Derakon's combat revamp

[Derakon]

Yeah, unfortunately we already have a bunch of terms in-game that mean "I'm powerful!" so finding a new one for hitting things harder was a bit tricky. If you have a better suggestion then I'm all ears. "Power" was vetoed at least in part because we don't want there to be Rings of Power that weren't forged by Sauron.

[Derakon]

Here's todays change list:

* Weapon bonuses are now applied in combat. Off-weapon bonuses aren't, though, so that still needs to be fixed. One of these days I'll get it right!

* Rescaled the bonuses to finesse and prowess from stats:

    -30 /* 3 */,
    -25 /* 4 */,
    -20 /* 5 */,
    -15 /* 6 */,
    -11 /* 7 */,
    -7  /* 8 */,
    -3  /* 9 */,
    0   /* 10 */,
    3   /* 11 */,
    6   /* 12 */,
    9   /* 13 */,
    12  /* 14 */,
    15  /* 15 */,
    18  /* 16 */,
    21  /* 17 */,
    25  /* 18/00-18/09 */,
    30  /* 18/10-18/19 */,
    35  /* 18/20-18/29 */,
    40  /* 18/30-18/39 */,
    50  /* 18/40-18/49 */,
    60  /* 18/50-18/59 */,
    70  /* 18/60-18/69 */,
    80  /* 18/70-18/79 */,
    90  /* 18/80-18/89 */,
    100 /* 18/90-18/99 */,
    110 /* 18/100-18/109 */,
    120 /* 18/110-18/119 */,
    130 /* 18/120-18/129 */,
    140 /* 18/130-18/139 */,
    150 /* 18/140-18/149 */,
    160 /* 18/150-18/159 */,
    170 /* 18/160-18/169 */,
    180 /* 18/170-18/179 */,
    190 /* 18/180-18/189 */,
    200 /* 18/190-18/199 */,
    220 /* 18/200-18/209 */,
    240 /* 18/210-18/219 */,
    260 /* 18/220+ */

This may be a bit excessive, but we'll see. My current experience with v4 is that stat boosts are hard enough to come by that you can't max out a stat without significant sacrifice, so the +260 at the high end doesn't bother me much.

* Unified the chance-to-hit logic under a single function, which currently just returns 80%. This can be tweaked later, especially once evasion and absorption are considered.

* Changed the 'C'haracter display screen to show Finesse and Prowess skills as numbers instead of textual descriptions. They could easily be figured out by examining your 'Fight' or 'Melee' numbers anyway since those numbers are just skill + stat bonuses + equipment bonuses.

* Changed temporary buffs: Bless -> +30 finesse; Heroism -> 15 each finesse and prowess; Berserk -> -15 finesse, +60 prowess.

* Made up a bunch of numbers for all of the weapons so they aren't all using 50/50 splits now. This was done in maybe five minutes so someone's welcome to go through with a bit more care to clean it up.

[Magnate]

Regarding slays: I fully expect the current multipliers to be overpowered with damage coming entirely from dice under the new system, which is why I went ahead and multiplied everything by 100. Fortunately this at least is easy to tweak. I'll leave the effects of slays on EvAbs to you guys, though if there's somewhere I need to leave room open to make your job easier, please do let me know.

I think it will be ok actually. With the new granular multipliers, we can base the slay or brand damage on the weapon's damage if we want, without worrying about not having enough control over the numbers. (There's nothing to stop us using multipliers of 0.75 for additional damage from the slay, for example.) I like fizzix's idea of adding it later, after subtracting absorption from the weapon damage. So in fact I don't think there's any need for either EvAbs or slays to hold you up.

Regarding to-hit: I agree with Magnate that having a constant that we deviate from for specific monsters is pretty elegant. Magnate went ahead with specifying a bunch of possible factors, though, so I want to ask:

1) Are we planning to make player's chance to hit any monster = X% +- specific monster modifiers?
or,
2) Is it X% + a*(player level * 2 - monster level) + b*(finesse - evasion)?

