On Jun 14, 5:03 am, "AngleWyrm" <anglew...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Geoffrey Summerhayes" <sumr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
news:0dd22911-c0fa-4762-a012-bf1f85d5941f@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Ok, here's an example of a damage model that uses a lot of stats
> > average damage=
> > (max 0,
> > ((max((minimum chance to hit),
> > min((maximum chance to hit),
> > (base % to hit for class and level)+
> > (agility bonus)+
> > (equipment hit bonus))))*
> > ((average weapon damage)+
> > (strength bonus)+
> > (equipment damage bonus)+
> > ((critical %)*
> > (average critical damage)))*
> > (100% -
> > (****eld block %)+
> > (enemy agility bonus)+
> > (enemy equipment block bonus)))-
> > ((enemy armour absorption)+
> > (enemy constitution bonus)))
>
> This example displays a firm grasp of what these values are generally
used
> for. I just want to make it clear that I'm not implying anything less.
But
> the general use pattern -- not the designer -- has a problem.
>
> The problem is that the full range is obfiscated. It is no longer clear
what
> the maximum 'average damage' is, even though of course there is one.
If you want obfuscated, look at look at quantum physics, this is basic
high school algebra, it doesn't even require Newton's method to find
the minimum and maximum. And the curve is no where near the
"scary" seven stats line you posit.
> That problem leads to putting pegs in place to confine the range. The
result
> is quite often that the number just sits on one or the other peg,
shooting
> between them when it reaches critical mass.
Wow. That last sentence is truly horrifying.
> >> 2). "That all stats are equally im****tant"
> >> This is the primary reason for using a range that goes from 0 to 1.
It
> >> can
> >> be easily scaled to any desired range, and may be scaled differently
for
> >> each variable. The result is still the same: All that has happened is
> >> that
> >> the box is stretched/squished along one or more dimensions. The shape
and
> >> pro****tions remain intact, relative to the newly distorted box. I
should
> >> probably illustrate this point, because it's not obvious.
> > Bull. This simplification merely serves to make your
> > argument appear valid.
>
> Yep, definitely going to have to illustrate this point. Ok, here we go:
> Ladies and gentlement, please take note that at no time does her nose
leave
> her face:http://home.comcast.net/~anglewyrm/img/face.png
> Her nose is always between her eyes, and about the same distance to each
> eye. And that applies directly to making mosters that go from 1hp to
100hp
> through the game, or making them go from 1hp to 10000hp. Just stretching
a
> range.
>
> It seems that 0% to 100% is easier to get than 0 to 1, so I'll have to
make
> some edits. All I've done is make the ranges from 0% of whatever the
best
> value is up to 100%. Which is by definition the best value. If there
were
> something better, it would be the best value instead, and we'd be taking
0%
> to 100% of that.
The problem here is that you are talking to people who, during the
course
of their education, would have to have been exceptionally unlucky if,
at
some point during their education, they failed to be exposed to an
advocate
of Darrell Huff's work.
But, here's how I see your argument so far, "Look, when you get better
at doing something and you have better tools, you get a lot better
results!
This affects game balance in some way that only I can see and cannot
define or explain, but we'd better change things so results don't
improve
that way."
----
Geoff
|
