Angband.oook.cz
Angband.oook.cz
AboutVariantsLadderForumCompetitionComicScreenshotsFunniesLinks

Go Back   Angband Forums > The real world > Idle chatter

View Poll Results: Which kind of resistance is better?
Additive 21 72.41%
Boolean 8 27.59%
Voters: 29. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old February 11, 2011, 10:46   #21
the Invisible Stalker
Adept
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 164
the Invisible Stalker is on a distinguished road
Either system is playable, once you understand how it works. As coded, the O system is more transparent for new players than the V system, because the 'C' command shows you your resistance percentages. But that's more of a user interface question than a gameplay question. The O base resistance progression starts 0% -> 45% -> 75% -> 85%. After three resistances, it's really not worth the bother any more. There are also minor resistances, which seem to be worth half a resist. Depending on your class and the resistance, you might also have the progression -30% -> 25% -> 60%. I can't check how these continue without recalling to town. Not all higher resists in O are percentage based, only light, dark, confusion, sound, shard, nexus, nether, chaos, and disenchantment. The others are binary. Often the same equipment item will have fewer resists in O than in V, or minor resists instead of full, so holes in the higher resists are common even in the endgame, and you rarely get multiple high resists. But that's the way O is balanced, not a consequence of additive resists in general.
the Invisible Stalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11, 2011, 13:47   #22
dos350
Knight
 
dos350's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: nimbin, australia
Posts: 541
dos350 is on a distinguished road
as a MAJOR diablo 2 advocate, i voted additive, but i dont think it would work in vanilla angband, ee~ binary feels good , but it took me awhile to get used to..
__________________
~eek

Reality hits you -more-

S+++++++++++++++++++
dos350 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11, 2011, 13:49   #23
Philip
Knight
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Prague,Czech Republic
Posts: 894
Philip is on a distinguished road
Why should it not work? There are two perfectly good implementations, both mentioned in the thread in quite some detail.
Philip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11, 2011, 16:01   #24
dos350
Knight
 
dos350's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: nimbin, australia
Posts: 541
dos350 is on a distinguished road
please no, so wat? , eee
__________________
~eek

Reality hits you -more-

S+++++++++++++++++++
dos350 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11, 2011, 16:09   #25
Philip
Knight
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Prague,Czech Republic
Posts: 894
Philip is on a distinguished road
What on earth is that post supposed to mean? Could you explain using more that 4 words?
Philip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11, 2011, 16:13   #26
Timo Pietilš
Prophet
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Climbing up from hole I just dug.
Posts: 4,096
Timo Pietilš is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip View Post
What on earth is that post supposed to mean? Could you explain using more that 4 words?
I don't think you will get anything comprehensible from eek. At most you get some yeek-talk. Apparently he is quite incapable of writing like a human being.
Timo Pietilš is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11, 2011, 20:14   #27
half
Knight
 
half's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 904
half is on a distinguished road
There are several different specifics that can be used for 'additive' resists. First, let's suppose that all resists are either present or not on an object or temporary source (like now) but that having multiple copies of a resist improves your resistance. There are a few obvious approaches:

Code:
(1):  66.7%, 88.9%, 96.3%, ...  (2/3, 8/9, 26/27, ...)
(2):  50.0%, 75.0%, 87.5%, ...  (1/2, 3/4, 7/8, ...)
(3):  50.0%, 66.7%, 75.0%, ...  (1/2, 2/3, 3/4, ...)
(1) is closest to the current system, and continually divides the damage by 3. This currently occurs with permanent + temporary resistance, and this would simply extend this to incorporate multiple permanent sources. (2) is similar, but halves the damage instead of dividing by 3. This is perhaps better balanced with current resistance distribution on items. (3) is weaker again, but quite elegant.

