Angband.oook.cz
Angband.oook.cz
AboutVariantsLadderForumCompetitionComicScreenshotsFunniesLinks

Go Back   Angband Forums > Angband > AAR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 6, 2012, 15:09   #11
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 CliffStamp View Post
Remove the names (aside from uniques, themes) and just auto-inscribe?
Ugh! That seems a real shame. For a start, auto-inscriptions would run out of room, and/or require a brutally unintuitive set of abbreviations. I personally would really miss the flavour. Nomad came up with an interesting idea of using matrices, where related affixes (stats, resists, slays etc.) are matched to boil down the number of names into higher-level name groups which should result in names which are both intuitive and flavourful.
Quote:
In the menu? It just comes up same as before, squelch good, excellent, etc. ? Is this in a sub-menu somewhere?
Oh, sorry - you use the knowledge menu (~) to do this - go to the affix you want to squelch and press s.
Quote:
Sloppy wording, raw dice usually. Nothing can touch something past even a moderate dice boost no matter what it has unless it gets some large speed boost. Unless of course the weight is off and you can't use it, basically you end up junking anything which doesn't have enhanced dice (assuming you are not magic rpg'ing).
Hmmm. This is perhaps a balancing issue rather than a fundamental problem. There are a handful of affixes that add a side or two, a very few that add a whole die (and those dramatically increase weight), and the three very rare specials that apply only to specific items (Chaos, Slicing, Destruction). With some dilution from other weapon affixes the problem might fix itself - I'm going to run some stats to see how many times each affix is generated and go from there. Certainly the weight/dice affixes could use some fine-tuning.
Quote:
Yes but consider it is dragon scale, it should be a bit higher naturally unless you have some wimpy dragons. Not that I have fought dragons, but it seems to me, especially the higher power ones (Chaos, etc.) should have some pretty hard to cut scales.
Sure, but if you're only cutting a scale or two for a pair of gloves/bracers ;-) In general it does add to AC, but here we enter a % rounding issue - if the item's base AC is only 4 (which is not high for things like hats/gloves/boots), a 20% AC boost will not increase it ... but if we make all dragon scales give higher boosts, you'll end up with some truly impenetrable body armours.

This could be solved by lengthening the AC scale again, but I'm not sure if that would start to spoil people's flavour of roguelikes (which generally have AC up to a couple of hundred, rather than thousands).

One could also divide the DSM affixes into blue-scales-for-body-armour and blue-scales-for-boots-and-gloves, and so on. But that seems like a lot of added complexity for minimal gain.
Quote:
Poor wording, they are displayed but the damage is the same it will be like :

456 normal, 1750 undead, 456 fire, 456 evil

with fire and evil brands, even with a light slay of 1.35 it should I am assuming make at least 1 hp of difference.
Yes it will - this is a known bug. The actual damage is applied correctly (you can confirm in wizard mode), it's just the display that's wrong.
Quote:
Again, if it the devteams consensus then it isn't Angband proper - create a variant.
Sadly there's a word missing in that sentence which could crucially alter the meaning. I said "the devteam consensus is to discourage shopping", and it's not clear what you consider "isn't Angband proper". Do you mean that you feel so strongly about shopping that even if the entire devteam is in agreement about it you still feel it's not Angband proper? Or that it's not proper if we don't have 100% consensus? Or ...?
__________________
"3.4 is much better than 3.1, 3.2 or 3.3. It still is easier than 3.0.9, but it is more convenient to play without being ridiculously easy, so it is my new favorite of the versions." - Timo Pietila
Magnate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6, 2012, 15:16   #12
Derakon
Prophet
 
Derakon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 8,830
Derakon is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnate View Post
You make a good case for it not being necessary for damage, but I think it is necessary for blows. More compellingly, it's also necessary for per-level increments: there's a big difference between +10 per clev and +20 (+500 by cl50).
Aren't the per-level increments in p_class.txt actually given as "bonus per 10 levels"? So they already have that much granularity.

