Combat kinda sucks

[Sirridan]

So tomorrow, I start working out and hopefully getting the start of the level feeling implementations I want to do done, hopefully the folks here like them. I'll post a whole thread on what I'm planning, and even if it isn't what people want, it will provide a thread for some discussion on more development side of the issue.

Anyway, combat kinda sucks, and I think there could be a few ways we could make it better. For one, the big way to get high melee damage is to get a weapon that gets as many blows as possible, then pump up +damage. So in many cases, find a great heavy weapon like a lance (Defender) early on sucks, because it's useful, but does crap damage. (1 blow at 30 damage, versus 4 at 16... with a whip or something, due to +damage)

Another thing is the weird kinda breakpoints with dex and such, like jumping from 18/10 dex to 18/49 has NO EFFECT on attacks, but going up from 18/49 to 18/50 can make your attacks jump up, I feel this should be more gradual, because as is, it may favor not taking substantial upgrades due to loss of damage. (Because you lose dex or maybe str)

But honestly I think the worst problem is +damage and light weapons, however it would be a bit unfair to tone them down now since the light+Damage combo is so ingrained. I was thinking of buffing the effect of +damage for heavier weapons, so that in the end a weapon with similar pluses will do the same overall damage, so those heavier weapons aren't useless. Of course weapons like blades of chaos or maces of disruption would do better, since they are rarer, and some light artifact weapons will outperform heaviers.

And as is, some heavy weapons can hit 5-6 blows, and would grossly inflate the damage of an increased +damage/weight. So in addition to this buff, I would change the extra attacks formula so that heavier weapons would get fewer blows, however in the end overall damage would remain the same.

So in a nutshell, I'm wanting to see a change that does this:

1. Early weapon choices should not be solely dependant on weight.
2. End game damage from heavy and light weapons should be the same as it is now.
3. +damage has the same effect on weapons on average. If a +10 ring of damage adds 50 to your dagger attacks overall, it should add 50 to your mace, even if you get only 5 attacks with dagger and 3 with the mace.

Any thoughts?

[Pete Mack]

So in a nutshell, I'm wanting to see a change that does this:

1. Early weapon choices should not be solely dependant on weight.
2. End game damage from heavy and light weapons should be the same as it is now.
3. +damage has the same effect on weapons on average. If a +10 ring of damage adds 50 to your dagger attacks overall, it should add 50 to your mace, even if you get only 5 attacks with dagger and 3 with the mace.

Any thoughts?

Or, you can try playing with O-style combat...
Before implementing this, do try a few games of O. (Use Warrior with Fury to start.)

[Djabanete]

I've always found the way Angband encourages light weapons in the beginning and heavy, big-dice weapons in the late game (for the slays and brands) kind of endearing --- but then, I've never been much of a stickler for realism when it comes to gaming.

However, it seems clear to me that dividing blows decimally would be a very favorable change, and would go a long way towards alleviating the problem of the annoying breakpoints, which I do _not_ find endearing whatsoever.

[Sirridan]

Or, you can try playing with O-style combat...
Before implementing this, do try a few games of O. (Use Warrior with Fury to start.)

Good idea, if something good has been done, why reinvent the wheel?

[Matthias]

In the end, the warrior will select the weapon that does the most damage in the current situation (assuming equal other stats). With this in mind, no combat system sucks and none is better than the other.

So in many cases, find a great heavy weapon like a lance (Defender) early on sucks, because it's useful, but does crap damage. (1 blow at 30 damage, versus 4 at 16... with a whip or something, due to +damage)

And in combat systems that prefer heavy weapons you'll find a perfectly fine light weapon that will then suck (and not just early on) because of the heavy weapon bias.

[fizzix]

A couple things.

I don't think the combat system sucks, but it can be improved quite a bit.

Fractional blows would be a big improvement because it gets rid of the arbitrary break points. I think V is already headed in that direction.

Lighter weapon bias isn't that big of a deal IMO, but if you wanted to give some benefit to heavier weapons in the early rounds, I'd do it in a different way. A possible approach would to be allowing the player to stun monsters (or even knock them unconscious) in a way that's dependent on weapon weight.

