Temple of The Roguelike Forums
Development => Programming => Topic started by: st33d on July 04, 2012, 06:49:55 PM
-
So what is the standard formula for doling these out? I ask because I was reading this:
http://userpages.monmouth.com/~colonel/rvm.html#exp
I based my own system on the V4 table. The formula for the table looks to me like (I might be wrong, late in the day):
10 * 2 ^ level
But the experience points table for the monsters with the hit dice thing is bizarrely arbitrary looking. Yet it's supposed to work.
I simply gave up, split 1.5 * XP needed to level up once across the monsters in the level.
But somehow it seems to have worked. You level up steadily with each dungeon level, seeming to think you're ahead of the curve - but you never get past it because the requirement doubles. I added bonus experience based on the total XP, still no effect to progression. I levelled up with the grind stone to level 6. Went into the dungeon and hit trouble at level 7.
So how are other people doing it?
-
So how are other people doing it?
Not doing it at all. Experience level (and points) is closely tied to certain type of rpg system so you need to build everything around it. Of course the most important thing is how much you get experience from stuff and how experience levels makes the character better.
-
The first roguelike I created had each skill (Ex: Axes, Swords, Armor, Archery) increase as you used certain items in said categories. The only problem with it was that the first type of items you found would really be the main type of item you'd use for the rest of the game. Let's say you first found a sword. Well, now your sword level is really high. Would you even want to pick up that axe on the ground, especially considering that enemies are much stronger and you'd do much less damage to them? I don't think so. If enemies continuously spawned then it may have not been a problem because then the player could grind their skills up. But mine didn't respawn, so it was a problem.
-
Here's how the system works in epilogue:
The player needs 80 xp to level up, every level. It does not scale upwards at all. However, the amount of xp you get is 2^(3+dungeon_level-player_level). Thus, you need 10 kills to level up when you are the same level as the monsters, 20 if you are one level above, 40 if two levels above, etc. You also get bonus xp for rare creature kills and boss kills, so generally the player will be around 2 levels above the dungeon level. The 10 kill requirement is tuned to the number of enemies on a floor (~15).
-
My Vapors of Insanity uses the following system:
Each creature has its experience value (XP). This experience value works quite similar to the ELO rating used in chess in similar games: relative strength of two beings is supposed to be described by difference between their XP, so a 5000 XP monster is for a 4500 XP monster just as powerful as 1500 XP to 1000 XP. If you beat an enemy with a high XP, your own XP will increase, and the amount of XP gained depends on the difference between your XPs. The only difference between VOI's XP system and ELO rating is that having a higher XP actually makes you more powerful, since your XP determines how high your skills can be increased. In the early game the monsters have experience of about 1000, and in the late game it reaches about 5000.
-
The system I used most recently (QuickHack: <http://roguebasin.roguelikedevelopment.org/index.php/QuickHack> Download, play, comment in the Announcements thread!) is minLevel * swarmFactor.
minLevel is the earliest level in which the enemy can be generated (thus crappy enemies aren't more rewarding on deeper levels).
swarmFactor is an indication of how much of a level's population a particular enemy should take up. Swarm-type enemies are 1, normal are 2, bruisers are 3. Upgraded enemies get +1.
Each level requires level * 20 experience. So to get from level 1 to 2, you need a total of 20 xp. Then 40 more, then 60 more, etc.
I don't really like murder-based xp (that's what item drops reward), I'd rather do them as story rewards. But I can't deny that leveling from exterminating your foes is fun.
-
I'm not using XP either. My current thrust is an attempt to overcome some of the traditional shortcomings of leveling individual skills through use. I think this approach deserves more exploration, because I'd like to think it could lead to something that feels more like natural learning than the chunky "all of a sudden you've got a skill/hit harder/whatever" approach of typical XP systems.
Learn-through-use has some traditional shortcomings. As was mentioned, one problem here is that you tend to get committed to whatever you've practiced, limiting your realistic options as you go forward to those which do not instantly cripple you as penalty for changing your mind.
The second problem I see, in games from Secret of Mana to Dwarf Fortress, is that this kind of system requires pointlessly gamey grinding to advance certain skills, simply because you use them less often (e.g. a "teleport to town" spell vs. the fire bolt spell you use in every fight). Players shouldn't have to do things like go get wounded on purpose so they can grind healing -- skills should advance naturally when you use them naturally.
I don't know of any games that overcome these two obstacles. I suspect there may be some very fine gameplay on the other side of this boundary, so I've been working up plans to get past it.
My approach involves a couple of things. First, skills are rubberbanded so that when you try something new, your skill level is never below some lower bound provided by links to similar skills (or failing that, some underlying attribute like Intelligence). The Shadowrun tabletop RPG had a system like this, IIRC. So for example maybe you've got 10 skill with bows and suddenly you find a magic crossbow you'd like to use. The system may determine that these skills are similar enough that you can use a crossbow with, say, a -2 penalty. Or perhaps it turns out you're something of a jack-of-all-trades with ranged weapons, but expert in none. This may give you a high score in the overall category, which could be used at maybe a -3 or -4 penalty (or whatever numbers make sense in the system at large).
