The Tavern

Looking at the launcher damage formula in Henzell, it appears that raising launcher enchantment is of no damage benefit until strength is > 10. Obviously delay is reduced, but it seems odd to me that launcher damage isn't affected by enchantment until you reach high(er) levels of strength. This especially makes no sense for crossbows where the whole purpose was to remove the need for strength in firing one. I'm also not clear what happens in this formula if strength is less than 11. It looks like it would then remove any extra damage from skill and brand.

Average damage = (B/2 + L/8 + A/16 + min((str - 10)*(2B+A)*C, (L+1)/4))*(1+skill/D)*(brand multiplier) + slaying/4 + A/2 + (L/2 if using xbow). Here A is the ammo enchantment, L is the launcher enchantment, and B, C, and D are constants depending on what type of launcher you are using (see [2]).
B = 4 for sling+stone, 6 for sling+bullet, 6.5 for bow+arrow, 9.5 for longbow+arrow or xbow+bolt. C = 1/72 for slings, 1/32 for bows, and 0 for xbows. D = 28 for slings, 34 for bows, and 44 for xbows.

My hope (I don't feel like code diving) is that it actually works like (B/2 + L/8 + A/16 + min((str - 10)*(2B+A)*C, (L+1)/4)))*...

Considering that there is no more ammo enchantment, I would hazard that there's a good chance that formula is out of date.

The section you highlighted is for the strength bonus portion of the damage only, but you snagged one closing paren too many. The extra closing paren in your second example is not matched with an opening paren. The original formula works the way you hoped if the way you hoped is that (basedam + launcherbonus + ammobonus + strbonus) gets multiplied by skill and brand effects.

Thanks, I see my mistake now. It also works as expected in that xbows get no strength bonus on damage (although a large one on delay).

It does seem odd that the strbonus is not necessarily a bonus, that it is limited by the launcher bonus and that it is effectively capped at 2.5 except in the case of a lucky randart.

A lot of those divisors aren't actually constants. They're a representation of the fact that when the various bonuses are used, the game rolls a random number up to that bonus. In some cases an interim value is a combination of a flat bonus plus a random number up to a different bonus. Then later a random number is rolled up to that interim value. Then THAT value is used as part of the "dice" definition for the projectile, which will involve another roll for a random number. It's horrendously complicated.

So the strength bonus isn't really capped at 2.5 for a +9 launcher. It's capped at +9, but because the game picks a random number up to that bonus twice, the summary formula divides it by 4. Clear as mud?

For those who do want to code dive, reference file "item_use.cc" -- function "throw_it"

What really needs to happen is an in-game standardization to relate relative damage to the player when viewing a launcher or throwable item (sling, bow, longbow, crossbow, handaxe, dagger, dart, javelin, rock, large rock).

As it stands other than an inference from the type of item, there is absolutely ZERO (damage/range/speed) information distributed to a player vs. the (at least minor) information given to them for melee weapons.
In this sense, spoiled players succeed.

In other news, I think hammers should be allowed to be throwable by characters greater than small size if strength exceeds a certain value.

Beyond anything else, including balance, not having even an abstraction of this information available to a player IN-GAME is a major gaff.

I don't get any of the formula mumbo jumbo. All I know is that "more = better", so the higher I raise my Crossbow skill, the more often monsters die with bolts in their bellies.

XuaXua wrote:In other news, I think hammers should be allowed to be throwable by characters greater than small size if strength exceeds a certain value.

I agree with pretty much everything you just said except for this. The hammers in the game are not like carpentry "claw-hammers", they are more like sledge hammers. See this link for what they really looked like.

minmay wrote:The ingame information about melee and ranged weapons is almost identically bad (base damage/delay is in the description, XuaXua just never looked, as usual), but the melee attack formulas are actually comprehensible so it's a lot easier to use spoilers about them.

Except that unlike melee weapons, strength (and dex, but mostly strength) has a large impact on whether you can ever actually hit min delay.
Viz.

Base delay is reduced by (weapon skill) * (weighted combination of str and dex) / 62.5. Strength weights are sling: 1, bow: 2, longbow: 3, xbow: 8.

