Angband.oook.cz
Angband.oook.cz
AboutVariantsLadderForumCompetitionComicScreenshotsFunniesLinks

Go Back   Angband Forums > Angband > Vanilla

View Poll Results: Do you want to see more significant changes to V's combat mechanics?
No - I don't even like fractional blows - go back to how it's been for decades. 1 2.94%
No - fractional blows was change enough - heavier weapons are more viable now. 11 32.35%
Yes, but I don't like the idea of +dam as %, I have a better idea. 3 8.82%
Yes, I want to see +dam as a percentage (and maybe other changes) 19 55.88%
Voters: 34. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 21, 2010, 17:43   #51
Magnate
Angband Devteam member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 5,057
Magnate is on a distinguished road
Send a message via MSN to Magnate Send a message via Yahoo to Magnate
Quote:
Originally Posted by bio_hazard View Post
It seems like having damage bonuses applied per dice rather than per weapon would work, without having to get into less transparent % algorithms. Obviously both on and off- weapon +dam bonuses would have to be toned down quite a bit.

Great hammers (8d1) would finally be great!
Indeed, and therein lies the problem: why would damage bonuses apply to individual dice regardless of sides? What logic says that adding the same amount to a d1 as to a d10 makes any sense?

What we are attempting to do here is make the existing V combat algorithm more rational. Applying damage to each die regardless of size isn't any more rational than applying it to each blow regardless of dice. Unless, of course, we simply made all weapons Nd1 ...
Magnate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 21, 2010, 18:09   #52
bio_hazard
Knight
 
bio_hazard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 622
bio_hazard is on a distinguished road
Well, you have to pick some kind of mechanic. I guess dice tell you something about the difference between a glancing hit and a devestating hit. It doesn't not make sense to me.

Things like Mauls and Hammers seem more likely to do a lot of damage no matter what, since even blocked blows will impart force. A magical rapier still has a limited damage area. Do we want the smallest nick from a magical rapier to do a truck-load of damage? (brands aside).

To be honest, I'd at least think about adding additional axes for trade-offs with weapons. Stealth penalites for big noisy ones, AC bonus for big ones, more knock-back/stun/backstabbing etc. For me at least it will add flavor.

I'd also be in favor of more differentiation between the classes (and maybe races). Mages should not be runnign around with two-handed swords, giant cross-bows, big plate armor.
bio_hazard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 21, 2010, 19:35   #53
ewert
Knight
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 525
ewert is on a distinguished road
Just thinking out loud but:

The perceived problem is mostly in very light weapons at early game, yes?

How about, as a bandaid, have each class have a spesific weight "reduction bonus". Say, warriors get -5lbs, so they have absolutely no need to wield a dagger compared to short sword unless the dagger is just a mean dagger compared to the sword. Just change the energy/blow formulas so that prior to "weight min" each class gets some sort of reduction. Warriors 5lbs, paladin 4lbs, rogue 3lbs, ranger 2lbs, priest 1lbs and mage 0lbs.

Or something ... There is still those weapon min weights in the code too?
ewert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 21, 2010, 19:53   #54
bio_hazard
Knight
 
bio_hazard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 622
bio_hazard is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by ewert View Post
Just thinking out loud but:

The perceived problem is mostly in very light weapons at early game, yes?

How about, as a bandaid, have each class have a spesific weight "reduction bonus". Say, warriors get -5lbs, so they have absolutely no need to wield a dagger compared to short sword unless the dagger is just a mean dagger compared to the sword. Just change the energy/blow formulas so that prior to "weight min" each class gets some sort of reduction. Warriors 5lbs, paladin 4lbs, rogue 3lbs, ranger 2lbs, priest 1lbs and mage 0lbs.

Or something ... There is still those weapon min weights in the code too?
Interesting... how about instead of a fixed discount, weight^(1/a), where a varies between 1(mages) and 1.5(warriors)

or something similar. So warriors would have an easier time relative to other classes with heavier weapons...
bio_hazard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 21, 2010, 20:35   #55
PowerDiver
Prophet
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,712
PowerDiver is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnate View Post
Indeed it is - you know that we agree on the whole shopping issue.

Statistically I infer that you must *enjoy* disagreeing with me, or you wouldn't try to do it so often!
There you go again, saying we agree when we completely disagree. I believe in production pricing where the 5d4 40 lb tree branch should cost 1 gp, but your version of value pricing means the starting troll cannot afford to start with one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnate View Post
I don't think it's enough just to change the blows calculation, no - I think that's orthogonal to the +dam issue. I think the use of heavier weapons will always be discouraged while a +10 damage ring has exactly the same numerical damage boost to a dagger's strike as a maul's swing.
Maybe you are right, but ...

If you increased the dice by a factor of weight/5, and then cut every weight by a factor of 3, I bet people would prefer heavy weapons even with the current messed up blows table. I'm not saying that is a good approach, but it illustrates why I don't think the system is as broken as everyone else posting here is implying. I think it is more the numbers used within the current system.

