Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Weapons v. Martial Arts [S]

Last response: in Video Games
Share
May 26, 2005 7:44:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

Now that Leon's back, I thought it would be a good idea if all S
players gave their views of this issue in one thread - at the moment it
tends to get scattered across various dumps and other threads.

The problem, as I see it, is that weapons are so much less effective
than martial arts in the early game that *every* character relies on a
martial art for quite a long time, until s/he gets a weapon skill or
killing spell up to a level where it beats the martial art. In my
experience this is often way past stat gain - if I get karate up to 60
(for the STR point) that's better than any of my weapon skills until I
find a decent artifact and get 4 or 5 attacks with it. Especially if,
as a spellcaster, my melee skills are limited to 50.

If the idea of S is to allow chars to develop any set of skills they
want, we should try to remove this dependence on martial arts. I have a
couple of suggestions, but I'm sure others will have better ones:

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.

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.)

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).

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.

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.

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.

CC

More about : weapons martial arts

May 26, 2005 11:43:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

Glen Wheeler wrote:
> "magnate" <chrisc@dbass.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

> > The problem, as I see it, is that weapons are so much less effective
> > than martial arts in the early game that *every* character relies on a
> > martial art for quite a long time, until s/he gets a weapon skill or
> > killing spell up to a level where it beats the martial art. In my
> > experience this is often way past stat gain - if I get karate up to 60
> > (for the STR point) that's better than any of my weapon skills until I
> > find a decent artifact and get 4 or 5 attacks with it. Especially if,
> > as a spellcaster, my melee skills are limited to 50.

> I don't think this is indicative of the opinions or playing styles of
> many. Not every character will rely on martial arts.

If I have interpreted the tone of your reply correctly, then I
overstated the problem. I'm talking about the early game (0-1000' or so
but of course that depends how fast you dive).

> 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.

> 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'.

> 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.

> There is no dependence on martial arts...

Yeah, you made your point, thanks.

> > 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?

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.

> > 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?

> > 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.

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.

> > 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.

> > 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.)

> > 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.

> 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.

> 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.

CC
May 26, 2005 2:27:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

Glen Wheeler wrote:
> "magnate" <chrisc@dbass.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

> > 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.

.... and I, conversely, seem to value them far too highly, because I
spend over 80% of my S playing time before 1000'! The answer to your
question depends on how good the weapon has to be, which is of course
the whole point of the thread. You are certain to find a weapon (1d6)
(+5,+5) or so, but I'm not at all sure that's better than my *arts by
that time, especially since weapon users are still limited to 2 blows
(unless they found a BIG dex ring!). I guess the chance of an orc
unique dropping a decent 2d6 weapon are ok though. Alright, I'll try a
weapon guy after the comp!

> 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?

Yes, and I'm beginning to think perhaps rightly so - making weapons as
good would maybe reduce the need for anyone ever to use martial arts
(though there are still the pretty cool talents I guess).

> 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 :) .

I think perhaps I've overestimated the length of time for which *arts
are better. I'll have to try switching to a weapon at skill 30 instead
of skill 60 and see what happens.

> 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'?

No, but it depends how good the weapon has to be. I think you've been
thinking of the sorts of weapons described above, where I've been
waiting for half-decent ego weapons. These always drop in the skill I
don't have, of course.

> > 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).

I've never got an OoI warrior to the point where he starts getting
energy boosts, but that sounds cool. I have come round to the idea of
your last sentence. Maybe there is actually nothing to worry about.

> >> The stat boosts are a red herring...I know Eddie has done the maths.

> > 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 :) .

Hmm, I guess it depends on whether you need the extra points before
stat gain. If you've used point-based or something, you probably don't,
but they come in handy in the current comp!

> 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).

Agreed.

> > 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.

Interestingly this happened to me in NPP, not S. I found a Rod Of Drain
Life at about 150' and used it for the whole game. It was great! My
last Oober (who died about 10 mins ago to Boldor The Bastard) found no
offensive wands except magic missile. S can be mean sometimes!

