How to combine stacks?

[Scatha]

While there is something to be said for straight addition of percentages as being easy to read for the player, I think there are two particularly natural candidate rules for stacking values of resistances:

(A) Resistances reduce damage taken by a set amount (or a die roll), and are additive.
(B) Resistances make you take only a proportion p of the damage, and these proportions are multiplied together.

Both of these work so that multiple sources of resistance are equivalent to having each take effect in turn. I believe (B) is used in FA and some other variants. (A) is probably even simpler, and attractive in a regime like that of V4 where armour subtracts from damage taken.

Question for Timo: would you prefer the game to be more coarse-grained in other dimensions, as it is in resistances? You could do this for weapons, armour, stats, speed ...

[fizzix]

Use swaps. A lot of swaps. Point being you need to collect multiple items giving same resistance instead of items giving different resistances. I would hate that.

This is a good design point to avoid. The player should be able to reach the same rough level of resistance as is found in the current system. This means 66% resistance of the basic four and poison and something like 33% of all the higher elements with the endgame kit. 66% of the basic four should not be too difficult to obtain either, most players have it by dungeon level 30-40. (alternatively the resistance values can be less and the caps can become lower so early breathers are more dangerous.)

Game can have a total resistance cap of 90% (barring immunity) which corresponds roughly to the current 1/9 value for the basic 4. Anyway, regardless of which version goes into pyrel, it should support both. It's much easier to go to the on-off version from the pval version than vice versa (all of pvals of 66%, capped at 66%), so that's what we should design for.

[Timo Pietilä]

It's easy to avoid this making it a "collection game" though. There are a finite number of slots, and item generation can be tuned to ensure that no single item (for any given slot) can provide everything that's needed.

It's still collection game, you just make collecting them challenging.

Angband "needs" are very few. Angband "wants" are huge. Hunting Tarrasque? Collect items with fire and cold resistances. Just avoid monsters with other elemental attacks while using your specialized gear. Use swaps. A lot of swaps. Point being you need to collect multiple items giving same resistance instead of items giving different resistances. I would hate that.

[Magnate]

Thing in vanilla is that most things you get are on-off things. You either have it or you don't. I would go other way around and remove double-resistances. Leave immunities, because they are not "stacking resistances", but different effect completely. Also make basic 4 (5) elements consistent with the rest of them by making resistance random value instead of constant.

on-off makes item decision combination game. Stacking would make it collection game.

If there is resistance stacking then item needs PVAL to determine how much resistance it gives. Things with PVAL stack, because values are cumulative, and high-end items should have high enough PVAL to give "enough" resistance alone without anything else giving same resistance.

also stacking resistances would require major overhaul of items changing angband to something completely different.

Lets see:

Defender, Amrod, resistance rings, Amulet of resistance, Elvenkind, Colluin, Elvenkind, magi

That's 6 items with full basic 4 coverage and one that covers three of the four and two that covers something once. You could get 9 items covering single element. More if you also use lightsource, gauntlets and boots that cover some element.

Ah, see now this is really interesting - my love of granularity and numbers means I'd love to move everything to a pval basis - ESP range (and sensitivity), regen, SI, etc. etc. I already did this with slays and brands in v4 and I really like it. Resists would naturally work the same way.

It's easy to avoid this making it a "collection game" though. There are a finite number of slots, and item generation can be tuned to ensure that no single item (for any given slot) can provide everything that's needed. So you end up with more and more interesting choices to make: do I want this amulet that gives uber-telepathy but little else, or this one with minimal ESP but pretty good resists, or this one with no ESP at all but huge combat boosts?

But I do agree with Timo that this would remain firmly in v4!

[Timo Pietilä]

This is a very good point, which I hadn't appreciated until now. This is precisely why I find the resistance system in V to be imperfect. I'd much rather one where resistances stack (as in Sil) and give a percentage based value. Many variants have gone this route and it seems like the appropriate one for V as well.

Thing in vanilla is that most things you get are on-off things. You either have it or you don't. I would go other way around and remove double-resistances. Leave immunities, because they are not "stacking resistances", but different effect completely. Also make basic 4 (5) elements consistent with the rest of them by making resistance random value instead of constant.

on-off makes item decision combination game. Stacking would make it collection game.

If there is resistance stacking then item needs PVAL to determine how much resistance it gives. Things with PVAL stack, because values are cumulative, and high-end items should have high enough PVAL to give "enough" resistance alone without anything else giving same resistance.

also stacking resistances would require major overhaul of items changing angband to something completely different.

Lets see:

Defender, Amrod, resistance rings, Amulet of resistance, Elvenkind, Colluin, Elvenkind, magi

That's 6 items with full basic 4 coverage and one that covers three of the four and two that covers something once. You could get 9 items covering single element. More if you also use lightsource, gauntlets and boots that cover some element.

[buzzkill]

I'd much rather one where resistances stack (as in Sil) and give a percentage based value. Many variants have gone this route and it seems like the appropriate one for V as well.

I prefer this system also, but I'd never want to see it in V (well, maybe as a non-default option).

