Do we need points based stat generation at all?

[Nick]

OK, some extreme thread necromancy. Here is the post that the current birth default stat allocations are based on:

One simple approach would be to have "standard" point distributions for every race/class combination and allow re-distribution from that start point.

There are too many combos for a table, so we need a simple algorithm. Here's a possible approach.

buy base STR 17

if possible buy adj DEX of 18/10

spend up to half remaining points on each of spell-stat and con, but only up to max base of 16 unless a pure class [mage or priest or warrior]

If there are any points left, spend as much as possible in order on DEX, non-spell-stat, CHR.

They have served pretty well for the last 11 years or so, but are now clearly non-optimal for blackguards (who prefer INT to DEX). So do we:

1. Leave it as is and let blackguard players work it out for themselves;
2. Adjust the algorithm somehow or
3. Give each class it's own algorithm?

I'm kind of leaning toward 3, and writing the algorithm into the class.txt datafile, but I still need to work out how to do that, and also could do with opinions on how the algorithm should go for all the classes.

[ajps]

I think the answer is only to boost dex [before the con phase] if it gives another blow. That means calc_blows needs to be refactored, passed a weight instead of an object, and also passed str and dex mods. In addition, base str of 18 should be considerd if that would give an extra blow. Perhaps looking for extra blows from stats should be combined with noting required stat improvements for the next extra blow when examining a weapon.

I really cba doing that, so I'll just update it to what you originally intended the algorithm to do for now, which will hopefully be enough to provide my aim which was a reasonably playable character for a given random race/class combo.

Incidentally, http://rephial.org/research/birthstats3.txt shows what would happen if we simply skipped the initial allocation of DEX for pure spellcasters. Is this an improvement?

[Atarlost]

Of course hack'n'back is the only actual tactic for melee that's more advanced than bashing the enemy mindlessly.

[PowerDiver]

You may have meant this, but in my own words:

If a game engine provides for "multiple blows per round" or shots per round, then they should all fire at once and not allow the player to use part of them and then move midway through the round.

So if somebody had 2 shots per round, their bow would automatically fire twice when used. (Or for a different perspective, would notch and fire two arrows with the same string pull.)

What I said is a bit more subtle. I want to eliminate the whole idea of a round. So when fighting with 4 blows against someone fast, rather than 4swings by you then 2 moves by them, you get 2 swings by you then 1 move by them. I am a bit ambivalent about doing the same thing with a bow, since ego ammo is so precious, and at a minimum you'd have to special case when a stack of ammo was depleted anyway. In a world of unenchanted ammo with attributes imparted by the launcher it would be clear.

Also, my system could still abused for hack-and-back if you were fighting a pack of monsters, since most likely you would be disturbed quite often. Something would have to be done about that, not because of the abuse, but because it would be too annoying to get only one swing per keypress.

[Zikke]

You may have meant this, but in my own words:

If a game engine provides for "multiple blows per round" or shots per round, then they should all fire at once and not allow the player to use part of them and then move midway through the round.

So if somebody had 2 shots per round, their bow would automatically fire twice when used. (Or for a different perspective, would notch and fire two arrows with the same string pull.)

[PowerDiver]

I would treat extra blows the same way as extra shots. That way you can use the fractional speed system to get fractional extra blows.

If we go down this path, I will try to push for melee accomplished via auto-repeat on individual single swings until disturbed. That mostly eliminates hack-and-back and also reduces being double-moved upon in combat, both big plusses IMO.

[Magnate]

I would treat extra blows the same way as extra shots. That way you can use the fractional speed system to get fractional extra blows.

I agree - it also has the advantage of making V combat internally consistent, and requiring less new code.

Thanks to Takkaria for the steer.

@TJS: it's likely that some weapons will need rebalancing after a fractional blows system is implemented - but don't say too much about extra dice or people will think you want O combat!!

(I'm a big fan of O combat.)

