Angband Random artifact patch

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

Hi Chris Carr / Chris Robertson,

I'm just working on an algorithm for evaluating the power of objects and ego
items, in order to smooth out drops and quest rewards for Unangband. Unangband
already uses the randart.c patch that you have developed, with modifications
for randomisation of artifacts and I'm extending this to ego items, and what
I'm terming 'magic items' -- basically ego object with a single flag.

I'm however starting to change the power evaluation function artifact_power, as
I have noticed a number of inconsistencies at the 'edges' of the algorith. In
particular:

* Pvals are under-valued for single statistic modifications. e.g. Strength (+6)
should be worth more than the current algorithm values. I'm experimenting with
using pval * pval / 4 instead of pval plus the adjustment factor that is
currently used.
* This particularly applies to Speed.
* To-hit for weapons and bows should be applied as a percentage increase
instead of a fixed value. I suggest +5% per + to hit.
* To-ac and to-dam are probably still overvalued against other flags e.g. an
immunity.
* An item with e.g. Resist Fire and Resist Cold, should be worth more than
adding the two values reflects. I count the number of sustains, low resists and
high resists separately, and add an additional value based on the total. I might
be overcompensating however. This idea comes from Timo mentioning 'getting lock'
on all the high resistances recently in the newsgroup.
* I need to figure out how to evaluate swap items. Clearly a ring of Fire
Immunity is worth more than Full Plate Armour of Fire Immunity as a swap.

I've updated the Unangband CVS to reflect the above and am still experimenting.

Regards,

--
Unangband L:C E+ T- R- P+ D-- G+(+) F:Sangband RL-- RLA-- W:F Q++
AI+(++) GFX++ SFX++ RN+++(+) PO++ Hp+++ Re--(+) S++ C- O* KG--
21 answers Last reply
More about angband random artifact patch
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

    Andrew Doull wrote:
    > Hi Chris Carr / Chris Robertson,

    Hi!

    > I'm just working on an algorithm for evaluating the power of objects and ego
    > items, in order to smooth out drops and quest rewards for Unangband. Unangband
    > already uses the randart.c patch that you have developed, with modifications
    > for randomisation of artifacts and I'm extending this to ego items, and what
    > I'm terming 'magic items' -- basically ego object with a single flag.
    >
    > I'm however starting to change the power evaluation function artifact_power, as
    > I have noticed a number of inconsistencies at the 'edges' of the algorith. In
    > particular:
    >
    > * Pvals are under-valued for single statistic modifications. e.g. Strength (+6)
    > should be worth more than the current algorithm values. I'm experimenting with
    > using pval * pval / 4 instead of pval plus the adjustment factor that is
    > currently used.

    Hmm. It's a long time ago now, but we did have quite a debate about
    rating single stat boosts vs multiple stat boosts, and we ended up with
    the adjustment factor for multiple boosts. Think - how much better is
    STR+6 than STR+5? Well it rather depends on everything else, doesn't
    it? We concluded that +3 to two stats (excluding CHR) was more
    desirable than +6 to one. Just. +4 to two stats certainly so. Of course
    you are free to re-do the algorithm so that +6 to one stat is more
    valuable, and even that each stat is valued differently, but I just
    thought I'd let you know what I can remember of how we got here.

    > * This particularly applies to Speed.

    Yes, we couldn't find any geometric or arithmetic sequence that rated
    speed properly, so we made a look-up table for it. Bear in mind that
    for large speed boosts (+7 or more), the pval is unlikely to be
    associated with any other stat, reducing the value slightly. Would you
    rather have +3 to each of STR, CON, SPEED or just +7 speed? Etc.

    > * To-hit for weapons and bows should be applied as a percentage increase
    > instead of a fixed value. I suggest +5% per + to hit.

    Hmmm. My instinctive response is that it would be very very easy to
    overrate +to-hit. Even for rangers it's not that big a deal. Besides,
    why make it a % increase for weapons and not for other items (gloves,
    rings etc.)?

    > * To-ac and to-dam are probably still overvalued against other flags e.g. an
    > immunity.

    Possibly. AFAIR the monster rating algorithm ties in quite neatly with
    +to-dam because all weapons are valued according to how much damage
    they do and +to-dam is included in this. So any changes to other values
    should revolve around that as a starting point. We may well have
    overrated +to_ac, in which case you have to blame me and not Chris. I
    think he tried to argue it down too.

