Tmi?

[Hariolor]

That's "too much information" for the uninitiated -

So I really like the ideas that have been thrown around for better display of monster info, weapon info, char info, etc. There's an idea I'd like to propose be included in the process:

Already we've seen the inclusion of average damage/round for devices and weapons. How about we take this one step further?

Monster info should include info that discloses, in narrative or chart form: Minimum # turns the monster could kill you in (worst case scenario), average # turns the monster could kill you in. This should be based on previously-seen abilities of the creature and their probabilities of occurring each turn, and take into account player's current (known) condition (AC, resists, etc). It should also include the minimum and average # turns to kill the creature using the most optimal choice of melee or ranged combat...I think recommending spells might be a bit much, but I wouldn't be averse to it.

In narrative form it might read like:

You should be able to survive six rounds fighting this creature, but it could kill you in 2 rounds by breathing poison. Using your arrows of slaying (+5, +7) and your current bow you will probably kill it in ten rounds, but could need as few as three.

Is this a lot of info? Yes.

Is it really just a shortcut to what players could do anyway by setting up a spreadsheet for themselves? Yes.

Do I think it will improve gameplay? Likely enough that I'm bothering to suggest it.

[buzzkill]

Wouldn't you get tired of reading this.

"This monster should have killed you already. It's a miracle that you are still alive. There are any number of ways that it could kill you instantly. Only a fool would stick around. You have no chance of killing it or even surviving this battle."

[Antoine]

Wouldn't you get tired of reading this.

"This monster should have killed you already. It's a miracle that you are still alive. There are any number of ways that it could kill you instantly. Only a fool would stick around. You have no chance of killing it or even surviving this battle."

Well, how do you think the monsters feel?

"@ - This monster has few HP, but always heals when seriously damaged. If you somehow manage to get it down to low HP, it will teleport away, teleport you away, or even teleport off the level. In theory you should be able to kill it in 3 rounds, but it never hangs round long enough. You could try stealing its gold instead, but most likely it spent the lot on those nice Boots of Speed +7 from the Black Market. If you really piss it off it will Genocide you (you don't even want to know what that means)."

A.

[Tiburon Silverflame]

Yes, IMO that would be TMI. Note that it would take several encounters lasting several rounds to get complete information on many critters, and that the monster letter groupings often give you a great deal of information anyway.

But to me, a lot of this is too hypothetical; the big problem critters often have multiple attacks at their disposal, and you've got countermeasures. Thus, the time factor is never that simple. Even the notion of 'turn' is now essentially either undefinable, or useless, because combat doesn't use turns, it uses energy expended.

The notion of "here's your best attack against this thing, and here's how long it would take" is also just giving far too much information.

Let the player build up his own knowledge base.

[fizzix]

I don't understand the point of all this, it's cluttered, a pain to code, and provides (IMO) useless information. The only thing I would add to the monster memory is your chance of hitting with the current weapon or launcher (taking distance into account) assuming you know the AC. Similarly, a monsters chance to hit based on your AC should also be included. Currently, chance to-hit is the current most opaque calculation from a player's perspective. Even relative changes are completely hidden, you have no idea how much an AC boost of 10 is worth, or a +to-hit gain of 5 unless you look it up in the code.

[nullfame]

You should be able to survive six rounds fighting this creature, but it could kill you in 2 rounds by breathing poison. Using your arrows of slaying (+5, +7) and your current bow you will probably kill it in ten rounds, but could need as few as three.

I actually like this idea along with a reformatted monster memory. The only thing I would drop is the fewest turns the player needs to kill it. That is never the case. Fewest turns a monster can kill you in should always be what you use to make decisions. I would be satisfied with just showing player damage using current weapon (i.e., not having to iterate through each arrow type) but either way.

[fizzix]

I actually like this idea along with a reformatted monster memory. The only thing I would drop is the fewest turns the player needs to kill it. That is never the case. Fewest turns a monster can kill you in should always be what you use to make decisions. I would be satisfied with just showing player damage using current weapon (i.e., not having to iterate through each arrow type) but either way.

But isn't the turns to kill you obvious? You can see what the breath values are and what the damager per hit is, and you know how fast the guy is going. Granted the calculation is easy enough to display, but it's also trivial enough to do on your own.

[buzzkill]

I would be satisfied with just showing player damage using current weapon (i.e., not having to iterate through each arrow type) but either way.

Maybe it could just determine your best offensive choice, considering wielded missile weapon and all melee weapons, and give you the numbers for that.

Wouldn't it be great if the monster recall screen was customizable outside of editing the source code. A text file. A few standard templates could be included then let users edit it to their liking or create something completely new (to be shared). Certainly the calculations would be limited to that already provided in game, but the actual info, style, colors, and arrangement could be completely up to the player.