Quote:
That said, I'd be happy for the display to change back to 1/10th of the values, as long as we continue to use the higher granularity internally. In fact I'd prefer the % display as suggested by ekolis (which was used in Z, Ey and others).
Percentage isn't a terrible idea either. The main issue is that we have the heft multiplier to take into account; +100 prowess is nowhere near as good on a dagger as it is on a warhammer.
Derakon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6, 2012, 15:49   #13
ekolis
Knight
 
ekolis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Cincinnati, OH, USA
Age: 35
Posts: 911
ekolis is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to ekolis Send a message via MSN to ekolis Send a message via Yahoo to ekolis
Quote:
Nomad came up with an interesting idea of using matrices, where related affixes (stats, resists, slays etc.) are matched to boil down the number of names into higher-level name groups which should result in names which are both intuitive and flavourful.
Would this involve restricting the sets of affixes on a particular item to particular groups - e.g. fire branded weapons could also get resist fire or resist cold, but not resist electricity or resist acid?

Or would it be more along the lines of ToME4 where there are several types of affixes - prefixes and suffixes - and certain affixes can be one or the other (or maybe both, just with different words), with each item allowed up to one prefix and one suffix? For instance fire brand could be "flaming" as a prefix, or "of burning" as a suffix...
__________________
You read the scroll labeled NOBIMUS UPSCOTI...
You are surrounded by a stasis field!
The tengu tries to teleport, but fails!
ekolis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6, 2012, 16:02   #14
saarn
Adept
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 112
saarn is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnate View Post
Hmmm. This is perhaps a balancing issue rather than a fundamental problem. There are a handful of affixes that add a side or two, a very few that add a whole die (and those dramatically increase weight), and the three very rare specials that apply only to specific items (Chaos, Slicing, Destruction).
Seems like this logic may be at least part of the problem-- adding a die isn't necessarily more powerful than adding a side (consider say a 6d2 weapon becoming 7d2 (10.5avg) vs 6d3 (12avg)). What about having a single ego that boosts base damage by some amount or some fraction of base damage and then using some logic to figure out how that increase should be mapped to dice based on base item balance/heft (I'd be happy to share the same logic I used for redistributing weapon dice).
saarn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6, 2012, 16:16   #15
CliffStamp
Apprentice
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 64
CliffStamp is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnate View Post
I personally would really miss the flavour.
No doubt, but there are a LOT of combinations, it can be done but someone is going to have to get very creative.

Quote:
Oh, sorry - you use the knowledge menu (~) to do this - go to the affix you want to squelch and press s.
I have to check that, it would significantly remove brute force destroying.

Quote:
In general it does add to AC, but here we enter a % rounding issue - if the item's base AC is only 4 (which is not high for things like hats/gloves/boots), a 20% AC boost will not increase it ... but if we make all dragon scales give higher boosts, you'll end up with some truly impenetrable body armours.
I am just looking at it from a material perspective, basically what normal material should Dragon scale be similar to. I never did a very detailed comparison, but it seemed to me it wasn't high enough compared to what I would expect for the hide of a dragon compared to the hide of a cow for example.


Quote:
Do you mean that you feel so strongly about shopping that even if the entire devteam is in agreement about it you still feel it's not Angband proper? Or that it's not proper if we don't have 100% consensus? Or ...?
My opinion would not decide anything aside from a Variant I would decide to create. There simply has to be some kind of consensus, it never is going to be uniform, people will always fall on the boundaries of both sides. It is just a discussion and then some kind of majority opinion which the devteam then respects, just like the user base respects the devteam isn't a bottle of genies that can do anything regardless of complexity / effort or personal desire/enjoyment.
CliffStamp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6, 2012, 17:27   #16
Jungle_Boy
Swordsman
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 434
Jungle_Boy is on a distinguished road
Is there a limit to the number of affixes an item can have? Also is there a list of current names? I might look into it and see if there is some convention I can come up with.

Magnate - your granularity example was not quite correct +10 and +20 could just as easily be +1 and +2 with no loss of detail. The loss would be between +10 and +15, half the amount you mentioned though still perhaps significant.

