0.19 trunk: long blades counterattack concern.


Although the central place for design discussion is ##crawl-dev on freenode, some may find it helpful to discuss requests and suggestions here first.

Temple Termagant

Posts: 11

Joined: Thursday, 22nd September 2016, 01:06

Post Thursday, 22nd September 2016, 01:13

0.19 trunk: long blades counterattack concern.

hello, new here. i was just looking at the in development update(the trunk), i was just thinking that if long blades are going to be getting this then our friend maces and flails should get a special function of its own, i mean polearms have innate reach, short blades stab for a ton of damage, axes plow through big groups of enemies around you, and next long blades get to counter... could we show our blunt weapons and whips a bit of love? (im well aware trolls and ogres get to wield the huge clubs, but the smaller races should also get a bonus for their troubles)

next concern: does it need to stack with counterattacks gained in other ways(i.e. being minotaur, mutations, etc.), i think it should be one or the other per attack depending on what does the most damage and has the higher chance to be landed, defaulting to headbutt if they somehow turn out to be both even.
User avatar

Zot Zealot

Posts: 982

Joined: Monday, 29th September 2014, 09:04

Post Thursday, 22nd September 2016, 01:30

Re: 0.19 trunk: long blades counterattack concern.

Before riposte, long blades and m&f were pretty much identical weapon types. The idea of riposte (as I understand it) was to differentiate these two weapon types. M&F's gimmick now is that they're "normal" weapons, with no special abilities.

For this message the author chequers has received thanks:
Cimanyd

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 8784

Joined: Sunday, 5th May 2013, 08:25

Post Thursday, 22nd September 2016, 01:32

Re: 0.19 trunk: long blades counterattack concern.

Unfortunately, riposte does nothing to differentiate the two weapon types.

For this message the author duvessa has received thanks: 2
nago, ydeve

Tomb Titivator

Posts: 909

Joined: Thursday, 3rd January 2013, 20:32

Post Thursday, 22nd September 2016, 02:41

Re: 0.19 trunk: long blades counterattack concern.

...in the sense that it's a passive effect that only activates when you're in positions and taking actions that are identical to if you were wielding M&F weapons? Because while that's true, it's also true that riposte does something to affect the game state in a way that M&F weapons don't, and since the thing that it does increases your damage output in a particular way that's tied to EV, I can't imagine that nobody ever has to put thought into which of these two weapon skills is better for their character.
Wins (Does not include my GrEE^Veh 15-runer...stupid experimental branch)

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 8784

Joined: Sunday, 5th May 2013, 08:25

Post Thursday, 22nd September 2016, 03:37

Re: 0.19 trunk: long blades counterattack concern.

tedric wrote:...in the sense that it's a passive effect that only activates when you're in positions and taking actions that are identical to if you were wielding M&F weapons?
Yes.
tedric wrote:increases your damage output in a particular way that's tied to EV
The effect of EV on long blades is very small.
tedric wrote:I can't imagine that nobody ever has to put thought into which of these two weapon skills is better for their character.
If anything, riposte makes this decision easier, not harder.

For this message the author duvessa has received thanks:
tedric

Tomb Titivator

Posts: 909

Joined: Thursday, 3rd January 2013, 20:32

Post Thursday, 22nd September 2016, 04:43

Re: 0.19 trunk: long blades counterattack concern.

So riposte makes long blades strictly better than M&F? How is that not differentiation? You seem to be saying "It does it in a boring way, therefore it doesn't really do it" -- which, like, the boringness is a fair critique, but that's a silly way to express it.

In terms of the overall thread, it's also worth noting that M&F is the weapon skill that gives access to the highest base-damage weapons in the game. Of course, they're only usable by a couple of races, which definitely doesn't help M&F's boringness in the vast majority of games...
Wins (Does not include my GrEE^Veh 15-runer...stupid experimental branch)

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 8784

Joined: Sunday, 5th May 2013, 08:25

Post Thursday, 22nd September 2016, 06:29

Re: 0.19 trunk: long blades counterattack concern.

tedric wrote:So riposte makes long blades strictly better than M&F?
I don't recall saying that.
User avatar

Dungeon Master

Posts: 202

Joined: Thursday, 5th December 2013, 05:01

Post Thursday, 22nd September 2016, 08:52

Re: 0.19 trunk: long blades counterattack concern.

duvessa wrote:Unfortunately, riposte does nothing to differentiate the two weapon types.


Not all combat situations are strictly 1v1, as I hope levels like Vaults:5 and Depths demonstrate.

For this message the author Brannock has received thanks:
Arrhythmia

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 8784

Joined: Sunday, 5th May 2013, 08:25

Post Thursday, 22nd September 2016, 16:51

Re: 0.19 trunk: long blades counterattack concern.

I thought we were talking about riposte, not cleave. I certainly hope the goal of riposte was not to give long blades cleaving.
Really, anything I say about riposte is just going to be a rephrasing of crate's two posts here.

For this message the author duvessa has received thanks: 2
nago, ydeve
User avatar

Tartarus Sorceror

Posts: 1762

Joined: Monday, 14th October 2013, 01:05

Post Thursday, 22nd September 2016, 17:25

Re: 0.19 trunk: long blades counterattack concern.

I mostly just don't agree with lowering 2H sword's base damage by 2 but 1H sword's base damage by 1.

I think that Riposte doesn't change how I play much, but it feels cool, so I'm ok with it.