To reduce grinding, my system rewards doing new things by associating learning with surmounting challenge. If you've cast the same spell 100 times, or killed 100 goblins, there's little more to learn from doing the same again. The skill gained from such practice should enable the player to venture in new directions, to find new challenges to learn from. Also, the system rewards near-misses (in proportion to nearness), because of course we learn from those too. I think if you fight a terrible monster, injure it non-fatally, and escape within an inch of your life, you probably learn something in the process! Shouldn't the game represent that?
Of course, there will be all kinds of balance issues, exploits to consider, and so on. Still, I'm hopeful for this approach, because XP just seems boring to me. Then again, maybe it's just personal bias against simple linear approximations for complex processes; see my other thread on doing away with hit points. :)
-
Something else worth considering---
It takes a lifetime to learn how to properly handle a Bow, but it only takes a couple of hours to learn how to properly handle a basic Crossbow. The bowman will be able to use a Crossbow very effectively, but likely not much less effectively than a crossbowman. On the other hand, it would be practically impossible for a crossbowman to pick up a Bow and find it useful.
Similarly with Spear/Halberds, Knives/Swords, etc.
-
Something else worth considering---
It takes a lifetime to learn how to properly handle a Bow, but it only takes a couple of hours to learn how to properly handle a basic Crossbow. The bowman will be able to use a Crossbow very effectively, but likely not much less effectively than a crossbowman. On the other hand, it would be practically impossible for a crossbowman to pick up a Bow and find it useful.
Similarly with Spear/Halberds, Knives/Swords, etc.
It didn't take me very long (a few hours?) to pick up a bow and become relatively good at using it when I tried out archery in college. At least as good at using a crossbow. Depending on the bow and the crossbow it might be harder for you to load the crossbow, and in fact you might not know how to do it properly (and quickly) if you've never handled one before, whereas a bow is pretty obvious. It heavily depends on the bow and on the crossbow certainly, but a bowman might find it very difficult to load a crossbow repeatedly, while a crossbowman might find a short bow and wield it easily, or the opposite could happen. Just my input. The crossbow that I have used was much more complicated than a bow.
-
Finally something I know a bit about.
BOWS
NOTE: All bows are rendered nearly useless if the enemy has a shield and they see the user drawing to fire.
Crossbows: Useless unless you know how to load, which takes 10 minutes to learn (nearly useless at level 0 skill, big jump by level 1). After that further training doesn't help too much (minor increase per level). Also long range shots are difficult because of the crossbow body getting in the way (huge drop off in hit% at range). Slow to load. Very slow (say 2-3 turns to reload). Also the crossbow tends to slow a man down more than other weapons.
Bows: Intuitive, start off with a pretty good effectiveness (okay at level 0). Practice helps a TON (good increase in effectiveness per level). Maybe a bit shorter ranged than crossbow, but at the same range they are easier to hit something with (greater hit% at range). Quick and easy to load.
Long Bow: Intuitive but takes a lot of strength to use correctly. Otherwise see 'bow'. Historically it was hard to field these units as the weapon is hard to draw and actually hit something with. This was not a skill issue so much as a strength issue (this is controversial, do not take my word for it. Try one...)
Hand Weapons
Mace/Club: Very easy to use (good ability at level 0). Skill doesn't help that much, more of a strength and footwork weapon (little effectiveness increase per level). Largely ineffective against armor, but also does not get stuck in armor which is cool. Very easy to make and pick up off the ground.
Axe: Also easy to use, but can hurt the wielder because the shaft is not balanced. So good damage at low level with moderate increase in safety with skill/level. Sort of easy to make, cheap to make, very common in fantasy/premodern settings. Hell it's common in modern settings. I have at least 5. Okay against armor, also the weight of the strike would make critical hits common at any expertise level.
Sword: As effective as an axe at level 0, but less effective against armor at low levels. Slashing is NOT effective against armor. Not at all. At higher levels thrusting is perfected and then you can take on armor very well. Most swords are also good at parrying melee attacks, especially Japanese swords. Axes are useless in that role. Historically swords were very expensive, but so superior that everyone coveted them.
Spear: Easy to learn (solid level 0 weapon) but without a ton of effectiveness gained at higher levels of proficiency. Valued for their length (hit 2 squares away?), one could stand off from a foe. Also thrusting is very conducive to unit fighting, but a TON of training and a shield is needed for that. Japanese Ashigaru (peasant spear) did not use shields, but then no Japanese really did. Most dungeon crawlers do not include entire units, which is where this weapon really shines. Good at piercing armor or dealing kill shots to the heart of enemies or beasts, this would require a small amount of skill and training at knowing where to strike (so CRIT with this weapon is learned later, but not too much later).
