Sil 1.1.1

[bisonbison]

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?).

A sentence on this in the manual might really help folks in the future. I may just be retarded, but because the example in the manual used a 3 lbs weapon, I somehow assumed that all crit levels were ten apart. So 10/20/30/40, but also 6/16/26/36. Oops.

Maybe a little table as an example:

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

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?

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?

[debo]

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?

Yes this is true, but what I think Scatha was saying is that in the ceiling system for criticals, a e.g. 2.1lb longsword would basically act almost identically to a 3.0lb longsword (especially for the first few crits), which would mean that you would really want an integer-weight sword here.

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 yet

[fph]

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).

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?

[WaveMotion]

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).

Oh wow, I never realized that. Thanks for the correction!

[Scatha]

I believe the number required for each critical is calculated with the weapon weight as is.

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 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.

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?).

[bisonbison]

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.

Ah! Thanks.

[WaveMotion]

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?)

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.

[bisonbison]

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?)

[thomville]

Quite right - that took care of it!

I figured it was something specific to me when I found no other mention of it. Thanks.

[Psi]

This morning I downloaded the 1.1.1 version currently available at amirrorcler.net, but when I opened it the windows were all black - the default fonts seem to be unhappy? I was able to monkey around and found some that work, but not sure what happened?

That often happens with new releases of bands - something to do with fonts being locked by the OS. A reboot before starting the new version should fix it.

[thomville]

I've had the same problem with a version 1.1.1 I downloaded Jan 3 - found an excellent pair of greaves and couldn't reopen the save file the next time I tried.

This morning I downloaded the 1.1.1 version currently available at amirrorcler.net, but when I opened it the windows were all black - the default fonts seem to be unhappy? I was able to monkey around and found some that work, but not sure what happened?

Apologies for opening with a problem - love the game!

[Starhawk]

Oho -- sneaky stealth update ninjas are killing my savefiles!

I will grab the newest version and let you know if the issue comes back. Thanks much!

[half]

It looks like the version I'm playing was downloaded/installed on 1/3/2013.

I think it was updated a couple of times since then (probably within the first week), which was mainly to do with a bug concerning greaves and is probably the culprit here (returning from the grave...).

[Starhawk]

It looks like the version I'm playing was downloaded/installed on 1/3/2013.

[half]

Is this with the latest version of Sil 1.1.1 (half fixed a few bugs, including one which generated invalid objects)? I took a quick look at it and the object it's choking on appears to be an excellent pair of greaves with no artefact type and a 254 ego type, which is out of range (this is what the load chokes on).

Thanks jdh, I think that is it. Starhawk: does the problem come back if you are using the latest 1.1.1 (sorry I didn't bump the version number) and start with a new character save file. It sounds like the earlier 1.1.1 corrupted (or is still corrupting) the file.