Which means that with low strength, you will never hit min delay on longbows and especially xbows. There's no way at all to know this from looking at the xbow in inventory. You see 150% delay, you think, great to get to 70% I need 22 xbow, but in reality with 10 str and 10 dex you need more than 22 to hit min delay.

rebthor wrote:The hammers in the game are not like carpentry "claw-hammers", they are more like sledge hammers.

Oh, just like Thor's hammer! That he throws. All the time.

And then there's the tile that makes them look like claw hammers.

minmay wrote:Except the ingame information never tells you anything about minimum delay or how skill affects delay, so...

But at least I get an IDEA or HINT from melee weapons the relative difference between them.

I get no in-game hints about throwing a club vs throwing a hand axe vs throwing a dagger vs shooting an arrow.

rebthor wrote:I agree with pretty much everything you just said except for this. The hammers in the game are not like carpentry "claw-hammers", they are more like sledge hammers. See this link for what they really looked like.

That link shows that they in fact looked more like claw hammers than sledge hammers, mutatis mutandis.

If I make a terrible ASCII warhammer, this what they are like. Big, heavy, and with a typically with a point.
_
| O
|_|
|
/\

Grimm wrote:
rebthor wrote:I agree with pretty much everything you just said except for this. The hammers in the game are not like carpentry "claw-hammers", they are more like sledge hammers. See this link for what they really looked like.

That link shows that they in fact looked more like claw hammers than sledge hammers, mutatis mutandis.

Wikipedia wrote:The handle may be of different lengths, the longest being roughly equivalent to the halberd, and the shortest about the same as a mace.
...
It is similar in appearance and function to a modern sledgehammer but is sometimes shown as having a spear-like spike on the fore-end of the haft.

rebthor wrote:
Wikipedia wrote:The handle may be of different lengths, the longest being roughly equivalent to the halberd, and the shortest about the same as a mace.
...
It is similar in appearance and function to a modern sledgehammer but is sometimes shown as having a spear-like spike on the fore-end of the haft.

Yes that's what Wackypedia says, but as I said what it actually shows in the images is an object shaped and proportioned almost exactly like a modern claw hammer, only with a longer handle and slightly enlarged head. Have you ever seen a sledge? It looks nothing at all like the weapon in these images.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ammer2.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... roject.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... lo_037.jpg

The hook on the war hammer even functions in a manner comparable to the claw on a claw hammer, namely to pull resistant things out of their position, men in the first case and nails in the second. The sledge has no such part. Furthermore a sledge is two-handed while the war hammer shown in the images is patently one-handed - as is the claw hammer.

I consider my point made.

It also says that under the heading of Mauls, which someone felt are different enough from war hammers as to warrant their own section on the page.

In support of throwing hammers, I humbly submit this.

Grimm wrote:
rebthor wrote:
Wikipedia wrote:The handle may be of different lengths, the longest being roughly equivalent to the halberd, and the shortest about the same as a mace.
...
It is similar in appearance and function to a modern sledgehammer but is sometimes shown as having a spear-like spike on the fore-end of the haft.

Yes that's what Wackypedia says, but as I said what it actually shows in the images is an object shaped and proportioned almost exactly like a modern claw hammer, only with a longer handle and slightly enlarged head. Have you ever seen a sledge? It looks nothing at all like the weapon in these images.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ammer2.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... roject.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... lo_037.jpg

The hook on the war hammer even functions in a manner comparable to the claw on a claw hammer, namely to pull resistant things out of their position, men in the first case and nails in the second. The sledge has no such part. Furthermore a sledge is two-handed while the war hammer shown in the images is patently one-handed - as is the claw hammer.

I consider my point made.

I'm willing to concede on the head part if you will concede that the items you've shown are not able to be easily thrown

. Even in the Paolo Uccello picture, the handle of the hammer appears to be at least as long as his forearm and likely longer.

I freely admit that they can't be effectively thrown in combat.

BlackSheep wrote:In support of throwing hammers, I humbly submit this.

Well, that made the case better than the Thor concept.

The Tavern

Sling damage

Sling damage

Re: Sling damage

Re: Sling damage

Re: Sling damage

Re: Sling damage

Re: Sling damage

Re: Sling damage

Re: Sling damage

Re: Sling damage

Re: Sling damage

Re: Sling damage

Re: Sling damage

Re: Sling damage

Re: Sling damage

Re: Sling damage

Re: Sling damage

Re: Sling damage

Re: Sling damage

Re: Sling damage