[Magnate]

This is a very good point, which I hadn't appreciated until now. This is precisely why I find the resistance system in V to be imperfect. I'd much rather one where resistances stack (as in Sil) and give a percentage based value. Many variants have gone this route and it seems like the appropriate one for V as well.

Bagsy me! Me! Me!

OK, thanks for letting me do this one .....

.... FA has this and it's fantastic ;-)


On a serious note, it's good to realise that I'm quite a long way down the scale of preferring granularity. I always prefer to make decisions based on numbers than on feel or experience.

[fizzix]

I guess it would be around twice as fine-grained as Sil is, or maybe a little more. You might also have a longer game which would naturally stretch the scale at the high end. By the way, in some ways I think Angband is more coarse grained than Sil: for example resistances, both elemental and things like Free Action, have lesser effects in Sil, but stack.

This is a very good point, which I hadn't appreciated until now. This is precisely why I find the resistance system in V to be imperfect. I'd much rather one where resistances stack (as in Sil) and give a percentage based value. Many variants have gone this route and it seems like the appropriate one for V as well.

[Scatha]

You strive for coarseness for simplicity. If you only have 4 types of arrows it doesn't take much playing to get a good feel for how each of them behaves. This let's a player make a decision from experience on whether it's better to use or save an arrow.

That was a very nice post and explanation, thanks.

Sil deliberately cultivates some of the feeling of being chunky and discrete (at least in places). It makes it feel a bit more like a board game. Of course that feel isn't wanted everywhere. I think there's a lot of appeal in the granularity you identify as your favoured one. It's the simplest point where the coarseness never intrudes.

I guess it would be around twice as fine-grained as Sil is, or maybe a little more. You might also have a longer game which would naturally stretch the scale at the high end. By the way, in some ways I think Angband is more coarse grained than Sil: for example resistances, both elemental and things like Free Action, have lesser effects in Sil, but stack.

[fizzix]

It still seems really weird to me to be striving for coarseness. I can't see what it gains at all. Even in v4, ten slots in the quiver is plenty - I hardly ever have to toss more than a single orphan arrow.

You strive for coarseness for simplicity. If you only have 4 types of arrows it doesn't take much playing to get a good feel for how each of them behaves. This let's a player make a decision from experience on whether it's better to use or save an arrow.

If you have thousands of arrow types, you will never be able to make the decision from experience. However, you can make a calculated decision by comparing numerical values. Is this good enough? possibly. But it is a different feel.

IMO, I prefer a system where the coarseness is enough that there is a clear difference between an item and one 2-3 levels above. I think the 20-30 difference in v4 is too much (you need roughly +20 to tell from experience that a weapon is better). I also think that the 1/2 or 1/3 difference in Sil is too little (the difference between +1 and +2 is the difference between good and excellent.) It really comes down to personal preference though, and there's definitely room for every system.

[Magnate]

But there's a lot of room to be more coarse grained than currently while still smooth enough for your desired behaviour.

It still seems really weird to me to be striving for coarseness. I can't see what it gains at all. Even in v4, ten slots in the quiver is plenty - I hardly ever have to toss more than a single orphan arrow.

[Scatha]

The problem with having fewer arrow types is that rangers have a very balanced type of dungeon crawling.

Instead of a priest/mage being constrained by short-term mana costs, you're constrained by entire dive arrow quantities. If we have fewer types than the damage per round is going to vary all over the place during a dive when you have to downgrade from steel arrows to regular or something. Having several types of "good" arrows and slowly switching to worse ones is kinda cool. Makes the dive increasingly dangerous as your arrow stacks run out.

But there's a lot of room to be more coarse grained than currently while still smooth enough for your desired behaviour.

[emulord]

The problem with having fewer arrow types is that rangers have a very balanced type of dungeon crawling.

Instead of a priest/mage being constrained by short-term mana costs, you're constrained by entire dive arrow quantities. If we have fewer types than the damage per round is going to vary all over the place during a dive when you have to downgrade from steel arrows to regular or something. Having several types of "good" arrows and slowly switching to worse ones is kinda cool. Makes the dive increasingly dangerous as your arrow stacks run out.

[Timo Pietilä]

How about compromise: five quiver slots, 99 stack size? Ten different types sounds a lot to me, usually I end up using same arrow types in several of them (usually large stacks of branded arrows).

Follow-up thought.

Maybe we could get rid of random to_dam and to_hit bonuses completely and change dice for base arrows a bit bigger. Maybe make seekers automatic +10 to_hit.

I actually like the idea of having several (many) different base arrow types and a bit less melee-weapon like egos. Ammo in general should not be precious treasures to collect with several different random abilities.

Maybe "arrows of flame" could be just more rare arrow base type.

[emulord]

I agree with dos350. <- It always feels weird to say that.

Another way of increasing granularity would be to have +tohit and +dam be the same number for arrows.

I like the +3 granularity better tho. Then enchanting arrows with scrolls becomes viable if its to condense 2 stacks, or even to make them better. Since arrows are a temporary item, enchanting needs to affect it more than a permanent weapon.

Ok I agree with removing wounding, but acid and holy avenger arrows are the defining arrows of endgame. Its what make Morgoth hunts interesting when all your extra inventory space are stacks of random holy avenger arrows.