Angband Forums Resistances: additive vs boolean
 Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 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

 February 12, 2011, 07:48 #31 Philip Knight   Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Prague,Czech Republic Posts: 894 The FA system might be tricky, but as long as the code is easy to get, I think there is no trouble in letting the computer figure it out. As long as the character screen tells you what percent resists you have, I fully support it. It makes multiple resistance items less and less important, but still useful. 3 is the Un way if I am not mistaken. Also interesting, but I still prefer the O/FA system(yeah, well that applies pretty much everywhere)
February 12, 2011, 11:40   #32
half
Knight

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 904
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Derakon 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.
So this is what I called (3). One thing to note about it is that you may need to reduce the damage done by breathers of the big 5, if you want to avoid insta-death with one resistance (also true of (2)). Also note that it requires 8 sources of resistance to get to the stage of current 'double resists' and that we are already happy to hand out immunities more easily than that.

February 12, 2011, 11:43   #33
half
Knight

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 904
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Nick 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%.
Exactly. You could think of 'vulnerabilities' instead of resistances. You start with a vulnerability of 100% (normal) and then find an item of vulnerability 60% and one of vulnerability 80% and then your vulnerability is only 48% (meaning you only take 48% of normal damage). Immunity is 0% vulnerability. In the FA system the vulnerabilities multiply or, equivalently, the resistances co-multiply.

 February 14, 2011, 20:02 #34 bron Swordsman   Join Date: May 2008 Location: Saratoga, California (in the midst of Silicon Valley) Posts: 485 I voted in favor of "boolean" (i.e. the way it is now). I don't object to the idea of "additive," I just feel the current system works fine and don't feel like having it changed. I will say however that if there *is* a move to another form of resist calculation, then I would favor the version where each extra instance of a resist cuts the damage by a fixed percentage, with 50% being the number of choice mostly because it is easy to express and makes sense: each additional instance of a resist, whether permanent or temporary, cuts the damage in half. This also neatly captures the current special-case 50% acid-resist that armor gives by simply counting armor as one level of acid resist (I realize the *code* may not be able to unify that all together, but the *concept* in the player's mind is uniform and easy to express).
February 15, 2011, 06:28   #35
Pete Mack
Prophet

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 5,414
Donated: $40 Quote:  Originally Posted by bron I will say however that if there *is* a move to another form of resist calculation, then I would favor the version where each extra instance of a resist cuts the damage by a fixed percentage, with 50% being Just to be contrary, I think if we must go with additive resistances, the ratio should be 1/(0.5*(1+sqrt(5)). That's a much prettier ratio than 1/2. February 15, 2011, 09:21 #36 PowerDiver Prophet Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 2,712 Quote:  Originally Posted by Pete Mack Just to be contrary, I think if we must go with additive resistances, the ratio should be 1/(0.5*(1+sqrt(5)). That's a much prettier ratio than 1/2. Isn't there a design paradigm favoring integer style stuff? The obvious compromise is to divide by Fibonacci numbers, i.e. divide damage by F_{n+2} for n resists. February 16, 2011, 05:20 #37 Pete Mack Prophet Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 5,414 Donated:$40
Quote:
 Originally Posted by PowerDiver Isn't there a design paradigm favoring integer style stuff? The obvious compromise is to divide by Fibonacci numbers, i.e. divide damage by F_{n+2} for n resists.
I suspect you mean F_{n+1}, for this to make any sense at n=0...

February 16, 2011, 05:36   #38
PowerDiver
Prophet

Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,712
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Pete Mack I suspect you mean F_{n+1}, for this to make any sense at n=0... But quite so, your pure integer paradigm is much better.
The standard def is F_1 = F_2 = 1, with F_0 = 0.. I double-checked before I posted. If you want damage reduction for 1 resist but not for 0 resists I think I got it right.

Did you know that F_n = round(\phi^n / \sqrt{5})? Your earlier comment made you sound like a \phi fanatic, so you might want to remember that. You can express \sqrt{5} in terms of \phi as well if that tickles your fancy.

 February 16, 2011, 05:41 #39 Pete Mack Prophet   Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 5,414 Donated: \$40 Whoops, you are right. And I knew you could represent the two as a closed formula, but I forgot what the formula is.
 March 8, 2011, 07:32 #40 dos350 Knight     Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: nimbin, australia Posts: 541 Bool!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! __________________ ~eek Reality hits you -more- S+++++++++++++++++++

 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 Timo Pietilä Development 20 December 28, 2010 14:57 d_m Vanilla 88 July 20, 2010 16:30 grassy Vanilla 29 March 5, 2010 05:49 steeg1234321 Vanilla 8 March 18, 2008 19:36

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 23:09.