    > * An item with e.g. Resist Fire and Resist Cold, should be worth more than
    > adding the two values reflects. I count the number of sustains, low resists and
    > high resists separately, and add an additional value based on the total. I might
    > be overcompensating however. This idea comes from Timo mentioning 'getting lock'
    > on all the high resistances recently in the newsgroup.

    I'm pretty sure we did include a boost to the value for multiple
    resists, but it may still be on the to-do list. You're absolutely
    right, and our intention was always to add a factor for items with
    multiple resists.

    > * I need to figure out how to evaluate swap items. Clearly a ring of Fire
    > Immunity is worth more than Full Plate Armour of Fire Immunity as a swap.

    My advice is not to go down this path. You cannot allow for all the
    different combinations of race, class and playing style. Just evaluate
    the usefulness of the item *if it is used* and leave it up to the
    player to decide whether it's used, or not, or as a swap item.

    On your specific example though, I always wanted to add a section of
    the rating function dealing with item weight: weapons get higher
    ratings for being heavier, because they get more criticals (and
    deliberately ignoring the arbitrary 25lb max blows limit because again
    that's a class issue), armour gets higher ratings for being lighter. So
    unusually light full plate with IMM_FIRE might actually be worth more
    than a ring of same. Though both are in fierce competition with other
    contenders for those slots - IMM_FIRE on a cloak or shield might be
    worth a little more ...

    As you can see, it's not simple. Good luck,

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

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

    > On your specific example though, I always wanted to add a section of
    > the rating function dealing with item weight: weapons get higher
    > ratings for being heavier, because they get more criticals (and

    Whereas I would like to see this reversed. Weight should be
    incorporated into the damage dice. Criticals should be based on
    hitting precisely what you aim for, which is inversely correlated to
    weight. Perhaps if your to-hit roll exceeds N*AC you should get a
    type-N critical. That may be overdoing it, but that's the direction
    I'd like to see.


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

    Eddie Grove wrote:
    > "magnate" <chrisc@dbass.demon.co.uk> writes:
    >
    > > On your specific example though, I always wanted to add a section of
    > > the rating function dealing with item weight: weapons get higher
    > > ratings for being heavier, because they get more criticals (and
    >
    > Whereas I would like to see this reversed. Weight should be
    > incorporated into the damage dice. Criticals should be based on
    > hitting precisely what you aim for, which is inversely correlated to
    > weight. Perhaps if your to-hit roll exceeds N*AC you should get a
    > type-N critical. That may be overdoing it, but that's the direction
    > I'd like to see.


    Somehow, the notion of getting a critical hit on an Ancient Dragon or a
    Lesser Titan with a dagger just seems *wrong*. These things are 15'
    high. How can you hit one at all with a dagger? It's like the
    hilarious picture on Thangorodrim.net, where the Hero might be able to
    injure Morgoth's feet, but not much else.

    Two handed sword or a scythe really should have a better chance.
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

    "pete mack" <pmac360@hotmail.com> writes:

    > Somehow, the notion of getting a critical hit on an Ancient Dragon or a
    > Lesser Titan with a dagger just seems *wrong*. These things are 15'
    > high.

    Ever stepped on a bee while walking barefoot? Dunno if it was critical or
    not, but it damn sure *felt* like it.

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

    Eddie Grove wrote:

    > "magnate" <chrisc@dbass.demon.co.uk> writes:
    >
    >> On your specific example though, I always wanted to add a section of
    >> the rating function dealing with item weight: weapons get higher
    >> ratings for being heavier, because they get more criticals (and
    >
    > Whereas I would like to see this reversed. Weight should be
    > incorporated into the damage dice. Criticals should be based on
    > hitting precisely what you aim for, which is inversely correlated to
    > weight. Perhaps if your to-hit roll exceeds N*AC you should get a
    > type-N critical. That may be overdoing it, but that's the direction
    > I'd like to see.
    >
    >
    > Eddie

    This is nearly D&D 3rd edition : Light weapons critic often but do little
    damage. Heavy weapon don't critic often but do much more damage when they
    do :)

    Rapier : 18-20 (x2)
    Scythe : 20-20 (x4)
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

    Christophe Cavalaria wrote:
    > Eddie Grove wrote:
    >
    >>"magnate" <chrisc@dbass.demon.co.uk> writes:
    >>
    >>>On your specific example though, I always wanted to add a section of
    >>>the rating function dealing with item weight: weapons get higher
    >>>ratings for being heavier, because they get more criticals (and
    >>
    >>Whereas I would like to see this reversed. Weight should be
    >>incorporated into the damage dice. Criticals should be based on
    >>hitting precisely what you aim for, which is inversely correlated to
    >>weight.

