Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (
More info?)
"magnate" <chrisc@dbass.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1117118580.026675.239580@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Glen Wheeler wrote:
>> "magnate" <chrisc@dbass.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
>> Certainly, when I first finished S, I did it with a warrior wielding a
>> mace; never used martial arts. Even Eddie, who is quite vocal on the
>> ``obviousness'' of choosing martial arts in the early game admits to the
>> viability of conventional weaponry. Not viable as in ``can be won with
>> (like a Yeek)'' but is as playable as a martial artist.
>
> He does admit to the viability of conventional weaponry (as do I), but
> he does also say that weapons are not as effective as martial arts in
> the early game. That's all I'm trying to say here. I'm not for one
> moment suggesting that any changes need to be made to weapons in the
> late game.
>
I see that now; for some reason I obvious had the wrong idea that you
stated martial arts was always the most obvious choice, regardless of
character type in the early game (and thus wished to increase the power of
weapons to compensate). I also made the wrong inference that this means
increasing the weapon power in the mid to end-game. Of course that's not
neccessarily the case
.
>> As to what you say: it's simply not definitive. Karate is *not*
>> better
>> than *any* non-artifact weapon you will find in the early game. What
>> about,
>
> Indeed it isn't, but I'd love to know the statistics of characters
> finding a weapon which is better than either martial art, which they
> can use (ie. pious, not too heavy, whatever), before the end of this
> poorly specified period I'm trying to talk about. Sure, a defender
> would be fabulous - how many have you ever found in S? I think I've
> found two before 2000'.
>
Good point. A defender is a little extreme. What do you think the odds
would be of finding a weapon which would at least equal martial arts in
damage output for the 500'--1000' range? I always seem to think of the
long-term and of minimising superfluous skills these days. Perhaps that's
why I see martial arts in a much dimmer light than most.
>> say, a spellcaster finding a defender? This can surely happen reasonably
>> early, before the karate=60 point. What about a regular slay weapon,
>> such
>> as slay orc? Do you know how brands have changed in S? They are quite
>> effective now in the early game. I do not mean to sound condescending,
>> but
>> have you played much *with* weapons?
>
> I tried dozens of chars when I first started playing S, then somebody
> advised me to use martial arts as my primary attack skill for the first
> 1000' or so, and I've never looked back. It is a fair cop that I should
> have another go though - point taken.
>
> Perhaps I'm the only person who ever had that advice, and this whole
> thread is unnecessary. I guess the number or lack of replies will tell
> me. That's why I started it.
>
I stopped playing mostly when Leon left, or shortly after (who knows when
he did leave?), so all this S advice was a little after that time. Still, I
read the advice on martial arts and tried it: it was useful, and the time
from 50'--500' is much easier. Perhaps that's why it's so popular?
Either way more threads on S is a good thing! *tries to think of proposal
with forging to start thread*
>> > 1. Speed up the rate at which weapon skill improves chance to hit -
>> > this is the basic problem for starting characters, they miss far more
>> > often than with martial arts.
>
>> Scroll of enchant weapon? Ring of accuracy? Ring of Dex?
>
> The issue here is about balancing weapon skill with martial arts. The
> last two of these also boost martial arts, so aren't really very
> relevant. Besides. why should a weapon user, who has to procure the
> weapon in the first place, have to depend on enchant scrolls to reach
> the same level of effectiveness as a martial artist?
>
Ah yes, I failed to think at that point. I just mean that although the
weapons are a little more trouble the accuracy issue can be worked on. Of
course you're right, they are less accurate: I would be upset if martial
arts had absolutely no advantage at all over weapons
.
> Later on, of course, weapons come into their own, since martial arts
> are very much less use against certain creatures, and of course
> wielding a weapon lets you have all the lovely bonuses of Defenders,
> HAs, etc. etc. Then of course there's the fact that you can get up to
> six attacks with a weapon, as opposed to two with martial arts.
>
> As I said (just in case it's not clear), I'm referring specifically to
> the early game.
>
Early game, hrm, I define that as my first few hours of play. Usually up
to 1000' (as you said), but can vary due to finds and of course the possible
YASD. Is it really that long before you find a weapon with a few bonus'?
