Angband.oook.cz
Angband.oook.cz
AboutVariantsLadderForumCompetitionComicScreenshotsFunniesLinks

Go Back   Angband Forums > Angband > AAR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old February 12, 2013, 23:56   #11
bron
Swordsman
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Saratoga, California (in the midst of Silicon Valley)
Posts: 483
bron is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scatha View Post
... minor buff of dropping the default weight on glaives from 7lb to 6lb. This is where halberds used to be ...
AFAIK, halberds were dropped just because they were not part of the Silmarilion canon, not because anyone thought they were overpowered. So it seems that the top end polearm dropped from 2d10 @ 6lbs, to 2d9 @7lbs, without any particular reason or offsetting buff. (yes?) I'm just saying that I think you were right in the first place, and 2d10@6lbs is good and should be re-instated. And if you want to call it a "glaive" rather than a "halberd", well, that's fine with me. I think the weight change would be a good "conservative" choice, if you're leary of going all the way back to 2d10.
bron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 13, 2013, 00:43   #12
debo
Veteran
 
debo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,364
debo is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by bron View Post
AFAIK, halberds were dropped just because they were not part of the Silmarilion canon, not because anyone thought they were overpowered. So it seems that the top end polearm dropped from 2d10 @ 6lbs, to 2d9 @7lbs, without any particular reason or offsetting buff. (yes?) I'm just saying that I think you were right in the first place, and 2d10@6lbs is good and should be re-instated. And if you want to call it a "glaive" rather than a "halberd", well, that's fine with me. I think the weight change would be a good "conservative" choice, if you're leary of going all the way back to 2d10.
The halberds also had (-3) instead of (-2), IIRC. So it's not just weight and damage die you're talking about here. I'd rather have (-2) 2d8 at any weight than (-3) 2d10, but that's just me I'm sure HM will disagree
debo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 13, 2013, 01:57   #13
HallucinationMushroom
Knight
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Indiana, U.S.A.
Age: 41
Posts: 780
HallucinationMushroom is on a distinguished road
Haha, if we're reverting, I want 6d mattocks. Does the artifact mattock even exist anymore? I present scummed 2000 presents and didn't see it. Burkfelek, that was its name. It was beautiful. The Mattock 'Burkfelek' (-4,6d2) <+3> 11.0 lb
HallucinationMushroom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 13, 2013, 02:53   #14
debo
Veteran
 
debo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,364
debo is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by HallucinationMushroom View Post
Haha, if we're reverting, I want 6d mattocks. Does the artifact mattock even exist anymore? I present scummed 2000 presents and didn't see it. Burkfelek, that was its name. It was beautiful. The Mattock 'Burkfelek' (-4,6d2) <+3> 11.0 lb
I'm pretty sure that's still in there. I think half and Scatha would have mentioned in the release notes if Burkfelek got axed. (No pun intended.) I've never found it, personally.

Edit: Remember when vanilla mattocks were 6dx?

Last edited by debo; February 13, 2013 at 03:11.
debo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 13, 2013, 09:02   #15
Psi
Knight
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Age: 44
Posts: 870
Psi is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by HallucinationMushroom View Post
Haha, if we're reverting, I want 6d mattocks. Does the artifact mattock even exist anymore? I present scummed 2000 presents and didn't see it. Burkfelek, that was its name. It was beautiful. The Mattock 'Burkfelek' (-4,6d2) <+3> 11.0 lb
ISTR that it still exists and is the one mattock that retained 6 sides.
Psi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 13, 2013, 10:11   #16
Scatha
Swordsman
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 414
Scatha is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by debo View Post
I'd rather have (-2) 2d8 at any weight than (-3) 2d10, but that's just me I'm sure HM will disagree
I'm not sure I entirely believe you! It sounds like you'd prefer a ring of accuracy (+1) to a ring of damage <+2>.

Glaives used to be at (-1,2d8) and halberds at (-3,2d10). The new glaive splits the difference. This was in fact partially because halberds seemed to be just a little too strong.
Scatha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 13, 2013, 13:39   #17
debo
Veteran
 
debo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,364
debo is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scatha View Post
I'm not sure I entirely believe you! It sounds like you'd prefer a ring of accuracy (+1) to a ring of damage <+2>.

Glaives used to be at (-1,2d8) and halberds at (-3,2d10). The new glaive splits the difference. This was in fact partially because halberds seemed to be just a little too strong.
Well when you put it that way...

Edit: FWIW I forgot that Glaives used to be (-1) too -- I knew there was a reason I preferred them in the early game in 1.0.2 or whatever
debo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18, 2013, 15:43   #18
taptap
Knight
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 710
taptap is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scatha View Post
The most natural comparison is glaives (-2, 2d9)[+1] with greatswords (-2, 3d5)[+1]. The glaive loses a damage die and gets 4 extra damage sides to compensate. If you have 2 extra damage sides (normally coming from points of strength, but could be a superior weapon, rings of damage, or the ability Power), their expected damage on a regular hit is equal. If you have less than 2 extra sides, the glaive is better; more and the sword is better. This will go well for low strength melee characters.
Maybe I shouldn't dare to disagree with the makers of the game, imho 2d11 = 3d7 but 2d11 - 2d4 > 3d7 - 2d4, high variance weapons are always somewhat better than it seems against armored targets because hits never heal the opponent. Most targets have at least some armour. But of course one could argue that nobody uses a greatsword anymore, because usually a lighter 2-handed bastard sword is strictly superior.

I would love a polearm competition - though polearm mastery isn't as much investment as the 7 points archery in the last one so people may not necessarily stick to polearms.
taptap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18, 2013, 18:25   #19
Scatha
Swordsman
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 414
Scatha is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by taptap View Post
Maybe I shouldn't dare to disagree with the makers of the game, imho 2d11 = 3d7 but 2d11 - 2d4 > 3d7 - 2d4, high variance weapons are always somewhat better than it seems against armored targets because hits never heal the opponent. Most targets have at least some armour.
You're exactly right. In fact this is accounted for in the spreadsheet we used to help balance weapons, but I was going for a simpler approximation to make the argument easier. I have it in mind that the high variance effect is normally relatively small (rather less than (+1), say), but I should check this.

Note as well that high variance can also sometimes be a disadvantage. For example against lightly armoured enemies with little health you're more likely to connect and not kill with a glaive than a greatsword. But this is probably smaller than the armour penetration effect.

Quote:
But of course one could argue that nobody uses a greatsword anymore, because usually a lighter 2-handed bastard sword is strictly superior.
Of course it isn't that nobody ever prefers the heavier sword, but it has moved in that direction. How much of an issue do you think this is?
Scatha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 15, 2013, 20:02   #20
taptap
Knight
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 710
taptap is on a distinguished road
I am recently trying to get polearm mastery working and I am intrigued by Bron combining it with flanking, which would never occur to me in the first place. I did flanking with subtlety / zoc etc. but I thought this doesn't go well with the whole resting for polearm mastery / focus etc. Does this mean you can get both the flanking and the controlled retreat bonus one turn, and zoc and polearm mastery the next turn (both with focus?) when resting?
taptap is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Game Master's Campaign - Fantasy art kit Shockbolt Idle chatter 34 November 6, 2012 16:17
3x Breaking and Entering by Anaxe the Master Thief Thraalbee AAR 0 August 26, 2011 22:42
Artifacts in 3.2 (Master List) Tregonsee Vanilla 8 March 6, 2011 12:33
State of Angband master branch d_m Development 80 November 26, 2010 15:14
The latest working version from the master git repository myshkin Development 1 October 10, 2010 23:27


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 18:41.


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