    If you want really realistic then weapon weight can affect criticals in
    positive way too: It is easier to hit thru armor with heavy weapon than
    with light one. But hitting something small and fast moving, like
    eyehole in headgear needs small, pointy and fast weapon.

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

    "Jeff Greene" <nppangband@spam.spam.spam.spam,> writes:

    > This is just a thought at this point, but maybe armor class should
    > not reduce the chance of getting hit at all, but rather the armor
    > should absorb up to a certain amount of damage, and the player or
    > monster only loses hp for any excess amount. The higher the armor
    > class, the greater damage gets absorbed by the armor.

    I think you have to change to deadliness rather than damage-plusses if
    you want to go this route. Also, see my thread "if I wrote a variant
    from scratch". This was one of many radical ideas I proposed.

    http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.roguelike.angband/browse_thread/thread/c86f5bd42b836e0/d262ad77115f53ca?q=if+I+wrote+a+variant&rnum=1#d262ad77115f53ca


    > Maybe it is because while I am writing this it is very late in my
    > time zone, and I am sleep deprived, but that seems like such a
    > great, simple, common sense approach I am wondering why this isn't
    > the standard way of doing things. Or maybe this is just a dumb idea
    > and I need to get some rest. I sense this could be the basis for a
    > new NPP combat system.

    It is a big change, and it ain't D&D. Despite some recent post
    declaring otherwise, angband is still 90%+ D&D IMO.

    It would require re-working every single monster. Re-working all of
    the weapon damages. I guess you could make quick approximations that
    would get 3/4 of the way there, but it seems like an awful lot of
    work to get to a finished product.

    How do you deal with various bolt/ball spells? Etc etc etc. Do you
    go with a Runequest style combat where first you see where the monster
    hits you [or you hit it], and then compare the attack to the armor
    worn there, and then check evasion, and then critical attack/defense,
    ...., or do you have an encompassing "armor class"? More etc etc etc.

    One big advantage of D&D is simplicity. Armor, evasion and luck are
    all rolled into something called hitpoints. When playing Runequest, a
    single attack involves rolling so many dice you hear thunder [properly
    color-coded and different sidedness, experts roll them all at once].
    A computer game is much more suitable to the complex methods, but it
    was D&D that spawned the roguelikes presumably due to its popularity
    perhaps owing to its simplicity.


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

    On 2005-06-14 16:13:07, "magnate" <chrisc@dbass.demon.co.uk> wrote:

    > Andrew Doull wrote:
    > > Hi Chris Carr / Chris Robertson,
    > > * Pvals are under-valued for single statistic modifications. e.g. Strength (+6)
    > > should be worth more than the current algorithm values. I'm experimenting with
    > > using pval * pval / 4 instead of pval plus the adjustment factor that is
    > > currently used.
    >
    > Hmm. It's a long time ago now, but we did have quite a debate about
    > rating single stat boosts vs multiple stat boosts, and we ended up with
    > the adjustment factor for multiple boosts. Think - how much better is
    > STR+6 than STR+5? Well it rather depends on everything else, doesn't
    > it? We concluded that +3 to two stats (excluding CHR) was more
    > desirable than +6 to one. Just. +4 to two stats certainly so. Of course
    > you are free to re-do the algorithm so that +6 to one stat is more
    > valuable, and even that each stat is valued differently, but I just
    > thought I'd let you know what I can remember of how we got here.
    >

    I decided on this primarily because I'm creating a linear relationship between
    object power and player depth. Items will be generated with between .75 and 1.5
    power per depth, with artifacts going up to 2x depth in power. With also a
    linear relationship between stats and power, its very easy for an object that
    boosts a single stat, say a ring of Strength to be powered up by the algorithms
    I'm using to be worth +8 or higher bonus, which doesn't tally with the existing
    distribution of stat bonus items.

