Thoughts About Rings

[Raerick]

I am not particularly experienced with other variants, but I would be open to some combat changes as long as they weren't too drastic. One thing I would like would effectively be a type of group AI. A morale system. Currently barring a magical effect monsters retreat for a bit when they get hurt enough, but this has no effect on the rest of the group. I think it would be interesting if enemies considered the losses they have witnessed and might pull a temporary retreat. Different monsters would have different thresholds (or even be level dependent) and should (like the current pack AI) ignore it if the players is weak. Such a system should theoretically be easy to program and would in effect add some variation to enemy tactics other than blindly charging. It could also with modification make scare monster worth using for the player. Now this may seem like it would make it easier to deal with a horde, but conversely just as often it would make luring a horde to their deaths more difficult.

I definitely do believe various objects need to be reconsidered. One of the minor gripes I have is that while the difference in weapon types are fairly well abstracted in regards to damage (with different sized and numbers of dice) they are not at all abstracted well in regards to reach. Reach could easily be abstracted into innate to-hit bonuses. It should be easier to hit an enemy with a quarterstaff vs with a dagger. Currently barring some extreme exceptions a number of weapon types just lose out due to number of blows, but if they had a substantial effect on accuracy they might be worth using.

[Hounded]

Insofar as combat syystems I gave the OA combat birth option a try as soon as it was made available and haven't looked back since.

Getting a Thanc dagget and deciding to keep it for throwing because my non-ego enchanted sword out- does it; or tossing enchanted daggers in favour of an unenchanted Maul. It just feels more real.

[Estie]

A thread about rings seems to be the perfect place to talk about the combat system, so here goes:

O versus vanilla:

I havent played much O, but what I like about vanilla is that the preferred weapon type changes over the course of the game. You want a dagger at lvl 1 and a MoD at lvl 50. I believe in O, everyone wants the same type ?

My main issue with vanilla combat is that AC doesnt matter. I much prefer Nethack in that regard. I see 2 main reasons for this:

1. Angband has level upgrades going higher and to_hit/AC values in the hundreds. The to_hit chance vs AC just stretches over the whole range, so if you can barely hold your own in a fight against something that is, say, 20% in power above you, this means youre dealing with a monster 10 levels higher in Angband where in Nethack it would be only like 5 levels higher.

I could see this window being made smaller so that, regardless of how damaging a weapon you may have found, you simply would be unable hit anything (remotely tanky) that is 20 levels above you.

Also, melee damage of monsters could be increased to the point where you get mauled (yes, insta kill amount of damage) _unless_ you are protected. You could add a damage reduction component to armors based on type (robe -0 up to adamantite plate - max) which could be flat or percentage, not sure which is better. We already have the format in place in form of the mysterious (-1) number that is currently applied to @'s to hit chance :P

2. The other main reason - and, I think, the bigger one - is the availability of ?phase. The ability to disengage at any time means that anything that cant kill you in 1 round is not dangerous. With that given (and I wouldnt suggest changing that - it has been a sort of defining feature of vanilla Angband ever since), the only way to make melee combat meaningful is to threaten 1-round death.

[Pete Mack]

Does O-Combat give 2 blows? That'd be *great* for Blackguard and priest.