Alternatively, some systems have different (numerical) bonuses to resistance. For example an item might give +40% resistance to fire and another might give +20% resistance to fire. There are three natural ways for this to combine in an 'additive' way:

Code:
(4): add the numbers, if it is 100% or greater, you are immune
(5): add the numbers with a cut-off maximum resistance such as 90%
(6): 'co-multiplication'
(4) and (5) are fairly self-explanatory. (5) features in Diablo.

(6) is more tricky, but features in at least one variant (FA?). You take the complements of the resistances (the complement of X% is (100-X)%) and then multiply these and then take the complement of that. This is also the way that you 'add' probabilities to get the probability of (A or B) from the probability of A and the probability of B, and often comes up in mathematics (e.g. in De Morgan's laws).

For example, if you have +40% resistance from one source and +20% from another, the complements are +60% and +80%. Multiplying these gives +48%, and the complement of this is +52%, so you have +52% resistance.

Note that (6) is the equivalent to (1) and (2). For example, if you have two items with 50% resistance, it gives you 75% resistance, and if you have three it gives you 87.5% resistance. Two items with 66.7% resistance give you 88.9% resistance etc.

I think all six options are workable, but people might want to refer to this list when thinking about them as some of them have problems that others do not. For example (1) makes the game strictly easier, while the others do not.
half is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11, 2011, 21:01   #28
Derakon
Prophet
 
Derakon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 8,918
Derakon is on a distinguished road
My general opinion is that important algorithms should be as transparent as possible while still achieving the desired effect. Thus I'd suggest simply that resists divide damage by (N + 1), where N is the number of sources of resistance (thus 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, etc.). Simple, scalable, easy to understand, doesn't distinguish between permanent and temporary resists or between basic 4, poison, and the rest. Basic elements are made about 16% more dangerous (which if necessary could be compensated for by tweaking damage formulae and caps), high element resistance is regularized.
Derakon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11, 2011, 21:54   #29
Nick
Vanilla maintainer
 
Nick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Canberra, Australia
Age: 54
Posts: 7,836
Donated: $60
Nick will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by half View Post
(6) is more tricky, but features in at least one variant (FA?). You take the complements of the resistances (the complement of X% is (100-X)%) and then multiply these and then take the complement of that. This is also the way that you 'add' probabilities to get the probability of (A or B) from the probability of A and the probability of B, and often comes up in mathematics (e.g. in De Morgan's laws).

For example, if you have +40% resistance from one source and +20% from another, the complements are +60% and +80%. Multiplying these gives +48%, and the complement of this is +52%, so you have +52% resistance.
Yes, FA. I like to think of it (and it is coded) as reduction of damage - so in your example the first item reduces damage to 60%, and then the second item cuts off 20% of that, leaving damage at 48%.
__________________
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
Nick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 12, 2011, 00:27   #30
pampl
RePosBand maintainer
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 225
pampl is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derakon View Post
My general opinion is that important algorithms should be as transparent as possible while still achieving the desired effect. Thus I'd suggest simply that resists divide damage by (N + 1), where N is the number of sources of resistance (thus 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, etc.). Simple, scalable, easy to understand, doesn't distinguish between permanent and temporary resists or between basic 4, poison, and the rest. Basic elements are made about 16% more dangerous (which if necessary could be compensated for by tweaking damage formulae and caps), high element resistance is regularized.
If we want higher resistances to reduce damage by less than low resistances we could always generalize that as damage = x/(x+n) where x = 1 for low resists and maybe 2 or 3 for high ones.

edit: haven't thought about it much, but this might be a good system for resistance reduction as well

Last edited by pampl; February 12, 2011 at 01:10.
pampl 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
Vanilla 3.2.0, resistances and abilities Timo Pietilš Development 20 December 28, 2010 14:57
Additive Multipliers d_m Vanilla 88 July 20, 2010 16:30
Resistances cumulative? grassy Vanilla 29 March 5, 2010 05:49
Ranged Weapons, Armor and Resistances. Oh my! steeg1234321 Vanilla 8 March 18, 2008 19:36


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:22.


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