Angband Forums Hit probability calculation
 Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 May 26, 2010, 17:46 #1 Ycombinator Adept   Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Zürich, Switzerland Age: 33 Posts: 156 Hit probability calculation I looked at the sources to find out the missile hit probability formula. Please, tell me if I got it right: p_hit = 0.9 * (chance - 0.75 * AC_monster) / chance + 0.05, where chance = (character innate ability to shoot) + (total to-hit from character, launcher and ammo) * 3 - (distance to monster in tiles) This is mostly archery vs magic question for me. Missiles often do more damage per hit than spells, but spells always hits the target and their fail probability is displayed in-game. Missile hit probability is unknown and can be quite low. So I think it can be interesting and useful to display missile hit probability against current target assuming its AC is already known to player. What's your opinion? Is it worthwhile addition? Last edited by Ycombinator; May 26, 2010 at 18:57.
 May 26, 2010, 18:44 #2 Jungle_Boy Swordsman   Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 434 This does not make sense. With this formula p_hit, which I believe is % chance to hit, is always at least .95 or 95%. I think the middle term should be (chance -0.75 * AC_Monster)/chance, giving a number less than one instead of greater and making increased monster armor result in a lower chance to hit rather than greater.
May 26, 2010, 18:57   #3
Ycombinator

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Age: 33
Posts: 156
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Jungle_Boy This does not make sense. With this formula p_hit, which I believe is % chance to hit, is always at least .95 or 95%. I think the middle term should be (chance -0.75 * AC_Monster)/chance, giving a number less than one instead of greater and making increased monster armor result in a lower chance to hit rather than greater.
You're absolutely right. Edited.

 May 26, 2010, 19:36 #4 fizzix Prophet   Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Madison, Wisconsin, US Posts: 3,023 I'm not opposed to the idea, but I think you should follow the same approach for melee attacks also. While we're on this topic. I'd like to see larger penalties for: 1. monster is far away 2. monster is in adjacent square 3. monster is unseen (invis, in darkened area, only known by telep/detection) 4. monster is partially obscured (no reverse LoS) 5. monster was not the desired target forgive me if some are already covered (I know 1 is)
May 27, 2010, 03:13   #5
buzzkill
Prophet

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 2,939
Donated: \$8
Quote:
 Originally Posted by fizzix 1. monster is far away 2. monster is in adjacent square 3. monster is unseen (invis, in darkened area, only known by telep/detection) 4. monster is partially obscured (no reverse LoS) 5. monster was not the desired target
I like all of this. It could also lead to interesting new (minor) abilities that could be added to launchers.
__________________
www.mediafire.com/buzzkill - Get your 32x32 tiles here. UT32 now compatible Ironband and Quickband 9/6/2012.
My banding life on Buzzkill's ladder.

May 27, 2010, 18:10   #6
Estie
Veteran

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,852
Quote:
 Originally Posted by fizzix I'm not opposed to the idea, but I think you should follow the same approach for melee attacks also. While we're on this topic. I'd like to see larger penalties for: 1. monster is far away 2. monster is in adjacent square 3. monster is unseen (invis, in darkened area, only known by telep/detection) 4. monster is partially obscured (no reverse LoS) 5. monster was not the desired target forgive me if some are already covered (I know 1 is)
I like none of this. Imo, if archery is being toned down, the damage should be decreased instead of increasing the tedium of using shooter + ammo. It is already the most tedious to use, followed by magic and melee is simplest.

Edit: on second thought, point 2. might lead to something interesting.

Last edited by Estie; May 27, 2010 at 18:21.

May 27, 2010, 18:38   #7
fizzix
Prophet

Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,023
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Estie I increasing the tedium of using shooter + ammo.
A *lot* of the tedium can be overcome by macros. The fact that h has been changed to fire at nearest is a huge reduction in tedium. But yeah, archery without macros can be annoying.

May 27, 2010, 19:17   #8
miyazaki

Join Date: Jan 2009
Age: 44
Posts: 227
Quote:
 Originally Posted by fizzix I'm not opposed to the idea, but I think you should follow the same approach for melee attacks also. While we're on this topic. I'd like to see larger penalties for: 1. monster is far away 2. monster is in adjacent square 3. monster is unseen (invis, in darkened area, only known by telep/detection) 4. monster is partially obscured (no reverse LoS) 5. monster was not the desired target forgive me if some are already covered (I know 1 is)
I think these would mesh well with the nerfing of missile weapons. As for #2, you should not be able to shoot a monster in an adjacent square at all. (This was a feature in the combat of Ultima V, if anyone remembers.)

May 27, 2010, 23:11   #9
Estie
Veteran

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,852
Quote:
 Originally Posted by fizzix A *lot* of the tedium can be overcome by macros. The fact that h has been changed to fire at nearest is a huge reduction in tedium. But yeah, archery without macros can be annoying.
Of course. Id still put archery on number one, mostly because you have to manage missiles (picking them up again after battle, risk of having them destroyed while they are on the ground, need to find them in the first place etc.)

Generally, a character who doesnt hit is not fun to play. It is one thing to nerf wizards ranged to hit - "you are wizard, use your spells" - but certainly rangers, warriors and rogues should count archery to their preferred means of combat. With points 1. and 2. in place that would lead to a situation where they can only shoot effectively when the target is 2-3 squares away.
Adding the rest of the suggestions could quickly lead to a situation where I, as a ranger, wouldnt bother with missiles at all and just use melee by default.

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

 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 Rules
 Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Angband     AAR     Vanilla     Development     ToME     Sil     Variants     Competition The real world     Idle chatter     Oook! Obsolete     v4

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post billiam106 Vanilla 3 January 20, 2010 08:04 Timo Pietilä Vanilla 22 January 12, 2010 23:46 takkaria Vanilla 43 April 7, 2009 03:48 ChodTheWacko Vanilla 4 October 3, 2008 19:28 Dragonboneman Vanilla 9 February 7, 2008 19:55

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:19.