As far as dragonscale as a material how difficult would it be to have it add a constant as well as a percent boost to AC? That way it still affects smaller items without boosting the percent too high for armors. Alternatively you could tie the percent boost to armor weight so lighter items get a higher percent boost than heavier ones.
__________________
My first winner: http://angband.oook.cz/ladder-show.php?id=10138
Jungle_Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6, 2012, 17:36   #17
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 Derakon View Post
Aren't the per-level increments in p_class.txt actually given as "bonus per 10 levels"? So they already have that much granularity.
Good point.
Quote:
Percentage isn't a terrible idea either. The main issue is that we have the heft multiplier to take into account; +100 prowess is nowhere near as good on a dagger as it is on a warhammer.
Indeed - how about dispensing with the plusses altogether - after all, the same applies to +finesse. How about we just show A Dagger (1d4) (2.47, 1.08x) where the first number is the blows you get if you wield it, and the second is your damage mult.
__________________
"3.4 is much better than 3.1, 3.2 or 3.3. It still is easier than 3.0.9, but it is more convenient to play without being ridiculously easy, so it is my new favorite of the versions." - Timo Pietila
Magnate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6, 2012, 17:42   #18
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 Jungle_Boy View Post
Is there a limit to the number of affixes an item can have? Also is there a list of current names? I might look into it and see if there is some convention I can come up with.
lib/edit/ego_item.txt in v4. MAX_AFFIXES is currently 8. @ekolis: I don't like the idea of multiple affixes providing the same ability - unnecessary complexity. And no, we don't currently restrict what affixes can go with each other (but see ticket #1562).
Quote:
As far as dragonscale as a material how difficult would it be to have it add a constant as well as a percent boost to AC? That way it still affects smaller items without boosting the percent too high for armors. Alternatively you could tie the percent boost to armor weight so lighter items get a higher percent boost than heavier ones.
Neither of those are possible in the current affix system, without creating multiple separate affixes for the same dragon scale (i.e. a percent boost for heavy armours and a straight AC boost for light items). We could limit weak DSMs (blue, white, etc.) to light items and more powerful ones to heavier items and do it that way, but that then plays havoc with the multi-DSM themes.

Personally I'd prefer recalibrating AC so that a percent boost is always meaningful. In fact I'd prefer not to worry about it, but it seems to be an emotive issue.
__________________
"3.4 is much better than 3.1, 3.2 or 3.3. It still is easier than 3.0.9, but it is more convenient to play without being ridiculously easy, so it is my new favorite of the versions." - Timo Pietila
Magnate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6, 2012, 17:44   #19
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 CliffStamp View Post
My opinion would not decide anything aside from a Variant I would decide to create. There simply has to be some kind of consensus, it never is going to be uniform, people will always fall on the boundaries of both sides. It is just a discussion and then some kind of majority opinion which the devteam then respects, just like the user base respects the devteam isn't a bottle of genies that can do anything regardless of complexity / effort or personal desire/enjoyment.
Ok, so if I understand your previous post correctly, what you meant was "it's all very well the devteam agreeing with each other, but if the rest of the user base doesn't agree with them then it isn't Angband proper". That's fair enough - I'm pretty confident that at least half the user base didn't want to encourage store scumming, and if the user base is split, we can only ever please half.
__________________
"3.4 is much better than 3.1, 3.2 or 3.3. It still is easier than 3.0.9, but it is more convenient to play without being ridiculously easy, so it is my new favorite of the versions." - Timo Pietila
Magnate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6, 2012, 17:46   #20
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 saarn View Post
Seems like this logic may be at least part of the problem-- adding a die isn't necessarily more powerful than adding a side (consider say a 6d2 weapon becoming 7d2 (10.5avg) vs 6d3 (12avg)). What about having a single ego that boosts base damage by some amount or some fraction of base damage and then using some logic to figure out how that increase should be mapped to dice based on base item balance/heft (I'd be happy to share the same logic I used for redistributing weapon dice).
Well, as Derakon observes in the Pyrel thread, the real solution to this is to use object_power to check the power of the item - that way we can tell whether an affix that adds a side is trivial (1d10 to 1d11) or awesome (10d1 to 10d2).

I'm not averse to that, but it's fairly major surgery. First I'd like to try adding more weapon affixes, using balance and heft, and making the dice/sides affixes less common. If we still have overpowered weapons after that, we can revisit.
__________________
"3.4 is much better than 3.1, 3.2 or 3.3. It still is easier than 3.0.9, but it is more convenient to play without being ridiculously easy, so it is my new favorite of the versions." - Timo Pietila
Magnate 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
removing characters from ladder Malak Darkhunter Oook! 9 May 4, 2012 17:14
Mage characters Knight Vanilla 22 November 29, 2011 01:56
[3.3.x] Cannot suicide characters PowerWyrm Vanilla 1 November 1, 2011 16:34
Replacing #s with block characters Deranged Archivist Vanilla 2 September 28, 2009 18:57
lost both my characters to broken save file? leopena Variants 1 June 21, 2009 11:44


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:33.


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