    > > * This particularly applies to Speed.
    >
    > Yes, we couldn't find any geometric or arithmetic sequence that rated
    > speed properly, so we made a look-up table for it. Bear in mind that
    > for large speed boosts (+7 or more), the pval is unlikely to be
    > associated with any other stat, reducing the value slightly. Would you
    > rather have +3 to each of STR, CON, SPEED or just +7 speed? Etc.
    >

    I'm actually thinking of going back to a linear relationship for speed. Speed is
    a little funny: a low speed bonuses, it just increases the amount you can carry
    by a significant amount, plus moves you beyond monsters that are slightly
    faster than average for your race. The benefits of +2-+3 speed are quite
    significant at low levels. But extremely high speed bonuses are not that
    useful, because speed gives much less energy at higher levels. So I'm thinking
    of doing something simple like 5* pval to get power for speed.

    > > * To-hit for weapons and bows should be applied as a percentage increase
    > > instead of a fixed value. I suggest +5% per + to hit.
    >
    > Hmmm. My instinctive response is that it would be very very easy to
    > overrate +to-hit. Even for rangers it's not that big a deal. Besides,
    > why make it a % increase for weapons and not for other items (gloves,
    > rings etc.)?

    I am actually trying to under rate it e.g. a weapon that doesn't do too much
    damage is not going to be hugely beneficial for + high to hit bonuses. I've
    ended up settling on a +% up to a point and then going linear after that.

    > > * To-ac and to-dam are probably still overvalued against other flags e.g. an
    > > immunity.
    >
    > Possibly. AFAIR the monster rating algorithm ties in quite neatly with
    > +to-dam because all weapons are valued according to how much damage
    > they do and +to-dam is included in this. So any changes to other values
    > should revolve around that as a starting point. We may well have
    > overrated +to_ac, in which case you have to blame me and not Chris. I
    > think he tried to argue it down too.
    >

    I think the biggest problem here is that you assume that all weapons are +9 to
    damage and have 5 blows, and have a similar assumption for bows. You probably
    need a correction factor to scale down e.g. broken daggers with no other flags,
    as these rate quite highly otherwise. There is a similar but less significant
    problem for assuming +9 to ac on armour. It might be better to take the
    opposite approach and only give artifacts power for to_hit / to_dam / to_ac if
    they exceed the +9 threshold.

    > > * An item with e.g. Resist Fire and Resist Cold, should be worth more than
    > > adding the two values reflects. I count the number of sustains, low resists and
    > > high resists separately, and add an additional value based on the total. I might
    > > be overcompensating however. This idea comes from Timo mentioning 'getting lock'
    > > on all the high resistances recently in the newsgroup.
    >
    > I'm pretty sure we did include a boost to the value for multiple
    > resists, but it may still be on the to-do list. You're absolutely
    > right, and our intention was always to add a factor for items with
    > multiple resists.

    Not in the code I'm using. I'm still playing around with the exact values - it
    only really overrates the power dragon scale mail artifact, but perhaps that
    item deserves to be overrated.

    I also think it might be worth running a separate pass on the monsters to rate
    how useful a combination of resists is (e.g. turning the reduction of monster
    power into a power rating some how). I think you'll find that while multiple
    brands and slays are cumulatively less useful because only the highest damage
    is used - multiple resists are cumulatively more useful, because it gives
    monsters much less options for the insta-kill - which (particularly with means
    of healing/escape) is the main reason for accumulating resistance 'lock'.

    As an aside, I've added flags of Slay Man, Slay Dwarf and Slay Elf. Slay Man is
    actually quite useful, as a large number of uniques / high level monsters are
    men - elf and dwarf are not really useful at all.

    >
    > > * I need to figure out how to evaluate swap items. Clearly a ring of Fire
    > > Immunity is worth more than Full Plate Armour of Fire Immunity as a swap.
    >
    > My advice is not to go down this path. You cannot allow for all the
    > different combinations of race, class and playing style. Just evaluate
    > the usefulness of the item *if it is used* and leave it up to the
    > player to decide whether it's used, or not, or as a swap item.
    >
    > On your specific example though, I always wanted to add a section of
    > the rating function dealing with item weight: weapons get higher
    > ratings for being heavier, because they get more criticals (and
    > deliberately ignoring the arbitrary 25lb max blows limit because again
    > that's a class issue), armour gets higher ratings for being lighter. So
    > unusually light full plate with IMM_FIRE might actually be worth more
    > than a ring of same. Though both are in fierce competition with other
    > contenders for those slots - IMM_FIRE on a cloak or shield might be
    > worth a little more ...
    >

    I'm playing around with subtracting a factor based on total item weight.
    Something like -1 power per 5 lbs to 15 lbs for wearable items. The main reason
    for this is the 30 lb limit for mages for the 6 armor slots - it implies items
    that are over a certain weight will not be as useful for spell casters
    specifically, and also as swap items.