Pike: Nearly useless one on one. A unit weapon only. 2 or 3 times the reach of the average spear. Lengths depend on time period. Easy to learn individually, unit fighting is the main issue one must master. Like a spear just longer. The unwieldy length will slow a man down. Massively effective against mounted men that charge from the front, but the unwieldy nature of the weapon makes it hard to change facing, so a quick horseman could hit from the side and gain massive advantage (CRIT!). Against footmen, or in a dungeon, a good kill shit is nearly impossible to land (low crit rate even at high levels).
Halberd/Polearm: Massively popular during medieval times for the foot soldier. Almost as easy as a good axe to produce, these death on a stick weapons were also fairly easy to use effectively. Used in 2 hands, with good length, an advanced user could not only slash (level 0), thrust through armor (low level technique) but also snare with the hook and pull knights off horses or trip up armored men (higher level move). The issue is that shields were not often used with this weapon, so bow fire could really do a lot of damage.
SOME OTHER WEAPONS
Daggers - Easy to use at low level but low damage. AT higher level one knows EXACTLY where to hit and at what angle, so crits are huge. Short weapons, so you need to get in close. In game terms it means you need to catch someone unaware in order to score a critical/mortal blow. Daggers in Russia are used to kill bears. You just have to know where to thrust. Google it. It's true.
Flails - Have a great range and radius of attack, but require a ton of dexterity to use. Useless at lower levels of skill. Very good against unarmored assailants. Very weak versus armor.
Short Swords - A surprisingly hard to use weapon. Low level use includes slashing, which is largely ineffective with this weapon, at mid level one starts to learn the thrusting and kill/critical areas on the enemy. The elite level users could use this to parry melee blows, but only the elites. The movie Gladiator is a surprisingly good show of this. Note that this weapon is short and super accurate to wield, so an unsuspecting enemy can very easily get critted just like a dagger.
Great Weapons - Huge clubs, Great Swords, No Dachi and the like. These are low skill weapons. Practice as much as you want and you'll not get better at using them. They are all about strength, not skill. So level gain yields little additional effectiveness. They are of medium effectiveness against armor, but not due to thrusting. These weapons are nearly useless for thrusting. They are just so heavy they can stun an armored enemy, who can then be dispatched in a variety of ways.
Okay that's enough for now. I was going to get into more esoteric weapons and early gunpowder weapons but this is enough for now I think.
-
Finally something I know a bit about.
[snip infodump]
OK, this is going to be *very* useful for my current project. Nice broad summary. Wouldn't be surprised if the Ultima Ratio Regum guy would benefit from taking a look at this either.
-
I'm not using XP either. My current thrust is an attempt to overcome some of the traditional shortcomings of leveling individual skills through use. I think this approach deserves more exploration, because I'd like to think it could lead to something that feels more like natural learning than the chunky "all of a sudden you've got a skill/hit harder/whatever" approach of typical XP systems.
The traditional "all at once" approach is much easier for players to grasp though, and allows delivery of interesting new content like granting the player a special usable abilities like firing 2 arrows at once, etc. And it makes it easier when designing monsters and their abilities.
Also, anything approaching "real" combat sucks and should be ignored :P Real combat and learning is horrible. A combat-based game should be about the game first, with the combat elements being more thematic than a true influence on the mechanics. Same goes for experience and advancement in a game.
-
I think the main problem with level-thru-use is that you end up in one of two situations: A) you repetitively grind an ability to increase it (see morrowind/oblivion) or B) if it is not possible to do that, you end up with something like victory dancing in crawl (which is removed now i believe) to overcome whatever attempt to prevent it was put in place.
I definitely like the idea of level-thru-use, but I've just never seen it done where I wasn't compelled to grind, or felt that I needed to spam certain abilities in combat to improve them, which is less fun than the alternatives in my opinion.
-
Finally something I know a bit about.[...]
Whoah, great post man!
-
I definitely like the idea of level-thru-use, but I've just never seen it done where I wasn't compelled to grind, or felt that I needed to spam certain abilities in combat to improve them, which is less fun than the alternatives in my opinion.
I'm reminded of throwing all your equipment and clothes in Dungeon Master to gain Ninja levels.
I think grind-usage can be okay so long as you only allow them to level a skill through meaningful use. But then you'd have to make sure that complementary skills level up in tandem. You can't have a wizard get all-mighty with magic and then expect them to assume a fighter role if they're going to ever increase their health. RPGs favour specialists. Which is why bards are often shit to play.
