March 7, 2012, 00:57  #11  
Angband Devteam member

Quote:
Don't forget that that's damage per *round*, not per blow. But 2000 damage per blow is still ridiculous. The damage is simply: 1. XdY diceroll 2. Multiplied by "mult" (which is derived from your prowess score and your weapon's preference for prowess, which we call heft, plus any slay or brand mult) 3. Check for crit chance (which is fin^2 plus prow^2 all / 5000 and capped at 99%). 4. If the check fails, stop  that's the total damage. 5. Add 1dY if successful, multiply chance by 0.95 and go back to 3 It's the x0.95 that messes things up  there's a nice mathematical equation to calculate the crit damage if chance is constant, but it isn't.
__________________
"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 

March 7, 2012, 21:17  #12 
Adept
Join Date: Jan 2009
Age: 60
Posts: 169

Thanks for that  I actually got impatient yesterday and grabbed a clone of the source, and did some testing with a spreadsheet.
Formula for extra critical dice is: dice = c + (.95c)c + (.95c)^2c +(.95c)^3c ... where c is the critical chance. Because of the .99 cap, a total of 14 terms gives a very close approximation. Tops out at about 5.2 dice average at 99%. Dump attached. 
March 7, 2012, 21:34  #13 
Prophet
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 8,918

That is one beastly weapon you have there. 5d10 damage and an acid brand! I kinda feel like the Disruption affix should make the weapon be heavily prowessoriented  having a 35pound weapon that's 70/30 balance/heft seems wrong.
You're getting 335 finesse from race/class/level, 348 from equipment, and 260 from DEX. The original intent was that you get about a third from race/class/level, a third from equipment, and a third from DEX, so things are slightly out of whack here, but it wouldn't seem like they're excessively so. Your crit chance should be ((.7 * 943)^2 + (.3 * 743)^2) / 5000 + 1 = 98%. So we didn't actually hit the crit cap. It would take 14 successful crits before your chance of getting an extra crit would be below 50%. If we brought your nonDEX finesse mods down to 260 to match DEX (and didn't change the prowess mods) then you'd be at ((.7 * 780) + (.3 * 743)^2) / 5000 + 1 = 70%. That's still pretty high; it'd take 7 successful crits before the chance for another drops below 50%. So it sounds like weapon and class mods may need a bit of a nerf, but more importantly that .95x multiplier needs to be brought down. At .8x the two cases outlined above become 4 and 2 iterations, respectively, before the chance for further crits drops below half. 
March 7, 2012, 21:52  #14 
Adept
Join Date: Jan 2009
Age: 60
Posts: 169

I did see one with 6d10 and a 6.64 slay multiplier for undead. Too heavy though and 10/90.
The calculation I gave seems about right when I look at number of turns to kill compared to health of monster. 
March 7, 2012, 23:19  #15 
Prophet
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 8,918

Alternate solution: increase the divisor further (to 7500 or 10000, say) and cap max crit chance at 50% (or whatever), then do away with the .95x multiplier altogether. That would, per Magnate's post, also make it easier to calculate expected damage from crits.

March 7, 2012, 23:22  #16  
Angband Devteam member

Quote:
Quote:
Personally I'm fine with race/class and equipment contributing more than stats in the ratio 3:3:2.
__________________
"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 

March 8, 2012, 00:01  #17 
Prophet
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 8,918

Some kind of nonlinear crit chance would be nice, so you don't never get crits early on, but also don't always get crits in the late game. For example:
Code:
y = x  (x ^ 2) / 1000 So the remaining question is how heavily to weight finesse and prowess in the calculation. The current system favors finesse fighters using finesse weapons (precisely striking a weak point) and prowess fighters using prowess weapons (pancaking the opponent's skull) while disfavoring compromise fighters. Personally I like that but others may feel differently. EDIT: so, for example, if we leave the current "applied finesse squared plus applied prowess squared" system in place, then a possible formula for crit chance could be given as Code:
factor = (finesse * balance) ^ 2 + (prowess * heft) ^ 2 if factor > 400000: chance = 50 else: chance = (factor  (factor * factor) / 800000) / 4000 EDIT 2: one issue here being that factor gets squared again. 400k squared is much bigger than 2^32. Unfortunate! We could replace the squaring in generating factor by just the sum of products (i.e. finesse * balance + prowess * heft), but that just mirrors the normal damage roll, so it basically says "if you already do lots of damage, then you have a better chance of dealaing even more damage." I prefer the current system where normal combat favors compromise fighters and crit calculations favor fighters that are allfinesse or allprowess. So one possibility is to divide factor prior to plugging it into the chance calculation: Code:
// Yields a value between 0 and 100 for factors from 0 to 400k factor = ((finesse * balance) ^ 2 + (prowess * heft) ^ 2) / 40000 if factor > 100: chance = 50 else: chance = (factor  (factor ^ 2)) / 200 Last edited by Derakon; March 8, 2012 at 00:57. 
March 8, 2012, 02:30  #18 
Adept
Join Date: Jan 2009
Age: 60
Posts: 169

One quick thing  the last formula is wrong  should be:
chance = (factor  (factor ^ 2) / 200 ) Otherwise chance will be negative. Otherwise seems like a good method. 
March 8, 2012, 05:56  #19 
Prophet
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 8,918

Oops, good call. Thanks for the correction.

March 8, 2012, 08:35  #20 
Angband Devteam member

In the first equation of the second set did you mean to divide by 40000 at the end of calculating factor, or by 4000?
But in principle it works for me. If chance maxes out at 50% then we don't need to decay it, and calculating the expected damage becomes a lot easier.
__________________
"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 
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)  
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
3 bugfixes for r988.  Irashtar  Vanilla  0  September 2, 2008 12:06 