Fighting reform

[galehar]

https://crawl.develz.org/wiki/doku.php? ... ing_reform

Appart from attack speed, there's not many formulae yet. The page just define the guidelines, we'll dive into numbers later.

[BlackSheep]

Weapons reaching minimum delay at 27 skill sounds fine but note that it will make every weapon except two for each class (the biggest one-hander and the biggest two-hander) pretty much redundant.

I believe that was the point of following up with a strength requirement. Instead of the biggest weapon in a class, you would favor the biggest weapon that your character could comfortably wield. Naturally stronger races would tend toward the bigger weapons. Weaker races could move up a weight class by investing stat increases or finding equipment with bonuses to strength.

Strength requirement could also affect the rate at which skill increases lower your weapon delay. If you have just enough strength to wield something, it could max out at 27, but if you have much more strength, it could max out sooner.

[crate]

edit: You should read my post below instead of this one

Here's what I don't like about the proposed weapon speed thing: it makes all weapons' damage-per-aut increase linearly with skill. I know this is the idea but I think it is a bad idea.

If we ignore accuracy effects, then the same weapon will deal the most damage-per-aut at any skill in the proposed system. Assuming that in the new formula an exec axe outdamages a hand axe at skill 27, it will also outdamage the hand axe at skill 0 (again accuracy concerns). With the current system a demon blade deals significantly more damage per aut than a triple sword at skill level 14 against most enemies ... but at skill 24, the triple sword is better. That won't happen if all weapons increase linearly with skill.

I like that there are weapons that are good with little investment, and I like that there are weapons that are really really good but require a ton of investment. This doesn't happen in the proposed system.

I also don't like the strength requirement thing, since it changes str from being worthless except for one magic number to being worthless except for two magic numbers. This doesn't seem to fix anything.

[XuaXua]

Strength requirement: consider heft. if your strength is lower than the requirement, an artificial scaling weapon delay is applied. If your strength is greater than the requirement, the weapon delay vanishes.

There should be certain weapons where being too strong for them is a detriment; rather, I don't see unbranded daggers adding much to an Ogre / Troll / Minotaur's melee attack.

[XuaXua]

I also don't like the strength requirement thing, since it changes str from being worthless except for one magic number to being worthless except for two magic numbers. This doesn't seem to fix anything.

3 magic numbers if you read into it:
* Replace strength weighting by a strength requirement (see below)
* Give attributes a strong influence on weapon special effects (see below)
* Increase the accuracy and damage bonus from attributes

[XuaXua]

As an idea, I would like to see some sort of defensive factor with weapons or unarmed.
Certain weapon types might a chance at defending against certain attacks, or provide a minor (increasing with Shield/Weapon skill) Shield bonus to simulate defense (maybe rename Shield to Block).
It would be another way for weapons to distinguish from one-another.

I await the inevitable backlash shit storm.

[CommanderC]

What I like about the linear model:

• It's simple and easy to understand
• It removes sharp breakpoints.

What I don't like about the linear model:

• The thing that really matters is the damage per turn, not the speed.
• All the weapons have the same slope (basically what crate has explained, although not exactly).

it makes all weapons' damage-per-aut increase linearly with skill.

Or not. Basically, DPA = base_dam * (1+skill/K) * speed. If the speeds are linear, the DPAs aren't.

[crate]

I am not sure what the (1+skill/K) means in your expression there, and why would it be different for different weapons?

[CommanderC]

I was explaining why I said "although not exactly". Yeah, if K is the same, the slopes are the important parameters; but unfortunately the slopes are also the same for all the weapons. So, at the end you just use the one with the highest base damage. Very boring.

[Eji1700]

My only question pertaining to this is- How many before you start decisions should a player have?
I'm not sure if this is considered good or bad in crawl, but depending on the direction you go with this, STR could easily be one of those decisions. D2 comes to mind where you need to determine what armor you're going to wear before you even start, then get JUST enough str for that, and then never ever touch the stat again ideally.

[dtsund]

Rather than give every weapon type its own special property, one straightforward thing you could do would be make one of the weapon types statistically better than the rest. For instance, Maces & Flails could just have better numbers than the corresponding Long Blades and Axes; the choice would be whether the armor piercing or cleaving would outweigh the statistical disadvantage.

[KoboldLord]

I am tentatively favorable toward the idea of removing the concept of minimum delay.

With regards to special effects from weapons, I'd like to propose the rest of the weapons adopt the same standard that has proven successful for the reach property of polearms. That is to say, tab automatically attempts to trigger the special effect whenever the opportunity comes up, but the arrow keys do not. If you want to trigger the special effect against a specific target, evoke the weapon.

This would broaden the scope of potential special effects to include those that are not always tactically appropriate. For instance, a knockback property like Dragon Form's trample is potentially troublesome, and players are likely to avoid maces entirely if they have reasonable concerns that the trample might repeatedly draw their melee character into the midst of a swarm of enemies if they try to use that weapon class. Reaching was also particularly obnoxious to trigger in the days before the tab function was usable.

If all weapon classes trigger their special properties while tabbing but not when arrow keying, and all weapon classes can be evoked to trigger their special properties when tab is not advised, then the newbie learning requirement is reduced to one additional command over the current system, rather than one completely different set of commands for every weapon class. It may also be worth moving the key to evoke the special property of your weapon from the evoke submenu to a key of its own, in order to minimize required keystrokes for what are presumably going to be common functions. Certainly I would appreciate being able to reach with polearms without a submenu to select the letter of my wielded weapon!

