Halls of Mist: super-simple skills?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Timo Pietilä
    replied
    Originally posted by Mikko Lehtinen
    I found another thead where "1L <<" was discussed.

    d_m explains it like this:

    Code:
    1 << 1 == 2
    1 << 2 == 4
    1 << 3 == 8
    ...
    1 << 8 == 256
    "<<" operator is bit shift operator. How does that result exponents is beyond me. Some magic is applied there.

    Maybe 8 magically results 000000100000000 to long integer using that (shifts 1 eight bits left)?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mikko Lehtinen
    replied
    I found another thead where "1L <<" was discussed.

    d_m explains it like this:

    Code:
    1 << 1 == 2
    1 << 2 == 4
    1 << 3 == 8
    ...
    1 << 8 == 256
    OK, so the noise values are actually much bigger. Now it starts to make more sense.

    Hmm, I guess I'll need to calculate percentage chances for noticing for every possible Stealth value. I'm trying to find out whether it is somehow possible to have simple d100 <= Stealth skill checks.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mikko Lehtinen
    replied
    I need some help in understanding Stealth. I'm combing through the code that is unchanged from EyAngband.

    First, noise seems to be 30 - Stealth. But what does that "1L <<" mean? Yes, I'm terrible at C.

    Code:
    /* Apply Skill -- Extract noise from stealth */
    p_ptr->noise = (1L << (30 - p_ptr->skill[SK_STL]));
    Noise is used here:

    Code:
    		/* Anti-stealth */
    		notice = rand_int(1024);
    
    		/* Hack -- See if monster "notices" player */
    		if ((notice * notice * notice) <= p_ptr->noise)
    		{
    (the waking up code snipped)
    It seems to me that only some values of noise and Stealth are actually useful. These are the only random "Anti-Stealth" numbers that matter:

    0 * 0 * 0 = 0 (The monster notices you no matter what your Stealth is)
    1 * 1 * 1 = 1 (Stealth 30 needed to avoid noticing.)
    2 * 2 * 2 = 8 (Stealth 23 needed.)
    3 * 3 * 3 = 27 (Stealth 4 needed.)

    I'm probably missing something...

    Leave a comment:


  • buzzkill
    replied
    Originally posted by Mikko Lehtinen
    Cursed devices do something nasty when you fail to use them.
    This is a neat take on curses that can stand alone. In a universe absent of the sticky curse, this could fill that hole.
    An otherwise normal item, designated as {cursed} would inflict a penalty upon the wielder upon a failure to use properly. It's fairly self-explanatory for items magic items with an existing failure rate. One would have to get a bit creative when applying it to weapons (badly missed attack) or armours (getting hit hard).
    Cursed weapons would disproportionately penalize mage-types who use them, ditto for magic devices and warrior-types. Seems about right.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mikko Lehtinen
    replied
    Some more attempts at simplification.

    Some monsters have no armor. Against them your hit chance is simply 95% (that's what you would usually have in the Angband system against low AC). I think the no armor/light armor/heavy armor scale for monster armor is enough for my purposes.

    Weapon bonuses come at intervals of +5. They affect both the relevant attack skill and Ambush.

    Some monsters are very skilled in making some kinds of attacks. Against them you need to make your relevant defense check (Parry, Jumping, Saving Throw) twice in a row.

    Make a normal 1d100 <= Magic Device skill check to use a device. Devices may have magical plusses or minuses to the skill check, just like weapons, and you may enchant them. Cursed devices do something nasty when you fail to use them. Higher level devices are more likely to be cursed or to have a negative modifier.

    Monsters have individual saving throws against status effects, just like they have individual hit points. Some high level monsters have a bad saving throw. Abilities that increase your "Influence" are simply substracted from monster saving throws. For example, monsters have 10 points lower saving throws against Mystics.
    Last edited by Mikko Lehtinen; September 4, 2012, 08:01.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mikko Lehtinen
    replied
    I'm starting to believe that the simplified combat might actually suit Halls of Mist well. It requires heavy rebalancing, and probably isn't going to appear any time soon.

    Hit chances aren't a very big part of the game. It feels funny to me that the game has really complicated mechanics for something that doesn't matter all that much -- like I said, the hit chance is usually in the range 75%-95%.

