Review of new combat system

[Nick]

Magnate, truly you are a master of subtlety. There's a message somewhere in those lines you've written, but I'll need to spend some time decoding it...

I don't think you realise the full horror of your situation. You have been taken to the Pits of Angband (v4), where you will now write code as a thrall until you die of exhaustion. If you should escape, don't expect any sympathy from the forums. You have been the captive of Magnate (seriously - how could Morgoth think he would get away with such a similar name?), and acting only as his agent.

[Magnate]

Magnate, truly you are a master of subtlety. There's a message somewhere in those lines you've written, but I'll need to spend some time decoding it...

Heh - only one of us is hailed as a Prophet on these boards ;-)

(More seriously, we'll see how much hacking time I have)

No worries. I think I will need your help with the 'I'spect screen to incorporate the finesse/prowess and EvAbs changes, so the more you grok the textblock display code, the better! I am thinking it really needs to be split into two screens - one for naked combat info (hit change, damage including slays/brands, and whatever critical info we want to include) and one for anything else (stat mods, resists, etc.). Not quite sure how to do this yet.

[Derakon]

Magnate, truly you are a master of subtlety. There's a message somewhere in those lines you've written, but I'll need to spend some time decoding it...

(More seriously, we'll see how much hacking time I have)

[Magnate]

It can certainly be there. Right now the monster screen is a huge glut of information, mainly because we attempt to right everything in sentences. I think streamlining this is a good idea for both v4 and Vanilla.

Ah, now this is excellent:

1. We've been here before. Quite some time ago Derakon posted a mocked-up image of how a leaner but more informative monster recall could look.

2. Derakon joined the devteam to do the finesse/prowess combat changes.

3. Derakon's combat changes are in and now require other, tardier members of the devteam to do stuff (sorry). So Derakon is looking for something new to work on in the meantime ...

;-) ;-) ;-)

[buzzkill]

It can certainly be there. Right now the monster screen is a huge glut of information, mainly because we attempt to right everything in sentences. I think streamlining this is a good idea for both v4 and Vanilla.

Mikko referenced this info (archery to-hit %) being in the status line. That's where the monster HP is shown, right? That's a good spot for it if it's going to change every time either the player or the monster moves. Stuffing such rapidly changing info in the monster recall screen is kinda pointless.

[fizzix]

Hard to say. That should probably be determined in playtesting.

Fay 1.1 shows to-hit percentage in monster status line when targeting or looking at the monster. As a player, I had no idea about the effect of range until this feature was in -- I probably often tried to shoot at monsters even when to-hit chance was below 5%. I'd like to see something similar in Vanilla. (Unless you have a philosophy of keeping the exact information hidden from the player, which is fine by me.)

It can certainly be there. Right now the monster screen is a huge glut of information, mainly because we attempt to right everything in sentences. I think streamlining this is a good idea for both v4 and Vanilla.

[Mikko Lehtinen]

The first equation is what's currently in. Right now the monster gets a point of evasion for every 2 distance squares away. Perhaps that is not enough of a penalty?

Hard to say. That should probably be determined in playtesting.

Fay 1.1 shows to-hit percentage in monster status line when targeting or looking at the monster. As a player, I had no idea about the effect of range until this feature was in -- I probably often tried to shoot at monsters even when to-hit chance was below 5%. I'd like to see something similar in Vanilla. (Unless you have a philosophy of keeping the exact information hidden from the player, which is fine by me.)

[fizzix]

The first equation is what's currently in. Right now the monster gets a point of evasion for every 2 distance squares away. Perhaps that is not enough of a penalty?

[Mikko Lehtinen]

So do I. I think your first equation is both simpler and will make for better gameplay.

The first equation might be more realistic, too. Arrows and bolts are so fast that most of the dodging probably happens when the shooter is still targeting.

[Magnate]

Which one would be more realistic/fun:

1) Difficulty of hitting at range is Monster Evasion + (Range * X).
2) Difficulty of hitting at range is Evasion * (Range/X).

In both options, X can depend on your launcher if you like.

I agree with having a big point blank penalty.

So do I. I think your first equation is both simpler and will make for better gameplay. Having range geometrically related to evasion will make archery pointless against most evasive monsters I think. Even though it might actually feel more intuitive, I don't think the difference is big.

[Mikko Lehtinen]

Which one would be more realistic/fun:

1) Difficulty of hitting at range is Monster Evasion + (Range * X).
2) Difficulty of hitting at range is Evasion * (Range/X).

In both options, X can depend on your launcher if you like.

I agree with having a big point blank penalty.

[buzzkill]

If you want to make stone golems realistic, only a pick-axe should cause any damage . I prefer to think of them as having a hard outer shell and being soft in the middle, like a clay golem with an advanced case of stone skin. A high velocity missile or heavy blow could penetrate the skin, or a very well placed blow could pierce a softer area, a joint. Maybe there's even room here to make heavier missiles move effective than lighter ones (aside from better dice) in certain situations.

I hope that a hearty point blank penalty is going to be imposed on archery since archery specific classes, the ones most likely to abuse point blank archery, will be able to ignore a light penalty. Were thrown shots/arrows ever sufficiently nerfed?

[Magnate]

Ok, forget about the details of reality. All I want is that missile combat isn't superior to all other forms of combat. The way we ensure this doesn't matter to me.

I think it should balance quite easily: missiles will have much better armour penetration (higher DPB), but way fewer shots than blows. So they'll be better against distant heavily-armoured targets, and much less good when you're surrounded by orcs. Seems pretty self-consistent to me, if we can ignore the irritation that golems ought to deflect arrows (and we could always special-case deflection if we really wanted, using a monster flag).

[fizzix]

oh dear. You're talking about the difference between absorption and deflection, and I don't think we want to go there.

Ok, forget about the details of reality. All I want is that missile combat isn't superior to all other forms of combat. The way we ensure this doesn't matter to me.

[Magnate]

We need a new discussion of missile combat. When I think of an arrow striking a stone golem, I don't see it doing much damage. Right now though, it will damage it, while a dagger might have a tough time getting through. Maybe this is ok, but it's slightly troubling to me.

oh dear. You're talking about the difference between absorption and deflection, and I don't think we want to go there.