Hmmm. Ok. It seems obvious that for a given midgame monster, a cl50 player should have a better chance of hitting it than a cl1 player (given the same race, class and weapon). So it seems to me that the basic X% chance must be modified upwards as well as downwards. But if clev increases finesse (at a different rate for each class), then this is already taken into account. So #2 can be rewritten as

X% + finesse - evasion

where the finesse term isn't necessarily a positive number for low-level characters of finesse-poor classes using prowess-preferring weapons ...

Note that this assumes that evasion numbers scale with mlev, rather than being absolute. If they're absolute this becomes (assume appropriate scalar constants)

X% + finesse - (evasion + mlev)

Finally, regarding damage dice: we need to figure out how to scale these across the course of the game. Currently, a broadsword is a 2d5 weapon, average output 6 damage. There's no way that we're going to make that able to deal 400 damage/round without getting absurd numbers of blows/round and/or absurd damage multipliers (with implicit absurd stats on the player and on the weapon). For example, at 6 blows/round we'd need a prowess multiplier of 11! However, if we increase the base dice then early damage dealt will be too high.

It seems likely we need some way to model the impact that +to-dam has on weapons in the current system, where you simply can't find or buy high base damage weapons early on, but they become readily more available as the game goes on. We have affixes that add to dice or die sides, so that's one possible route to take -- scale that broadsword up to be 5d5 or whatever and it becomes more viable (at six blows/round, prowess multiplier is 4.4). Do we have any concern about basically requiring endgame-quality weapons to have gotten a certain number of bonus dice?

Incidentally, the Big Three weapons (blades of chaos, scythes of slicing, maces of disruption) have high base dice and are excellent candidates for endgame weapons under this system for that reason. Especially since their unusual weight is less of a barrier to them being used effectively since that no longer impacts #blows.

I'm pleased to say that this is a problem solved very nicely by affixes. We can arrange ego_item.txt so that weapons start getting extra sides first, and then dice, in a smooth progression down through the dungeon, so that a 2d5 broadsword will be most likely to end up at (for example) 3d6 at 2000' and 4d7 at 3000' and 6d7 at 4000' ... or whatever numbers are needed to address the issue. At the moment extra dice and sides are much rarer than this, but this is all configurable.

Note that the monhp gradient could be changed as well, so there are several ways to solve this problem.

[Derakon]

Note that the monhp gradient could be changed as well, so there are several ways to solve this problem.

Yes, but then we need to rescale breath attack calculations, spell damage, ranged damage, etc. I suspect that keeping melee damage at roughly the same level as before is the simpler path.

[fizzix]

Yes, but then we need to rescale breath attack calculations, spell damage, ranged damage, etc. I suspect that keeping melee damage at roughly the same level as before is the simpler path.

Yes, this is the simpler path. But if monster hp, breath multipliers and spell damage need to be scaled it can. Don't view this as a limitation if your finding it too difficult to match current damage outputs.

[tg122]

I think Derakon's combat revamp is a huge step forward and am very excited to see it in action. My only concern is that (unless I'm misundertsanding it), it could create very arbitrarily pre-determined characters in terms of fighting style and which weapons they should be using. For example, (in my opinion) warriors should be just as capable as paladins if they want to wield large heavy weapons, while paladins (being simililar to a knight) should be able to choose to effectively use weapons such as long swords, rather than being arbitrarily forced to use humongous weapons.

My suggestion is to allow the player to have a limited degree of prowess vs. finesse customizatoin during character creation, based on their race and class combination (seems logical that warrior would have the widest range to select from). For example, a half troll warrior might have the option select a ratio within a range from 100p/0f down to 60p/40f. On the other hand, a halfling warrior would only be able to select anywhere in between 60p/40f and 20p/80f. However, once they select a provess vs. finesse ratio, they have to stick with it for the entire game

A human warrior might be able to select a ratio from 70p/30f to 30p/70f. A dwarf warrior however,would be more biased towards prowess, so they might be allowed to select anywhere from 90p/10f to 50p/50f.

The same logic would go for paladins. A human paladin might be able to select anywhere from 70p/30f to 40p/60f (not quite as big of a range as warriors and a little more biased towards prowess). A dwarf paladin might be anywhere from 90p/10f to 60p/40f. A halfling paladin might be able to select a range from 60p/40f to 30p/70f.

