Angband.oook.cz
Angband.oook.cz
AboutVariantsLadderForumCompetitionComicScreenshotsFunniesLinks

Go Back   Angband Forums > Obsolete > v4

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 27, 2011, 23:32   #101
Magnate
Angband Devteam member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 5,057
Magnate is on a distinguished road
Send a message via MSN to Magnate Send a message via Yahoo to Magnate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
(And of course abilities are rendered horribly complicated to rank by the fact that you couldn't care less if your ego has Feather Falling but you really want to know if it has Telepathy. Although I guess moving ESP to a pval system would shunt it into the stats category and solve one issue.)
But even if we were to do that, your point is still excellent: however we categorise properties for the naming hierarchy, the values of different properties in a category will differ significantly.

Who'd have thought the naming would be the toughest thing to get right.
__________________
"3.4 is much better than 3.1, 3.2 or 3.3. It still is easier than 3.0.9, but it is more convenient to play without being ridiculously easy, so it is my new favorite of the versions." - Timo Pietila
Magnate is offline  
Old October 27, 2011, 23:36   #102
GeoffHill
Rookie
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 21
GeoffHill is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnate View Post
Hmmm. The big assumption here is that the naming hierarchy that V uses is the right one. You can be very confident that the original devs did not think about a naming hierarchy when they were designing and naming their original ego types. They just thought it should be obvious that a weapon of BRAND_FOO should also have RESIST_FOO - they never considered whether that ought to be communicated in the name. This is even more certain for the *Slay* types.

Obviously, we're all used to it and that means it's comfortable, but it doesn't mean it's right.

The clearest example is high resists - people have been inscribing high resists onto things since the year dot. It's obviously something that should be higher in the naming hierarchy than it currently is. Ditto stats/blows/shots.

If someone wants to spend the time coding a reimplementation of V's naming hierarchy, I certainly won't stop them. As you say, it will ease any eventual transition of affixes into V.

But if I was going to do it, I'd do it so that it solved the problems of V's hierarchy instead of perpetuating them.
The general idea was that non artifacts should be useful, but not as good as a artifact. So you would find missing useful resist/brand etc because well... they weren't meant to be that great. I remember a bit of fuss when westernesse weapons came out because it could distract from the purity of the artifact system (namely that an artifact should be the only thing with sufficient complexity and multiple abilities such that non-artifacts didnt persist in slots). That was the general philosophy I recall.
GeoffHill is offline  
Old October 27, 2011, 23:38   #103
sethos
Apprentice
 
sethos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Selma, CA
Posts: 77
sethos is on a distinguished road
I Think that the eventual solution will have to have some increase in the available "flavors" of items. Names should be a bit more indicative of what the items do (Iron shots, for example, do not indicate to me that they should slay demons)
I would suggest a few things:
Material names (mithril, adamant, Huge, etc) should only modify the basic stats of the item - Weight, dice, base ac, +tohit, +todam, +to AC.
Other names should somehow be indicative of what they do ( I much prefer the Of Protection to of sorcery.)

Brands could be listed at the start of names (flaming, freezing, venomous, electrified, acidic... meh - someone pull out a lexicon and outdo me... please)
and if there were more than one brand, you would only need one more name:
Elemental. Hell, elemental (or of the elements) could be used for all brands (sigh, again like NPP.) with everything listed under Inspect.

oh well. I'm not great at names or arrays, but mayhap I'll have a look and post more thoughts.

I still think that the * idea to indicate affixes not listed in the name would be good until this is all sorted out acceptably.
exception: I don't think that a * should be needed for an affix that only adds +tohit or +todam on weapons or +toAC to armor should merit a *, as those numbers are readily apparent by the short item info.

End rambling.
sethos is offline  
Old October 27, 2011, 23:53   #104
jevansau
Adept
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Age: 60
Posts: 167
jevansau is on a distinguished road
I got a potion of Life at dl7 with the old version - but generally weapon and armor drops have been grim.
Certainly much much tougher than v3.
The quiver and stack size of 25 really hurts as a ranger. 100 arrows is pretty minimal to not be recalling to get more ammo all the time and that's 4 inventory slots. One odd thing I encountered was that there was a stack of 60 arrows for sale - when I bought these, they fitted into 1 inventory slot - still took up 3 inventory slots once added to the quiver though.
Can I suggest 40 as a quiver slot size.