>> > 2. Speed up the rate at which weapon skill increases the number and/or
>> > severity of critical hits - this will help weapon users do more damage
>> > without needing to find better weapons or get more blows. (I think
>> > burglary is supposed to do this with light weapons, but none of my
>> > burglars has ever noticed this effect.)
>
>> If you want better criticals, get more accurate and use a weapon with
>> better dice.
>
> Getting more accurate is exactly what this suggestion is about. At this
> point in your reply I started to think you were just being belligerent.
> What part of "without needing to find better weapons" didn't you
> understand?
>
My last two responses here were curt and (I can see now) could be
interpreted as rude. Apologies. The statement above which I made in
response to 2 is completely redundant.
>> > 3. Allow weapon skill to increase blows. This already happens with
>> > missile skills, so I'm not sure why it shouldn't happen with weapons. I
>> > guess the problem is breakpoints - you can have half a shot, but you
>> > can't have half a blow, so there would be a big ugly breakpoint at
>> > skill X, where you got your extra blow. Not doing this, though, leaves
>> > you at 2 blows until stat gain, which is a shame (but could be lived
>> > with if 1 & 2 made the two blows at least comparable with martial
>> > arts).
>
>> Wow, this would be so unbalancing it's not even funny. The Oath
>> already
>> makes warriors (with or without weapons) killing machines.
>
>> Weapons don't need this. They are, IMO, more powerful and more
>> versatile
>> than a martial art. Sure, you can win with a martial artist (my second
>> character who made it a long way died wrestling with Morgoth, stupid eh)
>> but
>> in the end a weapon is going to do as much if not more damage and be way
>> more useful in other ways.
>
>> The fact that you are suggesting a long-term increase in power to solve
>> a
>> perceived early-game issue is a little odd-sounding to me.
>
> I knew this third suggestion would be controversial and I totally agree
> that it would be important not to make late-game warriors any more
> powerful than they already are. There is no reason why the total number
> of blows cannot be capped at 6 as it is now. The interplay between the
> skill and the STR/DEX matrix would have to be re-thought (I would
> favour getting rid of the matrix altogether). I liked Juno's suggestion
> of fractional energy amounts - in fact I don't see why all blows have
> to be in a 100-energy turn, they could be done individually like shots
> (with the dancing issue then addressed). Julian's recently reposted
> thread on too much junk has an interesting section at the end on making
> better use of the fractional speed system - I think the
> all-blows-at-once thing is another hangover from before that.
>
I also like Juno's suggestion. Sang already has come a long way to
further fractioning the speed f various actions with the OoI (OathofIron)
allowing an energy bonus if you kill an enemy with less than your full round
of attacks. Perhaps the bonus from the weapon skills can be more spread
out, so as to have a greater effect earlier in the game? I have to warn you
though, I fear this could make weapon skills a little *too* useful. Zero to
five hundred feet is a really small part of the game (in terms of playing
time if anything) so I don't feel we should worry so much about *arts being
advantageous in this area (even if it is by quite a bit).
> So, just to be crystal clear, I am not suggesting any sort of long-term
> increase in the power of weapon skill. I am merely suggesting that the
> rate at which the damage dealt by weapons increases be increased so
> that it remains comparable to martial arts for the first part of the
> game, instead of lagging quite a long way behind until that point. I
> can see that there is an argument that this would render martial arts
> pointless, though nobody has said that yet.
>
I was just about to say that...
>> > 4. Tone down martial arts damage a tiny bit (but not too much) - or
>> > maybe remove the stat boosts at 40 & 60, to make them less attractive
>> > to non-warriors. I don't really like this idea, but it has to be here
>> > for balance.
>
>> The stat boosts are a red herring...I know Eddie has done the maths.
>> It
>
> A red herring? What, not worth getting? I don't understand that.
> Getting a martial art to 40 is almost certainly the quickest way to
> raise any stat, short of an early find of a stat-boosting ring or
> amulet.
>
I do mean that: think about it from the perspective of somebody who can
survive perfectly fine with the weapon skills, who will use the weapon
skills to win the game, and who will worry about increasing stats when they
find stat potions. This person also likes using as little skills as
possible... seems a red herring to me
.
I agree that it's not a useless skill in general, but getting them just
for the stat boost feels a bit too much like abuse to me (abuse which should
be discouraged).