> > 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).

Did you actually manage to specify more than one thing? In my last
non-comp game I kept trying to improve my shield. I was really happy
with the rest of my kit and I could have anything on my shield as long
as it covered rpois. I kept trying to forge shields with rpois and
something else (hlife, speed, rdark, rshards were the ones I can
remember), and I never got two things I wanted, let alone three. These
were without fail messages - even when I succeeded, I didn't get what I
wanted.

> >> 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.

Thank you - sorry to get shirty about it. Now, back to Oober - one more
priest, then I'll try OoI.

CC
Related resources
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 2:35:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

magnate wrote:
> Glen Wheeler wrote:
> > "magnate" <chrisc@dbass.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > 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.

Actually, the Ring of Accuracy shouldn't help. I haven't checked the
source, but the documentation says:

"Martial arts do not depend on equipment, and get no permanent bonuses
from other equipped items."

> > > 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.

I tried a slinger; even with the best slings I could get ahold of, I
was *not* a death-dealing machine. I wish there were a good way to
make it viable!

--
Matt
mattneu@gmail.com
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 2:36:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

"magnate" <chrisc@dbass.demon.co.uk> writes:

> The problem, as I see it, is that weapons are so much less effective
> than martial arts in the early game that *every* character relies on a
> martial art for quite a long time, until s/he gets a weapon skill or
> killing spell up to a level where it beats the martial art. In my

I've said before that IMO weapons are underpowered. I never
played a spellcaster in , so keep that in mind when you read my
comments.

The advantage of weapons is that you can enchant up their +skill.
That is relevant against hard-to-hit creatures.

When thinking of weapons, despite intentions otherwise, it is still
about using a light weapon to get more blows. Slays and brands are
large in comparison to damage dice. The latish game is about finding
a set of weapons with different brands and pointinesses that will hurt
most creatures. You typically need at least 5 and preferably 6 blows
to want to use a weapon.

In the midgame, sometimes you need a weapon for resistances, but it is
usually a serious downgrade to damage output. That adds some interest
to the optimizations, but IMO it hurts the gameplaying experience.

In the early game, with an unenchanted 2d7 weapon typically being
the best available, it is silly not to use unarmed combat instead.

--------

I would like to see the damage dice boosted. Maybe add 50% or even
double all of the top ranges. Then an ordinary dagger 1d4 would
change to 1d6 or 1d8, etc. This would have 2 effects. First, it
would boost armed combat in the early game. Second, it would increase
the importance of damage dice in relation to brands. I would like to
see an unbranded BattleAxe be much more effective than a FlamingDagger
when wielded by an expert. Currently, at +100% deadliness, they are
about equal even if you can manage the same number of blows.

If you only want to change the early game, why not change the blows
table to start at 3 attacks rather than 2? That is a different way
of boosting early armed attacks with no late game consequences.

Alternatively, the deadliness bonus could be twice what it is now.
That would favor big weapons at the end, but probably wouldn't make
a sufficient difference in the early game.

Maybe each of these changes would make the game too easy, but, since
Leon suggested that 1.0.0 should be easier, I think they are at least
worthy of consideration.

---------

The alternative is to weaken early martial arts. As I lost
uncountably many Oobers to Feldisham when I tried the comp, I don't
particularly want to see anything that weakens early chars.


Eddie
May 26, 2005 2:50:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

Eddie Grove wrote:

> The alternative is to weaken early martial arts. As I lost
> uncountably many Oobers to Feldisham when I tried the comp, I don't
> particularly want to see anything that weakens early chars.

Fair point. Oddly none of my 8 Oobers has ever seen Feldisham.