The same logic would apply for the other classes as well.

The purpose would be to allow the player to choose what type of character they want to create.

[Magnate]

I think Derakon's combat revamp is a huge step forward and am very excited to see it in action. My only concern is that (unless I'm misundertsanding it), it could create very arbitrarily pre-determined characters in terms of fighting style and which weapons they should be using. For example, (in my opinion) warriors should be just as capable as paladins if they want to wield large heavy weapons, while paladins (being simililar to a knight) should be able to choose to effectively use weapons such as long swords, rather than being arbitrarily forced to use humongous weapons.

My suggestion is to allow the player to have a limited degree of prowess vs. finesse customizatoin during character creation, based on their race and class combination (seems logical that warrior would have the widest range to select from). For example, a half troll warrior might have the option select a ratio within a range from 100p/0f down to 60p/40f. On the other hand, a halfling warrior would only be able to select anywhere in between 60p/40f and 20p/80f. However, once they select a provess vs. finesse ratio, they have to stick with it for the entire game

A human warrior might be able to select a ratio from 70p/30f to 30p/70f. A dwarf warrior however,would be more biased towards prowess, so they might be allowed to select anywhere from 90p/10f to 50p/50f.

The same logic would go for paladins. A human paladin might be able to select anywhere from 70p/30f to 40p/60f (not quite as big of a range as warriors and a little more biased towards prowess). A dwarf paladin might be anywhere from 90p/10f to 60p/40f. A halfling paladin might be able to select a range from 60p/40f to 30p/70f.

The same logic would apply for the other classes as well.

The purpose would be to allow the player to choose what type of character they want to create.

We could indeed bring a great deal of complexity into character creation, starting with the innocent selection of prowess and finesse scores within race- and class-determined minima and maxima. I wouldn't be averse to that if someone coded it up after Derakon is done. But finesse and prowess are also significantly affected by STR and DEX, which you can already choose at birth. So if you want to make a high-DEX warrior or paladin, you're exercising exactly the choice you describe. Since birth will no longer be about DEX breakpoints for blows, this should be a much more meaningful choice than it is now. In the opposite direction, people could choose to be prowess-heavy rogues by putting lots into STR. I can well imagine half-troll rogues maxing STR and wielding heavy weapons, and hitting more often because of the class's great finesse.

[Derakon]

To add onto what Magnate said, `,o

...

*picks up laptop off floor*

Whoops.

Anyway, the plan is to have race+class contribute about 1/3rd of your finesse/prowess, STR/DEX 1/3rd, and equipment 1/3rd. Currently, for example (and these numbers are subject to change because I really didn't give them much thought):

* a level 50 warrior will inherently have 295 finesse and 375 prowess.
* a level 50 rogue will have 350 finesse and 165 prowess
* a level 50 paladin will have 90 finesse and 250 prowess

Meanwhile, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, STR and DEX can give up to +260 to prowess and finesse, respectively. If you decide to focus heavily on DEX gear then you might have, say, 8 more points there than in STR, which will tend to mean you get about 80-100 more finesse bonus than prowess bonus. Of course your weapon will presumably magnify the finesse bonus and minimize the prowess bonus in this situation.

Note that currently racial skill bonuses are very minimal -- they affect your starting skills slightly and don't compound with level, unlike class bonuses. If you really wanted to increase the variation by class, you could make the racial skill mods affect the on-level class skill bonuses instead. Or you could magnify the STR/DEX bonuses and penalties.

[sethos]

Note that currently racial skill bonuses are very minimal -- they affect your starting skills slightly and don't compound with level, unlike class bonuses. If you really wanted to increase the variation by class, you could make the racial skill mods affect the on-level class skill bonuses instead. Or you could magnify the STR/DEX bonuses and penalties.

Why not have the racial bonuses go up with level, just like the class bonuses? It seems rather intuitive to just do it that way - and it would provide an added thing to consider when you create your character (hmm... high elf will be better with finesse weapons, dunadan walk the balance, and trolls are all out prowessr... what to choose for my fighter?)

might make your race/class combo more important.

