Angband.oook.cz
Angband.oook.cz
AboutVariantsLadderForumCompetitionComicScreenshotsFunniesLinks

Go Back   Angband Forums > Angband > Vanilla

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old September 3, 2010, 18:12   #31
PowerDiver
Prophet
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,712
PowerDiver is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiburon Silverflame View Post
And yes, I *much* prefer the notion that Magic Is Magic. I hate "divine magic" or "arcane magic" or most of the artificial distinctions. If gloves interfere with casting, do it for *everyone*. If a wizard can't wear metal armor because it interferes, then neither can a priest.
Nor a rogue, ranger, or paladin.
PowerDiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 3, 2010, 19:04   #32
fizzix
Prophet
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Madison, Wisconsin, US
Posts: 3,001
fizzix is on a distinguished road
I'm just going to chime in and say that I like the distinctions between classes as they are. I don't see the pointy penalty as being fundamentally broken either.
fizzix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 3, 2010, 21:22   #33
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 PowerDiver View Post
It is feasible to win without any artifacts. Is a non-random approach really worth the effort?
Well, a week ago I wouldn't have said so, but there does seem to be a consensus building around making more accurate assessments of the usefulness of INT/WIS/blessed etc. This really means allowing p_ptr->pclass to influence generation, which is nonrandom. I'm fairly easygoing either way: if Takk tells me he has a huge problem with it, it won't happen. If it makes for better randarts and happier players (but not easier gameplay, no never that), then why not.
Magnate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 3, 2010, 21:28   #34
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 Tiburon Silverflame View Post
I don't know the steps involved in creating a randart for sure, but from comments, it seems like it's

a) create randart
b) determine power, and therefore depth/rarity

IF this is the case, might it not make sense to work this a bit differently? I'm thinking, plan the randart set based on depth. START by assigning depth, or a small range for depth, and deriving a power range from that. Then build the artifacts to the appropriate power.

I think this would be complementary to keeping an internal table of all artifacts created so far. As to the difficulty...the problem may be that it's a multi-dimensional problem. One might have a relatively low-power artifact that is the only source of, say, rConf, or maybe more likely, there are other artifacts that have rConf, but they all get massively trumped by others in their item class.

Finally, of course, depth and rarity have to play a big role, because that impacts the notion of 'available.' We all look over the randart posts and drool at The Big One I Didn't Find.
Randart generation goes like this:

For every artifact in artifact.txt:
1. Calculate the power of the standart
2. Choose a base item
3. Calculate the power of the base item
4. If between 20% and 80% of #1 (not sure of exact %s), continue, else back to 2. This ensures that the base item is not too good or too weak to make a sensible randart of the target power.
5. Add random powers to the base item (calculate power after each addition, and roll back if power exceeds 105% of #1)
6. Stop when power exceeds 90% of #1, and calculate depth and rarity based on original depth/rarity and new power

Cursed artifacts (with negative power) are slightly different. Once all artifacts are randomised the whole set is checked to see that there are at least three sets of boots, four hats, five swords etc. We start over if not.
Magnate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 3, 2010, 21:32   #35
Derakon
Prophet
 
Derakon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 8,546
Derakon is on a distinguished road
To be clear, I'm not necessarily advocating that we take class into account. I'm just saying that randarts often have items that are useful to some classes but useless to others, which seems to not happen so much with standarts, and was wondering if this was a problem we would want to try to solve by considering the player's class during artifact generation. I'm sure there's other ways to deal with it. Or we could just leave it be. It's not like randart games are impossible as it stands.
Derakon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 3, 2010, 22:06   #36
PowerDiver
Prophet
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,712
PowerDiver is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnate View Post
This really means allowing p_ptr->pclass to influence generation, which is nonrandom.
That idea has been hated, over and over, in the past.

A simpler fix would be to insist in randart generation that any item with one of +INT or +WIS gets both.
PowerDiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 3, 2010, 23:07   #37
fizzix
Prophet
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Madison, Wisconsin, US
Posts: 3,001
fizzix is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerDiver View Post
That idea has been hated, over and over, in the past.

A simpler fix would be to insist in randart generation that any item with one of +INT or +WIS gets both.
That could work. I like that a lot better than the class based approach. Probably because it's right in line with INT and WIS being the same stat, something I support.

(+4 INT, +4 WIS) should probably be somewhere between +4 CON and +4 STR in power. (assuming the ordering coes CON, STR, DEX from most to least powerful)
fizzix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4, 2010, 08:37   #38
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 fizzix View Post
That could work. I like that a lot better than the class based approach. Probably because it's right in line with INT and WIS being the same stat, something I support.

(+4 INT, +4 WIS) should probably be somewhere between +4 CON and +4 STR in power. (assuming the ordering coes CON, STR, DEX from most to least powerful)
This really bothers me, actually - but I take the point that there is opposition to using pclass.

I would happily support making INT and WIS the same stat, but while they're separate I'd like to treat them separately. As a sop to casters, I could make sure that the *total* INT and WIS bonuses in the artifact set were the same - and I could ensure that on weapons and nonweapons separately.
Magnate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4, 2010, 09:33   #39
PowerDiver
Prophet
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,712
PowerDiver is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnate View Post
This really bothers me, actually - but I take the point that there is opposition to using pclass.

I would happily support making INT and WIS the same stat, but while they're separate I'd like to treat them separately. As a sop to casters, I could make sure that the *total* INT and WIS bonuses in the artifact set were the same - and I could ensure that on weapons and nonweapons separately.
The total is irrelevant. It doesn't make any difference if you add +2 int to a bunch of weak artifacts. If you bias the set that way, I'd guess you would do more harm than good.

I can't figure out your point of view. As i see it ...

Premise: It is bad if a player looks at an artifact and would use it if the spellstat boost matches, but won't use it if it does not match.

If you agree with the premise, int=wis solves the situation precisely. If you disagree with the premise, things are fine as they are now.

Obviously I am missing something.
PowerDiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4, 2010, 20:04   #40
TJS
Swordsman
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 473
TJS is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnate View Post
This really bothers me, actually - but I take the point that there is opposition to using pclass.

I would happily support making INT and WIS the same stat, but while they're separate I'd like to treat them separately. As a sop to casters, I could make sure that the *total* INT and WIS bonuses in the artifact set were the same - and I could ensure that on weapons and nonweapons separately.
You could also make sure con, dex and str are boosted whenever int and wis are to make sure warriors don't miss out as well.
TJS 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
memorable randarts PowerDiver AAR 443 August 2, 2017 13:27
First randarts win Ycombinator AAR 1 May 17, 2010 23:00
Cambeleg x Randarts ClaytonAguiar Vanilla 13 May 6, 2010 11:31
Randarts dhegler Vanilla 5 March 10, 2010 20:30
Randarts dhegler Vanilla 30 November 5, 2009 23:51


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 22:12.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.