Poll: do you want to change combat mechanics for heavy weapons?

[TJS]

A lot of people are coming out in favor, but I don't think it works. Does that mean we cut Ringil to have +10 damage?

This is a massive change to combat. If you go this way, you might as well import O combat. You are going to need to do just as much rebalancing.

If the problem is that we want people to use heavier weapons, is it not enough to change the blows calculations so that you get more blows with heavier weapons sooner?

I was suggesting not having a hard cap just have heavier items more likely to have higher damage enchantment.

Changing the blow calculations would work though. I think warriors should get a couple of blows at least with the medium weight weapons at the start of the game.

The current way it is currently calculated seems strange with 10 and 18 dexterity getting the same number of blows. It makes an early ring of dexterity pretty useless to most characters.

[Magnate]

I was suggesting not having a hard cap just have heavier items more likely to have higher damage enchantment.

Changing the blow calculations would work though. I think warriors should get a couple of blows at least with the medium weight weapons at the start of the game.

The current way it is currently calculated seems strange with 10 and 18 dexterity getting the same number of blows. It makes an early ring of dexterity pretty useless to most characters.

Actually the 3rd column is now 17 not 18 - I revised the columns when I edited blows_table to use epb. There's now a smooth progression every 20 percentiles instead of massive breakpoints at 18/10 and 18/100. Admittedly there's no improvement between 10 and 17 Dex, but it would be easy enough to add another column to the table (or two) if there's demand for it. How many chars have less than 17 Dex?

[Magnate]

The troll shouldn't even have to pay for a maul. He should break off a tree branch, maybe getting something a bit heavier for the same dice but at least somewhat comparable for free. But that's a discussion for a different day.

Indeed it is - you know that we agree on the whole shopping issue.

Anyway, I never argued against O combat.

I'm not saying you did - I was just using your post to make a point to a wider audience. It wasn't until you gave that splendid comparison that I realised quite why I didn't like Derakon's capping idea. The basic issue is that the "size" of a weapon is indicated by its base dice. Therefore any +dam mechanic that is unrelated to base dice will favour light weapons - this is the problem with the current system of linear +dam. Any steps to address weapon weight properly *must* relate +dam to the base dice in some way. The troll choosing the +0 dagger over the +9 maul is the perfect example of that.

But before you jump to the conclusion we are agreeing on something, would you answer my question "If the problem is that we want people to use heavier weapons, is it not enough to change the blows calculations so that you get more blows with heavier weapons sooner?".

Or is the problem something different?

Is this a sport for you? Statistically I infer that you must *enjoy* disagreeing with me, or you wouldn't try to do it so often!

I don't think it's enough just to change the blows calculation, no - I think that's orthogonal to the +dam issue. I think the use of heavier weapons will always be discouraged while a +10 damage ring has exactly the same numerical damage boost to a dagger's strike as a maul's swing.

[dos350]

8 blows with maul of xtra attack~? please im sorry but im really missing the issue~ isnt it only mattering at startgame?? is it bad currently?~~~ eek!!!!!

[bio_hazard]

It seems like having damage bonuses applied per dice rather than per weapon would work, without having to get into less transparent % algorithms. Obviously both on and off- weapon +dam bonuses would have to be toned down quite a bit.

Great hammers (8d1) would finally be great!

[Magnate]

It seems like having damage bonuses applied per dice rather than per weapon would work, without having to get into less transparent % algorithms. Obviously both on and off- weapon +dam bonuses would have to be toned down quite a bit.

Great hammers (8d1) would finally be great!

Indeed, and therein lies the problem: why would damage bonuses apply to individual dice regardless of sides? What logic says that adding the same amount to a d1 as to a d10 makes any sense?

What we are attempting to do here is make the existing V combat algorithm more rational. Applying damage to each die regardless of size isn't any more rational than applying it to each blow regardless of dice. Unless, of course, we simply made all weapons Nd1 ...

[bio_hazard]

Well, you have to pick some kind of mechanic. I guess dice tell you something about the difference between a glancing hit and a devestating hit. It doesn't not make sense to me.

Things like Mauls and Hammers seem more likely to do a lot of damage no matter what, since even blocked blows will impart force. A magical rapier still has a limited damage area. Do we want the smallest nick from a magical rapier to do a truck-load of damage? (brands aside).

To be honest, I'd at least think about adding additional axes for trade-offs with weapons. Stealth penalites for big noisy ones, AC bonus for big ones, more knock-back/stun/backstabbing etc. For me at least it will add flavor.

I'd also be in favor of more differentiation between the classes (and maybe races). Mages should not be runnign around with two-handed swords, giant cross-bows, big plate armor.

[ewert]

Just thinking out loud but:

The perceived problem is mostly in very light weapons at early game, yes?

How about, as a bandaid, have each class have a spesific weight "reduction bonus". Say, warriors get -5lbs, so they have absolutely no need to wield a dagger compared to short sword unless the dagger is just a mean dagger compared to the sword. Just change the energy/blow formulas so that prior to "weight min" each class gets some sort of reduction. Warriors 5lbs, paladin 4lbs, rogue 3lbs, ranger 2lbs, priest 1lbs and mage 0lbs.

Or something ... There is still those weapon min weights in the code too?

[bio_hazard]

Just thinking out loud but:

The perceived problem is mostly in very light weapons at early game, yes?

