Angband Forums

Angband Forums (http://angband.oook.cz/forum/index.php)
-   Idle chatter (http://angband.oook.cz/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Resistances: additive vs boolean (http://angband.oook.cz/forum/showthread.php?t=4115)

camlost February 9, 2011 23:50

It would be great if AngbandBase could accomodate both options on a per-variant basis.

Nick February 10, 2011 02:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by camlost (Post 48375)
It would be great if AngbandBase could accomodate both options on a per-variant basis.

At this point, AngbandBase is all lower-level code than where resistances appear, so it's agnostic to them.

andrewdoull February 10, 2011 08:30

I can't see the option for geometric resistances, which is what Unangband uses.

1 level of resistance reduces damage by half (1/2), 2 levels by 1/3, 3 levels by 1/4 etc.

Andrew

Philip February 10, 2011 10:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewdoull (Post 48389)
I can't see the option for geometric resistances, which is what Unangband uses.

1 level of resistance reduces damage by half (1/2), 2 levels by 1/3, 3 levels by 1/4 etc.

Andrew

That is indeed an interesting idea, although I think that you meant that 1 level of resistance reduces damage by 1/2(still sensible), 2 levels by 2/3(not 1/3 which would punish you for multiple resistance) and so on, where damage is reduced by X/X+1 where X is number of resistances. Question: Are those attacks beefed up? This way they do less damage, but maybe you went the O way, where nothing much was done and noone actually cares.

Nick February 10, 2011 10:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewdoull (Post 48389)
I can't see the option for geometric resistances, which is what Unangband uses.

"Additive" here means multiple sources gets you more resistance - so Un is additive in this sense.

Timo Pietilš February 10, 2011 13:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by pampl (Post 48344)
I've been thinking about resistances and I'm not sure which of two options is better: the classic Angband system,[snip] or the approach used by OAngband/EyAngband/FAAngband and most (all?) Diablo-ish games: each resistance on your equipment adds to the net total resistance.

I could vote each way. It really doesn't matter which one is "better" because they can't be "better" than anything else. It all depends of how game is balanced, and balancing is made after game rules have been set.

Which of the rules is easier to balance? I don't know. Which one allows more variety? Also don't know, because game is a combination-game. Additive resistances might actually reduce variety by making choices less drastic.

I think I vote for vanilla system.

Tiburon Silverflame February 10, 2011 23:53

I'm not sure the question's answerable without discussing implementation specifics.

In a purely additive system, a huge issue is that the stacking can result in total immunity, especially for fairly common resists like the basic four. This suggests that most items need to give relatively low resistance percentages...but that probably makes inventory management almost impossibly complex, because we now *need* double or triple resists. Temporary resists could easily become temporary immunities.

So, implementation issues become:

--how many item slots have ego types that grant resists? Do we need to review the existing types? And how will artifacts play a role...especially things like the ring of power. Note that defender weapons may become *incredibly* powerful in this scenario.

--what is the appropriate percentage for the types we keep?

And I still see, at best, a very fragile system insofar as balance goes.

Andrew's accumulative approach is a heckuva lot simpler, in that we never hit immunity, that the first gives what it gives now so there's not a total overhaul, and that there's diminishing returns, which I think is good here. It's inherently more robust. However, are we going to find ourselves yelling out for that great crystal drake to do more damage, because we've got double shards resistance? The simplicity of the V system allows for much simpler monster design.

pampl February 11, 2011 03:42

I think most additive systems sidestep the immunity issue by capping resistances then requiring a separate flag if you want to go above the cap. The Un approach appeals to me too.. though it doesn't reward specialization as much as the straight additive approach does, where the value of each point of resistance grows the more resistance you already have (until you reach the cap and they stop being worth anything). It would be kind of cool having players stockpile different sets of EQ to deal with different kinds of enemies, especially with a quest system that let you know in advance what you're going to be facing. Also the strategy involved in min-maxing resists in the straight additive system sounds more fun to me, though I've never gotten very far in Un so I'm not speaking from experience.

Not entirely relevant, but I've been thinking about resistance reducers as well. I'm not sure which approach is best:
A) the current Angband approach of having them be unnecessary because the player doesn't have a full set of resists and immunities until the very end, so there's no need for an 'arms race'. Also allowing absurd overkill for unresisted damage so that resists become extremely important (OK, not true for all resists, but let's pretend)
B) having especially potent attacks cut through resistance, either by a straight subtraction or by dividing them.. e.g. hellfire is a 150% strength fire attack, so it subtracts 50% (or divides by 1.5) from the target's resistance. Both ways means the biggest proportional change is among people with the highest resistance, which seems wrong for some reason, though maybe it's how resistance reduction should work?
C) just doing a straight subtraction/division of resistances across the board as the levels increase, a la Diablo 2
D) relying on unresistable damage, e.g. hellfire is 50% fire damage and 50% mana damage, so fire resistance doesn't help much. This gets around high resistances but it does so in a way that makes them much less valuable, not more valuable
E) temporarily deactivating individual sources of resistance so that redundant resists gain value, e.g. >The succubus tricks you into taking off your trousers of fire resistance! >The succubus casts Hellfire!
I guess the problem is conflicting design goals: how can resistances stay valuable while you inflate them, without making them so essential that the only viable choice is the set of maximally resistant armor?

andrewdoull February 11, 2011 04:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philip (Post 48394)
That is indeed an interesting idea, although I think that you meant that 1 level of resistance reduces damage by 1/2(still sensible), 2 levels by 2/3(not 1/3 which would punish you for multiple resistance) and so on, where damage is reduced by X/X+1 where X is number of resistances. Question: Are those attacks beefed up? This way they do less damage, but maybe you went the O way, where nothing much was done and noone actually cares.

I've not really needed to beef up the attacks - if anything they are weaker. Don't forget Angband 2/3 damage resistance is the equivalent of having two resist foo items in Unangband, so the basic resistances are tougher to get to start with.

Andrew

Philip February 11, 2011 07:42

Yes, I don't think anyone really understands the O system. In O, it would take about 8 or so resistance items to get IM_BASE, and the more you invest, the lower return you have. It also allows semiimunity items, which would add 80% resistance under normal circumstances. It does not work in the way that wearing an armor with rbase, a shield with rbase and a defender weapon give you immunity or something. That would give you maybe 70% resistance.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:26.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.