My own preference is really far into variant territory, far beyond what anyone has done. I'm not arguing because I think the current mechanic is right. I just think the changes being proposed are large and will have unintended consequences requiring rebalancing other stuff, and it just appears counterproductive to me.

Half the difference in O combat in the early game is that everyone with poor stats still gets 2 blows with heavy weapons. That's just a difference in the blows calculation.
PowerDiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 21, 2010, 20:43   #56
Nick
Vanilla maintainer
 
Nick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Canberra, Australia
Age: 55
Posts: 8,400
Donated: $60
Nick will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerDiver View Post
I believe in production pricing where the 5d4 40 lb tree branch should cost 1 gp, but your version of value pricing means the starting troll cannot afford to start with one.
But there is no tree terrain in Angband, so the branch has to be imported from outside the titanium walls of the town by Ithyl-Mak's Garden Emporium.
__________________
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 December 21, 2010, 20:51   #57
Estie
Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,703
Estie is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick View Post
But there is no tree terrain in Angband, so the branch has to be imported from outside the titanium walls of the town by Ithyl-Mak's Garden Emporium.
This all is really about wilderness levels isnt it ?
Estie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 21, 2010, 22:57   #58
Magnate
Angband Devteam member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 5,057
Magnate is on a distinguished road
Send a message via MSN to Magnate Send a message via Yahoo to Magnate
Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerDiver View Post
There you go again, saying we agree when we completely disagree. I believe in production pricing where the 5d4 40 lb tree branch should cost 1 gp, but your version of value pricing means the starting troll cannot afford to start with one.
I said we agree on shopping, not pricing. I know we don't agree on pricing - as it currently stands. If anyone could be bothered to write a coherent supply & demand model for the game, I would convert to production pricing. At that point you would have to change your view to something else or risk agreeing with me again.
Quote:
Maybe you are right,
swoon
Quote:
but ...

If you increased the dice by a factor of weight/5, and then cut every weight by a factor of 3, I bet people would prefer heavy weapons even with the current messed up blows table. I'm not saying that is a good approach, but it illustrates why I don't think the system is as broken as everyone else posting here is implying. I think it is more the numbers used within the current system.

My own preference is really far into variant territory, far beyond what anyone has done. I'm not arguing because I think the current mechanic is right. I just think the changes being proposed are large and will have unintended consequences requiring rebalancing other stuff, and it just appears counterproductive to me.

Half the difference in O combat in the early game is that everyone with poor stats still gets 2 blows with heavy weapons. That's just a difference in the blows calculation.
It is, and I did acknowledge in the poll that it is possible to take the position that adjusting blows is enough in itself. Personally I think the =dam issue *is* worth all the rebalancing it will take to solve, but that's because I don't have a far more radical solution which seems more worthwhile. What's yours?
Magnate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 23, 2010, 01:39   #59
Lord Fell
Apprentice
 
Lord Fell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 89
Lord Fell is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerDiver View Post
But before you jump to the conclusion we are agreeing on something, would you answer my question "If the problem is that we want people to use heavier weapons, is it not enough to change the blows calculations so that you get more blows with heavier weapons sooner?".

Or is the problem something different?
I personally think that the problem is something different. If the game were balanced so that players got more blows with heavier weapons sooner, I suspect that lighter weapons would still be better, because they would have a base "more" blows per round, and presumably benefit from the additional blows per round the heavier weapons would now gain.

The way I see the problem is this... take a 1st level Warrior with 18/something strength and 18/something dexterity. They will get 3 or so blows a round with a dagger or whip. Give that same character a heavier Broadsword, and they will only get 1 blow per round. Since the warrior gets more attacks (more chances to hit), does more damage per round (consistently), and has considerably less encumbrance for a dagger (et al)... why on earth would they ever wield a broadsword?

Realistically, a broadsword, battleaxe, voulge, etc... is a better weapon than a dagger. I feel that the practical value of the weapon must justify its weight. I also think that this is still a consideration in later game, when comparing two Ego weapons, as the base weapon statistics don't change.
Lord Fell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 23, 2010, 02:17   #60
PowerDiver
Prophet
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,712
PowerDiver is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnate View Post
Personally I think the =dam issue *is* worth all the rebalancing it will take to solve, but that's because I don't have a far more radical solution which seems more worthwhile. What's yours?
You want radical? Separate monster defense into evasion and armor, with armor absorbing damage. Then you prefer multiple attacks with a light weapon against lightly armored foes, and even a single attack with a big weapon against heavily armored foes. 10 attacks with a dagger don't help if they cannot pierce the armor absorption.

Obviously, this requires a lot more work than just incorporating O combat.
PowerDiver 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
Trying to understand Ranger playing mechanics dormouse Vanilla 5 December 15, 2009 11:43
Combat System Sirridan Development 9 July 14, 2009 07:11
Question regarding play mechanics opeth2112 Vanilla 12 April 27, 2009 22:40
[FA, O?] Combat Ghen Variants 1 July 16, 2007 19:06
Light weapons should be harder to enchant to-dam, heavy ones to-hit ekolis Vanilla 11 July 15, 2007 00:07


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 23:45.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.