-
I think the key is to put in a lot of synergistic abilities between skill types. Make it so finding good 2-3 skill type combos is better than just focusing on one and I think the game gets a lot more interesting. This is what kept me playing guild wars for so long. Random example: the ranger (bow wielder) class had a stat that reduced the cost of using non-magic abilities. You could couple this with a multiclass into another weapon-based class and create a powerful melee warrior, even though your main is supposed to wield a bow :P So even though I got tired of the bow abilities after a while, I kept playing on with a hammer and then a scythe :)
-
Finally something I know a bit about.
I'm going to call you out on this- misinformation is not cool. I know that you're trying to talk about sensible mechanics, but your suggestions do NOT remotely reflect reality. The goal, ofc, is not to reflect reality but make a fun game. However, if we use reality as inspiration, the information you've provided is very misleading and wrong.
BOWS
NOTE: All bows are rendered nearly useless if the enemy has a shield and they see the user drawing to fire.
Crossbows: Useless unless you know how to load, which takes 10 minutes to learn (nearly useless at level 0 skill, big jump by level 1). After that further training doesn't help too much (minor increase per level). Also long range shots are difficult because of the crossbow body getting in the way (huge drop off in hit% at range). Slow to load. Very slow (say 2-3 turns to reload). Also the crossbow tends to slow a man down more than other weapons.
Bows: Intuitive, start off with a pretty good effectiveness (okay at level 0). Practice helps a TON (good increase in effectiveness per level). Maybe a bit shorter ranged than crossbow, but at the same range they are easier to hit something with (greater hit% at range). Quick and easy to load.
Long Bow: Intuitive but takes a lot of strength to use correctly. Otherwise see 'bow'. Historically it was hard to field these units as the weapon is hard to draw and actually hit something with. This was not a skill issue so much as a strength issue (this is controversial, do not take my word for it. Try one...)
I'm assuming the following definitions- A Long Bow is essentially anything greater than 100 lbf, where as a Bow offers around 50 lbf (normal for hunting).
On Reloading-
A bow can be fired non-randomly (I will not use the word 'accurately') at about twice the rate of a crossbow. A crossbow can notch 2-3 bolts in a minute, whereas bows typically run 3-6. At those speeds, the archer will suffer exhaustion during aiming and greatly reduce his/her accuracy. Note also that a crossbow can be reloaded while in cover and fires first. An archer has to draw and fire from a standing position. It's generally a 1:2 ROF rule though.
On Range-
A simple crossbow exceeds a hunting bow significantly. Longbows were historically classified as artillery. A yeoman that can land an arrow in a 1.5 radius circle from 150 yards away was considered masterfully accurate. On the other hand, a simple crossbow can easily hit a range of 300 yards at a similar degree of accuracy. An Italian Cranequin was restrung and found to have a range of 500 yards (cranequins are, however, slower to fire).
On Accuracy-
Archers have to consider wind, the archer's paradox, firing angle, gravity, and pulling force to hit anything beyond 30 yards. A crossbowman doesn't even need to know what those things are to accurately hit something beyond 30 yards. At short range, the crossbow is more stable and strikes with significantly greater force. Crossbows don't suffer from elastic hysteresis, which pretty much definitively makes them more accurate.
On Experience-
The Italian Peninsula housed what was probably the most renowned crossbow culture in history. Due to the geography and preferred tactics, crossbow handling was a status symbol- whereas other places in Europe considered it a weapon of peasants. Italian Crossbow mercenaries, however, dominated nearly every battle they were involved with. They used more complicated crossbows, but were also just more knowledgeable about striking objects. Comparing the crossbow to the bow is some what ridiculous in terms of training. Archery used in combat was reserved for a caste or class of individual that could afford a lifetime of devotion to the weapon. Crossbows require no such dedication.
On Handling-
The crossbow is definitely a heavier and clumsier weapon.
On Damage-
The Bow or Longbow doesn't remotely compare. Arced shots rely on terminal velocity for their damaging force. An arrow cannot penetrate metal armor with terminal velocity. The flex and force of arrows is also insufficient to reliably penetrate a breastplate a mid-range. A crossbow, on the other hand, has much less of a problem. The closer the enemy, the easier it is to kill. A reinforced poplar shield will probably stop a mid-range bolt, but at closer range it's going to cut through.
Final Thoughts-
Crossbows vary greatly in utility. From a poisoned dart gun to a gastraphetes, crossbows are designed for particular purposes, ranges, and field conditions. Above, I talk mainly about the common crossbow you'd expect in the medieval period. However, a crossbow can be designed to fit any purpose. Bows have a lot of variety as well, but that variety plays little role in damage output and ROF. Lastly, a Crossbow is useful to everybody.
Unless you come from an Archer class, it isn't a weapon that you would pick up for anything other than hunting game.
Hand Weapons
Mace/Club: Very easy to use (good ability at level 0). Skill doesn't help that much, more of a strength and footwork weapon (little effectiveness increase per level). Largely ineffective against armor, but also does not get stuck in armor which is cool. Very easy to make and pick up off the ground.
