memorable randarts
Collapse
X
-
Comment
-
Man, people need to stop using this thread to discuss randarts.
Anyway, yes, there's always been a problem with weak randarts, because there's often no room for interesting abilities after choosing the base item and initial plusses. There's also a separate problem with "bad" randarts because there are so few acceptable "bad" mods in the game. The generator originally used Derakon's approach of +25 and -50 (or thereabouts), but everything ended up aggravating and being junk. Maybe that doesn't matter - but if you want more interesting bad randarts, we need more interesting bad mods.
It would definitely be possible to solve the first problem and start the generation of a weak randart with an 'interesting' ability and then find a suitable base item.
Btw, the generator doesn't over-value AC per se, it calculates AC per unit weight and values that. You may still think some AC values end up too high."Been away so long I hardly knew the place, gee it's good to be back home" - The BeatlesComment
-
I think that giving weapons more realistic weights (around 2lbs) would mitigate the armor-weight issue.
(For the record, no, I dont mind zero value randarts at all, I am very happy with them as is, but yes, I am still in the wrong thread.)Comment
-
Maybe the code over-generalizes things in this case. AC has pretty much fixed value regardless of the item it is found and it should not count anything less than +15 as any value, because you can enchant item with spells and scrolls to that point.Comment
-
Realistically, an early piece of armor that does nothing except boost your AC by 20-30 is still going to make a difference. It's hard to quantify, sure, but that doesn't make it worthless. Of course it will be obsoleted as soon as you find a hat that does something more important, but it still has its window of usefulness.
In other words, you're being overly reductionist.Comment
-
That is unless this has been changed in 3.5. Haven't played mage-types yet in 3.5.Comment
-
Compared to the usual degree of off-topicness around here, I think discussing randarts in a thread about randarts is remarkably restrained.
Anyway, yes, there's always been a problem with weak randarts, because there's often no room for interesting abilities after choosing the base item and initial plusses. There's also a separate problem with "bad" randarts because there are so few acceptable "bad" mods in the game. The generator originally used Derakon's approach of +25 and -50 (or thereabouts), but everything ended up aggravating and being junk. Maybe that doesn't matter - but if you want more interesting bad randarts, we need more interesting bad mods.Comment
-
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.Comment
-
What about penalties to stats or combat abilities? Thorin has -1 stealth, Wormtongue makes your combat slightly worse; we could easily have randarts that reduce your STR or whatever.
1. When is it ok to have a malus on an otherwise good randart? Splattering them everywhere will soon pall.
2. How much of a malus is acceptable? -2 STR on an uber-randart would be easily tolerable, but you can imagine it making weak randarts instant junk.
3. How many tries are we going to allow? Adding maluses to the main generator (note that 'bad' randarts use a completely separate function) would exponentially increase the generation time, which is already noticeable on modern systems (especially if the whole set fails the minima test).
I'm not against it by any means, but you can see why even minor gimping never made it to the top of my to-do list.
(@Timo: AC per unit weight has a maximum value, and anything with zero weight is automatically allocated that value. It's not terribly large, in the greater scheme of things - something like +10 damage or so. And no, the generator does not attempt to adjust for any other equipment or spell the finder might have - as I have said consistently, that way lies madness.)"Been away so long I hardly knew the place, gee it's good to be back home" - The BeatlesComment
-
I agree, I would just want to get AC bonuses have no value unless it is beyond certain threshold, like +15. Otherwise randart generator makes just those completely useless junk-items. Other way to tackle that problem would be to not give AC any value at all while generating and give it normal ego-type AC boost after or before generation.Comment
-
I agree, I would just want to get AC bonuses have no value unless it is beyond certain threshold, like +15. Otherwise randart generator makes just those completely useless junk-items. Other way to tackle that problem would be to not give AC any value at all while generating and give it normal ego-type AC boost after or before generation.
I have suggested exactly that for AC evaluation - its simple and fits the current situation with AC being a) thrown at you anyway and b) being rather meaningless.
Increasing the base AC of armors, while going in the right direction, hasnt changed the greater picture. I am still dreaming of Angband where AC matters, but to achieve that, the task isnt so much "make AC more useful", its rather "crush anyone (engaging in melee combat) without sufficient AC".
Diablo I is a game where AC is vital; Diablo II is more like Angband in that regard.Comment
-
Comment
-
Its AC/weight times a gauging factor, capped at some value since, as you observed, the quotient can become infinite for zero weight items like ethereal cloaks. That max value is simiar to that of a dam +10 item.
So its something like 75AC/lb (probably less).Comment
-
It's interesting that people *still* think that AC is useless. Back in 3.1.x I lengthened the scale and recalibrated the values to try and address this - there is now a material difference in the damage taken between AC 0 and 50, or 100 and 150 - but clearly it still isn't enough.
Personally I don't think much more is possible until the combat system is changed fundamentally (like in v4/Pyrel, for example), but interested in other views. In a new thread, perhaps ;-)"Been away so long I hardly knew the place, gee it's good to be back home" - The BeatlesComment
Comment