CC
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 7:06:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

magnate wrote:
> Now that Leon's back, I thought it would be a good idea if all S
> players gave their views of this issue in one thread - at the moment it
> tends to get scattered across various dumps and other threads.
>
> The problem, as I see it, is that weapons are so much less effective
> than martial arts in the early game that *every* character relies on a
> martial art for quite a long time, until s/he gets a weapon skill or
> killing spell up to a level where it beats the martial art. In my
> experience this is often way past stat gain - if I get karate up to 60
> (for the STR point) that's better than any of my weapon skills until I
> find a decent artifact and get 4 or 5 attacks with it. Especially if,
> as a spellcaster, my melee skills are limited to 50.
>

Some skills like spell resistance, magic device and perception are
necessary. Then there are skills that you have to boost unless you
enjoy challenges, like martial arts and forging.
I would like to see fewer necessary skills.

> If the idea of S is to allow chars to develop any set of skills they
> want, we should try to remove this dependence on martial arts. I have a
> couple of suggestions, but I'm sure others will have better ones:
>

[clip]

> 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).
>

Extra shots means you use a bit less energy when shooting, right?

Same way weapon skill could reduce the energy needed for attacking a
monster. Energy = 100 - skill/3 or something like that. At skill level
30 you'd use 90 enegy per attack, effectively about 10% more blows.

To prevent "dancing" (five steps back - hit - five steps back - hit)
you could have a random factor, like Energy = 100 - (skill + 1dskill)/5
No breakpoint needed.
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 11:27:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

For what it's worth, may own playtesting experience also indicates that
martial arts do too much damage early, and don't add enough powers
late. I've tweaked down the rate of damage increase for martial arts
in the early game. Extra bonuses for very high-level martial-arts
experts
who are not usng a weapon will come later.

I haven't used weapons as much (been focusing on pure spellcasters and
magic). After the next release, I'll look into weapons more, and
the relationship of damage dice, multiple blows, and slays/brands. The
objective is to make all of these factors important, with a special
highlight on the trade-off between light and easy-to-handle, but usually
low-dice weapons, and big-dice, but usually heavy-and-hard-to-handle
weapons. If blows are getting in the way of this, then I'll even out
blows
a bit more.

Comments on other things (slings, burglary) later.
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 3:25:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

"magnate" <chrisc@dbass.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1117104249.113212.140770@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Now that Leon's back, I thought it would be a good idea if all S
> players gave their views of this issue in one thread - at the moment it
> tends to get scattered across various dumps and other threads.
>
> The problem, as I see it, is that weapons are so much less effective
> than martial arts in the early game that *every* character relies on a
> martial art for quite a long time, until s/he gets a weapon skill or
> killing spell up to a level where it beats the martial art. In my
> experience this is often way past stat gain - if I get karate up to 60
> (for the STR point) that's better than any of my weapon skills until I
> find a decent artifact and get 4 or 5 attacks with it. Especially if,
> as a spellcaster, my melee skills are limited to 50.
>

I don't think this is indicative of the opinions or playing styles of
many. Not every character will rely on martial arts.

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.

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,
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?

> If the idea of S is to allow chars to develop any set of skills they
> want, we should try to remove this dependence on martial arts. I have a
> couple of suggestions, but I'm sure others will have better ones:
>

There is no dependence on martial arts...

> 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?

> 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.

> 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.

> 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
is very cheap to pump skills later on instead of increasing the already high
skills. This is IMO an actual flaw; characters should be able to expand
their horizons but the penalty for raising a skill which is so far out of
league with your current skillset is obviously not high enough.

It is even cheaper to raise them all in tandem (again, Eddie explains this
well) which is not really a flaw, more of an easy way to play.

> 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.

> 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?

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...

> CC
>

Respectfully disagreeing,

--
Glen
L:p yt E+++ T-- R+ P+++ D+ G+ F:*band !RL RLA-
W:AF Q+++ AI++ GFX++ SFX-- RN++++ PO--- !Hp Re-- S+
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 6:35:19 AM

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:p yt E+++ T-- R+ P+++ D+ G+ F:*band !RL RLA-
W:AF Q+++ AI++ GFX++ SFX-- RN++++ PO--- !Hp Re-- S+
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 6:20:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

"Leon Marrick" <invaid@runegold.org> writes:

> For what it's worth, may own playtesting experience also indicates that
> martial arts do too much damage early, and don't add enough powers
> late. I've tweaked down the rate of damage increase for martial arts
> in the early game. Extra bonuses for very high-level martial-arts
> experts
> who are not usng a weapon will come later.

