Two weapon combat, gamma 8 was FUN, and more
Osku Salerma
8 was FUN, with all kinds of "abusable" things in the game. Drakeling
with speeds of 200+ for the whole game after their first fireball
trap, book spellcasting (especially healing spell abuse), plenty of
artifacts around, whips of the snake (now these were fun), etc. Gammas
9 and 10 have only brought in boring restrictions.
Drakelings get a whopping +1 bonus to speed from fireball traps, and
even this is strictly temporary. Now drakelings are pretty much the
same as dwarves in my experience, which makes them rather boring.
Amost zero artifacts. I think I've only gotten two surges of power in
my hundred or so g10 games. Not only that, but there's so many new
lame artifacts that the chances of getting something _good_ are pretty
much zero. I mean, emerald dagger? Who needs an artifact weapon that
does 3d4+<small number> damage? And several of the better ones have
been tuned down too.
Two weapon combat totally sucks. Low-level characters have absolutely
no chance of using it (except maybe for rangers). My test character,
lvl 4 human fighter, has a two-weapon combat skill of 36 which is
described as "fair". With a single weapon, a battle-axe, he has a +10
to hit bonus. But put a short sword in the left hand, and he has a +1
to hit bonus in the right hand and -10 in the left hand. In addition
to that, the energy cost is 1650. Doesn't take long until you figure
TB wants every single character either a) using two handed weapons or
b) using a single weapon and a shield.
The trouble is, there are only 3 two handed weapons in the game worth
using, none of which are available for early level characters. I'm
talking about the Vanquisher, rune-covered trident and eternium
two-handed sword, of course. So, the only option is to use a single
weapon and a shield. But in every game I've played, I find myself a
lvl 20 character wielding some stupid orcish spear and a shield of
some kind, with a DV of 50 but doing 1d8+20 damage or something else
equally shitty. Then you decide to switch over to, say, an eternium
spear and an adamantium broadsword, which are the only decent weapons
you've found. But, your DV drops to 20, and your attack energy cost is
1650 or so.
Basically, I think the energy cost for two-weapon fighting is
seriously out of balance. The current formula is, according to the
manual:
Note that fighting with two weapons costs 800 energy points plus the
maximum of the weapon speeds for the weapons being used, minus 4
energy points per skill point in this skill.
Lets say you have have a skill level of 8 in swords. Gamma 10 is buggy
and the energy cost for single weapon attacks is 840, when according
to the manual it should be 815. But that doesn't matter in this
example. You have a 75 TWC skill, which is described as great. Lets
say you're a lvl 20 orcish fighter, so you're supposed to be pretty
good at fighting. But the attack energy cost still is
800+840-(75*4)=1340. That's 60% more than the single weapon attack
cost of 840.
Let's say you're doing 1d8+30 damage with a single hand. Let's also
assume you roll an eight every time, to simplify the calculations. So,
with a single weapon and a shield you're doing 38 damage with a 840
energy cost. That's 38/840=0.045238095 points of damage per one energy
point. With two weapons, you're doing 38*2=76 damage with a 1340
energy cost. That's 76/1340=0.056716417 points of damage per one
energy point.
So, how much more damage are you doing with two weapons instead of
one? Surely you're doing huge amounts more, you did give up that +30
DV bonus you get when wearing a shield, so you must be one mighty
warrior! In fact, you're only doing 0.056716417/0.045238095=1.2537
times the damage you were doing with a single weapon. That's 25% more.
Even with 100 skill in TWC, the figures don't change much. Using the
above example, 100 TWC would mean you'd do 35% more damage with two
weapons. What's even worse, is that the figures get steadily worse as
you advance in weapon skills. When the gamma 10 bug is fixed and lvl
15 in a weapon gives you a 500 attack cost with a single weapon, the
situation will be absolutely terrible. Think about it: 500 attack cost
with a single weapon, plus you get the +30 or so DV bonus from the
shield, in comparison to two weapons of the same, that's
800+500-(100*4)=900 attack cost. That translates to the fact you're
doing 11.1% more damage when fighting with two weapons instead of one!