The formal Mace was used to knock-out nobility so that they could be ransomed. It was considered a weapon of respect and fairness because you didn't kill your opponent with it. That does not mean, however, that it wasn't effective vs armor-- it is designed to fight against armor! The mace became the ceremonial weapon of the Vatican and Royalty for the reasons above.
Sword: As effective as an axe at level 0, but less effective against armor at low levels. Slashing is NOT effective against armor. Not at all. At higher levels thrusting is perfected and then you can take on armor very well. Most swords are also good at parrying melee attacks, especially Japanese swords. Axes are useless in that role. Historically swords were very expensive, but so superior that everyone coveted them.
Slashing is not effective? The reason why European swords are straight-edged is specifically for HACKING through armor! Curved-swords, like those used in the Middle East, were for fighting unarmored opponents-- because the blade stays connected with the target for the duration of the stroke- dealing significantly more damage (Arabs didn't wear heavy armor because it was impractical in the environment). Arabs did have superior metallurgical practices though, and could make a scimitar that could flex at nearly a 90-degree angle on a downward strike-- which basically means h4xing through shields. Point is, the "broad" edge of the sword was designed to give you a wide edge to hack through armor.
Two armored opponents may resort to pugilism or stilettos to fight one another, but they wouldn't toss their swords away before doing so.
After metallurgical practices improved in europe, they were able to produce heavy armors with hardness comparable to a sword, causing bladed weapons to occasionally ricochet. This resulted in the rise of popularity of Maces and Mace-like weapons (particularly the war hammer), as they were more effective against armored opponents. The sword was still effective and the preferred weapon.
Halberd/Polearm: Massively popular during medieval times for the foot soldier. Almost as easy as a good axe to produce, these death on a stick weapons were also fairly easy to use effectively. Used in 2 hands, with good length, an advanced user could not only slash (level 0), thrust through armor (low level technique) but also snare with the hook and pull knights off horses or trip up armored men (higher level move). The issue is that shields were not often used with this weapon, so bow fire could really do a lot of damage.
Massively popular, but not typically used- they are NOT as easy to produce and were incredibly expensive* to field properly. I'll have to recheck my sources- but as I recall, You might have halberdiers in the hundreds compared to pikemen in the thousands. Halberdiers (as a formal unit) would be equipped with medium-classed armor-- A plate helm with a wide brow and shoulder armor, and either scale or a breastplate. Long and mid-range archery was useless against them. Arrows at terminal velocity cannot penetrate plate.
*The difference between a shaft and a lance are humongous. A halberd must be set on a reinforced staff of high quality wood as it must be able to withstand the force of a cavalry charge (in contrast with pikes, which don't necessarily need to be reinforced unless you don't have the right type of wood- you also don't care if a pike breaks from receiving a charge). An axe shaft can literally just be a chunk of wood, a bundle of sticks, or a hand-carved branch.
SOME OTHER WEAPONS
Flails - Have a great range and radius of attack, but require a ton of dexterity to use. Useless at lower levels of skill. Very good against unarmored assailants. Very weak versus armor.
The flail's usefulness extends into cheating shields and disarming opponents on a successful parry. Very weak versus armor? They fulfill a similar role as the Mace, in that they effectively knock an armored opponent out very easily. Jointed weapons acquire a lot of additional power from centrifugal force.
Short Swords - A surprisingly hard to use weapon. Low level use includes slashing, which is largely ineffective with this weapon, at mid level one starts to learn the thrusting and kill/critical areas on the enemy. The elite level users could use this to parry melee blows, but only the elites. The movie Gladiator is a surprisingly good show of this. Note that this weapon is short and super accurate to wield, so an unsuspecting enemy can very easily get critted just like a dagger.
This is silly. If someone was sent back in time and picked up a short sword, this still probably wouldn't be true. A short sword is easier to understand, easier to handle, and better weighted. Your reference to Gladiator is somewhat true- but a Spatha is far superior to a Gladius for that kind of fighting. Regardless- the main advantage of the Gladius or Short sword is attack speed- you can stab 3 times faster than another weapon can slash. The range makes this less of an obvious advantage in duels.
If found yourself in a duel during the medieval period and you weren't a trained fighter, you'd almost always want to go with a Short Sword and Buckler.
Great Weapons - Huge clubs, Great Swords, No Dachi and the like. These are low skill weapons. Practice as much as you want and you'll not get better at using them. They are all about strength, not skill. So level gain yields little additional effectiveness. They are of medium effectiveness against armor, but not due to thrusting. These weapons are nearly useless for thrusting. They are just so heavy they can stun an armored enemy, who can then be dispatched in a variety of ways.