If you are going to go in this direction, making early combat less
effective, I hope you will consider making Feldisham weaker or deeper
to compensate.


Eddie
May 27, 2005 8:45:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

Eddie Grove wrote:
> "Leon Marrick" <invaid@runegold.org> writes:

> > For what it's worth, may own playtesting experience also indicates that
> > martial arts do too much damage early, and don't add enough powers
> > late. I've tweaked down the rate of damage increase for martial arts
> > in the early game. Extra bonuses for very high-level martial-arts
> > experts who are not usng a weapon will come later.

> If you are going to go in this direction, making early combat less
> effective, I hope you will consider making Feldisham weaker or deeper
> to compensate.

Yes, he's incredibly hard to hit and worth less (in xp and drops) than
comparable uniques like Bullroarer and Wormy. He also hits hard and
often. My 9th Oober burned 5 CSW killing him for a measly 6xp or so,
despite having karate in the high 20s.

CC
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 9:26:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

"Glen Wheeler" <gew75@uow.edu.au> writes:

> "Eddie Grove" <eddiegrove@hot.NOSPAM.mail.com> wrote in message
> news:m3u0kos6w3.fsf@hot.NOSPAM.mail.com...
>> "Leon Marrick" <invaid@runegold.org> writes:
>>
>>> For what it's worth, may own playtesting experience also indicates that
>>> martial arts do too much damage early, and don't add enough powers
>>> late. I've tweaked down the rate of damage increase for martial arts
>>> in the early game. Extra bonuses for very high-level martial-arts
>>> experts
>>> who are not usng a weapon will come later.
>>
>> If you are going to go in this direction, making early combat less
>> effective, I hope you will consider making Feldisham weaker or deeper
>> to compensate.
>>
>
> Feldisham gives you trouble? Why?

N:683:Feldisham, the Guard
G:p :U
I:110:60:14:24:40
W:3:2:0:15
B:HIT:HURT:2d4
B:HIT:HURT:2d4

(1) He is on level 3, so I see him on my first trip.
(2) With 60 hitpoints, he's got more than I do.
(3) With an AC of 24, he's really hard to hit.

It is very close right now. If Karate is weakened, fighting him
on level 3 will mean starting a new game.

Nothing else even comes close. Drop the level to 7 and it would be
far more reasonable.

N:684:Bullroarer the Hobbit
G:h:s
I:120:48:20:12:10
W:5:3:0:40
B:HIT:HURT:1d6
B:TOUCH:EAT_ITEM
B:TOUCH:EAT_GOLD

Compare Bullroarer. The double speed means essentially he gets two
hits at 1d6, far less damage. The AC of 10 is hittable with a missile
attack. Fewer hitpoints. He blips away if he eats your gold, giving
you a chance to recover or set up for ranged attack.

I think Feldisham is comparable to facing two Bullroarers simultaneously.


Eddie
May 28, 2005 6:01:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

Glen Wheeler wrote:
> "Eddie Grove" <eddiegrove@hot.NOSPAM.mail.com> wrote in message
> > "Glen Wheeler" <gew75@uow.edu.au> writes:
> >> "Eddie Grove" <eddiegrove@hot.NOSPAM.mail.com> wrote in message
> >>> "Leon Marrick" <invaid@runegold.org> writes:

> >>>> For what it's worth, may own playtesting experience also indicates that
> >>>> martial arts do too much damage early, and don't add enough powers
> >>>> late. I've tweaked down the rate of damage increase for martial arts
> >>>> in the early game. Extra bonuses for very high-level martial-arts
> >>>> experts who are not usng a weapon will come later.