[Derakon]

Certainly you could increase the racial bonuses with level, though intuitively that seems a bit weird -- your elf gets even more elfy with every level? Oh well; if it makes good gameplay sense then why not.

One random thing I just realized: finesse fighters will be balanced at least in part by the finesse penalties on heavy armor. It's hard to be an agile fighter in full plate armor. Meanwhile the guy swinging a heavy hammer doesn't notice so much. Which works out just like we wanted, completely serendipitously.

[tg122]

Certainly you could increase the racial bonuses with level, though intuitively that seems a bit weird

At first, I thought it sounded weird too, but having thought more about it, it would make sense (in my opinion) to have the racial bonuses scale with level too. Realistically speaking, there is no 1 universal warrior for everybody in the world that fights the exact same way. Having racial bonuses increase with level would simulate the fact that each race/nation has different fighting styles and as their members improve with skill, they would normally do so in a manner which mirrors the fighting style of that race. One race may rely more on strength while another relies more on speed. As they improve in skill, the race that practices strength will get stronger, while the race that relishes speed will get faster.

[tg122]

the plan is to have race+class contribute about 1/3rd of your finesse/prowess, STR/DEX 1/3rd, and equipment 1/3rd.

This sounds like it's going to be a great combat system. Combine this with the fact that the stats sound like they're going to be harder to max, and the result will be a lot more variation in how different characters are played.

* a level 50 warrior will inherently have 295 finesse and 375 prowess.
* a level 50 rogue will have 350 finesse and 165 prowess
* a level 50 paladin will have 90 finesse and 250 prowess

I understand that these are still preliminary, but here is a suggestion if you want them. Why not just make the paladin have the same prowess/finesse ratio as the warrior but with less total points (maybe 305p/240f)? Then, the race and stats bonuses can determine whether the paladin wants to lean towards prowess or finesse. The paladin is typically a very skilled and versatile combatant. It just seems artificial to give them such a low finesse rating and make it difficult for them to wield anything but heavy weapons (why should it be more difficult for a paladin to wield a longsword without having to load up on dex). A rogue, on the other hand would make more sense to have a skewed ratio towards finesse because that is what rogues are all about.

Just something to consider when it comes time to focus on balancing... either way, awesome work!

[Derakon]

I'll freely admit that the numbers for the different classes are, so far, very rough. I'll probably refine them a bit before my pull request (which is tentatively scheduled for tomorrow) but they'll doubtless need more balancing later. That said, rogues have the worst casting of the hybrid classes, followed by paladins, then rangers. Assuming we don't want to change that at this juncture (please don't expand the scope of this project any more than it already is. ) that means that rogues should have the best combat, followed by paladins and then rangers.

I may well have overdone it for the paladins though. They should have better endgame prowess anyway.

[Magnate]

At first, I thought it sounded weird too, but having thought more about it, it would make sense (in my opinion) to have the racial bonuses scale with level too. Realistically speaking, there is no 1 universal warrior for everybody in the world that fights the exact same way. Having racial bonuses increase with level would simulate the fact that each race/nation has different fighting styles and as their members improve with skill, they would normally do so in a manner which mirrors the fighting style of that race. One race may rely more on strength while another relies more on speed. As they improve in skill, the race that practices strength will get stronger, while the race that relishes speed will get faster.

I agree with this. At the moment no racial traits are tied to clev, but I think it would be good for this to be the first one. But let's give Derakon a chance to get the basic system working first. Adding racial bonuses will make balancing harder. I suspect that racial biases (hobbits and elves towards finesse, dwarves and half-trolls towards prowess) should make less difference (i.e. smaller numbers) than class biases.

[Estie]

To add onto what Magnate said, `,o

* a level 50 warrior will inherently have 295 finesse and 375 prowess.
* a level 50 rogue will have 350 finesse and 165 prowess
* a level 50 paladin will have 90 finesse and 250 prowess

If finesse has a noticable impact on to hit chance, a difference in a factor of 3 is going to mess up the paladin. If you apply a nonlinear function to those numbers to calculate to hit chance which mitigates the effect, what have you gained for gameplay by coupling to hit and finesse ?