Angband.oook.cz
Angband.oook.cz
AboutVariantsLadderForumCompetitionComicScreenshotsFunniesLinks

Go Back   Angband Forums > Angband > Vanilla

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 5, 2019, 05:33   #11
Derakon
Prophet
 
Derakon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 8,942
Derakon is on a distinguished road
1d100 is a flat distribution (equal chance of any value); 34d2 is heavily weighted (very unlikely to deal either min or max damage). Of the two I would tend to prefer the latter, though they have almost exactly the same average damage. In a long fight they're effectively equivalent, because you make many attacks so even a flat distribution gets a pretty good spread of hits. But in short fights the flat distribution can, rarely, lead to things like your level-50 warrior failing to kill a kobold in a single blow. Like I said, it's pretty much just an aesthetic thing.

Anyway, thanks for the added details. As for the display, while I initially liked the idea of putting the +% in the weapon's stat line, after further consideration I think that would combine confusingly with off-weapon bonuses -- should a Ring of Damage +10 also say +39% on it, even though it plus a +10 weapon would actually be +69% damage? Or does the weapon give its innate bonus and then show the percentile effect from all of your +deadliness bonuses? Either way it's weird. It's a bit clunky, but I think the best bet at least for now is to just put something like "The +X deadliness bonus this weapon gets increases its damage by Y%" in the weapon's 'I' screen. Basically the same thing we do with speed: display the total plus, and then the actual effect.
Derakon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 5, 2019, 10:23   #12
Voovus
Adept
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: London
Posts: 108
Voovus is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick View Post
This adds a percentage p to the die average, which starts as 5% for +1 but diminishes with higher to-dam values - so +10 to-dam adds 40%, +20 adds 70%, +30 adds 100%.
Whyyyyyy?

Is there any reason not to have a nice and clean +5% per to-dam value? It's not like we can enchant anything past +12 or so anyway.

Personally, I'd also prefer much more discrete increments: e.g. +1 to-dam = +50%, +2 = +100%, +3= +150%, and let basic Enchant scrolls only enchant up to +1, and *Enchant* up to +2 (and make both more rare).

It would also be nice to have a simpler formula for the slay bonuses: 1.5, 1.7, 2.5, 3.5 aren't exactly intuitive.
Voovus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 5, 2019, 11:33   #13
Nick
Vanilla maintainer
 
Nick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Canberra, Australia
Age: 54
Posts: 7,860
Donated: $60
Nick will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voovus View Post
Whyyyyyy?

Is there any reason not to have a nice and clean +5% per to-dam value? It's not like we can enchant anything past +12 or so anyway.

Personally, I'd also prefer much more discrete increments: e.g. +1 to-dam = +50%, +2 = +100%, +3= +150%, and let basic Enchant scrolls only enchant up to +1, and *Enchant* up to +2 (and make both more rare).

It would also be nice to have a simpler formula for the slay bonuses: 1.5, 1.7, 2.5, 3.5 aren't exactly intuitive.
The deadliness table I imported directly from Oangband; the slays and brands I did the same, but then adjusted a bit to give better looking numbers. I'm not averse to changing either of these depending on how the balance looks, but it seemed like a sensible starting point.
__________________
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 November 5, 2019, 12:58   #14
Ingwe Ingweron
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Manhattan Beach, CA
Posts: 1,842
Ingwe Ingweron is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick View Post
The deadliness table I imported directly from Oangband; the slays and brands I did the same, but then adjusted a bit to give better looking numbers. I'm not averse to changing either of these depending on how the balance looks, but it seemed like a sensible starting point.
Have you a comparison of the current method and the new method across a number of cases? That would be interesting to see.
__________________
“We're more of the love, blood, and rhetoric school. Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They're all blood, you see.”
― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
Ingwe Ingweron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 5, 2019, 17:52   #15
DavidMedley
Adept
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 180
DavidMedley is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voovus View Post
Personally, I'd also prefer much more discrete increments: e.g. +1 to-dam = +50%, +2 = +100%, +3= +150%, and let basic Enchant scrolls only enchant up to +1, and *Enchant* up to +2 (and make both more rare).
Isn't this virtually impossible in a system running parallel with vanilla combat? At best you'd take all the current plusses, divide and round them, and then plug them into a conversion to percentages anyway. I think it only makes sense to have the same "fineness" of bonuses.