> >>> If you are going to go in this direction, making early combat less
> >>> effective, I hope you will consider making Feldisham weaker or deeper
> >>> to compensate.


> >> Feldisham gives you trouble? Why?


> > N:683:Feldisham, the Guard
> > G:p :U
> > I:110:60:14:24:40
> > W:3:2:0:15
> > B:HIT:HURT:2d4
> > B:HIT:HURT:2d4
> >
> > (1) He is on level 3, so I see him on my first trip.
> > (2) With 60 hitpoints, he's got more than I do.
> > (3) With an AC of 24, he's really hard to hit.
> >
> > It is very close right now. If Karate is weakened, fighting him
> > on level 3 will mean starting a new game.
> >
> > Nothing else even comes close. Drop the level to 7 and it would be
> > far more reasonable.
> >
> > N:684:Bullroarer the Hobbit
> > G:h:s
> > I:120:48:20:12:10
> > W:5:3:0:40
> > B:HIT:HURT:1d6
> > B:TOUCH:EAT_ITEM
> > B:TOUCH:EAT_GOLD
> >
> > Compare Bullroarer. The double speed means essentially he gets two
> > hits at 1d6, far less damage. The AC of 10 is hittable with a missile
> > attack. Fewer hitpoints. He blips away if he eats your gold, giving
> > you a chance to recover or set up for ranged attack.
> >
> > I think Feldisham is comparable to facing two Bullroarers simultaneously.


> But way less annoying. I just killed Feldisham with my second Oober on
> dlvl 3. Burned 3 scrolls of phase door and 2 potions of cure light wounds.
> Haven't put a single point into martial arts, using clubbing at the moment
> (and he just had to drop a warspike...). The way I killed him was with
> throwing; it's quite powerful at early levels.
> Not a game-ender...just a little bit annoying. Right?


As ever you come up with something I've not tried! I'll have to try
throwing, to see if that's better than missiles. I can't hit him with
missiles at that stage in the game.

Besides, even if he's comparable to one Bullroarer rather than two,
he's way undervalued in xp (45 to Bullroarer's 200).

CC
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 2:02:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

"Eddie Grove" <eddiegrove@hot.NOSPAM.mail.com> wrote in message
news:m3u0kos6w3.fsf@hot.NOSPAM.mail.com...
> "Leon Marrick" <invaid@runegold.org> writes:
>
>> For what it's worth, may own playtesting experience also indicates that
>> martial arts do too much damage early, and don't add enough powers
>> late. I've tweaked down the rate of damage increase for martial arts
>> in the early game. Extra bonuses for very high-level martial-arts
>> experts
>> who are not usng a weapon will come later.
>
> If you are going to go in this direction, making early combat less
> effective, I hope you will consider making Feldisham weaker or deeper
> to compensate.
>

Feldisham gives you trouble? Why?

--
Glen
L:p yt E+++ T-- R+ P+++ D+ G+ F:*band !RL RLA-
W:AF Q+++ AI++ GFX++ SFX-- RN++++ PO--- !Hp Re-- S+
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 2:44:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

"magnate" <chrisc@dbass.demon.co.uk> writes:

> Glen Wheeler wrote:

>> But way less annoying. I just killed Feldisham with my second Oober on

I guess I was exaggerating. I just checked and of my 14 Oober deaths,
only 4 were to Feldisham on 3. I must be scarred from other games. :) 

>> dlvl 3. Burned 3 scrolls of phase door and 2 potions of cure light wounds.
>> Haven't put a single point into martial arts, using clubbing at the moment
>> (and he just had to drop a warspike...). The way I killed him was with
>> throwing; it's quite powerful at early levels.
>> Not a game-ender...just a little bit annoying. Right?

I put all of my early experience into martial arts and throwing, and
in a typical game if I get one high enough to hit him, the other
doesn't work.