No offense, but this was painful to read. The primary role of two-handed greatswords is anti-cavalry via THRUSTING (they would be used IN pike formations!!!). The secondary role is infantry superiority (against other pike formations- similar usage to halberdiers). They were incredibly complicated weapons to use, and provided insane field advantages. Look at the following picture from a manuscript-- Notice how the swords are being used. There is a great deal of complexity and finesse in how these weapons are handled and used on the battlefield. No'Dachi are similarly elegant.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Wallerstein_219.jpg)
The sword can be held by the blade such that the hilt can be used to disarm and parry- this would be done very quickly, with moves fluidly gliding between a variety of stances.
What you've said only really applies to "Huge Clubs"- whatever those are. And you'd better not be disparaging the grace of a maul.
-
Req' you are way out of your depth, trying hard to be contrary for no real reason. I call you a troll and do not engage in your bullshit.
-
Wonderful. An argument about historical weapon use on a game development forum is much more useful to me than an argument about historical weapon use on a history geek forum. :)
-
I think they're just competing to see who has the biggest spear.
-
Thanks Darren. I just inhaled my Mt. Dew ;)
@Quendus - exactly my feeling.
-
Back on topic, experience points. It looks like you are doing a pretty good job of doling them out. Any system that lets a player keep up with the 'arms race' and keep being competitive against the enemies seems to be doing well.
The leveling systems I like most are the ones that add abilities or maybe allow the player to up proficiency in certain areas. Maybe the player can pick skills on a tree and keep advancing that tree. So the game is altered by leveling.
I think a bad way to do it is to make leveling up a requirement to be able to face the next stream of baddies. No new abilities, no real tailoring of the character. You just need to be leveled in order to have enough hit% and HP to take out the next guy. These systems lead to grinding. Players going through the level killing just to kill in order to have a stat/level advantage.
Playing Diablo I am constantly running back and forth exploring every inch of the game space looking for XP to farm. The baddies are trivial, but the XP keeps me a level or 2 above content and makes it so I can grind XP faster....levels do grant extra skills as well, but man, I think you can think of a better way. Exploration driven by XP farming just seems like bad design.
But hey, it's tried and true. Many super popular games are nothing but grinders. Hell even Rogue rewards grinding (but also searching for treasure) through the first few levels so you are powered up enough to go stat for stat with baddies later on. Of course, way later you need stats enough to survive long enough to flee in horror from the monsters. :-)
-
If enemies continuously spawned then it may have not been a problem because then the player could grind their skills up. But mine didn't response .This time is experience eminently needed .So experience points so much great and nice.
-
xp farming in my game is completely illusory.
You can farm for xp, but you can't get ahead because of the requirement. Similarly, when I used the debug menu to give myself strong armour and went in search of a bug at lower levels I would rocket up in levels fighting stuff -
then stop at the required level for that dungeon.
That is the magic of the doubling curve. It really is quite weird that by racing ahead I get bigger yield kills, but I'm not in that comfort zone above the curve where the going is a bit easier. But I do catch up with the curve - and very quickly as well. So much so that it makes the earlier levels seem meaningless in their reward.
It's not something I planned for - it just seems to be a side effect of the doubling requirement table and doling out enough at each milestone to get to the next level.
-
I think Brogue does something like that doesn't it? Like grinding for XP at one level is not useful because of the huge ramp up in reward/requirement?
-
Slashing is not effective? The reason why European swords are straight-edged is specifically for HACKING through armor! Curved-swords, like those used in the Middle East, were for fighting unarmored opponents-- because the blade stays connected with the target for the duration of the stroke- dealing significantly more damage
I think european swords were straight because it was also used to thrust while curved swords were for slashing mainly. I think the difference was in the style of armour and protection in general that made thrusting a good option to quickly hit those areas that were not protected by armour. Curved swords were usually shorter which means they were used more in close combat while straight swords became longer during the history, almost spear-like. Still I guess with all swords slashing was the main attack style, because it's a lot more difficult to parry and also has greater damage than thrust.
-
Slashing is not effective? The reason why European swords are straight-edged is specifically for HACKING through armor! Curved-swords, like those used in the Middle East, were for fighting unarmored opponents-- because the blade stays connected with the target for the duration of the stroke- dealing significantly more damage
I think european swords were straight because it was also used to thrust while curved swords were for slashing mainly. I think the difference was in the style of armour and protection in general that made thrusting a good option to quickly hit those areas that were not protected by armour. Curved swords were usually shorter which means they were used more in close combat while straight swords became longer during the history, almost spear-like. Still I guess with all swords slashing was the main attack style, because it's a lot more difficult to parry and also has greater damage than thrust.
Also true.
Jo made a distinction between 'Sword' and 'Great Sword.' These designations are typically used to make a distinction between true two-handers and one-handers or one and a half hand swords (which means we're talking about early renaissance and late medieval). Through the Dark Ages, Spathas were the preferred type of sword (a thrusting weapon). As armors began to match the quality of metal used in weapons, spatha-style swords gave way to medieval bastard-style swords, which were primarily hacking weapons. After armors begin to surpass swords, maces and axes become much more common. We don't see swords excel at thrusting until two-handers become more predominant in late medieval/early renaissance, with swords such as the estoc and zweihander. Around this time the espada makes its debut, the precursor to the spanish rapier, which more or less marks the beginning of the end of slashing weapons.