I think adding shield skill to the game was the worst thing that ever
happened. It certainly was only thought out for the magic users. Now
they can wear two shields and get ridiculous DV's with absolute ease.
Two decent shields and a decent shield skill gives you at least a +45
DV bonus. Then switch your tactics to coward and it's a pretty safe
world out there, isn't it?
So, this happened and the game turned way too easy for magic users. So
the monsters were tuned way harder to compensate. Somewhere in all
this, "normal" characters were forgotten. Normal meaning straight
hack'n'slash characters who are my favorite. Now I understand they're
not most people's favorites, at least judging from the recent YAVP
posts, most of which have been something other than hack'n'slash
characters. But I like playing them, and they should be playable. And
it just doesn't make any goddamn sense if two weapon combat is
practically useless since it's so ****ing bad.
I think that with two weapons, you should be doing somewhere in the
area of 75-125% more damage compared to the single weapon + shield
combination. Not this current lousy 11-35% more, which doesn't come
close to making up for the +30 DV loss.
And, in all the above examples, I've used high-level characters who
don't have to worry about to-hit bonuses at all and have high TWC. I
just tried a lvl 4 human fighter. He had a TWC of 36. With a
battle-axe and a shield, he had +10 to hit. With a battle-axe and a
short sword, he had a +1 in right hand and -10 in left hand to hit
bonus. That, and 1650 attack cost. I don't know about you out there,
but I think a lvl 4 FIGHTER should be able to FIGHT, not hide behind
some wimpy shield until he's level 35 and has found those two swords
of sharpness. Though, what's the point of switching even then if
you're still more effective with just one of them and a shield..
Also, the two weapon attack cost formula is 800+(maximum of the
weapons' attack cost)-TWC bonus. It doesn't take the better weapon
skill into account at all, which is just outrageous. Also, the formula
is the exact same for spell caster types and hack'n'slash characters,
which is plain WRONG.
I think spell-casters should find it very difficult to fight with two
weapons, even more difficult than the current status. After all,
trollish barbarians can't cast a Light spell succesfully, why should
high elf wizards be decent at two weapon fighting?
I propose the following attack cost formula for spell-casters
(priest,mindcrafter,druid,elementalist,wizard,healer,monk,
beastfighter):
1000+(attack cost of right hand weapon+attack cost of left hand
weapon) / 2 - (TWC skill*3).
Using that formula, a wizard dual-wielding rolf's axe at skill level 7
and nonnak at skill level 7 (with fixed attack costs as according to
the manual), with TWC at 50, would take 1695 energy points. That
sounds about right to me. Wizards and other spell-casters _should_
totally suck at two weapon combat, just as barbarians should suck at
spell casting.
Note that I've included monks and beastfighters in this category,
since they should be using unarmed combat anyway, so it doesn't
matter the least which formula they use if they're stupid enough to
wield weapons. Monks should have the same kind of penalties for weapon
use as beastfighters currently have, IMHO.
Classes between true fighters and true spellcasters
(merchant,paladin,thief,bard,archer,farmer,necromancer) would use the
following formula:
800+(attack cost of right hand weapon+attack cost of left hand weapon)
/ 2 - (TWC skill*4)
This way, a thief with lvl 10 in daggers dual-wielding phase daggers,
with TWC at 75, would have an 1250 attack cost. That seems reasonable
enough, you're doing double the damage but only using 66% more energy
(1250/750). That translates to doing 21.5% more damage per energy
unit, which is pretty much what the current system gives for every
class.
Finally, the true elite fighters (fighter, ranger, assassin, weaponsmith,
barbarian) would use the following formula:
min [600, max (600, lower attack cost of the two weapons) ] + (right
hand attack cost+left hand attack cost)/2 - (TWC*6)
Using that formula, a low level character who had level 5 in axes and
level 3 in swords, could double wield a battle axe and a short sword,
still only getting a 1277 energy cost, compared to 895 for wielding
just the axe. If we assume for simplicity's sake that both hands are
doing the same damage and he has TWC at 40, the figures translate to
the character doing 40% more damage with two weapons.