Tomb Titivator

Posts: 909

Joined: Thursday, 3rd January 2013, 20:32

Post Thursday, 22nd September 2016, 18:22

Re: 0.19 trunk: long blades counterattack concern.

duvessa wrote:
tedric wrote:So riposte makes long blades strictly better than M&F?
I don't recall saying that.

duvessa wrote:anything I say about riposte is just going to be a rephrasing of crate's two posts here.

crate wrote:In choosing between maces and long blades you still choose the one that has the best balance of damage per investment; it just happens that that's long blades instead of maces now.

Image
Wins (Does not include my GrEE^Veh 15-runer...stupid experimental branch)

For this message the author tedric has received thanks: 3
Arrhythmia, dowan, shnurlf

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 8784

Joined: Sunday, 5th May 2013, 08:25

Post Thursday, 22nd September 2016, 20:53

Re: 0.19 trunk: long blades counterattack concern.

I don't think crate is claiming that long blades are strictly better than maces, though they are certainly better a majority of the time now.

Abyss Ambulator

Posts: 1217

Joined: Sunday, 14th April 2013, 04:01

Post Friday, 23rd September 2016, 14:28

Re: 0.19 trunk: long blades counterattack concern.

Solution: add more hydra monsters.

Maybe some creatures with acid blood that only triggers if you use a slashing weapon, for instance, or slime blood that slows attacks.

Make these creatures branch/portal focused (seems like a good candidate for slime) so that weapon choice impacts rune branch choice/order.
Three wins: Gargoyle Earth Elementalist of Ash, Ogre Fighter of Ru, Deep Dwarf Fighter of Makhleb (0.16 bugbuild :( )

Spider Stomper

Posts: 236

Joined: Saturday, 2nd July 2016, 13:16

Post Friday, 23rd September 2016, 15:28

Re: 0.19 trunk: long blades counterattack concern.

idk but I think the result to aim for is simple: long blades should be better than maces if you invest in EV, and worse than maces if you don't.

That said, I'm perfectly happy to take duvessa's word for it that on the current implementation this is not in fact the case. However, I think the solution is pretty clearly not to ditch riposte, but to change the math such that EV matters a lot more. (nb that the new riposte nerf in trunk has the opposite effect.) Naturally there are lots of ways to do this, and which would be a good/balanced way is a hard question.

(here as in elsewhere, Sil--where almost all the math is really elegant and intuitive--might be a good guide; on its system, you get a riposte if the attacker misses by a big enough margin, rather than according to a flat percentage chance.)

For this message the author luckless has received thanks:
VeryAngryFelid

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 8784

Joined: Sunday, 5th May 2013, 08:25

Post Friday, 23rd September 2016, 16:22

Re: 0.19 trunk: long blades counterattack concern.

So the desired result is to make weapon choice a no-brainer?

I do think it would be good to change the mechanics of EV at least a little, but I don't think it would help riposte.

Spider Stomper

Posts: 236

Joined: Saturday, 2nd July 2016, 13:16

Post Friday, 23rd September 2016, 16:54

Re: 0.19 trunk: long blades counterattack concern.

As far as I can tell weapon choice in Crawl will always be pretty much a no-brainer--if it's not a matter of indifference, it'll either be determined by species aptitudes (ogres will want maces, elves will want swords) or by other aspects of the character (skalds will polearms, berserkers will want axes). I don't see any way around this that wouldn't involve making Crawl a radically different game. In this respect tying weapon choice to EV makes it a little less of a no-brainer.

Or is your point that it's always a no-brainer to maximize EV regardless of weapon choice? In that case I take your point, but then the problem seems less to do with long blades and more to do with EV being too good.

For this message the author luckless has received thanks:
Cimanyd

Tomb Titivator

Posts: 885

Joined: Sunday, 28th June 2015, 14:44

Post Friday, 23rd September 2016, 16:54

Re: 0.19 trunk: long blades counterattack concern.

duvessa wrote:So the desired result is to make weapon choice a no-brainer?

At least it would make it easier to remove all the meaningless weapon types.

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 8784

Joined: Sunday, 5th May 2013, 08:25

Post Friday, 23rd September 2016, 17:34

Re: 0.19 trunk: long blades counterattack concern.

luckless wrote:it'll either be determined by species aptitudes (ogres will want maces, elves will want swords)
this is true and weapon apts should go
luckless wrote:or by other aspects of the character (skalds will polearms, berserkers will want axes)
this is wrong
luckless wrote:In this respect tying weapon choice to EV makes it a little less of a no-brainer
and so is this, I assure you deciding between maces and long blades was far more interesting before riposte

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 4426

Joined: Friday, 8th May 2015, 17:51

Post Friday, 23rd September 2016, 17:42

Re: 0.19 trunk: long blades counterattack concern.

duvessa wrote:this is true and weapon apts should go


Why? do you want to remove magic apts also?

this is wrong


Yes, everyone knows fighting in corridor is a bad idea and hitting more monsters while buff lasts is useless

and so is this, I assure you deciding between maces and long blades was far more interesting before riposte


It depends on player. I almost never planned to use long blades before.
Underestimated: cleaving, Deep Elf, Formicid, Vehumet, EV
Overestimated: AC, GDS
Twin account of Sandman25

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 8784

Joined: Sunday, 5th May 2013, 08:25

Post Friday, 23rd September 2016, 17:53

Re: 0.19 trunk: long blades counterattack concern.

VeryAngryFelid wrote:
duvessa wrote:this is true and weapon apts should go


Why?
because they create no-brainers, and yes i'd be happy with aptitudes going away altogether; i've written about this before

For this message the author duvessa has received thanks:
VeryAngryFelid

Return to Game Design Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], le_nerd and 17 guests

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by ST Software for PTF.