Sil 1.1.1
Collapse
X
-
Weapon weight and crits
For the purposes of crits, how do weapon weights get rounded? Does a 1.4 short sword count as 1 and a 1.6 count as 2? (1.5?)Comment
-
So for a 1.4 short sword, the number to beat (without Subtlety or Finesse) is 7+1.4 = 8.4, and 8.6 for the 1.6lb weapon. In both cases you would need to beat the enemy's evasion roll by 9 to get the first critical. It's only until the second critical that the difference in weight makes a difference: for the 1.4lb sword the number is 8.4 x 2 = 16.8 and your roll has to win by 17, whereas the 1.6lb sword the requirement is 17.2 and so you must beat the roll by 18.
The difference between a 1.4lb and a 1.2lb weapon, in contrast, only shows itself from the third critical on, where your melee roll would have to win by at least 25.2 and 24.6 respectively.
So the weapon weight is effectively rounded up, but only after applying the multiplier for each level of critical hit.Last edited by WaveMotion; February 10, 2013, 01:43.Comment
-
I believe the number required for each critical is calculated with the weapon weight as is.
So for a 1.4 short sword, the number to beat (without Subtlety or Finesse) is 7+1.4 = 8.4, and 8.6 for the 1.6lb weapon. In both cases you would need to beat the enemy's evasion roll by 9 to get the first critical. It's only until the second critical that the difference in weight makes a difference: for the 1.4lb sword the number is 8.4 x 2 = 16.8 and your roll has to win by 17, whereas the 1.6lb sword the requirement is 17.2 and so you must beat the roll by 18.
The difference between a 1.4lb and a 1.2lb weapon, in contrast, only shows itself from the third critical on, where your melee roll would have to win by at least 25.2 and 24.6 respectively.
So the weapon weight is effectively rounded up, but only after applying the multiplier for each level of critical hit.Comment
-
So for a 1.4 short sword, the number to beat (without Subtlety or Finesse) is 7+1.4 = 8.4, and 8.6 for the 1.6lb weapon. In both cases you would need to beat the enemy's evasion roll by 9 to get the first critical. It's only until the second critical that the difference in weight makes a difference: for the 1.4lb sword the number is 8.4 x 2 = 16.8 and your roll has to win by 17, whereas the 1.6lb sword the requirement is 17.2 and so you must beat the roll by 18.
The behaviour emerging here is meant to have the effect that if a weapon is only slightly heavier, it's only slightly worse for criticals. It's a little on the unfortunately complicated side. I don't think this is too bad, though, and I'm not sure I see a way out of this without getting the rounding effects (restricting weapons to half-integer weights?).Comment
-
You have almost the right picture. Actually the final rounding is to the nearest integer rather than to the ceiling (it was ceiling for some time before release, but it turned out this made integer weight weapons significantly more desirable than others, which felt artificial).Comment
-
With the current rules, the "most desirable weight" (without considering the effects of charge and momentum) should be equal to one's strength, with less being bad for damage sides, and more being bad for critical. Isn't it?--
Dive fast, die young, leave a high-CHA corpse.Comment
-
Integer-weight weapons are still more desirable than the others, because the strength bonus has integer thresholds. Or am I wrong?
With the current rules, the "most desirable weight" (without considering the effects of charge and momentum) should be equal to one's strength, with less being bad for damage sides, and more being bad for critical. Isn't it?
In the rounding version of this, a 2.0lb longsword and a 2.3lb longsword are hardly different at all, whereas 2.5 is where the next breakpoint happens. So anything between [2.0 - 2.5) is basically noise, and you don't have to worry about it too much.
Or maybe I have this totally wrong -- I haven't had my tea yetGlaurung, Father of the Dragons says, 'You cannot avoid the ballyhack.'Comment
-
You have almost the right picture. Actually the final rounding is to the nearest integer rather than to the ceiling (it was ceiling for some time before release, but it turned out this made integer weight weapons significantly more desirable than others, which felt artificial).
So actually the 1.4lb shortsword gets its first critical at the same time a 1lb shortsword would (it's rounded down), whereas 1.5lb and up are rounded up and need to hit by 9 for the first critical. Your example actually shows that despite this difference in the first critical, the 1.4lb and 1.6lb shortswords get their second critical at the same point! They agree once more, at the fourth critical, and diverge thereafter.