Lets calculate how this would affect highbies. Lets say you're dual
wielding rolf's and a sword of sharpness. Lets also assume they're
doing the same damage,which isn't true but doesn't matter in this
calculation. You have lvl 13 in axes and lvl 12 in swords. That's 615
energy cost for single weapon and 640 for two weapon combat, assuming
TWC is at 100. That translates to doing 92% more damage with two
weapons. I think that's a very reasonable figure. After all, until
just a few gammas before, two weapon combat had the same cost as
single weapon combat.
To sum it up, I think true fighter types need some serious tuning to
two weapon combat. Mages have all sorts of fancy spells, but the
average hack'n'slash character has been tuned to hell lately. It's sad
that a priest is just as good at fighting than a barbarian is. 50%
more marks needed for weapon skills, who really cares? You get a lousy
+8 damage bonus with lvl 13 in most weapon types, big deal if you'll
only advance to lvl 10 and get +6 as a priest.
--
Osku Salerma - os...@iki.fi - http://www.iki.fi/osku/
My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
Robert Kang Kwon
Osku Salerma <os...@iki.fi> wrote:
[snip huge rant]
You know, if it wasn't so long, I'd say it was a troll.
[relurk]
Rob
Greg Wooledge
>Two weapon combat totally sucks. [...]
>I propose the following attack cost formula for spell-casters
>(priest,mindcrafter,druid,elementalist,wizard,healer,monk,
>beastfighter):
I'd include Necromancer in this category.
>1000+(attack cost of right hand weapon+attack cost of left hand
>weapon) / 2 - (TWC skill*3).
>Using that formula, a wizard dual-wielding rolf's axe at skill level 7
>and nonnak at skill level 7 (with fixed attack costs as according to
>the manual), with TWC at 50, would take 1695 energy points.
OK, I can agree with that. The formula is nice and simple, too.
>Monks should have the same kind of penalties for weapon
>use as beastfighters currently have, IMHO.
I don't agree with this. Monks lose their unarmed fighting prowess when
Burdened, and Monks are supposed to be effective with Staves (at least
in my interpretation).
>Classes between true fighters and true spellcasters
>(merchant,paladin,thief,bard,archer,farmer,necromancer) would use the
>following formula:
>800+(attack cost of right hand weapon+attack cost of left hand weapon)
>/ 2 - (TWC skill*4)
>This way, a thief with lvl 10 in daggers dual-wielding phase daggers,
>with TWC at 75, would have an 1250 attack cost.
OK....
>Finally, the true elite fighters (fighter, ranger, assassin, weaponsmith,
>barbarian) would use the following formula:
>min [600, max (600, lower attack cost of the two weapons) ] + (right
>hand attack cost+left hand attack cost)/2 - (TWC*6)
>Using that formula, a low level character who had level 5 in axes and
>level 3 in swords, could double wield a battle axe and a short sword,
>still only getting a 1277 energy cost, compared to 895 for wielding
>just the axe.
I think this is too powerful. Maybe for Rangers only (since they're
supposed to be specialists in TWC), but not for the other classes you've
listed here.
For the other "elite fighter" classes,
750+(attack cost of right hand weapon+attack cost of left hand weapon)
/ 2 - (TWC skill*5)
sounds a little better to me. In your example, this would give our
warrior a cost of 750+(940+895)/2-40*5 = 1467, or about 63% more energy
than the axe alone. At higher level -- say, your phase daggers -- it
would give a cost of 750+(750+750)/2-75*5 = 1125 (50% more energy than
a single dagger).
--
"Daddy, why do those people have to | Greg Wooledge
use Microsoft Windows?" | wool...@kellnet.com
"Don't stare, son; it's not polite." | http://www.kellnet.com/wooledge/
Andrew Vance
> The subject pretty much says my feelings about gammas 9 and 10. Gamma
> 8 was FUN, with all kinds of "abusable" things in the game. Drakeling
> with speeds of 200+ for the whole game after their first fireball
> trap, book spellcasting (especially healing spell abuse), plenty of
> artifacts around, whips of the snake (now these were fun), etc. Gammas
>
> 9 and 10 have only brought in boring restrictions.
>
Ok. lets say at the start GAMMA 8 WAS TO EASY! Gamma 9 was to hard,
gamma ten whilst not 'just right' is well on the way.