> As ever you come up with something I've not tried! I'll have to try
> throwing, to see if that's better than missiles. I can't hit him with
> missiles at that stage in the game.

I never use missiles early, only throwing [javelins rock!], and I gave
up on keeping them equal [which you KNOW I like to do] because then
often I couldn't hit Feldisham with either.

Perhaps putting 80%+ experience into throwing is the solution.

> Besides, even if he's comparable to one Bullroarer rather than two,
> he's way undervalued in xp (45 to Bullroarer's 200).
>
> CC

The xp is random. Don't worry about it.


Eddie
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 2:55:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

"Eddie Grove" <eddiegrove@hot.NOSPAM.mail.com> wrote in message
news:m3zmug8ac6.fsf@hot.NOSPAM.mail.com...
> "Glen Wheeler" <gew75@uow.edu.au> writes:
>
>> "Eddie Grove" <eddiegrove@hot.NOSPAM.mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:m3u0kos6w3.fsf@hot.NOSPAM.mail.com...
>>> "Leon Marrick" <invaid@runegold.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> For what it's worth, may own playtesting experience also indicates that
>>>> martial arts do too much damage early, and don't add enough powers
>>>> late. I've tweaked down the rate of damage increase for martial arts
>>>> in the early game. Extra bonuses for very high-level martial-arts
>>>> experts
>>>> who are not usng a weapon will come later.
>>>
>>> If you are going to go in this direction, making early combat less
>>> effective, I hope you will consider making Feldisham weaker or deeper
>>> to compensate.
>>>
>>
>> Feldisham gives you trouble? Why?
>
> N:683:Feldisham, the Guard
> G:p :U
> I:110:60:14:24:40
> W:3:2:0:15
> B:HIT:HURT:2d4
> B:HIT:HURT:2d4
>
> (1) He is on level 3, so I see him on my first trip.
> (2) With 60 hitpoints, he's got more than I do.
> (3) With an AC of 24, he's really hard to hit.
>
> It is very close right now. If Karate is weakened, fighting him
> on level 3 will mean starting a new game.
>
> Nothing else even comes close. Drop the level to 7 and it would be
> far more reasonable.
>
> N:684:Bullroarer the Hobbit
> G:h:s
> I:120:48:20:12:10
> W:5:3:0:40
> B:HIT:HURT:1d6
> B:TOUCH:EAT_ITEM
> B:TOUCH:EAT_GOLD
>
> Compare Bullroarer. The double speed means essentially he gets two
> hits at 1d6, far less damage. The AC of 10 is hittable with a missile
> attack. Fewer hitpoints. He blips away if he eats your gold, giving
> you a chance to recover or set up for ranged attack.
>
> I think Feldisham is comparable to facing two Bullroarers simultaneously.
>

But way less annoying. I just killed Feldisham with my second Oober on
dlvl 3. Burned 3 scrolls of phase door and 2 potions of cure light wounds.
Haven't put a single point into martial arts, using clubbing at the moment
(and he just had to drop a warspike...). The way I killed him was with
throwing; it's quite powerful at early levels.
Not a game-ender...just a little bit annoying. Right?

--
Glen
L:p yt E+++ T-- R+ P+++ D+ G+ F:*band !RL RLA-
W:AF Q+++ AI++ GFX++ SFX-- RN++++ PO--- !Hp Re-- S+
May 28, 2005 3:12:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

Eddie Grove wrote:
> "magnate" <chrisc@dbass.demon.co.uk> writes:

> > Besides, even if he's comparable to one Bullroarer rather than two,
> > he's way undervalued in xp (45 to Bullroarer's 200).

> The xp is random. Don't worry about it.

It isn't random - it's the figure in monster.txt * mlev / char_power. I
know you can always get more xp from elsewhere but the point is there
are only two rewards from killing monsters - the xp and the drop.
Uniques have better drops and, in most cases, a significant xp reward
too (if you kill them at the expected time). Feldisham is unusual among
early uniques in that he's worth comparatively little xp (compared with
Bullroarer, or the dogs, or Wormy or Lagduf or Mughash). He does have a
guaranteed good drop though, which I think is about the same as
Bullroarer's (they've both dropped two items for me before).