[rchandra]

If all weapon classes trigger their special properties while tabbing but not when arrow keying, and all weapon classes can be evoked to trigger their special properties when tab is not advised, then the newbie learning requirement is reduced to one additional command over the current system, rather than one completely different set of commands for every weapon class. It may also be worth moving the key to evoke the special property of your weapon from the evoke submenu to a key of its own, in order to minimize required keystrokes for what are presumably going to be common functions. Certainly I would appreciate being able to reach with polearms without a submenu to select the letter of my wielded weapon!

This is already in the game, just use v instead of V to evoke the wielded item (works for decks etc as well).

[XuaXua]

Is clicking with the mouse like arrow keying or tabbing?

[Jabberwocky]

No, it's like tabbing.

[dpeg]

galehar: Many, many thanks for the elaborate wiki page, it is awesome.

I cannot contribute deeper insights than have already been offered here but I'll still mention two bits:

crate:

Here's what I don't like about the proposed weapon speed thing: it makes all weapons' damage-per-aut increase linearly with skill. I know this is the idea but I think it is a bad idea.

If we ignore accuracy effects, then the same weapon will deal the most damage-per-aut at any skill in the proposed system. Assuming that in the new formula an exec axe outdamages a hand axe at skill 27, it will also outdamage the hand axe at skill 0 (again accuracy concerns). With the current system a demon blade deals significantly more damage per aut than a triple sword at skill level 14 against most enemies ... but at skill 24, the triple sword is better. That won't happen if all weapons increase linearly with skill.

It sounds quite realistic to me that someone without axes skill does more damage with the bigger axe than with the smaller one (also per minute) *assuming he hits*. You mention that but I think it's a key point. Regardless of any Strength requirements, accuracy should make you select and witch axes.



The other comment is about weapon differentiation, via the moves:

Axe cleaving: I would suggest to at least start with copying Brogue's model. It is crude but extremely simple (hence a good start) and works very well as a game-mechanic: With an axe, you attack all adjacant hostiles (i.e. mechanically, perform up to eight axe attacks, each with its own damage/accuracy; no penalty for targets "further away"). The reason is that if you want provide advantage for combat in open space, it is best to go all the way. Tunnels will still almost always be the better option but with true-roundhouse cleaving it will become a bit more interesting (think of berserk rage or vampiricism). That's a definite boost to axes, of course, and I am curious how much base damage reduction it warrants.

Staves, Short Blades, Polearms: All great.

Maces: Here is what Brogue has to offer: basically, you cannot hit in consecutive turns. In Crawl, that might translate to an additional attack delay after a successful hit (Brogue maces have by far the highest base damage rates among that game's weapon types). Not really sure that works well in Crawl but I thought I mention it.
In any case, the armour piercing bit should belong to clubs, not swords, like minmay etc. said.

[crate]

Well dpeg the thing is that right now all weapons are decently accurate once you pass a (pretty low) threshold of fighting/weapon skill. So if you don't include a large rewrite of how accuracy works then it is mostly negligible that different weapons are more accurate; the bigger one does more damage in very nearly all realistic situations.

If you want to include a large rewrite of accuracy and shift the focus of combat to "which weapon hits more often" instead of "which weapon does more damage per hit" you can continue to differentiate weapons like they are now, but I don't really see the point: you trade one somewhat-spoilery but otherwise quite functional system (the current one) for another also-spoilery system (accuracy-based). In fact I feel like this change might be more spoilery than the current system. The game is reasonably good at telling you how much damage you deal per hit (both via the !, !!, !!! messages and simply with the amount of hp you take off per swing) and very good at telling you how fast you attack (assuming you have show_game_turns = true, which is now default). The game is pretty bad at telling you how accurate you are; you only get a few different varieties of "miss" messages and they are all greyed-out by default.

[galehar]

It's fine that higher skill levels have a greater impact on your damage output than lower skill levels - they cost much more!

skill affect both speed and damage, so in the end, the damage per aut progression isn't linear. I think it would be more balanced this way.

Weapons reaching minimum delay at 27 skill sounds fine but note that it will make every weapon except two for each class (the biggest one-hander and the biggest two-hander) pretty much redundant.

Hence strength requirements.

Assuming that in the new formula an exec axe outdamages a hand axe at skill 27, it will also outdamage the hand axe at skill 0 (again accuracy concerns).

Why? I'm not changing any delay at skill 0. The hand axe will still be much faster than the exec axe. Actually, it will stay faster at every skill level, but the delay difference will diminish. There will still be a point at which the higher damage will compensate the lower speed, and the bigger weapon will outdamage the smaller one past a certain skill level.

Rather than give every weapon type its own special property, one straightforward thing you could do would be make one of the weapon types statistically better than the rest. For instance, Maces & Flails could just have better numbers than the corresponding Long Blades and Axes; the choice would be whether the armor piercing or cleaving would outweigh the statistical disadvantage.

Well, that's exactly what I'm proposing. M&F have no special effect but better stats to compensate.

Axe cleaving: I would suggest to at least start with copying Brogue's model.

Maybe. On the other hand, if you can attack no more than 3 targets, then you have to choose which one if there's more.

In any case, the armour piercing bit should belong to clubs, not swords, like minmay etc. said.

