Halls of Mist: super-simple skills?

[Mikko Lehtinen]

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.

[LostTemplar]

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.

[Mikko Lehtinen]

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.)

[Mikko Lehtinen]

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.

[buzzkill]

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.

[Mikko Lehtinen]

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.

/* Apply Skill -- Extract noise from stealth */
p_ptr->noise = (1L << (30 - p_ptr->skill[SK_STL]));

Noise is used here:

		/* 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...

[Mikko Lehtinen]

I found another thead where "1L <<" was discussed.

d_m explains it like this:

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.

[Timo Pietilä]

I found another thead where "1L <<" was discussed.

d_m explains it like this:

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)?

[Mikko Lehtinen]

Shift happens.

[Derakon]

I suffered through the forum's search feature to find the post where I described how stealth works and another one where I described the values of various stealth levels.

[ekolis]

"<<" operator is bit shift operator. How does that result exponents is beyond me. Some magic is applied there.

Bit shift does exponents (but only powers of 2) because shifting a number to the left one bit is equivalent to doubling it.

[Mikko Lehtinen]

Before reading Derakon's really helpful posts I did some very quick and dirty numbers myself. Seems I was quite close to reality.

Stealth skill    Stealth chance
20               99%
17               98%
13               95%
10               90%
9                87.5%
7                80%
4                60%
2                36%
0                0%

I'm surprised that Stealth skill would probably work quite well with pure, unmodified 1d100 skill checks. It's easy to give race/class combinations similar percentages to what they have in the original system. (Rogue is the only class the develops Stealth with experience.)

Equipment that increase Stealth are the only problem. There would either need to be a cap at 90% or some sort of diminishing returns. It would not be necessary to have any Stealth equipment -- we don't have any Saving Throw or Magic Device equipment, either.

At the moment Grippli Rogue has Stealth 12 (about 93%) at level 50. Grippli Ranger has stealth 7 (80%) at any level. A cap at 90% would not break anything too badly.

[Mikko Lehtinen]

I figured out how to handle Stealth items in a world with Stealth capped at 90%.

They don't give bonuses to your Stealth score. Instead, each stealth equipment "increases the average time between Stealth checks by one turn".

This is handled as another random chance to pass Stealth checks without actually rolling Stealth. 1/2 chance for one item, 2/3 for two, 3/4 for three, and so on.

This would make stealth items about as good for warriors with Stealth 20% and Rogues with Stealth 90% -- much like in the original system. Stockpiling stealth items would work without breaking the game.

[buzzkill]

Wouldn't it be easier to just use percentages like FA does with resists?

[Mikko Lehtinen]

Wouldn't it be easier to just use percentages like FA does with resists?

Could you elaborate a bit? How do resists stack in FA?

If you mean that boots have their own Stealth percentage, and both boots and their owner make their own skill check, yes, that would work. "More turns between Stealth checks" is just another way of saying that. Which one would be easier to understand?