CC
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 3:58:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

"magnate" <chrisc@dbass.demon.co.uk> writes:

> Eddie Grove wrote:
>> "magnate" <chrisc@dbass.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> > Besides, even if he's comparable to one Bullroarer rather than two,
>> > he's way undervalued in xp (45 to Bullroarer's 200).
>
>> The xp is random. Don't worry about it.
>
> It isn't random - it's the figure in monster.txt * mlev / char_power. I

What I meant by "random" is that there is no reason behind
the value. Just forget about it.

> know you can always get more xp from elsewhere but the point is there
> are only two rewards from killing monsters - the xp and the drop.

It simply isn't worth worrying about experience. If you survive,
you gain it fast enough. Due to exponential increases, no single
kill matters much in the grand scheme of experience gain.

The most important reward is that once you kill a unique you
don't have to face it again.


Eddie
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 2:25:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

Twisted One <twisted0n3@gmail.invalid> writes:

> Eddie Grove wrote:
>> Perhaps putting 80%+ experience into throwing is the solution.
>
> Or using spells, or wands?

But how many wands have you found on your first trip to level 3?


Eddie
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 4:16:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

Eddie Grove wrote:
> Perhaps putting 80%+ experience into throwing is the solution.

Or using spells, or wands?

> The xp is random. Don't worry about it.

That's strange. And even for uniques? I could see maybe varying the XP a
bit for nonuniques, the way the speed is varied. But a unique being
significantly weaker or stronger from one game to the next is just
wrong. And a unique worth less XP is effectively stronger. (Game is
harder than a game with the same unique giving more XP, since you have
less XP after killing him than otherwise.)

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 5:22:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

"magnate" <chrisc@dbass.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1117270912.107798.41990@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Glen Wheeler wrote:
>> "Eddie Grove" <eddiegrove@hot.NOSPAM.mail.com> wrote in message
>> > "Glen Wheeler" <gew75@uow.edu.au> writes:
>> >> "Eddie Grove" <eddiegrove@hot.NOSPAM.mail.com> wrote in message
>> >>> "Leon Marrick" <invaid@runegold.org> writes:
>
>> >>>> For what it's worth, may own playtesting experience also indicates
>> >>>> that
>> >>>> martial arts do too much damage early, and don't add enough powers
>> >>>> late. I've tweaked down the rate of damage increase for martial
>> >>>> arts
>> >>>> in the early game. Extra bonuses for very high-level martial-arts
>> >>>> experts who are not usng a weapon will come later.
>
>
>> >>> If you are going to go in this direction, making early combat less
>> >>> effective, I hope you will consider making Feldisham weaker or deeper
>> >>> to compensate.
>
>
>> >> Feldisham gives you trouble? Why?
>
>
>> > N:683:Feldisham, the Guard
>> > G:p :U
>> > I:110:60:14:24:40
>> > W:3:2:0:15
>> > B:HIT:HURT:2d4
>> > B:HIT:HURT:2d4
>> >
>> > (1) He is on level 3, so I see him on my first trip.
>> > (2) With 60 hitpoints, he's got more than I do.
>> > (3) With an AC of 24, he's really hard to hit.
>> >
>> > It is very close right now. If Karate is weakened, fighting him
>> > on level 3 will mean starting a new game.
>> >
>> > Nothing else even comes close. Drop the level to 7 and it would be
>> > far more reasonable.
>> >
>> > N:684:Bullroarer the Hobbit
>> > G:h:s
>> > I:120:48:20:12:10
>> > W:5:3:0:40
>> > B:HIT:HURT:1d6
>> > B:TOUCH:EAT_ITEM
>> > B:TOUCH:EAT_GOLD
>> >
>> > Compare Bullroarer. The double speed means essentially he gets two
>> > hits at 1d6, far less damage. The AC of 10 is hittable with a missile
>> > attack. Fewer hitpoints. He blips away if he eats your gold, giving
>> > you a chance to recover or set up for ranged attack.
>> >
>> > I think Feldisham is comparable to facing two Bullroarers
>> > simultaneously.
>
>
>> But way less annoying. I just killed Feldisham with my second Oober on
>> dlvl 3. Burned 3 scrolls of phase door and 2 potions of cure light
>> wounds.
>> Haven't put a single point into martial arts, using clubbing at the
>> moment
>> (and he just had to drop a warspike...). The way I killed him was with
>> throwing; it's quite powerful at early levels.
>> Not a game-ender...just a little bit annoying. Right?
>
>
> As ever you come up with something I've not tried! I'll have to try
> throwing, to see if that's better than missiles. I can't hit him with
> missiles at that stage in the game.
>
> Besides, even if he's comparable to one Bullroarer rather than two,
> he's way undervalued in xp (45 to Bullroarer's 200).
>