    Also, although the increase in weapon weights does increase criticals, there is
    also a limit that a class can only get 4 blows with a weapon, as opposed to 5.

    Andrew

    --
    Unangband L:C E+ T- R- P+ D-- G+(+) F:Sangband RL-- RLA-- W:F Q++
    AI+(++) GFX++ SFX++ RN+++(+) PO++ Hp+++ Re--(+) S++ C- O* KG--
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

    "pete mack" <pmac360@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1118792234.850597.215780@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >
    >
    > Eddie Grove wrote:
    > > "magnate" <chrisc@dbass.demon.co.uk> writes:
    > >

    > Somehow, the notion of getting a critical hit on an Ancient Dragon or a
    > Lesser Titan with a dagger just seems *wrong*. These things are 15'
    > high. How can you hit one at all with a dagger? It's like the
    > hilarious picture on Thangorodrim.net, where the Hero might be able to
    > injure Morgoth's feet, but not much else.
    >
    > Two handed sword or a scythe really should have a better chance.


    This is just a thought at this point, but maybe armor class should not reduce the chance of getting hit at all, but rather the armor should absorb up to a certain amount of damage, and the player or monster only loses hp for any excess amount. The higher the armor class, the greater damage gets absorbed by the armor.

    Maybe it is because while I am writing this it is very late in my time zone, and I am sleep deprived, but that seems like such a great, simple, common sense approach I am wondering why this isn't the standard way of doing things. Or maybe this is just a dumb idea and I need to get some rest. I sense this could be the basis for a new NPP combat system.

    --
    -Jeff

    replace the ".spam"s with comcast.net to reply

    Author of NPPAngband. Check it out at:
    http://home.comcast.net/~nppangband/
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

    "pete mack" <pmac360@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1118792234.850597.215780
    @g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

    > Somehow, the notion of getting a critical hit on an Ancient Dragon or
    a
    > Lesser Titan with a dagger just seems *wrong*. These things are 15'
    > high. How can you hit one at all with a dagger? It's like the
    > hilarious picture on Thangorodrim.net, where the Hero might be able to
    > injure Morgoth's feet, but not much else.
    >
    > Two handed sword or a scythe really should have a better chance.

    That's a matter of the size and design of the enemy in relation to
    the weapon though.

    Getting a critical with a dagger on a human-sized enemy isn't a
    strange concept. Indeed, it falls into the idea of what a critical
    is. After all, a 25lb lump of steel is going to be bad where ever
    it hits an unarmed novice priest, but a knife is going to vary
    greatly based on whether you hit something important. A two-handed
    sword isn't going to care as much as a rapier as to whether you hit
    the seam in leather armor.

    When you face an Ancient Dragon, a dagger probably shouldn't be
    doing damage at all outside of miracle criticals, stabbing it in the
    eye, or trying to cut its tongue off as it chews you. Even if you
    get past (or avoid) the scales, a dagger just isn't going to go
    particularly far into a dragon to cause damage, nor is a dagger cut
    going to cover much relative distance. It isn't that the idea of
    criticals with daggers is silly, but that damage at all with the
    dagger becomes silly. You've reached a scale situation similar to
    trying to kill an armored warrior with only a toothpick. (Which
    might be theoretically possible with enough skill and enough luck,
    but that is partly what criticals are for anyway.)

    Though at least against giants and the like you could hope for
    dagger criticals like slashing a tendon. Or a lucky stab that went
    far enough to hit a major artery, turning an otherwise weak hit into
    something potentially fatal. Or hitting a joint in a debilitating
    way. And when it tries to eat you, sticking him in the eye or mouth
    or even stabbing into a finger or cutting something important in the
    hand.
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

    Eddie Grove wrote:
    > "Jeff Greene" <nppangband@spam.spam.spam.spam,> writes:

    > > This is just a thought at this point, but maybe armor class should
    > > not reduce the chance of getting hit at all, but rather the armor
    > > should absorb up to a certain amount of damage, and the player or
    > > monster only loses hp for any excess amount. The higher the armor
    > > class, the greater damage gets absorbed by the armor.