The behaviour emerging here is meant to have the effect that if a weapon is only slightly heavier, it's only slightly worse for criticals. It's a little on the unfortunately complicated side. I don't think this is too bad, though, and I'm not sure I see a way out of this without getting the rounding effects (restricting weapons to half-integer weights?).
Maybe a little table as an example:
Code:Base 7 + weapon wgt wgt | cl1 | cl2 | cl3 | cl4 | cl5+ Longsword | 2.1 | 9 | 18 | 27 | 36 | +9.1 Longsword | 2.4 | 9 | 19 | 28 | 38 | +9.4
1 lbs dagger gives +1 side
2 lbs sword gives +2 sides
5 lbs hammer gives +2 sides
With momentum:
1 lbs dagger gives +2 side
2 lbs sword gives +2 sides
5 lbs hammer gives +2 sides
Right?
Are weights rounded for sides as well? Does a .8 dagger give +1 side with no skills and +2 sides with momentum, or 0/1?Comment
-
Also, while I'm here... For a STR 2 player with no skills:
1 lbs dagger gives +1 side
2 lbs sword gives +2 sides
5 lbs hammer gives +2 sides
With momentum:
1 lbs dagger gives +2 side
2 lbs sword gives +2 sides
5 lbs hammer gives +2 sides
Right? All correct.
Are weights rounded for sides as well? Does a .8 dagger give +1 side with no skills and +2 sides with momentum, or 0/1? 0/1
No. It has to cross the lb threshold to get the extra side. You've got a 1.9 sword with your above example of 2 str, only 1 damage side.You are on something strangeComment
-
They are not rounded, but instead take the 'floor' so 3.9 is the same as 3. I think that the criticals might be the only thing in the entire game where a fraction is rounded to the nearest integer. In almost all cases we take the floor (and often make the wording reflect this on a careful reading).Comment
-
They are not rounded, but instead take the 'floor' so 3.9 is the same as 3. I think that the criticals might be the only thing in the entire game where a fraction is rounded to the nearest integer. In almost all cases we take the floor (and often make the wording reflect this on a careful reading).Comment
-
It was mentioned in one thread or another that you are contemplating making levels smaller, I have to give my view on this. I really like the size of the later levels. The early levels are definitely the most frustrating for pacifists, because you very often get cut off from the stairs, and since there is only one it can be a real pain to find sometimes. Similarly with the ascension, I dislike the last few levels the most because there is only one stair and you run into dead ends with Morgoth behind you. Exploring and playing in the big levels is more enjoyable because these situations are much rarer and you've (almost) always another way to go.
I would actually like for the early levels to have their stairs generated close to each other... Would make pacifists less painful to start and allow faster diving to 250' or so otherwise.Last edited by clouded; February 14, 2013, 22:44.Comment
-
Feedback on level generation is definitely appreciated.
It sounds like there are two issues interacting here:
- Unless you take steps to counteract it, smaller levels tend to have lower connectivity (in particular more rooms with only one exit); this is something we'd want to keep a careful eye on.
- Having fewer staircases on the level can make things more awkward. Easier to get off from escapes, and perhaps harder to find.
I'm not actually sure whether staircases ought to be harder to find on small levels. The staircase/room density is about the same (I think! Should check this), so at a first pass you might think it would be much the same. However:
- If there are just 2 staircases, you know about 50% of them when you start the level. You only know about 25% of the staircases on the mid-sized levels (however, the incidence of up or down staircases in particular should be about the same).
- You might think there's a central spine of the level which tends to be explored quickly, and cul-de-sacs off that get missed. The chances of all staircases being in cul-de-sacs goes down as the number of staircases goes up. I'm not sure how valid this model is.
On the staircase front, perhaps we should consider having more staircases on small levels, or make shafts appear right from the start? Note that dropping level size without changing the number of staircases would increase staircase density.
In any case the idea would be to experiment with these parameters a bit and have a look at (and a play with) the results. This could be worth doing in case there are some gains available cheaply. Of course if it seemed to make gameplay worse overall we'd not follow through.Comment
Comment