Huh, minmay hasn't said that, nor anyone else. And why? I like armour piercing for long blades. It's not armour crushing, we're not destroying the monster's armour, we're bypassing it. It's a dex based effect, so stabbers have an interesting upgrade path. I also like to have one weapon class with no special effect, and I think M&F is the most appropriate for that.

[evilmike]

Axe cleaving: I would suggest to at least start with copying Brogue's model.

Maybe. On the other hand, if you can attack no more than 3 targets, then you have to choose which one if there's more.

Brogue cleaving hits every enemy adjacent to you, not just 3.

In any case, the armour piercing bit should belong to clubs, not swords, like minmay etc. said.

Huh, minmay hasn't said that, nor anyone else. And why? I like armour piercing for long blades. It's not armour crushing, we're not destroying the monster's armour, we're bypassing it. It's a dex based effect, so stabbers have an interesting upgrade path. I also like to have one weapon class with no special effect, and I think M&F is the most appropriate for that.

He's probably talking about feedback posted on the wiki page (I wrote some, minmay also responded). The argument is that the whole point of maces (as real-life weapons) was to bypass armour. Not crush it. They were designed to deliver a concussive blow that armour wouldn't help much against. This is compared to a cutting/peircing weapon like a sword, which were stopped more easily by most armours.

If the game is going to have weapons named after real-life ones, and you're going to have an "armour penetrating" effect, the only weapons it makes sense to give this effect to are bludgeoning ones. I don't think you can make an argument that gameplay trumps realism here. If an effect like this is desired, there are a whole bunch of different weapon classes you can choose... it's pretty arbitrary. So you might as well choose the one that makes intuitive sense.

[crate]

Assuming that in the new formula an exec axe outdamages a hand axe at skill 27, it will also outdamage the hand axe at skill 0 (again accuracy concerns).

Why? I'm not changing any delay at skill 0. The hand axe will still be much faster than the exec axe. Actually, it will stay faster at every skill level, but the delay difference will diminish. There will still be a point at which the higher damage will compensate the lower speed, and the bigger weapon will outdamage the smaller one past a certain skill level.

Ok I see I made a mistake earlier in how I was evaluating this stuff. It is not quite what I was saying earlier. It looks like in the proposed formula the damage per turn increases by the weapon's base damage from skill 0->27 (this is not what I had before since I messed up).

I guess with really huge number changes this might work. Let me first go on a little detour about current weapon selection and skill.

At 0 skill, the best weapons for damage-per-turn are actually already the biggest weapons. Most of the small weapons actually have really bad stats at skill 0. The reason most people don't use big twohanders at skill 0 is because of inconsistency: they are inaccurate against most targets unless you have a good amount of fighting skill or +hit (note that this goes away reasonably quickly, but at skill 0 it is indeed a problem), and they attack slowly. With the way the current attack delay formula works, smaller weapons get to ~1 attack per turn with significantly less investment than big ones, and so they are more consistent; and at the skill required for min delay the good one-handed weapons actually outdamage the big twohanders.

In the new system with current weapon stats you still have small weapons being really bad at skill 0. But now, instead of the small weapons getting better faster as you go from, say, skill 0 to skill 8, it is the big weapons that get better faster.

Perhaps a quick example will illustrate this: here are the (base dam / delay) numbers for quickblades (a bad weapon that gets better very fast), lajatangs (a very good weapon that gets better quickly), and executioner's axes (a good weapon that gets better slowly) in the current system:

  Code:

| Skill | Qblade | Laja   | Exec  |
|     0 |    7.1 |   11.4 |    10 |
|     8 |   16.7 |     16 |  12.5 |
|    16 |   16.7 |   22.9 |  16.7 |
|    24 |   16.7 |   22.9 |    25 |
|    27 |   16.7 |   22.9 |  28.6 |

In the proposed system they look like this instead:

  Code:

| Skill | Qblade | Laja   | Exec  |
|     0 |    7.1 |   11.4 |    10 |
|     8 |    8.6 |   16.2 |    16 |
|    16 |   10.1 |   20.9 |  21.9 |
|    24 |   11.6 |   25.7 |  27.8 |
|    27 |   12.1 |   27.4 |    30 |

Note that by skill 8 an executioner's axe is already pretty much the best weapon in the game, whereas before it takes until skill ~24 to get better than a lajatang and battleaxe. Also, quickblades are effectively worthless for non-stabbing instead of being a very good weapon at low skill. So if every single weapon has its base damage and base delay redone from scratch I guess this new system is ok ... but note that this will lead to presumably quite strange things to keep weapon behavior similar to what exists now: quickblades will have to be something like 4 base delay, and executioner's axes will have to be something like 30 base delay. You have to make the big weapons truly unusably awful at 0 skill because they scale up too quickly, and you have to make small weapons very good at 0 skill because they scale up too slowly.

(A 20 dam 30 delay exec axe is actually still better than a hand axe at skill 0 on average--this is how bad most one-handed weapons are at skill 0--but obviously is inconsistent enough that you will die from using it.)

You also make weapon skill not very good for small weapons in general (why go from skill 0 -> 10 with a quick blade when it would barely do anything?) so if you want to make weapon skill useful for small weapons you have to add something to make it so. (I realise that the proposed weapon effects aim to do this. Stabbing would work, but I am not sure the other effects would since they seem to me to be multiplicative in nature.)

Anyway now that I see how this system actually works (sorry for any confusion I caused earlier based on a misinterpretation) I think it is possible to make it work but it seems like an enormous amount of work to keep melee combat working similarly to how it does now (which I think is pretty good) so I am still hesitant.