    The really important mechanics in Mist combat are the number of blows and the maximum weapon weight, both derived straight from the stats. Unlike in v4 combat, combat skills only play a side role.

    The biggest benefit would be that all the skills could be explained in an unified way, with no funny exceptions. Everything would be easy and super-transparent. I like the feeling of control this brings, in a game with otherwise pretty complicated combat tactics.

    I don't mind that light/heavy armor is a binary choice. Lots of monster abilities are (like Jumping ability, evasion, resistances) and it doesn't feel unnatural in actual play. Instead, binary abilities tend to make tactical choices clearer and (for me) more fun. Usually in Mist you do battle against a group of monsters, and the player doesn't have either time or brain power notice slight differences in monster abilities. Binary works for me.

    (EDIT. Binary makes recognizing monster's abilities much faster. "A dragon flies and has a tough hide". "A golem is tough, and a bad jumper, and probably resists fire." You just intuitively know the game stats as soon as you see a golem or a dragon. No need to stop fighting to check monster memory.)

    Here's the latest list of attack checks:

    * melee or thrown weapon against light armor: Slash
    * melee or thrown weapon against heavy armor: Pierce

    * thrown powder vial: Snapshot

    * short range archery against light armor: Snapshot
    * short range archery against heavy armor: Aimed Shot
    * long range archery against light armor : Aimed Shot
    * long range archery against heavy armor: 2x Aimed Shot

    (Long range is 8+. The maximum range for thrown weapons and powder vials is 7.)
    Last edited by Mikko Lehtinen; September 2, 2012, 19:43.

    Leave a comment:


  • LostTemplar
    replied
    Level 1 warrior would have 5% hit chance against lvl 50 monster. However this probably never happens. So, assuming nobody fights too high level monsters you are right.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mikko Lehtinen
    replied
    Originally posted by LostTemplar
    Assuming certain ratio of c_lvl / m_lvl hit chances does not change.
    Since Fay started showing hit chances to the player, I've learned that they were almost always in the range of 75%-95% or something like that. Not sure if Ey combat system had different hit chances than Angband, probably not.

    If I gave warriors 15 point increase during their career, the effect would be bigger than in the original system.

    Leave a comment:


  • ekolis
    replied
    Originally posted by LostTemplar
    Maybe get rid of level-up and experience completely then, it seems it does not fit into game you want to make (all this anti farming effort).
    Simply assume that character level is euqal to dungeon level.
    Then why even bother with levelups at all? Just scale down the deeper monsters!

    Leave a comment:


  • LostTemplar
    replied
    Assuming certain ratio of c_lvl / m_lvl hit chances does not change.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mikko Lehtinen
    replied
    Hit chances don't really change in Angband either. Not much would change really.

    Leave a comment:


  • LostTemplar
    replied
    Combat skills would not change too much from the 1st to the 50th level.
    Maybe get rid of level-up and experience completely then, it seems it does not fit into game you want to make (all this anti farming effort).
    Simply assume that character level is euqal to dungeon level.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mikko Lehtinen
    replied
    Scaling can be done with hit points, no? What do they represent, anyway?

    There would be heavily armored monsters of every level, no scaling there. Maybe it's even a good thing that low-level monsters are somewhat relevant even when encountered deep in the dungeons?

    Combat skills would not change too much from the 1st to the 50th level.

    I'm going for "naivistic simplicity" with this experiment. I guess slight unrealism doesn't bother me in this case. BTW, this would work very well in a fast-paced tabletop RPG where players roll all the dice.

    Leave a comment:


  • Derakon
    replied
    I agree that it seems better to have both a chance-to-hit and a degree-of-damage skill check, instead of a binary "monsters with more than this much armor use a different skill check for hitting". Among other things, that means you can scale armor sensibly throughout the game so that the basic mechanics of combat remain consistent early and late.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mikko Lehtinen
    replied
    The armor piercing skills advance at a much slower pace. Slash would always be better than Pierce. For strong and clumsy fighters the difference would be very small.

    I would try to make it obvious which monsters are heavily armored. It might lead to interesting combat tactics: kill lightly armored foes with a sword, heavily armored foes with spells.

    For the combat skills training would probably matter much more than stats.
    Last edited by Mikko Lehtinen; September 1, 2012, 07:05.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
😀
😂
🥰
😘
🤢
😎
😞
😡
👍
👎