To hit calculation

[PowerDiver]

I assumed that Takkaria started this thread as an April fool's joke, but it doesn't matter. This can of worms has been opened.

I propose that monster AC should be dropped by a factor of 4, internal hit skill should be divided by 3, and the skill multiplier of 3 on to-hit should go away, and then you roll 1d<skill + hit_bonuses> directly vs monster AC. This much would be pretty much indistinguishable from the current. Then, get rid of the fixed 5% hit/fail, which I always thought was stupid. Finally, publish the complete skill on the 'C" screen and when inspecting an object.

Perhaps a lot of work for little effect, but the upshot would be that the to-hit calculation could be explained in a single sentence, and people could internalize the rule and apply it easily without needing undue arithmetic.

[Atarlost]

To hit only goes up to around 200 or so though I think and monster defense goes up as well. Sure, you'll pretty much auto-hit mice with a level 50 charachter, but you'll be fighting stuff whose armor has gone up as well. 100 points of difference being meaningful (if you switch to no auto-hit/miss) is probably fine. Morgoth only has 150 defence in 3.0.6 according to the on-site spoilers. That means you wouldn't touch him without at least 50 to hit and would whiff half the time at 100 to hit. The lowest level V winner I found on the ladder is from 3.0.9 but I don't think winning kit has changed since the JLE items were merged into V and combat in even longer. A level 41 charachter, then, can win with +79 melee and +87 ranged to hit in pre-Takkaria V. The highest ranked ranger to die to Morgoth is also from 3.0.9. He had +72 melee and +70 ranged to hit at level 50. Both of these charachters are in the range of +to hit where +to hit would matter against Morgoth in a percentile based THAC0 system even with 5% autohit and 5% automiss. There's more difficulty at the lower end where a percentile THAC0 level 1 charachter with no magic equipment would hit Mughash 80% of the time and be hit correspondingly more. The low end, though, can be tweaked. The complaint that 100 (or 90 if the 5% auto-hit/miss is retained) points of meaningful spread is inadequate for a game like Angband seems dubious.

[Atarlost]

Ah. The complaint is for mage vs warrior melee. I guess I shouldn't have kept class constant in my other post.
As I said there Morgoth has 150 AC according to the on-site spoilers for 3.0.6. Assuming he did not change in 3.0.x this isn't a problem. The top 3.0.x mage and the top 3.0.x warrior both have +to hit in the 90 point sweet spot of percentile THAC0 with 5% auto-hit and 5% auto-miss. The mage actually has a slightly higher +to hit. This would, of course, not work at all for variants, like ToME, that have significantly more power inflation than V.

Angband to-hit scaling may be better, but percentile THAC0 is workable at the power levels involved.

[Magnate]

I didn't get the joke at all until Eddie pointed it out (I just thought Nick was being his usual hilarious self).

I don't think the to-hit calculation needs changing at all. All that is needed is to give the player info on his chance to hit AC20, 50 and 100. (Rather than have all three displayed, perhaps progress down the list as the player gains levels.)

Item descriptions could be updated to include "it will increase your chance of hitting AC50 to 77.2%" or whatever.

CC

[Jungle_Boy]

The highest ranked ranger to die to Morgoth is also from 3.0.9. He had +72 melee and +70 ranged to hit at level 50.

Hey, that's me!!

[Polyonymous]

I almost never get jokes (April 1 is my least favorite day of the year because I almost always fall for multiple), but I agree completely with Eddie that the math may as well be redone to remove some of the factors if the formula is deemed to complex to describe. It doesn't need to be base + hit * 3 and armor * 3/4.

[buzzkill]

I'm curious to know why so many people prefer the THACO system over the base attack bonus system in D&D 3rd edition?

Because, none of us dinosaurs ever played 3rd edition. Text based graphics weren't optional or a novelty to us. They were reality. If short, although both systems are similar, we like THACO 'cause that's what we grew up with. (Although, I have to admit, I have since picked up the 3rd edition books, just for reference, and decided to just stick with the old system. You can't teach an old dog new tricks.)

[ramela]

Well, I'm a dinosaur too, and I've tried both. Trust me, 3rd edition combat for the win. (4th edition is a board game, not an RPG anymore.)