[Jeremiah]

If the game is going to have weapons named after real-life ones, and you're going to have an "armour penetrating" effect, the only weapons it makes sense to give this effect to are bludgeoning ones. I don't think you can make an argument that gameplay trumps realism here. If an effect like this is desired, there are a whole bunch of different weapon classes you can choose... it's pretty arbitrary. So you might as well choose the one that makes intuitive sense.

While I agree that historically crushing weapons make more sense for penetrating armour, I think you could make the argument for long blades based on the idea that with high dex you can aim your blows at the gaps in the opponent's armour. It might be good to make dex matter more in offence, as str is already planned to affect which weapons can be wielded effectively.

[galehar]

Maybe. On the other hand, if you can attack no more than 3 targets, then you have to choose which one if there's more.

Brogue cleaving hits every enemy adjacent to you, not just 3.

I know, I mean it removes the choice of the target. But maybe it's simpler. How about a compromise, you select a target and it attacks all the ones that are adjacent to you and the target? So up to 5. Even more reason not to hang in corridors since you can't attack both ways.

If the game is going to have weapons named after real-life ones, and you're going to have an "armour penetrating" effect, the only weapons it makes sense to give this effect to are bludgeoning ones. I don't think you can make an argument that gameplay trumps realism here.

Oh good point, I changed it.

At 0 skill, the best weapons for damage-per-turn are actually already the biggest weapons.

That's certainly something I'd like to see addressed in the new system. How about this instead of the strength requirement: need skill * str >= base_damage^2 or suffer penalties? Or make it skill * attributes and keep strength weighting.

[twelwe]

This is a repost of something I put on the SA forums. The thread is archived though, so I cannot access the edited version. I don't think much was changed. This was written back in late 2011:


Fighting overhaul

If you look at the tools at the disposal of someone with 27 fire magic, air magic, or charms, you will see an incredibly versatile group of abilities to take on the dungeon. If you look at the tools available to someone who has their first skill at 27 in something like Long Swords, all you will see is a basic attack. This is why I believe special attacks should be added to different weapon groups at important milestones: 9, 18, and 27.

[Short Blades]
This has always been the most "complete" weapon skill because of the stabbing skill that augments short blades, at least until polearms were buffed in trunk. But polearms don't need a secondary skill to complete the weapon, while short blades are worthless without stabbing. Stabbing would either need to be rolled into short blades, or all weapon skills would need a secondary skill to balance experience usage if these proposals were to be added. Another idea would to be extending stabbing benefits to all weapons. This happened partially with confusing sleeping enemies successfully stabbed with a club, but that benefit usually leaves the play experience after D:3.

Level 9: Open Wounds
Chance to make the target bleed. Bleedings needs to be significantly buffed for this to have any noticable effect. This ability is always active while a short blade is equipped and the character has a skill level of 9 or more in Short Blades.

Level 18: Smart Targetting
When a character has invested in Short Blades, this is right around the time of the game that killing high AC opponents that have survived (or perhaps, not even been hit by) stabbing becomes harder and harder. Smart Targetting (I know, bad name) halves the target's AC when calculating damage.

Level 27: Rapid Stabbing
The character has become so skilled with Short Blades that each stab attempt counts as two stabs on unaware or confused opponents.

Stabbing benefits: leave as is for short blades. Massive damage multiplier based on stabbing skills.

[Long Blades]
Long Blades could become all about defense for tanks or fragile characters. They may even become attractive to spellcasters, even with the proposed staff changes.

Level 9: Passive Parry
You gain block skill regardless of whether you already have a shield equipped or not. This does not count as a combat power and stacks with other Long Blade benefits. If the idea of block without a shield sounds strange to you, there is a Demonspawn mutation in trunk that gives armour and block as a scales mutation.

Level 18: Passive Deflection
Melee attacks are frequently countered by your weapon. The trajectory path of missiles are often altered by protective contact with the equipped blade, sending it elsewhere (but not deflecting it). This does not count as a combat power and stacks with other Long Blade benefits.

Level 27: Passive Reflection
Owing to the mastership over long blades, your character sometimes perfectly reflects bolt spells at enemies that cast them. This does not count as a combat power and stacks with other Long Blade benefits.

Stabbing benefits: A straight thrust (very low chance, increaseing with stabbing skill) causes bleeding and slows the target. Since Long Blades would take a very defensive tone, this would be a simple damage over time to compensate for the lack of offendive abilities before skill level 27.

[Staves]
First off, staves should be overhauled to 1. be basic weapon types like every other weapon and 2. not be attractive in any way to non-spellcasters. All elemental staff types should be removed, leaving any staff with the ability to "absorb" the power of the caster and eventually augment the caster's ability. No needing to switch staves to channel mana or augment different spell schools. Spellcasting with a staff equipped will level staves much in the same way fighting will level an equipped weapon. Experience numbers may need to be adjusted for this, and in the end it may make hybrids less attractive if pure spellcasters need to rely on staves to be the best)

Level 9: Disorientation
Attacks by the equipped staff are not hefty enough to stun, but are strong enough to cause temporary disorientation. Enemies sucessfully attacked will have a chance to become confused for (turn count to be determined). The equipped staff will also begin to give spells casted by the character more power. Chance can either be proportional to the weapon skill level or the milestone achievements.