    > > Maybe it is because while I am writing this it is very late in my
    > > time zone, and I am sleep deprived, but that seems like such a
    > > great, simple, common sense approach I am wondering why this isn't
    > > the standard way of doing things. Or maybe this is just a dumb idea
    > > and I need to get some rest. I sense this could be the basis for a
    > > new NPP combat system.

    > It is a big change, and it ain't D&D. Despite some recent post
    > declaring otherwise, angband is still 90%+ D&D IMO.
    >
    > It would require re-working every single monster. Re-working all of
    > the weapon damages. I guess you could make quick approximations that
    > would get 3/4 of the way there, but it seems like an awful lot of
    > work to get to a finished product.
    >
    > How do you deal with various bolt/ball spells? Etc etc etc. Do you
    > go with a Runequest style combat where first you see where the monster
    > hits you [or you hit it], and then compare the attack to the armor
    > worn there, and then check evasion, and then critical attack/defense,
    > ..., or do you have an encompassing "armor class"? More etc etc etc.
    >
    > One big advantage of D&D is simplicity. Armor, evasion and luck are
    > all rolled into something called hitpoints. When playing Runequest, a
    > single attack involves rolling so many dice you hear thunder [properly
    > color-coded and different sidedness, experts roll them all at once].
    > A computer game is much more suitable to the complex methods, but it
    > was D&D that spawned the roguelikes presumably due to its popularity
    > perhaps owing to its simplicity.

    There are two combined concept pairs in *band which are carried
    directly over from D&D: hp are a combination of ability to withstand
    damage and energy to carry on moving and fighting; AC is a combination
    of evasiveness and armour protection. Splitting these two pairs would
    be a big change, but would result in a combat system with far more
    finesse. As you say, computers are ideally suited to roll all the dice
    and do all the complex calculations. So you would first check against
    Defence, to see if you hit, and then check against Protection, to see
    if your hit did any damage. If you were damaged, you might be
    physically injured, or you might simply be winded. The Body and Energy
    ratings could then be adjusted accordingly.

    I used to love looking up criticals on Rolemaster's huge tables of them
    ....

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

    On 2005-06-15 07:34:19, Eddie Grove <eddiegrove@hot.NOSPAM.mail.com> wrote:

    > "Jeff Greene" writes:
    >
    > > This is just a thought at this point, but maybe armor class should
    > > not reduce the chance of getting hit at all, but rather the armor
    > > should absorb up to a certain amount of damage, and the player or
    > > monster only loses hp for any excess amount. The higher the armor
    > > class, the greater damage gets absorbed by the armor.
    >
    > I think you have to change to deadliness rather than damage-plusses if
    > you want to go this route. Also, see my thread "if I wrote a variant
    > from scratch". This was one of many radical ideas I proposed.
    >
    > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.roguelike.angband/browse_thread/thread/c86f5bd42b836e0/d262ad77115f53ca?q=if+I+wrote+a+variant&rnum=1#d262ad77115f53ca
    >
    >
    > > Maybe it is because while I am writing this it is very late in my
    > > time zone, and I am sleep deprived, but that seems like such a
    > > great, simple, common sense approach I am wondering why this isn't
    > > the standard way of doing things. Or maybe this is just a dumb idea
    > > and I need to get some rest. I sense this could be the basis for a
    > > new NPP combat system.
    >
    > It is a big change, and it ain't D&D. Despite some recent post
    > declaring otherwise, angband is still 90%+ D&D IMO.
    >
    > It would require re-working every single monster. Re-working all of
    > the weapon damages. I guess you could make quick approximations that
    > would get 3/4 of the way there, but it seems like an awful lot of
    > work to get to a finished product.

    Unangband actually does something similar to this but takes the easy approach. I
    assume that armour operates symetrically - player ac reduces damage taken as a
    percentage, so I assume that monster ac does the same. Then I scale down
    monster hit points by the same factor as their ac scales down damage.

    The result is that for a melee player the monsters fight at exactly the same
    power, but for a archer / thrown item user / spell caster / magic device user,
    their spells or magical devices do increased damage against heavy ac monsters.