This is an unnecessary tangent but something I personally find interesting--
After the arquebus becomes more common, we see a sharp decline in this use of armors. Although early firearms fired at lower velocities, the size of the munitions would penetrate heavy armors fairly consistently- (well-made breastplates would be tested against an arque, the resulting dent would typically be encircled with a mark to show its quality). By the time the Brown Bess (standardized musket) comes around, heavy armors are almost completely out of use-- the interesting part about this is that the caliber, velocity and joules of the Brown Bess isn't substantial enough to reliably penetrate the heavy armor used prior to the arquebus.
-
I was not going to reply on this topic but I can't stop myself. God I hate that I can't stop myself. Everyone feel free to tell me I'm taking this shit too personally. I have a fucking advanced degree in history focusing on military history and have been reenacting historical battles for decades. So when I get little ignorant bitches like this calling me out I tend to freak a bit.
Plus, none of this is in anyway helpful when making a game. None of it. If you want to game this shit check out some table top wargames. There are tons and tons of them. I've played with at least 50 different' rulesets and have written at least 20 others. None of the one's I've written are worth 2 shits or a fuck, except for the one my niece and I play with that lets her stuffed giraffe move 3 wing spans and put any creature she confronts into TIME OUT...
With apology. I respond. By the numbers.
1. Req' you are a rude ignorant fuck. Next time call out my ignorance in a more polite manner. Then I will respond in a more polite manner. Acting like I'm doing this community a disservice by dissemination misinformation is wrong. It's a bitch move. And fuck you.
2. You act like I'm trying to make historically correct statements when I'm obviously generalizing several thousand years of weapon use. THOUSANDS OF YEARS YOU DUMB CUNT. Sometimes I'm talking about the late medieval period, which is the one used in typical fantasy gaming. Plus I'm talking about wargaming and gaming in general. You are talking about pull weights on bows and all kinds of other shit...Oh jesus, kill yourself. Please. No one will care.
3. Specifically, regarding maces, you are talking about spiked or flanged maces when I specifically mention blunt weapons. But then you seem to be talking about blunts again when you talk about non lethal maces. So which is it? You're an idiot. Blunt weapons were shit v. plate armor, I'm talking about late medieval here. Every fucking fantasy game, every goddamn game in the roguelike genre is about late medieval fucking plate combat (unless it's scifi). Dungeons and Dragons is about the same period minus gun powder. No one is talking about bullshit maces some idiot prince was using in a duel to capture some other fucking idiot. Fuck! Let's be clear. Blunt = Shit v. Plate. Flanged = Good v. Plate. But who gives a shit? Neither were common. If you make a game you can delineate spikes/flanged and blunt, one defeats armor, the other stuns. This is not a 'calling out' topic.
4. You link a longsword picture addressing my great sword/no dachi statement which is clearly an image of longsword battle. There's a huge fucking difference between long swords and great swords, no dachi and massive 2 handed clubs. You link specifically to a picture of a battle using the half sword technique using the pommel of the sword to stun the enemy. Great. That technique was good in duels for about 25 seconds over several thousand years.
Read about the No Dachi, so you don't sound dumb.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nodachi
Here is the wiki page, from which you derived your image, the text that goes with the image completely refutes what you say. This is because you're a moron trying to start shit with someone you shouldn't have fucked with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longsword#Harnischfechten
Here is the text.
"cutting and slicing attacks against an opponent wearing plate armour were almost entirely ineffective in providing any sort of slashing wound as the sword simply could not cut through the steel..."
If you are having trouble with that text, just lemme translate. It says "Yer dumb."
5. Did I mention you're a bloated idiot?
6. You talk for over 30 lines about archery, after 'calling me out', but do not refute jack shit about what I said. This makes you a dripping cunt.
6.5. Oh look. Here's a German greatsword you might have been talking about. But you didn't link to it. And it doesn't support your dumb as fuck claims. Historians are only as good as their sources. Here I am using wikipedia. A shit source, but still better than yours, which was nonexistent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zweih%C3%A4nder
7. I'm still trying to figure out what game you've written or contributed to. I've written a couple of very very bad games. I've contributed to some super awesome ones. I'm not that great of a contributor to the genre really, but I'm better than you. I can't find where you've contributed anything. At all. I could be wrong, but still you can go fuck yourself.