Level 18: Imbued Power
Upon a successful attack with an equipped staff, the staff will inflict extra damage based on the highest trained elemental (Necromancy. Fire, Ice, Air, Ice, Earth, Poison) skill. At this skill level, a character with an equipped staff will have an additional increased power level of spells cast, unless the increase of the bonus is proportional to the weapon skill.

Level 27: Channeling
The character gains the ability to evoke a great amount of mana from an equipped staff.

Stabbing benefits: unsure... really laching ideas here. Again, these suggestions are not even close to being polished - I want it to serve as a basis for people to expand the ideas of differentiating weapon types.

[Maces & Flails]
Maces & Flails could be considered the "control and disposal" weapon type, allowing to stun individual enemies to stop them from casting against or harming you, to knockback enemies for positional strategy (you could literally beat a path to an exit, since knockback grants a free movement turn) or to get an annoying enemy away from a staircase to prevent them from follwing you up or down.

Level 9: Crushing (Certain weapons: all non-whips; certain enemies: undead)
Owing to the large area of blunt impact maces provide, attacks against undead enemies cause the Crushed debuff, permanently slowing their movement and attack speed. This may need to be a level 18 ability or lose some power, since Okawaru worshippers can just put four points into Maces & Flails and begin every fight against undead with a mace equipped and Heroism activated. This does not count as a combat power and stacks with other Maces & Flails benefits.

Level 9: Passive Stunning (certain weapons: all non-whips; certain enemies: alive)
Chance to inflict a (level 9: 1 turn, level 18: 2 turn, level 27: 3 turn) stun. Stuns caused by maces & flails cannot be triggered on targets already under the effects of a stun. Chance can either be proportional to the weapon skill level or the milestone achievements. This passive combat power cannot be used in conjunction with any other combat power. Passive Stunning can only be inflicted living enemies.

Level 9: Passive Constriction (certain weapons: only whips)
Chance to grab hold of the target and prevent movement of any kind. This is tactically useful against enemy bands, such as orcs, centaurs, and yaktaurs, where the more powerful enemies displace the puny ones close to you. A constricted enemy will be unable to swap with a more powerful ally. I personally believe this could cause a lot of meta-gamey behaviour, but still like the idea.

Level 18: Passive Knockback (certain weapons: all non-whips)
Chance to knock back the target and gain a free movement turn. Chance can either be proportional to the weapon skill level or the milestone achievements. This passive combat power cannot be used in conjunction with any other combat power. This can be a very annoying skill to have on at times, which is why passive powers can be turned off and are mutually exclusive from one another.

Level 27: ????

Stabbing benefits: I really liked discovering for the first time months ago that my level 2 ogre could confuse a sleeping eney with a successful club stab. Most Maces&Flails users are, however, either gigantic brutes with very low chances of stabbing anyway, or are glowing so brightly from their sacred scourge that stabbing is completely out of the question. Perhaps something like a small silence effect - the confusion of the sudden unexpected bash to the skull leaves the target unable to form a structured phrase for a turn or two.

[Axes]
Axes could become the massive damage output weapon type, dealing multiple attacks in a short amount of time with every ability.

Level 9: Passive Cleave
Chance to hit a second target adjacent to you while attacking any enemy. A sucessful cleave hit will retroactively increase swing time to allow another attack to take place. This passive combat power cannot be used in conjunction with any other combat power.

Level 18: Whirlwind
Activated ability that causes the character to spin and attack all eight adjacent squares three times but counts as a singular attack with halved weapon speed. Causes exhaustion. Cannot be used while under the effect of exhaustion. (This may be a terrible ability, as where really is no benefit to running out into the open and allowing yurself to get surrounded - this is more of a "I need to save my life, I'm surrounded and I don't feel like using other finite escape options" ability)

Level 27: Descimation
Activated ability that causes the character to hack away at a singular enemy in an unexplainable frenzy. Descimation guarantees the character to land five(?) attacks on one enemy but counts as a singular attack with halved weapon speed. Causes exhaustion. Cannot be used while under the effect of exhaustion.

Stabbing benefits: Again, no ideas here. Halving AC on a successful stab?

[Polearms]
Polearms are already too strong in the early game. With proper positioning, they guarantee a free attack on any target, but it is unlikely new players know enough to take advantage of the combat benefits provided by clevel positioning while using a polearm. Polearms + speed via equipment or mutations against normal speed melee-only targets is useful the entire game. Thus, the tiered system should help players learn the benefits of chosing a weapon type that suits them

Level 9: Passive Reaching
Exactly how all polearms now work in trunk. Perhaps it can be buffed, to give a higher chance of reaching over hostile targets to kill a scarier threat based on skill level. This passive combat power cannot be used in conjunction with any other combat power.

Level 18: Passive Penetration
Attacks two enemies in a line. This is a tactical decision that will very likely be used less than reaching. However, we can compensate with a higher chance to hit the initial target, or add in something sexy to attract players to use this. Honestly I can't think of how to make this ability better. This passive combat power cannot be used in conjunction with any other combat power.

Level 27: Passive Masterful Reaching
The character with a equipped polearm is guaranteed to reach over a hostile target to hit only the target behind it. The downside to this is that it is incredibly meta-gamey, and will probably cause a lot of goofy and undesirable behaviour, like dragging a rat everywhere the player goes. This will completly replace Passive Reaching, and is a combat power that cannot be used in conjunction with any other combat power.


