Angband 4.2.4

[PowerWyrm]

The problem is weapon proficience doesn't exist...

A mage should be able to use a dagger with ease while be absolutely unable to use big swords. Currently an early mage cannot use anything while a level 50 mage can hit mobs with Deathwreaker no problem.

Same goes with warrior: should be able to use any weapon at any stage. Currently an early warrior needs to use a dagger.

The solution is what TomE did: skill proficience in swords, axes, blunt... Each class gets different skill multipliers. A mage would have a good multiplier in daggers and staves while having zero in everything else. Warriors would have good multipliers for everything.

[PowerDiver]

Playing around with minimum blows per round is also a good suggestion by @PowerDiver. Perhaps 1.0 for full casters, 1.5 for half-casters, 2.0 for warriors?

Actually, it is a bad suggestion. It's just less bad than wasting the amount of effort for integrating O combat. More importantly, O combat was designed assuming 2 blows to start.

Here is what I came up with way back when. I have a vague memory that weak mages found even a main gauche too heavy, but I don't remember if I ever modified that. I purposely required 18/200 for max blows. I'd guess most players would prefer full blows significantly earlier.

It is important to be quadratic in strength and square root in weapon weight given the silly weapon weights in the game.

        /* stat_ind of 0 corresponds to real value of 3 */
        str += 3;
        dex += 3;

        /*
         * We could subtract off current weapon str and dex bonuses, then
         * add bonusus from o_ptr, but for now o_ptr is guaranteed to
         * be the wielded item in calc_bonuses(...)
         */
/*
        printf("str %d, dex %d", str, dex);
*/

        /* give full benefits to 18/200 stats */
        if (str > 37)
                str = 40;
        if (dex > 37)
                dex = 40;

        weight = o_ptr->weight;
        /* baseline no weight penalty with dagger */
        weight -= 12;
        if (weight < 0)
                weight = 0;

        blows = 1.0 + ((MAX_TYPICAL_BLOWS - 1.0) * dex / 40.0);
        str_blows = (3.75 + (str * str / 40.0))/(3.0 + efg_sqrt(weight/10.0));
        if (str_blows < blows)
                blows = str_blows;

        /* adjust 20% if not a mixed caster */
        if (cp_ptr->max_attacks > MAX_TYPICAL_BLOWS)
                blows = 1.2 * blows;
        else if (cp_ptr->flags & CF_ZERO_FAIL)
                blows = 0.8 * blows;

        object_flags(o_ptr, &f1, &f2, &f3);
        if (f1 & TR1_BLOWS)
                blows += o_ptr->pval;

[tom]

Each of these steps is, imo, an improvement. Take the next step: make sure that strong @s always want a heavier weapon than weak @s. It is possible to do so without breaking anything.

One possible way is via the STR bonus to damage (adj_str_td table in player-calcs.c). This could be limited by weapon weight, ie min(weapon weight, adj_str_td[player strength]).

Playing around with minimum blows per round is also a good suggestion by @PowerDiver. Perhaps 1.0 for full casters, 1.5 for half-casters, 2.0 for warriors?

Also need to play with how blows per round are calculated. Warriors cap at 6 blows, which means they can't max their blows per round potential with many heavy weapons, leading to weird weapon choices.

[Estie]

V combat emerged because the original unrealistic feature (from D&D mechanic) was that there was never a reason to use a dagger (1d4) over a sword (2d5). I dont know exactly what O combat does, but if it reverts to the above situation, I dont want it.

Balancing weapon types by making the lighter, low damage ones faster is a great idea; but to be (somewhat) realistic a model the speed advantage should come from high dexterity.

So in the next step (which I believe must have existed though I dont see any trace of it in any version of Angband I know) the dagger wielding high dexterity fighter was the most damaging which is also unrealistic; while Bruce Lees exist, combat sports all over the world have weight categories, implying that mass (and hence, strength over speed) matters.

Each of these steps is, imo, an improvement. Take the next step: make sure that strong @s always want a heavier weapon than weak @s. It is possible to do so without breaking anything.

[PowerDiver]

The problem with V combat is that a big strong clumsy oaf gets too many blows with a dagger and too few blows with a maul. The biggest improvement from O, assuming my memory from 15 years ago is correct, is that most chars start with 2 blows with a moderately heavy weapon. Forget about the percentage stuff and just start with a minimum of 2 blows and that's already an 80% fix. If it bothers you that a mage gets 2 blows with a heavy weapon, make the minimum blows be class depenendent or use the blows code I mentioned before.