    Andrew

    --
    Unangband L:C E+ T- R- P+ D-- G+(+) F:Sangband RL-- RLA-- W:F Q++
    AI+(++) GFX++ SFX++ RN+++(+) PO++ Hp+++ Re--(+) S++ C- O* KG--
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

    pete mack wrote:

    > Somehow, the notion of getting a critical hit on an Ancient Dragon or a
    > Lesser Titan with a dagger just seems *wrong*. These things are 15'
    > high. How can you hit one at all with a dagger?

    Medieval dagger is more like a small sword. Not a common street knife.
    It hurts if hit in bad place. There are weak spots in every monster, you
    just need to be able to hit it. For Titans... think what is just
    slightly above your eyelevel..

    > Two handed sword or a scythe really should have a better chance.

    These hurt without criticals.

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

    Jeff Greene wrote:

    > This is just a thought at this point, but maybe armor class should
    > not reduce the chance of getting hit at all, but rather the armor
    > should absorb up to a certain amount of damage, and the player or
    > monster only loses hp for any excess amount. The higher the armor
    > class, the greater damage gets absorbed by the armor.

    And criticals pass thru armor automatically.

    That would make resistance relative to AC. And I would hate water hounds
    even more than I do now.

    But if you can make it work that would be rather nice

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

    Glen Wheeler wrote:
    > "pete mack" <pmac360@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:1118792234.850597.215780@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

    > > Eddie Grove wrote:
    > >> "magnate" <chrisc@dbass.demon.co.uk> writes:
    > >>
    > >> > On your specific example though, I always wanted to add a section
    > >> > of
    > >> > the rating function dealing with item weight: weapons get higher
    > >> > ratings for being heavier, because they get more criticals (and
    > >>
    > >> Whereas I would like to see this reversed. Weight should be
    > >> incorporated into the damage dice. Criticals should be based on
    > >> hitting precisely what you aim for, which is inversely correlated to
    > >> weight. Perhaps if your to-hit roll exceeds N*AC you should get a
    > >> type-N critical. That may be overdoing it, but that's the direction
    > >> I'd like to see.
    > >
    > >
    > > Somehow, the notion of getting a critical hit on an Ancient Dragon or
    > > a Lesser Titan with a dagger just seems *wrong*. These things are 15'
    > > high. How can you hit one at all with a dagger? It's like the
    > > hilarious picture on Thangorodrim.net, where the Hero might be able to
    > > injure Morgoth's feet, but not much else.
    > >
    > > Two handed sword or a scythe really should have a better chance.
    > >
    >
    > Hey, this is a game. Take your realism elsewhere please :).


    Yes I know.

    I was mainly disagreeing with Eddie's bias against heavy weapons. If
    you want to do big damage in the end game, you should be using a big
    weapon. I am looking forward to killing Morgoth some day with
    Eorlingas. That's the kind of weapon appropriate for the job, like a
    SoS HA or a MoD *Slay Evil*.

    If I were writing a variant, I'd make Eorlingas a little more common,
    give it useful slays, 4d8, and dlev 40.

    [ vi artifacts.txt ... ]

    I also agree that big monster AC should reduce per-hit damage by 2d4 or
    whatever, just like heavy plate already does for the player.

    So much for Haradekket and Ringil being the weapons of choice. While
    my established favorites (so far) get better: Avavir, Mundwine,
    Calris/Erebor, MoD HA...
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

    "pete mack" <pmac360@hotmail.com> writes:

    > I was mainly disagreeing with Eddie's bias against heavy weapons. If

    What the heck are you talking about?

    I just want criticals to depend on the to-hit roll, so that a high
    level fighter with a katana gets more criticals than low-level mage
    with a two-handed flail.

    Rather than have some silly rule about criticals from weight, adding
    maybe 5% damage in expectation, I'd rather just increase the dice on
    heavy weapons by an equivalent amount.

    It was at least in part due to my arguments/suggestions that NPP
    is set up to give fighters the extra blow so that they can get
    six swings with heavy weapons.

    It is ludicrous to suggest I have a bias against heavy weapons.