True, but Bullroarer is harder to kill (damn bastard keeps teleporting
away :(  ). Doesn't help with that darn cursed ring on my finger though...
Perhaps he should be worth 60 or 70 xp?

--
Glen
L:p yt E+++ T-- R+ P+++ D+ G+ F:*band !RL RLA-
W:AF Q+++ AI++ GFX++ SFX-- RN++++ PO--- !Hp Re-- S+
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 7:44:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

Eddie Grove wrote:
> Twisted One <twisted0n3@gmail.invalid> writes:
>>Eddie Grove wrote:
>>
>>>Perhaps putting 80%+ experience into throwing is the solution.
>>
>>Or using spells, or wands?
>
> But how many wands have you found on your first trip to level 3?

Buy a wand of magic missile in the magic store if you're that concerned
to have a wand by level 3. Lots of wands start showing up around 150'
anyway, in my experience. Unless for some stupid reason S has made wands
much rarer or the early ones deeper AND removed anything at all useful
from the magic store, which I doubt, this provides an alternative ranged
attack for starting chars, as long as they start with decent device
skill. So half-trolls might have trouble -- at least they make up for it
with more HP and CON. :) 

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 2:54:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

"magnate" <chrisc@dbass.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1117303922.019821.66590@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Eddie Grove wrote:
>> "magnate" <chrisc@dbass.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> > Besides, even if he's comparable to one Bullroarer rather than two,
>> > he's way undervalued in xp (45 to Bullroarer's 200).
>
>> The xp is random. Don't worry about it.
>
> It isn't random - it's the figure in monster.txt * mlev / char_power. I
> know you can always get more xp from elsewhere but the point is there
> are only two rewards from killing monsters - the xp and the drop.
> Uniques have better drops and, in most cases, a significant xp reward
> too (if you kill them at the expected time). Feldisham is unusual among
> early uniques in that he's worth comparatively little xp (compared with
> Bullroarer, or the dogs, or Wormy or Lagduf or Mughash). He does have a
> guaranteed good drop though, which I think is about the same as
> Bullroarer's (they've both dropped two items for me before).
>

Hmm, I don't think it's a guaranteed two items. Since I was only given
one damn warspike *grr grr*. I'd trade it all for a remove curse scroll...

In response to Eddie talking about the 50-50 skilld istro between throwing
and a combat skill, I agree. You can't work like that and be strong in the
early game. In the beginning I had all XP into clubbing, then 50-50 with
perception and throwing, then just throwing until after I found a {good}
mace, then back to 50-50 clubbing and perception. Spell resistance is
calling, but I refuse to raise it to costing more than 1 or 2 points: need
the Oath...

--
Glen
L:p yt E+++ T-- R+ P+++ D+ G+ F:*band !RL RLA-
W:AF Q+++ AI++ GFX++ SFX-- RN++++ PO--- !Hp Re-- S+
!