[Slings, Crossbows, Bows, and Throwing]
These have always struck me as some of the most necessary and yet boring weapon types in the early game, so boring! Ricochet could be an amazing ability if it can hit enemies around corners. Imagine luring an orc with a priest in tow, stunning him with a mace at a corner, then lobbing off sling bullets that in turn hit the orc priest who is out of sight.

  Code:

#.###
#o###
#.###
#o###
#..@.
#####

You bash the orc. The orc is stunned.
d - a +0 +0 sling (weapon)
You shoot a sling bullet at the orc. The sling bullet ricochets off the orc.
The sling bullet hits something.
You feel more experienced.

Level 9: Passive Ricochet (certain weapons: rocks, sling bullets, thrown weapons)
Chance for amunition to hit one additional target, so long as the total distance the ammunition travels is not longer than the maximum initial travel distance. A ricochet causes as much damage as the original shot. This passive combat power cannot be used in conjunction with any other combat power, and cannot be activated with inappropriate ammunition quiverred.

Level 9: Passive Impaling (certain weapons: darts, large rocks, javelins arrows, bolts)
Chance to stop an enemy hit by select ammunition in place. Enemies are not stunned, and can take any action except movement. Freeing themselves from movement acts similar to breaking out of a net, with a (low for darts, medium for bolts/arrows, high for javelins and large rocks) chance to break out by attempting movement. This passive combat power cannot be used in conjunction with any other combat power, and cannot be activated with inappropriate ammunition quiverred.

Level 18: Passive Penetration
Gives all ammunition a chance to hit multiple targets in a line by punching through the target. Chance is reduced by enemy armour type but not type of ammunition. Number of targets any given amunition penetrates is either a progressive factor of weapon skill or random chance. This passive combat power cannot be used in conjunction with any other combat power.

Level 27: Returning
All fired ammunition will return back to the skilled character who fired it, penetrating back through the targets it originally passed through. Returning as a brand removed from the game. This does not count as a combat power and stacks with other Slings/Crossbows/Bows/Throwing benefits. Returning will fail if the ammunition ricochetted to a target out of los.

Stabbing benefits: Shooting an unaware target should do something interesting I feel, but I completely understand that it is not the same at all as getting into melee range and therefore should not have much of a benefit. Perhaps something as simple as preventing movement for one turn would be good enough.

[Unarmed]
I believe that, like staves, we should make unarmed unattractive to those who do not speciallize in augmented attacks. Therefore, the initial offhand attack that Unarmed offers should become a passibe ability to be gained later. Species with natural augmented unarmed attacks should be the main group catered to if Unarmed gains these kinds of combat bonuses. So, with this proposal, unarmed should be attractive to: Nagas, Octopodes, Minotaurs, Demonspawn, Trolls, Ghouls, Centaurs, Kenku, and Dragonspawn.

[danharaj]

No thank you to melee combat going from a paragraph of explanation to three pages.

[twelwe]

No thank you to melee combat going from a paragraph of explanation to three pages.

thank you for your valuable contribution to this discussion. would you like to add anything else to this thread? I hope not. it is always best to end on a high note.

this is a game where, upon winning, you lose a character and gain a very, very, very large text file

[Deimos]

I think he was trying to say "this isn't skyrim". We don't need perks... I want the weapons to be varied, but they should be just as varied in D:1 as D:27.

[galehar]

You are still making new "magic numbers" to fix a system that was created entirely for the purpose of getting rid of existing "magic numbers."

True, let's change the accuracy formula directly. Currently, it's 15 + attribute_bonus + weapon_skill + fighting_skill + misc_bonus. How about something like:
((weighted_attributes * weapon_skill) / base_damage^2) * (weapon_skill + fighting_skill).

Maybe with a stepdown, so small weapons don't get an insane bonus. Also, while we're at it, shouldn't fighting contribution be less than weapon skill? I'd say half.

[crate]

Really I think the best way to make the best weapons at skill 0 not the biggest ones is to just mess with the weapon base stats because it is the simplest way to change things. You can't do this in the current system--they gain power too slowly until high weapon skill levels--but it is also not really a problem as I already mentioned. The proposed new system allows for this tweaking just fine: make the fast weapons have good base stats and the slow ones have bad base stats. A delay 30 exec axe reaches delay 10 at skill 20--the same time an exec axe reaches delay 10 in the current system.

I think this will be significantly less confusing than adding in more complexity to the various formulae used. Or is it the goal to make sure no one really understands melee damage?

Also why would base damage have any effect in the accuracy formula?? Shouldn't the accuracy depend on, you know, the base accuracy? If you want accuracy differences between weapons to matter it seems to me what you want to do is make the negative base accuracy numbers more negative (so there is a bigger difference in accuracy between a hand axe and an exec axe), perhaps with increasing how fast you gain accuracy to compensate. But I don't really know how the current accuracy formula works anyway, other than "at reasonable skill you don't have to worry about it".

[CommanderC]

((weighted_attributes * weapon_skill) / base_damage^2) * (weapon_skill + fighting_skill)

The current relationship between skill and accuracy is a linear function:

y = x + b

The new formula is a parabola:

y = a * x^2 + b

Which means that characters with a high skill will have a even easier time hitting the monsters, and characters with low skill will have a harder time. This is the opposite of what it should be. Instead of a convex function, we should use a concave function, like y = a * log(1+x/b) + c or y = a * sqrt(x) + b.

As you have said, using base_damage^2 can be a problem. The differences between weapons can easily be too large. I suggest replacing base_damage^2 with (1+base_damage/C).

