Sil 1.1.1

[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]

Quite right - that took care of it!

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

[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?)

[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]

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.

[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?).

[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!

[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?

[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

[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?

[HallucinationMushroom]

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.

[half]

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?

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).

[Starhawk]

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).

Yeah, I've been playing for months assuming the critical system took the floor. Hmm. Food for thought I guess.

[clouded]

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.

[Scatha]

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.