How about, as a bandaid, have each class have a spesific weight "reduction bonus". Say, warriors get -5lbs, so they have absolutely no need to wield a dagger compared to short sword unless the dagger is just a mean dagger compared to the sword. Just change the energy/blow formulas so that prior to "weight min" each class gets some sort of reduction. Warriors 5lbs, paladin 4lbs, rogue 3lbs, ranger 2lbs, priest 1lbs and mage 0lbs.

Or something ... There is still those weapon min weights in the code too?

Interesting... how about instead of a fixed discount, weight^(1/a), where a varies between 1(mages) and 1.5(warriors)

or something similar. So warriors would have an easier time relative to other classes with heavier weapons...

[PowerDiver]

Indeed it is - you know that we agree on the whole shopping issue.

Statistically I infer that you must *enjoy* disagreeing with me, or you wouldn't try to do it so often!

There you go again, saying we agree when we completely disagree. I believe in production pricing where the 5d4 40 lb tree branch should cost 1 gp, but your version of value pricing means the starting troll cannot afford to start with one.

I don't think it's enough just to change the blows calculation, no - I think that's orthogonal to the +dam issue. I think the use of heavier weapons will always be discouraged while a +10 damage ring has exactly the same numerical damage boost to a dagger's strike as a maul's swing.

Maybe you are right, but ...

If you increased the dice by a factor of weight/5, and then cut every weight by a factor of 3, I bet people would prefer heavy weapons even with the current messed up blows table. I'm not saying that is a good approach, but it illustrates why I don't think the system is as broken as everyone else posting here is implying. I think it is more the numbers used within the current system.

My own preference is really far into variant territory, far beyond what anyone has done. I'm not arguing because I think the current mechanic is right. I just think the changes being proposed are large and will have unintended consequences requiring rebalancing other stuff, and it just appears counterproductive to me.

Half the difference in O combat in the early game is that everyone with poor stats still gets 2 blows with heavy weapons. That's just a difference in the blows calculation.

[Nick]

I believe in production pricing where the 5d4 40 lb tree branch should cost 1 gp, but your version of value pricing means the starting troll cannot afford to start with one.

But there is no tree terrain in Angband, so the branch has to be imported from outside the titanium walls of the town by Ithyl-Mak's Garden Emporium.

[Estie]

But there is no tree terrain in Angband, so the branch has to be imported from outside the titanium walls of the town by Ithyl-Mak's Garden Emporium.

This all is really about wilderness levels isnt it ?

[Magnate]

There you go again, saying we agree when we completely disagree. I believe in production pricing where the 5d4 40 lb tree branch should cost 1 gp, but your version of value pricing means the starting troll cannot afford to start with one.

I said we agree on shopping, not pricing. I know we don't agree on pricing - as it currently stands. If anyone could be bothered to write a coherent supply & demand model for the game, I would convert to production pricing. At that point you would have to change your view to something else or risk agreeing with me again.

Maybe you are right,

swoon

but ...

If you increased the dice by a factor of weight/5, and then cut every weight by a factor of 3, I bet people would prefer heavy weapons even with the current messed up blows table. I'm not saying that is a good approach, but it illustrates why I don't think the system is as broken as everyone else posting here is implying. I think it is more the numbers used within the current system.

My own preference is really far into variant territory, far beyond what anyone has done. I'm not arguing because I think the current mechanic is right. I just think the changes being proposed are large and will have unintended consequences requiring rebalancing other stuff, and it just appears counterproductive to me.

Half the difference in O combat in the early game is that everyone with poor stats still gets 2 blows with heavy weapons. That's just a difference in the blows calculation.

It is, and I did acknowledge in the poll that it is possible to take the position that adjusting blows is enough in itself. Personally I think the =dam issue *is* worth all the rebalancing it will take to solve, but that's because I don't have a far more radical solution which seems more worthwhile. What's yours?

[Lord Fell]

But before you jump to the conclusion we are agreeing on something, would you answer my question "If the problem is that we want people to use heavier weapons, is it not enough to change the blows calculations so that you get more blows with heavier weapons sooner?".

Or is the problem something different?

I personally think that the problem is something different. If the game were balanced so that players got more blows with heavier weapons sooner, I suspect that lighter weapons would still be better, because they would have a base "more" blows per round, and presumably benefit from the additional blows per round the heavier weapons would now gain.

The way I see the problem is this... take a 1st level Warrior with 18/something strength and 18/something dexterity. They will get 3 or so blows a round with a dagger or whip. Give that same character a heavier Broadsword, and they will only get 1 blow per round. Since the warrior gets more attacks (more chances to hit), does more damage per round (consistently), and has considerably less encumbrance for a dagger (et al)... why on earth would they ever wield a broadsword?

Realistically, a broadsword, battleaxe, voulge, etc... is a better weapon than a dagger. I feel that the practical value of the weapon must justify its weight. I also think that this is still a consideration in later game, when comparing two Ego weapons, as the base weapon statistics don't change.

[PowerDiver]

Personally I think the =dam issue *is* worth all the rebalancing it will take to solve, but that's because I don't have a far more radical solution which seems more worthwhile. What's yours?

You want radical? Separate monster defense into evasion and armor, with armor absorbing damage. Then you prefer multiple attacks with a light weapon against lightly armored foes, and even a single attack with a big weapon against heavily armored foes. 10 attacks with a dagger don't help if they cannot pierce the armor absorption.

Obviously, this requires a lot more work than just incorporating O combat.