don't see anybody proposing real solutions for handling leveled content other than stronger---in terms of armor/hp/damage ratings---enemies.

The games that don't have spongy enemies? Don't have leveled content and/or allow you to attempt higher-level areas.

If everything dies to a headshot from a starter pistol what stops me from just going to the highest level area open and farming the most valuable boss in that area for drops?

Alternatively if we have area barriers---like the filter requirements for some areas in the game---what makes the next area any different than the previous one if enemies die just as easily to exactly the same mechanics/weapons I used in the previous area?

Even in non-rpg/non-leveling shooters you have spongy, tougher bosses. It is just the way it works. If you've got a better way then write it up so the industry can see this idea of yours that nobody else has ever managed to come up with and implement effectively.

 

[Emedan]

That's why I said 'bandit', as in normal human enemies. Those exist in fantasy games too.

That wasn't really my point, rather that the bandit exists in a whole world that is fantsy

It does not take much imagination to realize getting smacked in the head with a sword would do serious damage. Also not everyone wears full plated armor, and even if they do you can still switch to blunt attacks.

Sure, it can be deadly, but a misplaced hit could only damage you, it didn't have to be fatal. If I remember correctly there's some quite macabre paintings of slashing damages done to soldiers coming back from the battle of Solferino, including direct slashes to the head, these people though disfigured did survive the ordeal.

Slashing weapons were simply not nearly as deadly as piercing ones; that's why with the introduction of the rapier deadly outcomes of duels actually sky rocketed during the 16th and 17th century. Losing a hand, an arm, an ear, a leg or foot, getting struck in the collar bone, what have you is all common but not fatal outcomes on battlefields of the past. If anything it was the introduction of firearms that really raised the death toll. Remember an enemy can be incapacitated without being killed.

Regarding armour, it don't have to be full plate, even leather could withstand slashes but was useless for piercing attacks. (Though even here would the introduction of the firearm kill the valiant knight, a full armored beetle could easily be killed with a well placed shot, bullets went through all that nonsense with ease.