Randarts...

[PowerDiver]

And yes, I *much* prefer the notion that Magic Is Magic. I hate "divine magic" or "arcane magic" or most of the artificial distinctions. If gloves interfere with casting, do it for *everyone*. If a wizard can't wear metal armor because it interferes, then neither can a priest.

Nor a rogue, ranger, or paladin.

[fizzix]

I'm just going to chime in and say that I like the distinctions between classes as they are. I don't see the pointy penalty as being fundamentally broken either.

[Magnate]

It is feasible to win without any artifacts. Is a non-random approach really worth the effort?

Well, a week ago I wouldn't have said so, but there does seem to be a consensus building around making more accurate assessments of the usefulness of INT/WIS/blessed etc. This really means allowing p_ptr->pclass to influence generation, which is nonrandom. I'm fairly easygoing either way: if Takk tells me he has a huge problem with it, it won't happen. If it makes for better randarts and happier players (but not easier gameplay, no never that), then why not.

[Magnate]

I don't know the steps involved in creating a randart for sure, but from comments, it seems like it's

a) create randart
b) determine power, and therefore depth/rarity

IF this is the case, might it not make sense to work this a bit differently? I'm thinking, plan the randart set based on depth. START by assigning depth, or a small range for depth, and deriving a power range from that. Then build the artifacts to the appropriate power.

I think this would be complementary to keeping an internal table of all artifacts created so far. As to the difficulty...the problem may be that it's a multi-dimensional problem. One might have a relatively low-power artifact that is the only source of, say, rConf, or maybe more likely, there are other artifacts that have rConf, but they all get massively trumped by others in their item class.

Finally, of course, depth and rarity have to play a big role, because that impacts the notion of 'available.' We all look over the randart posts and drool at The Big One I Didn't Find.

Randart generation goes like this:

For every artifact in artifact.txt:
1. Calculate the power of the standart
2. Choose a base item
3. Calculate the power of the base item
4. If between 20% and 80% of #1 (not sure of exact %s), continue, else back to 2. This ensures that the base item is not too good or too weak to make a sensible randart of the target power.
5. Add random powers to the base item (calculate power after each addition, and roll back if power exceeds 105% of #1)
6. Stop when power exceeds 90% of #1, and calculate depth and rarity based on original depth/rarity and new power

Cursed artifacts (with negative power) are slightly different. Once all artifacts are randomised the whole set is checked to see that there are at least three sets of boots, four hats, five swords etc. We start over if not.

[Derakon]

To be clear, I'm not necessarily advocating that we take class into account. I'm just saying that randarts often have items that are useful to some classes but useless to others, which seems to not happen so much with standarts, and was wondering if this was a problem we would want to try to solve by considering the player's class during artifact generation. I'm sure there's other ways to deal with it. Or we could just leave it be. It's not like randart games are impossible as it stands.

[PowerDiver]

This really means allowing p_ptr->pclass to influence generation, which is nonrandom.

That idea has been hated, over and over, in the past.

A simpler fix would be to insist in randart generation that any item with one of +INT or +WIS gets both.

[fizzix]

That idea has been hated, over and over, in the past.

A simpler fix would be to insist in randart generation that any item with one of +INT or +WIS gets both.

That could work. I like that a lot better than the class based approach. Probably because it's right in line with INT and WIS being the same stat, something I support.

(+4 INT, +4 WIS) should probably be somewhere between +4 CON and +4 STR in power. (assuming the ordering coes CON, STR, DEX from most to least powerful)

[Magnate]

That could work. I like that a lot better than the class based approach. Probably because it's right in line with INT and WIS being the same stat, something I support.

(+4 INT, +4 WIS) should probably be somewhere between +4 CON and +4 STR in power. (assuming the ordering coes CON, STR, DEX from most to least powerful)

This really bothers me, actually - but I take the point that there is opposition to using pclass.

I would happily support making INT and WIS the same stat, but while they're separate I'd like to treat them separately. As a sop to casters, I could make sure that the *total* INT and WIS bonuses in the artifact set were the same - and I could ensure that on weapons and nonweapons separately.

[PowerDiver]

This really bothers me, actually - but I take the point that there is opposition to using pclass.