> Two weapon combat totally sucks. Low-level characters have absolutely
> no chance of using it (except maybe for rangers). My test character,
> lvl 4 human fighter, has a two-weapon combat skill of 36 which is
> described as "fair".
uh-hu. You expect a level 4 ANYTHING to have really good skill's and
bonii to hit? Well, unfortunately, if they did then level fifty
characters would tend to be a mite over powered.
> Let's say you're doing 1d8+30 damage with a single hand. Let's also
> assume you roll an eight every time, to simplify the calculations. So,
>
> with a single weapon and a shield you're doing 38 damage with a 840
> energy cost. That's 38/840=0.045238095 points of damage per one energy
>
> point. With two weapons, you're doing 38*2=76 damage with a 1340
> energy cost. That's 76/1340=0.056716417 points of damage per one
> energy point.
>
Ok. your assumptions are bad, but what the hell. 1) all my dammage goes
at once, thereby making it easier to kill monsters which heal. 2) with
good skill I get aproximately 4 attacks to 3, which is still worth it.
(eg assuming a TWC cost of 1500 or so). 2) look at reality here - in
real medieval warfare, their tended to be two classes of fighters -
those who had shields, and those who were dead. Almost every army worth
its salt used them, because they were just so damn effective - even
classic 'beserker/barbarian' groups, such as the vikings, would always
use a sheild if they could. Sheilds just *ARE* good.
> So, how much more damage are you doing with two weapons instead of
> one? Surely you're doing huge amounts more, you did give up that +30
> DV bonus you get when wearing a shield, so you must be one mighty
> warrior! In fact, you're only doing 0.056716417/0.045238095=1.2537
> times the damage you were doing with a single weapon. That's 25% more.
Like I said, that will save your but VS ACW, among others.
>
>
> EI think adding shield skill to the game was the worst thing that ever
>
> happened. It certainly was only thought out for the magic users. Now
> they can wear two shields and get ridiculous DV's with absolute ease.
> Two decent shields and a decent shield skill gives you at least a +45
> DV bonus. Then switch your tactics to coward and it's a pretty safe
> world out there, isn't it?
>
Does the shield bonus apply to both sheilds? i thought no longer, but
that might be just me. I agree that the sheild skill needs rebalancing a
little, but not a huge amount.
> So, this happened and the game turned way too easy for magic users. So
>
> the monsters were tuned way harder to compensate. Somewhere in all
> this, "normal" characters were forgotten. Normal meaning straight
> hack'n'slash characters who are my favorite. Now I understand they're
> not most people's favorites, at least judging from the recent YAVP
> posts, most of which have been something other than hack'n'slash
> characters. But I like playing them, and they should be playable. And
> it just doesn't make any goddamn sense if two weapon combat is
> practically useless since it's so ****ing bad.
>
I disagree. My only winner so far this gamma has been an archer, not a
mage. My next 3 nearest have been a pladin, a barbarian and a... wizard,
I think. Not all mages - the game is relatively balanced (unless you try
and play the 'hard classes' like merchant - it's still damn hard for
them (for me)).
> I think that with two weapons, you should be doing somewhere in the
> area of 75-125% more damage compared to the single weapon + shield
> combination. Not this current lousy 11-35% more, which doesn't come
> close to making up for the +30 DV loss.
Ok, problem - if I were doing twice as much dammage per energy with TWC
than with one weapon and a sheild, i'd never touch another sheild. As a
matter of fact, I'm sure we all noticed g8 broken in the other direction
- who the hell ever used a sheild then?
>
>
> And, in all the above examples, I've used high-level characters who
> don't have to worry about to-hit bonuses at all and have high TWC. I
> just tried a lvl 4 human fighter. He had a TWC of 36. With a
> battle-axe and a shield, he had +10 to hit. With a battle-axe and a
> short sword, he had a +1 in right hand and -10 in left hand to hit
> bonus. That, and 1650 attack cost. I don't know about you out there,
> but I think a lvl 4 FIGHTER should be able to FIGHT, not hide behind
> some wimpy shield until he's level 35 and has found those two swords
> of sharpness. Though, what's the point of switching even then if
> you're still more effective with just one of them and a shield..
