Angband Forums

Angband Forums (http://angband.oook.cz/forum/index.php)
-   Vanilla (http://angband.oook.cz/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Fix weapon weights? (http://angband.oook.cz/forum/showthread.php?t=9270)

wobbly January 28, 2019 01:18

Fix weapon weights?
 
Cross-posting from another thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bandobras (Post 135329)
Also, a gameplay feedback: the runes identification is great fun, but I'm staying around DL10 with a ranger, lugging 3 heavy unidentified weapons at speed -3, (in addition to 2 identified ones), I peeked and two are Slay Giant, one is *Slay Troll*, I'm swapping them before each new kind of fight to identify them either via damage dealt or received and I'm getting tired of the minigame at this point. No items of Identify in the shops nor in the dungeon. I know I can give such a weapon to a shop, but I'm too poor to buy it back. At this point I'd even buy overpriced rune identification service at a shop and be done with it, but I can't find such an option.

I'm going to suggest a halving of weapon weights which I think are too heavy to start with. This only solves part of Bandobras issue but I'm pretty sure the id mini game is less painful when you're not at -spd. Currently I recall more then I'd like to, just to dump a bunch of junk weapons at shop 3.

As long as the ratios between weapon weights stay identical you can change their weights & maintain the same balance by making the same adjustment in tunnelling, criticals & blows. So this would be a change to encumbrance + cosmetics.

Unless people like the current balance between weapon weight & encumbrance? I don't.

Grotug January 28, 2019 03:52

I thought the general consensus was if weapons were going to be messed with they were going to be fixed since the current weapon system is fundamentally flawed. I like the idea of blows per round, but it's silly that a mage does more damage with a maul in the early game than with a dagger, but a warrior with bulging muscles does more damage with a dagger in the early game than a maul.

I think the current weapon weights are important to keep mages from running around with mauls--at least until the weapon system gets rewritten in a way that bears in mind some kind of logic of the real world.

wobbly January 28, 2019 08:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grotug (Post 135646)
I thought the general consensus was if weapons were going to be messed with they were going to be fixed since the current weapon system is fundamentally flawed. I like the idea of blows per round, but it's silly that a mage does more damage with a maul in the early game than with a dagger, but a warrior with bulging muscles does more damage with a dagger in the early game than a maul.

Here I agree. Here I agree *if* this is something happening in the foreseeable future. I'm only suggesting a stop-gap because I think change starts with sane weapon weights. Not a necessity, but something I think should change as part of a general overhaul.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grotug (Post 135646)
I think the current weapon weights are important to keep mages from running around with mauls--at least until the weapon system gets rewritten in a way that bears in mind some kind of logic of the real world.

Here I don't quite agree. It causes more problems then it fixes, it overlaps with minimum str by weapon weight & is mostly pointless. If one blow of mage-melee with a bastard sword isn't working, a maul is little improvement. Until you have blows on a mage you melee wolves, you melee yeeks, you melee a bunch of stuff that a good bastard sword will work on. Going heavier doesn't help, it's an extra 2 average damage (I think, don't have the no.'s in front of me).

tangar January 28, 2019 09:47

Yep, lightweight weapon too imba atm. I suppose there could be certain restriction towards maximum amount of runes inscribed at weapon. You can not inscribe loads of magic runes on tiny dagger; at the same time it's quite easy to do so at huge Zweihander.. So alrighty - lets lightweight weapons still would have moar dps, but make heavy weapons to have more 'magical' potency

Carnivean January 28, 2019 11:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by tangar (Post 135652)
You can not inscribe loads of magic runes on tiny dagger

This misconception is indicative of the whole "nerds don't know anything about weapons" problem that got us here. Daggers (and other similar small blades) are usually 20-30 cms long after the hilt. I'm not sure about your handwriting but I guarantee that I could fit 20 runes on a dagger easily.

tangar January 28, 2019 11:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carnivean (Post 135659)
This misconception is indicative of the whole "nerds don't know anything about weapons" problem that got us here. Daggers (and other similar small blades) are usually 20-30 cms long after the hilt. I'm not sure about your handwriting but I guarantee that I could fit 20 runes on a dagger easily.

It depends on rune size. Rune could be complex and long. Maybe runes in tiny handwriting would have less potency than in my, dwarwen penmanship? Also is it rune or actually runeword? :D

Anyway it's just a logic 'way' toward rebalancing imba weapons :cool:

Derakon January 28, 2019 14:51

I'd be fine with your proposed change, wobbly. Weapon weights have always been fairly absurd. Swords don't weigh 10 pounds (nor mauls 30!), and if they did nobody would be swinging them very quickly regardless of how ridiculous their stats are. We don't have to rejigger the entire system to fix this one glaring oddity.

Grotug January 28, 2019 17:00

Some pertinent discussion from a medieval arms web forum: http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.8998.html

Garrett Hazen wrote:
Quote:

I cannot find any history of a big warhammer, or a maul, more like. I guess I am just hooked on fantasy, or were they ever made? I am thinking of something sort of like a sledgehammer, but more like a medieval weapon.

I would appreciate to hear your thoughts on the subject
Jean Henri Chandler replied:
Quote:

I don't think you are going to find a weapon like that outside of dungeons and dragons.

When you look at historical examples of weapons which are adapted from tools, such as hammers and axes, contrary to the fantasy portrayals the business ends of these things are smaller and lighter than on equivalent farm tools. That's partly because it doesn't require as much energy to hack off an arm as it does to chop down an oak tree, nor to cave in a head as it does to smash stone. (Real people don't have hundreds of "hit points" where they can absorb blow after blow unharmed...)

Even more important, weapons with ten pound striking heads are awfully clumsy to wield. By the time you swung an iron maul at someone they would have killed you five times over with any number of normal military weapons.

One constant you will run into over and over and over again is that military weapons tend to handle well and weigh a lot less than you might think, most swords for example are in the ballpark of 2-4 lbs, 4 lbs being unusually heavy in fact.

MattB January 28, 2019 23:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derakon (Post 135666)
I'd be fine with your proposed change, wobbly. Weapon weights have always been fairly absurd. Swords don't weigh 10 pounds (nor mauls 30!)

I totally rabbit-holed on this.
And ended up here:

https://www.wired.com/2013/02/how-mu...h-vader-weigh/

Pete Mack February 2, 2019 22:06

Speaking as one who has split a few cords of wood over the years, mauls usually weigh 10-12 pounds. You can get them up to 20 pounds, but those would make terrible weapons.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Derakon (Post 135666)
I'd be fine with your proposed change, wobbly. Weapon weights have always been fairly absurd. Swords don't weigh 10 pounds (nor mauls 30!), and if they did nobody would be swinging them very quickly regardless of how ridiculous their stats are. We don't have to rejigger the entire system to fix this one glaring oddity.



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 16:53.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.