Resistances: additive vs boolean

[Philip]

The FA system might be tricky, but as long as the code is easy to get, I think there is no trouble in letting the computer figure it out. As long as the character screen tells you what percent resists you have, I fully support it. It makes multiple resistance items less and less important, but still useful.
3 is the Un way if I am not mistaken. Also interesting, but I still prefer the O/FA system(yeah, well that applies pretty much everywhere)

[half]

My general opinion is that important algorithms should be as transparent as possible while still achieving the desired effect. Thus I'd suggest simply that resists divide damage by (N + 1), where N is the number of sources of resistance (thus 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, etc.). Simple, scalable, easy to understand, doesn't distinguish between permanent and temporary resists or between basic 4, poison, and the rest. Basic elements are made about 16% more dangerous (which if necessary could be compensated for by tweaking damage formulae and caps), high element resistance is regularized.

So this is what I called (3). One thing to note about it is that you may need to reduce the damage done by breathers of the big 5, if you want to avoid insta-death with one resistance (also true of (2)). Also note that it requires 8 sources of resistance to get to the stage of current 'double resists' and that we are already happy to hand out immunities more easily than that.

[half]

Yes, FA. I like to think of it (and it is coded) as reduction of damage - so in your example the first item reduces damage to 60%, and then the second item cuts off 20% of that, leaving damage at 48%.

Exactly. You could think of 'vulnerabilities' instead of resistances. You start with a vulnerability of 100% (normal) and then find an item of vulnerability 60% and one of vulnerability 80% and then your vulnerability is only 48% (meaning you only take 48% of normal damage). Immunity is 0% vulnerability. In the FA system the vulnerabilities multiply or, equivalently, the resistances co-multiply.

[bron]

I voted in favor of "boolean" (i.e. the way it is now). I don't object to the idea of "additive," I just feel the current system works fine and don't feel like having it changed.

I will say however that if there *is* a move to another form of resist calculation, then I would favor the version where each extra instance of a resist cuts the damage by a fixed percentage, with 50% being the number of choice mostly because it is easy to express and makes sense: each additional instance of a resist, whether permanent or temporary, cuts the damage in half. This also neatly captures the current special-case 50% acid-resist that armor gives by simply counting armor as one level of acid resist (I realize the *code* may not be able to unify that all together, but the *concept* in the player's mind is uniform and easy to express).

[Pete Mack]

I will say however that if there *is* a move to another form of resist calculation, then I would favor the version where each extra instance of a resist cuts the damage by a fixed percentage, with 50% being

Just to be contrary, I think if we must go with additive resistances, the ratio should be 1/(0.5*(1+sqrt(5)). That's a much prettier ratio than 1/2.

[PowerDiver]

Just to be contrary, I think if we must go with additive resistances, the ratio should be 1/(0.5*(1+sqrt(5)). That's a much prettier ratio than 1/2.

Isn't there a design paradigm favoring integer style stuff? The obvious compromise is to divide by Fibonacci numbers, i.e. divide damage by F_{n+2} for n resists.

[Pete Mack]

Isn't there a design paradigm favoring integer style stuff? The obvious compromise is to divide by Fibonacci numbers, i.e. divide damage by F_{n+2} for n resists.

I suspect you mean F_{n+1}, for this to make any sense at n=0...
But quite so, your pure integer paradigm is much better.

[PowerDiver]

I suspect you mean F_{n+1}, for this to make any sense at n=0...
But quite so, your pure integer paradigm is much better.

The standard def is F_1 = F_2 = 1, with F_0 = 0.. I double-checked before I posted. If you want damage reduction for 1 resist but not for 0 resists I think I got it right.

Did you know that F_n = round(\phi^n / \sqrt{5})? Your earlier comment made you sound like a \phi fanatic, so you might want to remember that. You can express \sqrt{5} in terms of \phi as well if that tickles your fancy.

[Pete Mack]

Whoops, you are right. And I knew you could represent the two as a closed formula, but I forgot what the formula is.

[dos350]

Bool!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!