Regards,
Jonathan
jevansau is offline  
Old October 28, 2011, 02:37   #105
BlueFish
Swordsman
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 414
BlueFish is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by jevansau View Post
I got a potion of Life at dl7 with the old version - but generally weapon and armor drops have been grim.
Certainly much much tougher than v3.
The quiver and stack size of 25 really hurts as a ranger. 100 arrows is pretty minimal to not be recalling to get more ammo all the time and that's 4 inventory slots. One odd thing I encountered was that there was a stack of 60 arrows for sale - when I bought these, they fitted into 1 inventory slot - still took up 3 inventory slots once added to the quiver though.
Can I suggest 40 as a quiver slot size.

Regards,
Jonathan
I agree with this, I don't understand why a stack size of 25 is supposed to make the game more fun.
BlueFish is offline  
Old October 28, 2011, 09:25   #106
myshkin
Angband Devteam member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 334
myshkin is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derakon View Post
I haven't gotten to play v4 yet due to the OSX UTF-8 bug
I have the Carbon port partly working. It still crashes a lot, though (I haven't enumerated all of the cases, but certainly when bringing up the visuals editor and when switching back from graphics to ASCII mode). My intent is not to spend too much more time on it, and instead to see whether I can get the Cocoa port fully working. However, would it be useful for me to push what I have to the v4 master?
myshkin is offline  
Old October 28, 2011, 15:20   #107
Derakon
Prophet
 
Derakon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 8,776
Derakon is on a distinguished road
Er, which version is generated by "make -f Makefile.osx"? I get the feeling that whatever happens, I'll need to be able to rebuild on a regular basis as v4 is in general very unstable right now.

I greatly appreciate you working on this, Myshkin.
Derakon is offline  
Old October 28, 2011, 18:52   #108
myshkin
Angband Devteam member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 334
myshkin is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derakon View Post
Er, which version is generated by "make -f Makefile.osx"? I get the feeling that whatever happens, I'll need to be able to rebuild on a regular basis as v4 is in general very unstable right now.

Makefile.osx builds main-crb.c, the port that uses Carbon APIs. ridiculous fish recently contributed main-cocoa.m, a port that uses Cocoa APIs. We aim to move the OS X port to Cocoa in the near future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Derakon View Post
I greatly appreciate you working on this, Myshkin.
You're welcome! I regret that the OS X port has been nonfunctional for so long.
myshkin is offline  
Old October 29, 2011, 18:40   #109
Nomad
Knight
 
Nomad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 958
Nomad is on a distinguished road
Small ID bug related to weapon damage:

I was wielding a dagger doing 19.6 damage/round. I picked up another dagger that turned out to have the Rusty affix; however, before I tested it in combat and discovered it was Rusty, I could already see in the Inspect screen that it would only do 16 damage/round. Looks like the dpr calculation was already using the correct 1d2 sides even though the unidentified dagger was still showing as "a Dagger (1d4)".
Nomad is offline  
Old October 29, 2011, 22:14   #110
Magnate
Angband Devteam member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 5,057
Magnate is on a distinguished road
Send a message via MSN to Magnate Send a message via Yahoo to Magnate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
Small ID bug related to weapon damage:

I was wielding a dagger doing 19.6 damage/round. I picked up another dagger that turned out to have the Rusty affix; however, before I tested it in combat and discovered it was Rusty, I could already see in the Inspect screen that it would only do 16 damage/round. Looks like the dpr calculation was already using the correct 1d2 sides even though the unidentified dagger was still showing as "a Dagger (1d4)".
Well found! Thank you - on the list as #1571
__________________
"3.4 is much better than 3.1, 3.2 or 3.3. It still is easier than 3.0.9, but it is more convenient to play without being ridiculously easy, so it is my new favorite of the versions." - Timo Pietila
Magnate is offline  
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 14:16.


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