I would happily support making INT and WIS the same stat, but while they're separate I'd like to treat them separately. As a sop to casters, I could make sure that the *total* INT and WIS bonuses in the artifact set were the same - and I could ensure that on weapons and nonweapons separately.

The total is irrelevant. It doesn't make any difference if you add +2 int to a bunch of weak artifacts. If you bias the set that way, I'd guess you would do more harm than good.

I can't figure out your point of view. As i see it ...

Premise: It is bad if a player looks at an artifact and would use it if the spellstat boost matches, but won't use it if it does not match.

If you agree with the premise, int=wis solves the situation precisely. If you disagree with the premise, things are fine as they are now.

Obviously I am missing something.

[TJS]

This really bothers me, actually - but I take the point that there is opposition to using pclass.

I would happily support making INT and WIS the same stat, but while they're separate I'd like to treat them separately. As a sop to casters, I could make sure that the *total* INT and WIS bonuses in the artifact set were the same - and I could ensure that on weapons and nonweapons separately.

You could also make sure con, dex and str are boosted whenever int and wis are to make sure warriors don't miss out as well.

[TJS]

I'm actually not so much interested in the INT/WIS conundrum (which standarts "solve" by making it so that most artifacts that boost one also boost the other) as I am in the blessed weapon issue. Nobody except for priests cares about the blessed flag, but it is seriously important for priests (in the late game, you can sometimes get away with a sharp weapon if you don't mind the failure rate increase on your higher spells).

Then again, we might want to solve this by simply getting rid of the sharp-weapon penalty entirely. Give them (and by extension, paladins) the same gloves penalty all the other casters have instead.

Please let's not get rid of the sharp weapon penalty for priests. It is one of the few flavour things left that actually has an effect on gameplay. I quite like searching around for a suitable weapon for my class rather than just expect every weapon to be equally useful to all classes.

It isn't as if the priest is the most difficult class currently anyhow.

[Timo Pietilä]

Please let's not get rid of the sharp weapon penalty for priests. It is one of the few flavour things left that actually has an effect on gameplay. I quite like searching around for a suitable weapon for my class rather than just expect every weapon to be equally useful to all classes.

It isn't as if the priest is the most difficult class currently anyhow.

The fact that priests need a "blunt" weapon is a bit arbitrary. Especially since it definitely is not "weapon that does not draw blood" because some of those "blunt" weapons contain spikes and other sharpish edges, just not one sharp edge.

Maybe we could make that restriction even more restricted and just force priests to use "blessed" weapons: Temple should sell blessed weapons, and some high level priest spell could be "bless weapon" to make any weapon "blessed" for priest. Otherwise they suffer from penalty just like mages suffer from handgear without DEX or FA. Note that I'm not talking about "blessed" -ego, just flag "blessed".

[PowerDiver]

Please let's not get rid of the sharp weapon penalty for priests. It is one of the few flavour things left that actually has an effect on gameplay. I quite like searching around for a suitable weapon for my class rather than just expect every weapon to be equally useful to all classes..

I think the pointy weapon penalty is the stupidest thing in the game. If anything, priests should have a blunt penalty, not a pointy penalty. But I digress.

If there is going to be a penalty for using priest realm spells while wielding particular weapons, surely it should apply equally to paladins.

[Magnate]

The total is irrelevant. It doesn't make any difference if you add +2 int to a bunch of weak artifacts. If you bias the set that way, I'd guess you would do more harm than good.

I can't figure out your point of view. As i see it ...

Premise: It is bad if a player looks at an artifact and would use it if the spellstat boost matches, but won't use it if it does not match.

If you agree with the premise, int=wis solves the situation precisely. If you disagree with the premise, things are fine as they are now.

Obviously I am missing something.

No, you're not - IMO things are fine as they are now. This whole discussion started because someone found a *random* set of artifacts with a whole load of +WIS and little or no +INT. So we started thinking about biasing the generation in various ways. I'm quite happy not to do that, but was equally happy discussing possibilities.

If I were going to do that (bias generation), one method I would not use is setting int=wis. Unless the stats were merged elsewhere in the game, I would not do it only for randart generation.

Is that clearer?

[PowerDiver]

Is that clearer?

affirmative