For example:
temp = (1 + weighted_attributes/D)*(weapon_skill + fighting_skill/2)/(1 + base_damage/C)
accuracy = 40 * log(1 + temp/40) + misc_bonus

[smock]

Does anyone know how monster EV varies with monster HD, on average? This should be taken into account when changing the accuracy formula, of course.

[crate]

Monster EV is basically completely disconnected from monster HD.

[XuaXua]

You are still making new "magic numbers" to fix a system that was created entirely for the purpose of getting rid of existing "magic numbers."

True, let's change the accuracy formula directly. Currently, it's 15 + attribute_bonus + weapon_skill + fighting_skill + misc_bonus. How about something like:
((weighted_attributes * weapon_skill) / base_damage^2) * (weapon_skill + fighting_skill).

Maybe with a stepdown, so small weapons don't get an insane bonus. Also, while we're at it, shouldn't fighting contribution be less than weapon skill? I'd say half.

Rather than a flat stepdown. how about a weapon type modifier applied into the formula above?

[XuaXua]

Rather than skill aptitudes, why not make all values of skills significant and start species with -3 aptitude at -3 skill level instead, and let them build up to 0 and positive skill values? This would allow 0 to represent a significant value rather than an absence of skill.

[Sar]

I think an interesting benefit for Long Blades (if they need one) could be Parry, represented either as a bonus to evasion against melee attacks or a chance to get a free attack on monster whose attack you dodged - though that would benefit high-EV characters more.

[Jeremiah]

If the Stabbing skill is removed, would training Short Blades give stabbing bonuses with other weapon types and claws etc? Or would you just remove stabbing effects from everything else?

Also, what would you do about species that have good aptitude for Short Blades but bad for Stabbing, eg High Elves IIRC?

[galehar]

Or is it the goal to make sure no one really understands melee damage?

Clarity is definitely a very important goal, but that doesn't mean we have to limit ourselves to simple linear functions.

As you have said, using base_damage^2 can be a problem. The differences between weapons can easily be too large. I suggest replacing base_damage^2 with (1+base_damage/C).

For example:
temp = (1 + weighted_attributes/D)*(weapon_skill + fighting_skill/2)/(1 + base_damage/C)
accuracy = 40 * log(1 + temp/40) + misc_bonus

Hey, that's interesting, thanks.

Rather than a flat stepdown.

What's a flat stepdown?

If the Stabbing skill is removed, would training Short Blades give stabbing bonuses with other weapon types and claws etc? Or would you just remove stabbing effects from everything else?

The latter. It would become a short blades exclusive effect.

Also, what would you do about species that have good aptitude for Short Blades but bad for Stabbing, eg High Elves IIRC?

That's the kind of details we shouldn't be worrying about for now.

About the weapon delay, the proposed formula is:

  Code:

base_delay / (1 + C * skill * base_delay)

I set C to 1/27 for simplicity, but it could also tuned for each weapon. Or give them a speed progress modifier.

Now, one thing I'd like is to have the weapon choice depends on attributes. When choosing which attribute to raise, the choice should be something like "do I want bigger spells, bigger weapons or better evasion?". I'm simplifying of course, but you get the idea. That was the idea behind the strength requirement, but I agree that it's an ugly mechanism. Factoring attributes right into the accuracy formula seems a good idea, I'm going to experiment with CommanderC's formula. I like how attributes and skill interact with each other in this formula. It means that attributes affect the rate at which you can upgrade your weapons, instead of simply banning some choices.
In that case, I would also remove the effect of attributes on damage. Better nothing than an unnoticeable effect.

[Sar]

When choosing which attribute to raise, the choice should be something like "do I want bigger spells, bigger weapons or better evasion?".

Except it, obviously, isn't that simple (and won't be) even with proposed mechanics, even with suggested changes. Perhaps stat balance warrants a separate topic?

[galehar]

When choosing which attribute to raise, the choice should be something like "do I want bigger spells, bigger weapons or better evasion?". I'm simplifying of course, but you get the idea. That was the idea behind the strength requirement, but I agree that it's an ugly mechanism.

Wouldn't the easiest way to accomplish this just be to increase the effect of strength on melee damage? I don't see why we should have an entire new mechanic for this.

It wouldn't change the fact that every build use the same weapons. Weapon choice is only affected by skills, I think attributes should also play a role. Having high strength should make wielding big weapons easier.

[crate]

And every conjurer build uses the same spells. Spell selection is pretty much unaffected by attributes (sometimes your spell selection will in turn affect what attributes you choose to raise--but it doesn't go the other way!). I think the same is likely to happen if you make weapon damage actually depend on str: if you are using a small weapon you wouldn't bother raising str because it still wouldn't do much (just like you don't raise int for translocation spells) but if you are using an exec axe you probably would (just like you do raise int for high-level conjurations).

[pivotal]

I think the same is likely to happen if you make weapon damage actually depend on str: if you are using a small weapon you wouldn't bother raising str because it still wouldn't do much (just like you don't raise int for translocation spells) but if you are using an exec axe you probably would (just like you do raise int for high-level conjurations).

This is my concern with str requirements for weapons. Characters with high str will use big two-handers, and lower str characters will use demon whips/enhancer staves, or forego melee entirely for pure conjuration-based damage builds. I like having the option to use a great sword or triple sword on a HE with 10~ str, but this option will be removed if str requirements go into effect. I like the suggestion of str granting damage bonuses instead of restricting equipment choice. Str already restricts which armours you can wear, adding str requirements for weapons would remove choices for the player.

