UI: base-to-hit for shoot and melee are not intutitive

[Pete Mack]

These are currently shown in cyan. They used to be shown in graded colors. It's only because a long time ago I did angband development that I know that 25.6 is a lousy to-hit. Also, the to-hit displayed is not affected by bless/hero/shero.
[this is a bug.]

[fizzix]

Which version are you talking about. 3.4.1, current dev version or v4?

Changing colors can certainly be done, and if it's not it's definitely an oversight. However, it might be worth trying to figure out if there was an intuitive way to describe fighting ability that's at least of some use. Currently if you know the monsters AC, you can see your probability of hitting, but if you don't you're out of luck. Perhaps we can do something equivalent like PHAC50 or probability of hitting AC 50?

I'm also of the opinion that AC should be something that's noticeable at first attack on a monster. After swinging at one you know roughly how hard it is to hit it. This would solve some of the problems of the fighting values being less than obvious. Shooting of course is still a problem though. The only reasonable solution here is to either show chance to hit with current arrows in the 0 slot, or remove all to hit bonuses from arrows.

[Raajaton]

Perhaps allow you to hit the letter for your quiver slot to check values for that particular type of ammo?

[fizzix]

Originally Posted by Raajaton

Perhaps allow you to hit the letter for your quiver slot to check values for that particular type of ammo?

The question is what value do you choose to display on the character sheet, and what value should be displayed when examining a monster.

[Derakon]

I like the idea of just removing to-hit bonuses from ammo. It's needless complexity IMO. While, yes, I could imagine a self-guiding ammo type (or just ammo that's more/less better-made), I really don't think we need compounding bonuses from the bow and the ammo together. Honestly I think getting rid of the to-dam bonus would also be a good idea but that would require significantly more rebalancing work.

[Raajaton]

I would say have the character sheet display to-hit and to-dam values for shooting purely based on your launcher without any benefit from ammo. Then when examining a monster, have the ability to assume usage of your different ammo, being able to see with which you'll have the best chance to hit vs. the highest damage on that particular monster.

I do agree that getting ready of to-hit from ammo makes sense as well. I would say the launcher has more to do with accuracy than the ammo itself, but I guess IRL there are some properties in top quality ammo that would improve accuracy as well.

[scud]

(3.3.2 die-hard)

I rarely bother looking at my 'to hit' versus a particular beast, because once I've hit enough of them to know that info I'll already have a feel for how many of them I can (should) take on sequentially: basically a 'my damage' versus 'their damage and HP' equation.

When I do look at the 'chance to hit' I'm always surprised at how little difference is made by magical enhancement...

Bare-handed (+21 to hit) I've a 53% chance of hitting a greater bogroll (AC210)
With my +14 weapon (so +35) it rises to 59%
Add a ring with +7 (so +42) it's 62%

Seems very marginal to me.

But that's a different thread altogether.

Sorry.

[fizzix]

Originally Posted by scud

When I do look at the 'chance to hit' I'm always surprised at how little difference is made by magical enhancement...

Bare-handed (+21 to hit) I've a 53% chance of hitting a greater bogroll (AC210)
With my +14 weapon (so +35) it rises to 59%
Add a ring with +7 (so +42) it's 62%

Seems very marginal to me.

But that's a different thread altogether.

Sorry.

Heh, we tend to drift a lot so it's ok. Most of this comes from a basic design principal in angband that "you should hit most of the time." and "battles should take multiple rounds." So, the difference from going to 53% to 62% results in roughly a 20% increase in damage over the course of battle. A 10 round battle might last 8 rounds. That might mean that you need to use less healing or have a lower chance of suffering a negative effect.

[scud]

Originally Posted by fizzix

stuff

Yes indeed.

The scaling vs AC is interesting. Great Wyrms, black reavers and bronze golems are all AC255 (is this the maximum for non-uniques?) and +42 to hit gives me a sad 55%, whereas at +21 it's a miserable 44%.

Brown yeeks (AC21) are 91% with either to hit modifier.

[half]

Originally Posted by Derakon

I like the idea of just removing to-hit bonuses from ammo. It's needless complexity IMO. While, yes, I could imagine a self-guiding ammo type (or just ammo that's more/less better-made), I really don't think we need compounding bonuses from the bow and the ammo together. Honestly I think getting rid of the to-dam bonus would also be a good idea but that would require significantly more rebalancing work.

I think this is a great idea, and it is what I did with Sil. It also solves the problem of ammo being spread over many slots (though you can probably keep using the old solution). Having arrows of each of the base types is plenty for anyone (39 types!). Allowing hit and dam bonuses to vary increases this to more than 8,000 types, which is totally unnecessary. See here for more:

http://angband.oook.cz/forum/showpos...1&postcount=17