>> > 5. Remove the requirement for sling skill to be at 55 to qualify for
>> > the Oath of Iron - those extra 10 points are way more expensive than
>> > the amount saved by slings being a cheaper skill - and so what if
>> > hobbits get the Oath of Iron early?! Does anybody ever build a slinger?
>> > At least there would be a few hobbit slingers again if this restriction
>> > was removed.
>
>> I don't really have a problem with this, except the obvious: no-one
>> builds a hobbit slinger, but they do build burglars who take the Oath.
>
> They might build a hobbit slinger if the Oath requirement was the same
> as for every other combat skill. (Leon has long had plans for a
> separate burglary Oath, btw.)
>
You are correct, I'd forgotten this also. That might be why the slings
skill is so off; to prepare for the burglary oath.
>> > Casters have a separate problem which is mana - imho the killing spells
>> > are powerful enough, but I never have enough mana to cast them enough,
>> > so I rely on martial arts as a backup. I guess tweaking mana levels
>> > would have all sorts of other balance repercussions, so maybe reduce
>> > the costs of lower-level offensive spells a bit? Don't know what the
>> > solution is here, but I'm convinced that oath casters ought to be doing
>> > more casting and less karate.
>
>> Spend less skill points on karate? Although I've never gone too far
>> with
>> the casters in Sang, just really test-drived them a bare minimum. Have
>> you
>> tried relying on magical devices more?
>
> This is a good point - magic devices in S are awesome later on, but you
> just don't find enough in the period of the game I'm talking about for
> it to be a factor.
>
Well, there are a few that you can find and more that you could buy, but
point taken. Still I would like to see what you say after trying the good
old devices a little more
. Several of my characters cruised through the
midgame with a hoard of rods and the odd super-wand (and staff!) for tough
situations.
>> If I had to pick on a skill for balancing it would be item forging. I
>> learnt the skills in a few dungeon trips at 3000' (about half an hour of
>> gametime) and made incredibly powerful items with them. Really, these
>> are
>> some skills that every character would be silly not to acquire. If I was
>> to
>> play some kind of restricted skills challenge game it would probably be a
>> warrior with magic device and forging as the aces. Forge something with
>> a
>> few plusses to item use then blast away...instant solution to a ranged
>> attack.
>>
>> I love item forging, but it really is a no-brainer skill. Not sure
>> what
>> to do about it...when I have a good idea I'll start a thread...
>
> I also love item forging, and I've never found it to be as unbalancing
> as other people seem to have done. I've always thought that the number
> of ego items you find was tuned down in order to compensate for a few
> more being made by forging, and it bothers me a little that this
> disadvantages non-forgers. What I think is currently broken is the
> relationship between forging & infusion. At the moment it seems almost
> pointless to bother infusing, because you get almost as good and
> sometimes better results without. I think the ability to infuse
> specific attributes ought to get a lot more accurate with higher skill,
> and in turn I think non-infused random forging ought to generate less
> good items. Then you would think carefully about whether to invest in
> forging at all, or invest quite a lot in both forging and infusion. I
> think there's also a balance issue in that armour forging (covering 5
> pieces of kit) is one skill, where weapon forging (covering 2 slots) is
> two. This doesn't necessarily need to change if it can be balanced as
> it is - perhaps armour forging ought to be really very random until
> quite high skill levels, whereas bowmaking and weapon forging could get
> quite accurate quite quickly, but with a smaller range of attributes
> available? Or something.
>
Strange, I found infusion to be really, really cool. Didn't abuse the
forging interface as Scott (shame on you!) suggests, so use most time
essences I have to get that coveted speed bonus. Combinations are good
too...remember that in S you can have multiple pvals (say +2 to strength, +4
attacks, and +10 speed).
>> Respectfully disagreeing,
>
> If that's true I'd hate to see you disrespectful. It's hard to put
> across in prose and it may not matter to you at all but I didn't find
> your reply as pleasant to read as I might have hoped. I have no problem
> with your disagreeing - I've really enjoyed our debates about
> stormcrows and jellies - but reading this made me feel that you were
> pissed off with me about something. Perhaps I've misunderstood.
>
It does matter to me. I'm sorry about the tone of my response, it was not
intended but quite obviously was written that way.
--
Glen
L
yt E+++ T-- R+ P+++ D+ G+ F:*band !RL RLA-
W:AF Q+++ AI++ GFX++ SFX-- RN++++ PO--- !Hp Re-- S+