[Atarlost]

I would treat extra blows the same way as extra shots. That way you can use the fractional speed system to get fractional extra blows.

[TJS]

Please, Takkaria, can we have some guidance about the future of the blows calculation? (This could be your equivalent of Ben's move to fractional speed!)

FWIW, in the meantime I think ajps's stat-buying implementation is good enough for newbies (once it's tweaked to incorporate the latest feedback about DEX 18/10, CON etc.).

Yes the whole blows calculation seems a bit strange to me.

You could change it so if you somewhere between 1 and 2 blows per turn perhaps you could get a % chance of an extra blow. Between 2 and 3 you could get 2 and a chance of another one etc.

While I'm at it how's about increasing damage dice on heavier weapons to compensate for the lower number of blows?

[takkaria]

I thought about having a bash at refactoring calc_blows as you describe, but then I thought, this is silly - it's a lot of work on something that desperately needs a total overhaul. If we're going to move away from the hard-coded table (and I fervently believe we should, for all sorts of reasons which have already been debated), it will be easy to write the new calc_blows with calling from birth.c in mind (as well as calling during the normal object/combat handling code).

Please, Takkaria, can we have some guidance about the future of the blows calculation? (This could be your equivalent of Ben's move to fractional speed!)

Moving to some kind of formula seems sensible, with some kind of fractional blows system like in Ironband. Past that... I've not really played in the last three to four months so I'm rather vague on the entire thing.

[Magnate]

I think the answer is only to boost dex [before the con phase] if it gives another blow. That means calc_blows needs to be refactored, passed a weight instead of an object, and also passed str and dex mods. In addition, base str of 18 should be considerd if that would give an extra blow. Perhaps looking for extra blows from stats should be combined with noting required stat improvements for the next extra blow when examining a weapon.

I thought about having a bash at refactoring calc_blows as you describe, but then I thought, this is silly - it's a lot of work on something that desperately needs a total overhaul. If we're going to move away from the hard-coded table (and I fervently believe we should, for all sorts of reasons which have already been debated), it will be easy to write the new calc_blows with calling from birth.c in mind (as well as calling during the normal object/combat handling code).

Please, Takkaria, can we have some guidance about the future of the blows calculation? (This could be your equivalent of Ben's move to fractional speed!)

FWIW, in the meantime I think ajps's stat-buying implementation is good enough for newbies (once it's tweaked to incorporate the latest feedback about DEX 18/10, CON etc.).

[PowerDiver]

I never considered the possibility that pure spellcasters could get to Dex 18/10, and a lot of them do in your table. Something needs fixing.

I think the answer is only to boost dex [before the con phase] if it gives another blow. That means calc_blows needs to be refactored, passed a weight instead of an object, and also passed str and dex mods. In addition, base str of 18 should be considerd if that would give an extra blow. Perhaps looking for extra blows from stats should be combined with noting required stat improvements for the next extra blow when examining a weapon.

[PowerDiver]

Ahhh, right. The outcome of that is at http://rephial.org/research/birthstats2.txt, and does indeed look more sensible to my inexpert eye, certainly spellcasters come up with significantly better spell stats. As to whether CON is undervalued in that set, that's something I'll have to leave to more knowledgable folk.

I never considered the possibility that pure spellcasters could get to Dex 18/10, and a lot of them do in your table. Something needs fixing.

[ajps]

My intention was that if you cannot achieve 18/10 here, you should not spend any points at all on dex until the last phase. Instead, you spend a lot of points even when you cannot achieve 18/10.

Ahhh, right. The outcome of that is at http://rephial.org/research/birthstats2.txt, and does indeed look more sensible to my inexpert eye, certainly spellcasters come up with significantly better spell stats. As to whether CON is undervalued in that set, that's something I'll have to leave to more knowledgable folk.

[Atarlost]

That's because most elemental attacks are balanced with the assumption the player has the resist. Too many resists are must-haves and stats simply aren't.