8. The medieval long sword was made to thrust through armor. It is fine for slashing through shit armor or unarmored people. But not plate armor. This is well established. You are dumb fuck for saying otherwise. Curved swords were common throughout the thousands or so years that swords were common because good armor was rarely common. Even late, say in WWI, sabers were used because guns made armor obsolete, so slashing was working again. Same throughout the entire gunpowder period, but find me one fucking knight in the late medieval period, the only period relevant here. One knight. Just one. None of those fuckers use curved swords you fucking yutz. The thing is you actually know this, but still felt the need to be a cunt. Western culture was almost always ahead in armor so straight swords became the norm throughout history.
9. The period of 'fantasy' is not even historical. So really this all fucking bullshit. Fantasy is really based on early renaissance with medieval technology. Plus fucking magic and elves you dumb mother fucker. Jesus fuck none of us are 'right'. Why are you trying to be right? Why am I? I'll tell you. Because you called me out in the dumbest way I've ever been called out. Have I mentioned you're a cunt?
10. About short swords? You felt to need to correct me about spatha v. gladius? Which I never even mentioned. Oh fuck then you go on to talk about what would I do if I went back in time to use one? I've beaten men bloody with this sword, though blunted. Then you go on to agree with me about how it's a stabbing weapon? Have I mentioned your a cunt? I demand better.
11. Regarding the Halberd/Polemarm - Historians mistake Pikes and Polearms. It's hard to know which was which in various battles. This is of no consequence for roguelike combat. Neither were that useful in close duels. Game wise they can be fun, as you can add lengths to weapons, or even sweep radius. Brogue does this. Correcting me if this is a bitch move. Note I did not say 'cunt' in this paragraph.
12. Have I mentioned flails? FLAILS? Who the fuck cares you dumb bitch?
Go ahead and ban me if you want Getter. It's cool. I've been fuming for days and the catharsis of writing this response has been worth any negative outcome.
-
Jesus fuck none of us are 'right'.
You are right. It's funny how little we (at least me) know about weapons of age before guns, and how they were used in the battle.
This is a cool thread, because I'm already getting ideas for Kaduria which is going to be more realistic than typical D&D roguelike.
Go ahead and ban me if you want Getter.
Don't ban him getter. Jo is our weapons expert!
-
I didn't read this thread there were too many words on it but I did look at the pictures. This one caught my eye:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Wallerstein_219.jpg)
What on earth is going on there? The guy on the right is holding the sword the wrong way round lol.
I bet the one on the left is saying "you fool Thomas, you are holding your sword the wrong way round! And to think when you came out in all that gear I thought you knew what you were doing! Look how easy it is for me to stab you Thomas and I am not even really trying"
-
I bet the one on the left is saying "you fool Thomas, you are holding your sword the wrong way round! And to think when you came out in all that gear I thought you knew what you were doing! Look how easy it is for me to stab you Thomas and I am not even really trying"
This gives me a cool idea. When you are inexperienced with a weapon and attack there should be the possibility of "you score a direct hit on the goblin, but unfortunately had your sword backwards and somehow cut yourself!"
Or how about zapping yourself because you have the wand backwards. Or perhaps misinterpreting the time delay on a grenade.
These would be some great deaths! "Kraflab accidently stabbed himself on dungeon floor 6"
:D
-
Oh Jo! This is wonderful. Do not deny the passion that invigorates you. This is what it means to be a man!
I humbly beseech you for forgiveness and apologize for my transgression- The judgement of ignorance unto another entity is perhaps the greatest sin of all! To denounce an individual is to deny a perspective that oneself is ignorant of. Such hypocrisy denies an individual the benefit another's wisdom.
I wish to honor your passionate reply with equal fervor. However, I do not think that you would appreciate such a gesture. I similarly would very much like to address each of your cases, but I sense that it would not help soothe your frustration.
I will simply say that what you had written in your original idea deeply offended me. In a moment of haste, I let the passion take me. For that, I am deeply sorry.
I would very much like to address each of your points, but will not do so unless you wish it- for I sincerely do not wish to cause a degree of aggravation that would ignite the powder keg- so to speak.
Otherwise, I sincerely hope that felt good. And I hope you don't get banned- I generally enjoy reading what you have to say.
-
This gives me a cool idea. When you are inexperienced with a weapon and attack there should be the possibility of "you score a direct hit on the goblin, but unfortunately had your sword backwards and somehow cut yourself!"
You should play Orcs and Elves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orcs_%26_Elves). It's a turn based 1st person dungeon crawler. It has a high emphasis on potion use with dwarven ale being often forced upon you by the ghost of a dwarf. He will only open the way if you drink some potent ale.
The way is opened and I'm surrounded by monsters. And I'm pissed - the screen is even wobbling to inform me that I have extra damage and a penalty to hit.
"Quick", says the ghost, "use the medusa scroll to freeze the enemies."
I open the medusa scroll, freeze one monster, turn to face another, open it again - but I'm pissed, the medusa scroll is the wrong way round. I'm frozen whilst monsters bash me from all sides.
Fucking dwarf.