I just did some calculations using the str requirement formula that was suggested, (str * skill > basedmg^2) and here is what I found:

Using a lajatang without penalty at the current values required for min delay, you would need 19 str. (19 * 14 > 16^2) = (266>256) I understand min delay will change the required skill necessary to use a weapon effectively. At skill 20, you would need 13 to use a lajatang effectively, which is a bit better. At 14 skill, attack delay would be 0.8 turns, and 20 skill would give you the current min delay of 0.7.

Using a triple sword currently requires 24 skill to reach minimum delay. The new str requirement to use a triple sword at 24 skill would be 16. The last character I used a triple sword on was a DgNe, and that had 15 str. It was a demigod, so 15 str is quite normal, even when you start with 10. At 27 skill, 14 str would be required, which puts a triple sword out of reach of a lot of characters unless they heavily invest in str, or find str gear. At 24 skill, the attack delay would be identical to the current min delay, 0.7, and 27 skill would put it at 0.65.

Using a demon blade currently requires 14 skill to reach minimum delay. The new str requirement at 14 skill would be 13, which is a bit high for a lot of characters. At 16 skill, the str required would be 11, which is easier to reach. At 16 skill using elliptic's delay formula, the demon blade would be at .74 turns per attack, which is .14 slower than the current minimum delay reached at skill 14. Reaching the current minimum delay would require 24 skill, which is the same skill level it takes to get a triple sword to 0.7 turns in the new system.

Using a demon whip currently requires 12 skill to reach minimum delay. The new str requirement at 12 skill would be 11, which most characters could easily obtain. Training the skill up to 14 would lower the str requirement to 9, which is easily in reach for all characters. At 14 skill using elliptic's delay formula, a demon whip would be at 0.7 turns, which is slower than it is now, but still quite fast. Reaching the current minimum delay is impossible, at 27 skill a demon whip would be 0.52 turns, which is close enough. However, 22 skill would get you a great mace that attacks at roughly the current minimum delay of 0.7, and a great mace at 27 skill would reach 0.62 turns per attack.

A lot of low str characters currently use demon weapons anyways, this would just push more people towards using demon weapons and encourage less use of two-handed weapons unless you have high str.

[galehar]

I think the same is likely to happen if you make weapon damage actually depend on str

Sure, it might work, but why do we have to be so shy? As the name of the thread implies, I think fighting needs more than just a couple of tweaks. The change to the speed formula is hurting small and medium weapons the most. We're adding special effects to compensate, but we'll probably also have to buff damage too. But then, wouldn't big weapons become too powerful? Not if you have to also invest in attributes to use them effectively.
This is an ambitious project. Maybe too ambitious, maybe we'll drop it and fall back to tweaking numbers. But I think it's worth trying. I don't see any reason why we should feel committed to any of the 3 major formulae: speed, accuracy and damage. They all have drawbacks: speed is non-linear, have a cap and most weapons end with the same delay, accuracy becomes worthless at high level, damage has a lot of variance and is a bit complicated. Damage is probably the least problematic, so I'm leaving it asides for now.
It's funny, usually it's players who suggest radical changes and devs who are more conservative.

[crate]

Well I think the current situation is very good other than being spoilery. I also think the proposed formula just doesn't allow for as much differentiation of weapons from stats as the current one does (for example: a quick blade and a demon blade are quite different in current crawl since you need more than twice as much xp to use the demon blade at min delay, but in exchange you deal sizably more damage once you get there ... I am not sure if this is really possible to create if weapon speed is linear).

[eeviac]

I'm pretty wary of the speed and attributes suggestions, but I do like the weapon special effects section.

[galehar]

Linear speed doesn't mean that all weapons have the same speed. To take your specific example, current situation:

  Code:

            | base delay | delay sk=8 | delay  sk=14 | delay sk=27 |
quick blade |     7      |       3    |       3      |      3      |
demon blade |    13      |       9    |       6      |      6      |

New delays with C = 1/270 (I think my previous 1/27 was a calculation mistake)

  Code:

            | base delay | delay sk=8 | delay  sk=14 | delay sk=27 |
quick blade |     7      |     5.8    |     5.1      |     4.1     |
demon blade |    13      |     9.4    |     7.8      |     5.7     |

Still different, but not as much as before. Although as I said, C doesn't have to be the same for all weapons. With C=1/90 for quickblade:

  Code:

            | base delay | delay sk=8 | delay  sk=14 | delay sk=27 |
quick blade |     7      |     4.3    |     3.4      |     2.3     |
demon blade |    13      |     9.4    |     7.8      |     5.7     |

[crate]

Well if you make C different for different weapons you are making the new formula more complex and spoilery, just like the current one. I don't really see the point in changing at all if that is the case.

[danharaj]

I like the current system because the relationship between weapon delay and experience investment is 'interesting' with relatively minimal spoilers (weapon delay formula is really simple compared to, say, spell power stepdowns). It's fitting that the most important weapon stat creates the most important decision about weapon choice.

To make strength more useful for heavy weapons, I would give the player a higher effective skill level for high strength on heavy items. Something like, 1 skill level for every 3 strength above 10. Effective skill level still shouldn't exceed 27, so what this means is that high strength characters don't need to invest as much experience to use heavy weapons, but everyone else can still use them at full effectiveness if they make the extra investment. I would stay away from penalties for low strength.