[tom]

The only combat systems I'm aware of that are kindof balanced with existing item stats are the standard system, and oangband system.

I think there is a bit to do still to balance oangband combat in V. In particular, archery with basic (1d4) ammo and no slays is considerably weaker (when using a good bow). Altering those to 2d4, 2d5 etc helps a bit. Overall it will still probably mean archery is less powerful than before, except with 4d4 ammo and a slay. Here's some damage stats I collected:

Damage with lvl1 paladin, x3 bow, all +0,+0:
Arrow dice classic damage => oangband damage
1d4 7.5 => 9.5
2d4 15 => 17.6 (there is no 2d4)
3d4 22.5 => 25.9
4d4 30 => 34.1

Damage with maxed char, paladin slays (demon, evil, none), bow of bard x5:
Arrow dice classic damage => oangband damage (demon, evil, none)
1d4 220,160,110 => 152,77,42
2d4 250,175,125 => 249,128,70 (there is no 2d4)
3d4 275,192,137 => 346,177,98
4d4 333,233,166 => 457,235,130

So making basic ammo 2d4 makes archery a bit stronger in the very early game, but as soon as you have a +20 bow of power the damage will still lag behind V combat.

Maybe some Sil weapon flavours can be added to vanilla angband - axes hitting multiple targets, polearms giving that extra reach, etc. This + making oangband combat the default would IMO be a big improvement, without requiring an extensive tweaking of all item values.

People have complained that oang combat makes damage calculations as opaque as to-hit calculations already are. Perhaps some UI changes to show final damage dice will help with this? Sil does a great job of this, though its calculations are more straightforward than oang combat.

[Monkey Face]

Ideal combat system:

I attack a monster.

Monster dies.

I move on to the next monster.

[fph]

I suggest having the next competition with birth_percent_damage , so that more people can try it and see if it is a useful starting point for discussion.

[smbhax]

It certainly should.

Aw, cool! I'll have to remember to try that next time. ^ _^

[Nick]

Would birth_percent_damage change that?

It certainly should.

[smbhax]

I think the current system works pretty well; there's the birth option for percentage damage (essentially O-combat); and there are other options like what was proposed for v4.

So I'm not going to be pushing a particular idea, but I would very much welcome a discussion about this, with the view that it could potentially lead to a revised combat system (and by implication a version 4.3).

The only problem I've had with combat so far is that up through level 30 or something the most damaging weapon I could find for my Warrior was an ordinary dagger (maybe a stiletto or something), because of the speed factor. It made the wide variety of heavier weapons I kept finding obsolete, so there was essentially no worthwhile weapon variety for ages. That was weird and boring.

Would birth_percent_damage change that?

[Nick]

Any thoughts about making Vanilla combat more Sil-like? That would leverage some of the new knowledge you're picking up. Or are the systems incompatible.

It would be a very big change. Sil combat is very finely balanced, and all the weapons (and to an extent armour) are carefully designed to fit a usable niche. Angband tends to have a much more relaxed (being kind here) approach to balance in objects.

That said, it's not an area I devote a lot of time to analysing.

[Bill Peterson]

So I'm not going to be pushing a particular idea, but I would very much welcome a discussion about this, with the view that it could potentially lead to a revised combat system (and by implication a version 4.3).

Any thoughts about making Vanilla combat more Sil-like? That would leverage some of the new knowledge you're picking up. Or are the systems incompatible.

[Nick]

Combat System

Some of you may remember that when I started out as maintainer I gave an outline of my plans for 4.1-4.3. The eagle-eyed will also notice that combat system was one of the things slated for examination in 4.3.

A couple of things I should say:

1. I'm kind of occupied on other things at the moment and
2. I don't have really strong opinions about how the combat system should work.

I think the current system works pretty well; there's the birth option for percentage damage (essentially O-combat); and there are other options like what was proposed for v4.

So I'm not going to be pushing a particular idea, but I would very much welcome a discussion about this, with the view that it could potentially lead to a revised combat system (and by implication a version 4.3).

[PowerDiver]

Long ago I made a proposal to let #blows be determined by dex alone and have str put a cap on that number dependent on weapon weight..

I proposed something equivalent even longer ago, worded differently but the same effect. This was one of many things I implemented in 3.a.0 that was only ever used in one competetition. FWIW the formulae involved the square root of some linear function of the weapon weight. I did a lot playtesting to get the values right for my intuition. If the dev team wants to test this, that old code might be a good place to start.

This idea got no traction when I tried to push it. Perhaps you will have better luck.