The biggest problem I have is fixing slays and brands on weapons vs. missiles. Missile brands/slays are overpowered and weapon ones are way underpowered, except for heavy weapons with extra dice. I'd make the slay damage multiplier dependent on total weapon damage (not just the dice). Not sure whether to include jewelry, armor, or strength multipliers yet. Then, the total multipliers for the slays or the brands should all be reduced, to weaken missile slays just a tad, and keep weapon ones reasonable. Oh, and allow stacking. So if I have a ring of flames and a weapon of slay orc, I should both burn and smite that poor poor uruk.

Right now a dagger of slay orc adds like 2 points damage. What's the point?

[Pete Mack]

Anyway, combat kinda sucks, and I think there could be a few ways we could make it better. For one, the big way to get high melee damage is to get a weapon that gets as many blows as possible, then pump up +damage. So in many cases, find a great heavy weapon like a lance (Defender) early on sucks, because it's useful, but does crap damage. (1 blow at 30 damage, versus 4 at 16... with a whip or something, due to +damage)

Also note: a Defender is not intended to be used for damage. (Hence the name.) They make great swap weapons (for stealth and resistances), and do fine for non-melee characters, but they were never intended to do much damage. If anything, they are stronger now than they were in the past, as you can use a branding ring to up the dice to something respectable.

The whole light-weapon heavy-weapon argument actually doesn't interest me much. Some few weapons are always going to be "the best", rendering all other weapons junk. In V, that essentially all heavy weapons are junk in the early game, and essentially all light weapons are junk in the end game. In O, it means that essentially all light weapons are junk for the entire game. It also means that luck plays a much bigger role, because there's no falling back on a Dagger(+9,+9) if your luck fails you.

[buzzkill]

Haven't really put much thought into the whole missile vs. melee thingy but, it would make some sense to me if the launcher carried the pluses (to hit, to damage) and the missile carried the dice and the slays, but no pluses. If that loss need be compensated, maybe a pair of gloves, or a helm, specific to further improving archery could be introduced. God knows there are some useless artifact gloves that could use a tweak.

[Iniquity]

At the moment you can only realistically enchant a weapon to say +10 damage independent of the weapon weight. Why not make the algorithm for failure of enchant dam spells/scrolls take into account weapon weight? So you can enchant your lance to +25 or something but your whip to only +8.

[Hariolor]

Why not move away from the D&D-style weapon damage scale, period.

The fact that the most wicked weapons are what, scythes of slicing at something like 8d6? That's an unbranded, unplussed average of a whopping 28 damage!

Maybe this would screw up the entire balance of the game (ok, definitely, not maybe) - but why not make the scale on weapons much broader. A 1d4 dagger and a 3d4 bastard sword are just not that statistically different, though the sword is realistically capable of dealing far more damage. So why not make the bastard sword 10d4, instead of 3d4. I'd think it's at least ten times more damaging to get hit with one...

but doing this would mean rebalancing EVERYTHING, and is probably not worth it.

[Bad Tempered Geezer]

At the moment you can only realistically enchant a weapon to say +10 damage independent of the weapon weight. Why not make the algorithm for failure of enchant dam spells/scrolls take into account weapon weight? So you can enchant your lance to +25 or something but your whip to only +8.

This makes a lot of sense. Naturally, you can fit a lot more magical power into a more heavier/bigger weapon, right?

I also like the idea of brand multipliers applying after damage pluses. To be honest, that's what I used to think they did before reading the forums...

[Pete Mack]

This makes a lot of sense. Naturally, you can fit a lot more magical power into a more heavier/bigger weapon, right?

I also like the idea of brand multipliers applying after damage pluses. To be honest, that's what I used to think they did before reading the forums...

You are thinking in terms of a player's perspective, not a game designer's perspective: a reasonable starting assumption is that weapons should be normally distributed over a range of "balanced play."

Note that there is a lance with +25 damage and 3d8. It's Eorlingas, and it's end-game quality. (I've used it to slay Morgoth, though it certainly isn't my first choice.)

Sure, in the early game, heavy weapons are junk. But if you ramp them up to be playable in the early game, suddenly just about any heavy weapon becomes end-game quality. Of course, you can fix that by rebalancing the base power, but then you are pretty much back where you started.

Food for thought:

http://angband.oook.cz/forum/showpost.php?p=22892&postcount=32

Keep it simple, but keep it balanced.

[Sirridan]

Thinking more about it I agree with Pete, although it irritates me to find a really good but heavy weapon early on, it's rather nice in mid-end game when they become better, and it sure does make balance a hell of a lot easier.