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

    Eddie Grove wrote:
    > "pete mack" <pmac360@hotmail.com> writes:
    >
    > > I was mainly disagreeing with Eddie's bias against heavy weapons. If
    >
    > What the heck are you talking about?
    >
    > I just want criticals to depend on the to-hit roll, so that a high
    > level fighter with a katana gets more criticals than low-level mage
    > with a two-handed flail.
    >
    > Rather than have some silly rule about criticals from weight, adding
    > maybe 5% damage in expectation, I'd rather just increase the dice on
    > heavy weapons by an equivalent amount.
    >
    > It was at least in part due to my arguments/suggestions that NPP
    > is set up to give fighters the extra blow so that they can get
    > six swings with heavy weapons.
    >
    > It is ludicrous to suggest I have a bias against heavy weapons.


    OK, OK, I misunderstood that part! I stand corrected.
    You said that

    "criticals should be based on hitting precisely what you aim for, which
    is inversely correlated to weight"

    while I'm not so sure about that.

    Bashing someone's head in or crushing a lung counts as critical.
    Severing an artery is nothing a little !CCW won't cure. [
    p_ptr->set_cut(0) ]

    That said, I agree that to-hit should count more than it does.
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

    "pete mack" <pmac360@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1118792234.850597.215780@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >
    >
    > Eddie Grove wrote:
    >> "magnate" <chrisc@dbass.demon.co.uk> writes:
    >>
    >> > On your specific example though, I always wanted to add a section
    >> > of
    >> > the rating function dealing with item weight: weapons get higher
    >> > ratings for being heavier, because they get more criticals (and
    >>
    >> Whereas I would like to see this reversed. Weight should be
    >> incorporated into the damage dice. Criticals should be based on
    >> hitting precisely what you aim for, which is inversely correlated to
    >> weight. Perhaps if your to-hit roll exceeds N*AC you should get a
    >> type-N critical. That may be overdoing it, but that's the direction
    >> I'd like to see.
    >
    >
    > Somehow, the notion of getting a critical hit on an Ancient Dragon or
    > a
    > Lesser Titan with a dagger just seems *wrong*. These things are 15'
    > high. How can you hit one at all with a dagger? It's like the
    > hilarious picture on Thangorodrim.net, where the Hero might be able to
    > injure Morgoth's feet, but not much else.
    >
    > Two handed sword or a scythe really should have a better chance.
    >

    Hey, this is a game. Take your realism elsewhere please :).

    --
    Glen
    L:Pyt E+++ T-- R+ P+++ D+ G+ F:*band !RL RLA-
    W:AF Q+++ AI++ GFX++ SFX-- RN++++ PO--- !Hp Re-- S+
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

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

    >
    > I used to love looking up criticals on Rolemaster's huge tables of them
    > ...

    The only RPG you need two referees for - one to manage the story and one
    to manage the combat tables...

    cheers, Rich.

    --
    rich walker | Shadow Robot Company | rw@shadow.org.uk
    technical director 251 Liverpool Road |
    need a Hand? London N1 1LX | +UK 20 7700 2487
    www.shadow.org.uk/products/newhand.shtml
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

    On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 20:32:24 -0400, Sherm Pendley <sherm@dot-app.org>
    wrote:

    >"pete mack" <pmac360@hotmail.com> writes:
    >
    >> Somehow, the notion of getting a critical hit on an Ancient Dragon or a
    >> Lesser Titan with a dagger just seems *wrong*. These things are 15'
    >> high.
    >
    >Ever stepped on a bee while walking barefoot? Dunno if it was critical or
    >not, but it damn sure *felt* like it.

    It sure isn't serious damage (even a nail in the foot isn't
    life-threatening as a physical injury -- and that's *way* worse than a
    bee sting), although the (poison) branding can do a number on you.
    OTOH, my foot either scored a critical hit or the bee just didn't have
    many hit points.

    And that was barefoot. Dragons are *armored*.

    --
    R. Dan Henry
    danhenry@inreach.com
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

    On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 02:05:49 GMT, Billy Bissette
    <baines@coastalnet.com> wrote:

    > Getting a critical with a dagger on a human-sized enemy isn't a
    >strange concept. Indeed, it falls into the idea of what a critical
    >is. After all, a 25lb lump of steel is going to be bad where ever
    >it hits an unarmed novice priest

    Well, yes, considering you've just hit him with an anvil. Five pounds
    is a heavy weapon.

    --
    R. Dan Henry
    danhenry@inreach.com
Ask a new question

Read More

Power Video Games