Angband Forums [Feature Request] Learned Slays
 Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 February 7, 2008, 04:13 #1 s0be Apprentice   Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 96 [Feature Request] Learned Slays Well, I've been looking at the number of monster kills my character has, and noticed that I've killed a lot of things. This lead me to thinking "man, you'd think I'd start getting better at killing these things". So here's my idea: 1-1000 kills of a specific monster each adds 0.1% bonus to damage. Basically, this means that once you've killed 1000 of something, you do double damage. 1001-1000 kills each add 0.01% This means 10000 kills of a monster would yield you triple damage. My rationale is, at least in my character (who I have done a TONNE of farming with), very few monsters are even close to 1000 kills, and none are over 4000. Based on that, these counts sound reasonable. It wouldn't make uniques any easier, just monsters you've already killed once or twice. For a more computationally complex equation, I was thinking an logrithmic curve that starts at maybe 0.8 for 0 (so the first time you battle something, you have a small penalty) then at around 1000 you get to 2, and so forth. If this was the case, you'd either want to not apply the factor to Uniques, or scale their HP accordingly (as you only face them once, you'd always do 80% damage). To lower the overhead, a lookup table could be used for values less than say, 1000, then after that, use the log calculation. The idea behind the logarithmic curve is that it more accurately represents natural learning. This could be something you could toggle during birth options. It was my thinking that it would *not* apply across similar creatures, as a Blue Dragon might have different Weak spots than a Red Dragon. I'll attack implementing this if there's interest.
 February 7, 2008, 04:16 #2 Djabanete Knight     Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Berkeley, CA Posts: 547 It would make the game a lot more interesting if monsters got *harder* to kill rather than easier.
February 7, 2008, 04:19   #3
s0be
Apprentice

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 96
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Djabanete It would make the game a lot more interesting if monsters got *harder* to kill rather than easier.
That would add a whole new strategy for the slow divers.(me) That might get real interesting. Suddenly that pack of orcs you run into at 3000' can really school ya.

 February 7, 2008, 06:00 #4 Djabanete Knight     Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Berkeley, CA Posts: 547 Yeah, it's not really justified from a realism perspective, but in terms of gameplay I think making monsters gradually harder is a better idea than making monsters gradually easier.
 February 7, 2008, 06:19 #5 will_asher DaJAngband Maintainer     Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 1,124 Donated: \$10 Personally, I think monsters should have a minimum and maximum level they can appear on, in addition to a native level, so that you just stop seeing the easy monsters when you get deep. __________________ Will_Asher aka LibraryAdventurer My old variant DaJAngband: http://sites.google.com/site/dajangbandwebsite/home (defunct and so old it's forked from Angband 3.1.0 -I think- but it's probably playable...)
 February 7, 2008, 06:39 #6 s0be Apprentice   Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 96 Perhaps a combination of all of these. I don't think min/max level ranges would be a good idea, but perhaps something like a bell curve centered around the 'native' level that controls the probabilities of the monster being on the level. This could be paired up with a function that takes those probabilities and adjusts the strength of the [non unique] monsters to where they are out of depth. This way, if you run into a troll that's native at level 12, on level 9, it'd be some portion weaker (not appreciable), or on 15, it'd be some portion stronger. I'd say that it should NOT be a huge difference, but as you get deeper, the trolls you run into should get stronger. This would likely balance out the 'learned slays' I proposed in my first post. The only thing left to tease players deeper is to tie the drops to the proportional strengths of the monsters.(maybe adjust the monster level to be the average of the monster's native level and their current level? or 1/3rd the difference between the two or something?, to go along with the average of the two already done) So basically: Troll, Native 10 Found on level 5 is weaker, has an adjusted monster level of 7, meaning his drop is at level 6. Found on level 20 is stronger, has an adjusted monster level of 15, meaning his drop level would be 17. You would probably want to clamp that adjustment to 5 or so, so a level 1 monster on Dlvl 100 isn't dropping at level 66 but at level 53.
February 7, 2008, 06:49   #7
Pete Mack
Prophet

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 6,591
Donated: \$40
Quote:
 Originally Posted by s0be Perhaps a combination of all of these. I don't think min/max level ranges would be a good idea, but perhaps something like a bell curve centered around the 'native' level that controls the probabilities of the monster being on the level. This could be paired up with a function that takes those probabilities and adjusts the strength of the [non unique] monsters to where they are out of depth. This way, if you run into a troll that's native at level 12, on level 9, it'd be some portion weaker (not appreciable), or on 15, it'd be some portion stronger. I'd say that it should NOT be a huge difference, but as you get deeper, the trolls you run into should get stronger. This would likely balance out the 'learned slays' I proposed in my first post. The only thing left to tease players deeper is to tie the drops to the proportional strengths of the monsters.(maybe adjust the monster level to be the average of the monster's native level and their current level? or 1/3rd the difference between the two or something?, to go along with the average of the two already done)
Just be aware--this kind of leveling is done in ToME, and there is nothing more frustrating than running around at dl 60 killing orcs that (a) move at speed +10, (b) are level 50 or so, and (c) still give you only a handful of EXP points. They are not really dangerous, they are just in the way, a whole lot.

February 7, 2008, 16:12   #8
z118
Apprentice

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 59
Quote:
 Originally Posted by will_asher Personally, I think monsters should have a minimum and maximum level they can appear on, in addition to a native level, so that you just stop seeing the easy monsters when you get deep.
I totally agree with this. It always strikes me as just plain silly to run into a scruffy looking hobbit or a small kobold on level 90'. What the heck are they doing down there? Not only does it not make sense, but at that point, they really add nothing whatsoever to the game anyway.

February 7, 2008, 16:29   #9
s0be
Apprentice

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 96
Quote:
 Originally Posted by z118 I totally agree with this. It always strikes me as just plain silly to run into a scruffy looking hobbit or a small kobold on level 90'. What the heck are they doing down there? Not only does it not make sense, but at that point, they really add nothing whatsoever to the game anyway.
Except lowering the average difficulty of the level they appear on. You have to remember, if all the monsters were generated at or near your current dlvl, 'diving' would require near perfect play.

The lower level monsters showing up at deeper depths make those levels doable.

As far as other variants doing the leveled monster thing. I had thought about that 'problem' and that's why I suggested clamping a monster's 'growth' to within 5 levels of their natural depth.

February 7, 2008, 18:02   #10
z118
Apprentice

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 59
Quote:
 Originally Posted by s0be Except lowering the average difficulty of the level they appear on. You have to remember, if all the monsters were generated at or near your current dlvl, 'diving' would require near perfect play. The lower level monsters showing up at deeper depths make those levels doable.
I guess this makes sense. As usual, my comments are from almost completely a gameplay perspective without much insight into the inner mechanics of the game. And while I do think that there should be weaker monsters on any particular level, I do find it nonetheless silly to run into a scruffly looking hobbit on level 90. I think his description says he's looking for a pub... we he sure is looking in the wrong place that deep in the dungeon!

Maybe monsters shouldn't appear more than 50 levels deeper than their native depth, unless they appear in groups. Again, I'm not real familiar with the mechanics.

 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 JamesDoyle Vanilla 25 March 21, 2008 19:06 Zero Vanilla 1 February 5, 2008 18:21 pesachyonah Vanilla 3 February 1, 2008 16:08 awldune Vanilla 0 December 14, 2007 22:31 Chris Wesling Vanilla 7 May 28, 2007 18:57

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:26.