Angband Forums

Angband Forums (http://angband.oook.cz/forum/index.php)
-   Vanilla (http://angband.oook.cz/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Randarts... (http://angband.oook.cz/forum/showthread.php?t=3587)

PowerDiver September 3, 2010 18:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tiburon Silverflame (Post 39503)
And yes, I *much* prefer the notion that Magic Is Magic. I hate "divine magic" or "arcane magic" or most of the artificial distinctions. If gloves interfere with casting, do it for *everyone*. If a wizard can't wear metal armor because it interferes, then neither can a priest.

Nor a rogue, ranger, or paladin.

fizzix September 3, 2010 19:04

I'm just going to chime in and say that I like the distinctions between classes as they are. I don't see the pointy penalty as being fundamentally broken either.

Magnate September 3, 2010 21:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by PowerDiver (Post 39530)
It is feasible to win without any artifacts. Is a non-random approach really worth the effort?

Well, a week ago I wouldn't have said so, but there does seem to be a consensus building around making more accurate assessments of the usefulness of INT/WIS/blessed etc. This really means allowing p_ptr->pclass to influence generation, which is nonrandom. I'm fairly easygoing either way: if Takk tells me he has a huge problem with it, it won't happen. If it makes for better randarts and happier players (but not easier gameplay, no never that), then why not.

Magnate September 3, 2010 21:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tiburon Silverflame (Post 39531)
I don't know the steps involved in creating a randart for sure, but from comments, it seems like it's

a) create randart
b) determine power, and therefore depth/rarity

IF this is the case, might it not make sense to work this a bit differently? I'm thinking, plan the randart set based on depth. START by assigning depth, or a small range for depth, and deriving a power range from that. Then build the artifacts to the appropriate power.

I think this would be complementary to keeping an internal table of all artifacts created so far. As to the difficulty...the problem may be that it's a multi-dimensional problem. One might have a relatively low-power artifact that is the only source of, say, rConf, or maybe more likely, there are other artifacts that have rConf, but they all get massively trumped by others in their item class.

Finally, of course, depth and rarity have to play a big role, because that impacts the notion of 'available.' We all look over the randart posts and drool at The Big One I Didn't Find. :)

Randart generation goes like this:

For every artifact in artifact.txt:
1. Calculate the power of the standart
2. Choose a base item
3. Calculate the power of the base item
4. If between 20% and 80% of #1 (not sure of exact %s), continue, else back to 2. This ensures that the base item is not too good or too weak to make a sensible randart of the target power.
5. Add random powers to the base item (calculate power after each addition, and roll back if power exceeds 105% of #1)
6. Stop when power exceeds 90% of #1, and calculate depth and rarity based on original depth/rarity and new power

Cursed artifacts (with negative power) are slightly different. Once all artifacts are randomised the whole set is checked to see that there are at least three sets of boots, four hats, five swords etc. We start over if not.

Derakon September 3, 2010 21:32

To be clear, I'm not necessarily advocating that we take class into account. I'm just saying that randarts often have items that are useful to some classes but useless to others, which seems to not happen so much with standarts, and was wondering if this was a problem we would want to try to solve by considering the player's class during artifact generation. I'm sure there's other ways to deal with it. Or we could just leave it be. It's not like randart games are impossible as it stands.

PowerDiver September 3, 2010 22:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magnate (Post 39543)
This really means allowing p_ptr->pclass to influence generation, which is nonrandom.

That idea has been hated, over and over, in the past.

A simpler fix would be to insist in randart generation that any item with one of +INT or +WIS gets both.

fizzix September 3, 2010 23:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by PowerDiver (Post 39547)
That idea has been hated, over and over, in the past.

A simpler fix would be to insist in randart generation that any item with one of +INT or +WIS gets both.

That could work. I like that a lot better than the class based approach. Probably because it's right in line with INT and WIS being the same stat, something I support.

(+4 INT, +4 WIS) should probably be somewhere between +4 CON and +4 STR in power. (assuming the ordering coes CON, STR, DEX from most to least powerful)

Magnate September 4, 2010 08:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by fizzix (Post 39548)
That could work. I like that a lot better than the class based approach. Probably because it's right in line with INT and WIS being the same stat, something I support.

(+4 INT, +4 WIS) should probably be somewhere between +4 CON and +4 STR in power. (assuming the ordering coes CON, STR, DEX from most to least powerful)

This really bothers me, actually - but I take the point that there is opposition to using pclass.

I would happily support making INT and WIS the same stat, but while they're separate I'd like to treat them separately. As a sop to casters, I could make sure that the *total* INT and WIS bonuses in the artifact set were the same - and I could ensure that on weapons and nonweapons separately.

PowerDiver September 4, 2010 09:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magnate (Post 39556)
This really bothers me, actually - but I take the point that there is opposition to using pclass.

I would happily support making INT and WIS the same stat, but while they're separate I'd like to treat them separately. As a sop to casters, I could make sure that the *total* INT and WIS bonuses in the artifact set were the same - and I could ensure that on weapons and nonweapons separately.

The total is irrelevant. It doesn't make any difference if you add +2 int to a bunch of weak artifacts. If you bias the set that way, I'd guess you would do more harm than good.

I can't figure out your point of view. As i see it ...

Premise: It is bad if a player looks at an artifact and would use it if the spellstat boost matches, but won't use it if it does not match.

If you agree with the premise, int=wis solves the situation precisely. If you disagree with the premise, things are fine as they are now.

Obviously I am missing something.

TJS September 4, 2010 20:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magnate (Post 39556)
This really bothers me, actually - but I take the point that there is opposition to using pclass.

I would happily support making INT and WIS the same stat, but while they're separate I'd like to treat them separately. As a sop to casters, I could make sure that the *total* INT and WIS bonuses in the artifact set were the same - and I could ensure that on weapons and nonweapons separately.

You could also make sure con, dex and str are boosted whenever int and wis are to make sure warriors don't miss out as well.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 17:55.

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