On the subject of this thread being a April Fools Joke, it never occurred to me, because making the combat mechanics simpler and more transparent to players is far from a trivial UI improvement in my opinion. The player being able to figure out the likelyhood of hitting a monster (and the monster's odds of hitting back) would add depth to tactical thinking for those of us that care about such detail.

I like Eddie's suggestion.

[Dubtrain]

PPS as you figure things out, add the reasons why to the code or to a separate design document that's part of the source archive so that a maintainer down the line can quickly see why things are what they are.

This would be great! By the way, this entire post was one of the single coolest things I've read on this site in a long time.

Thanks & please bring more of the "deep structure" stuff to the forum!

[takkaria]

I assumed that Takkaria started this thread as an April fool's joke, but it doesn't matter. This can of worms has been opened.

I propose that monster AC should be dropped by a factor of 4, internal hit skill should be divided by 3, and the skill multiplier of 3 on to-hit should go away, and then you roll 1d<skill + hit_bonuses> directly vs monster AC. This much would be pretty much indistinguishable from the current. Then, get rid of the fixed 5% hit/fail, which I always thought was stupid. Finally, publish the complete skill on the 'C" screen and when inspecting an object.

Perhaps a lot of work for little effect, but the upshot would be that the to-hit calculation could be explained in a single sentence, and people could internalize the rule and apply it easily without needing undue arithmetic.

I'm considering this quite strongly. Though I was never serious on using THAC0, I'm glad it's spawned useful discussion on making the game mechanics more knowable.

[bebo]

I'm absolutely in favour of making to_hit calculations more transparent to the player - although probably the simplest solution might be to add in the monster knowledge screen a line indicating the to_hit chance with the currently equipped melee/ranged weapon. It won't make us better understand the calculations behind it, but the end effect will be useful all the same - and with much less hassle from a coding perspective i'd imagine

[Nick]

I'm absolutely in favour of making to_hit calculations more transparent to the player - although probably the simplest solution might be to add in the monster knowledge screen a line indicating the to_hit chance with the currently equipped melee/ranged weapon.

This I like.

[buzzkill]

I've always been a bit mystified by the calculations that take place behind the scenes. Being a old D&D player you (almost) always knew your % chance to hit an enemy before rolling the die. In Angband, while I know that a higher AC is better and that 'superb' is better than 'poor' in terms of fighting ability, I could never calculate a % chance to hit in my head. I wouldn't even know where to begin. Instead I use trial and error (take a hack and see what happens), which may not be such a bad thing, since it lends atmosphere, but I'm not opposed to making the system more transparent. There are already enough mysteries about the dungeon.

What I would like to see is and actual HP number for monsters (xxx/xxx), as well as spelled out abnormal states, such as asleep or confused, rather than the current colored coded ***** system.

Also, a visible damage calculation term window, so you can plainly see where you damage output is coming from. It would show the actual damage die rolled , + to damage modifiers, + critical hit damage (if any), + brand damage (if any). I don't see a down side to this, save for the wasted minutes of precious life paid by the programmer.

[Atarlost]

But it doesn't let the player make predictions. A nice transparent hit/miss calculation would let the player decide if reading a scroll of blessing and/or chugging a potion of heroism would be worthwhile in the current fight, and accounting for a dozen different stacks of arrows with slightly different plusses would take a lot of real estate. It's not a solution for mobile versions.

[buzzkill]

But it doesn't let the player make predictions. A nice transparent hit/miss calculation would let the player decide if reading a scroll of blessing and/or chugging a potion of heroism would be worthwhile in the current fight...

Yes, but should this definitive information be known to the player beforehand? I agree with you, but I think that there's a line to be walked here.

...and accounting for a dozen different stacks of arrows with slightly different pluses would take a lot of real estate....

The term-window damage calculator (if that's what you were referring to) would be on the fly. It would would show the actual damage calculated in the process of attacking a monster (and possibly vice-versa). I didn't envision it as a tool in which you could take practice swings with various weapons.

....It's not a solution for mobile versions.

Which is why I carry a laptop.