That said, if we've already got the average calculated, why not just make the % bonus = plus damage / average damage? Should a 1d4+1 weapon and a 4d5+1 weapon be translated into 1d4*1.05 and 4d5*1.05? I presume they've accounted for this in OAngband but the object list will stay the same whether this option is on or off, right?

Sorry if I've misunderstood.
DavidMedley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9, 2019, 01:24   #16
archolewa
Rookie
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Midwest
Age: 31
Posts: 19
archolewa is on a distinguished road
I haven't tried this change in Angband, but I do have some experience with this dice-heavy style of damage from Sil. My experiences from there make me a bit wary of this change. The highly variable damage makes it much more difficult to properly assess risk. You could one-shot two orcs, which makes you think they're not a serious threat, and then spend five turns getting the third down to 1/4 health. In the meantime, another dozen show up and swarm you.

Meanwhile, Angband's much more reliable damage means it's much easier to get a sense of how dangerous a given situation is.

Highly variable damage also runs the risk of making the game feel "unfair." I don't care what the statistics say, human beings don't remember all the times they one-shotted dragons, they remember all the times they 5-shotted snagas, so having highly variable damage will frustrate people much more. It can also obscure poor tactical decision making behind luck. Obscuring poor decisions in turn makes it harder to *learn* from those mistakes and again makes the game more frustrating.

All that said, I'm not necessarily opposed to this change if we give players the tools they need to properly assess risks. And just showing your average damage isn't going to cut it. One way to do this I think would be to make either one of the two following changes to the information displays:

1. Rather than just showing what my average damage per round is, the game shows me a range. So instead of "5 blows doing an average of 150 damage per round" it would say "5 blows doing between 100 and 200 damage." This way I can easily decide "Ok, worst case scenario, it'll take me 20 rounds to kill that dragon. Worst case it could probably kill me in five. Maybe I need to soften it up with some more reliable damage, like spells or wands. Or maybe just avoid it. Yeah, let's do that." It also introduces a new dimension to combat tradeoffs (do I take the more reliable weapon with a lower maximum damage, or the less reliable weapon with the higher maximum damage?). And I'm all for making equipment decisions even more interesting.

2. Monster memory shows something similar to what Brogue does. "It will take you between 5 and 20 turns to kill this creature using just melee attacks. The creature will take between 3 and 10 turns to kill you if they used only melee attacks."

I also think this should only apply to melee. Give ranged weapons more reliable damage. Damage spikiness in ranged combat can already come from the fact that you only have a limited number of really good arrows at any time.
archolewa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 15, 2019, 18:25   #17
Chud
Swordsman
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 288
Chud is on a distinguished road
Added bonuses from things like rings of reckless attacks or rings of damage are also applied to the dice rather than as straight additions, same as if those bonuses were on the weapon itself, right?
Chud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 15, 2019, 22:45   #18
jevansau
Adept
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Age: 60
Posts: 171
jevansau is on a distinguished road
Missiles still have issues under this combat system. If you look at the damage for base missiles, it is very low compared to vanilla.
For example with my current blackguard, with a x5 +8 +19 bow with an inbuilt full acid brand and a +5 +8 arrow, damage is 43.1 and 109.2 vs non acid resistant.
In vanilla, it would be more than 135 and 216 (no crit allowance).

This isn't really an issue with the higher missile types since they will be doing 3 or 4 times as much damage. I think the solution is that the base missiles should be 2dx instead of 1dx and then probably increase the damage for mithril shot.
This does seem to be what is done in variants with O style combat to reduce the difference between standard and special ammo.
jevansau 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
How v4 combat works Derakon v4 3 March 19, 2012 00:45
Combat thread Derakon v4 3 March 18, 2012 12:11
Combat Spells Old Coach v4 3 February 1, 2012 23:00
Revamping combat Derakon v4 48 December 12, 2011 14:33
[FA, O?] Combat Ghen Variants 1 July 16, 2007 20:06


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 17:59.


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