>
and I think a level four fighter is LEVEL FOUR! You've still got 46
levels to go - don't worry, it'll get better.
> To sum it up, I think true fighter types need some serious tuning to
> two weapon combat. Mages have all sorts of fancy spells, but the
> average hack'n'slash character has been tuned to hell lately. It's sad
>
> that a priest is just as good at fighting than a barbarian is. 50%
> more marks needed for weapon skills, who really cares? You get a lousy
>
> +8 damage bonus with lvl 13 in most weapon types, big deal if you'll
> only advance to lvl 10 and get +6 as a priest.
Hmm, ok - fighter types get more + to hit just natural, as far as I'm
aware. Fighter types train weapon skills faster. And maybe they're just
harder, but I'm not so sure that they are.
Krzysztof Potocki
C'mon, grow up some.
Gamma 8 was worst gamma i ever seen, becouse of utter easyness of it.
Now i think g9 was ok. Gamma 10 should be a bit harder at higher levels,
but it's still ok.
About artifacts, bog fear you judging emerald dagger is shitty weapon.
It's one of the most useful weapons around, for some classes i mean.
Dont forget its [SPOILER] super-duper special ability.
Last time i killed Barney it was _*ONLY*_ possible becouse i had emerald
dagger wielded (with dwarf fighter, dualed with Rolf's).
About your wheening on the subject of drakelings, dont like it dont play it.
And on TWC. My last dwarf fighter was using 2 weapons ever since he got his
skill in TWC up to 80. Below that he had large minuses to hitroll.
And that is QUITE OK. After all, it's not their primary skill, they have
to learn it and learn it and learn it before they can apply it with success.
All my characters, sometimes even including some magelings, are using TWC
from some point on. Not in all situations, of course.
The _key_ word here is TACTIC. Not the skill, but your tactic of playing.
If you know how to apply your skill in twc, you can do it with great success.
Bah.
Your post proven only that you are one big wheener unworthy of listening to.
Vyolynce
Andrew Vance wrote in message <361AFF01...@interact.net.au>...
>Osku Salerma wrote:
<snip, snip>
>> And, in all the above examples, I've used high-level characters who
>> don't have to worry about to-hit bonuses at all and have high TWC. I
>> just tried a lvl 4 human fighter. He had a TWC of 36. With a
>> battle-axe and a shield, he had +10 to hit. With a battle-axe and a
>> short sword, he had a +1 in right hand and -10 in left hand to hit
>> bonus. That, and 1650 attack cost. I don't know about you out there,
>> but I think a lvl 4 FIGHTER should be able to FIGHT, not hide behind
>> some wimpy shield until he's level 35 and has found those two swords
>> of sharpness. Though, what's the point of switching even then if
>> you're still more effective with just one of them and a shield..
>>
>
>and I think a level four fighter is LEVEL FOUR! You've still got 46
>levels to go - don't worry, it'll get better.
And I think that there's a more obvious problem here: A TWC of 36 isn't
nearly good enough to warrant impressive bonii when wielding TWO COMPLETELY
UNCOMPLEMENTARY WEAPONS. A battle axe and a short sword DO *NOT* work
together-- there's just too much of a weight difference (ever wield Big
Punch with another weapon w/o being a high-level ranger?) to balance your
attacks. Try two more similar weapons and quit yer bitchin.
--
Chris Ingersoll
http://www.wpi.edu/~ghs
Thomas Biskup
> I think adding shield skill to the game was the worst thing that ever
> happened. It certainly was only thought out for the magic users. Now
> they can wear two shields and get ridiculous DV's with absolute ease.
> Two decent shields and a decent shield skill gives you at least a +45
> DV bonus. Then switch your tactics to coward and it's a pretty safe
> world out there, isn't it?
In Gamma 10 you no longer gain the DV skill bonus twice when using two
shields. You only get the better bonus.
> And, in all the above examples, I've used high-level characters who
> don't have to worry about to-hit bonuses at all and have high TWC. I
> just tried a lvl 4 human fighter. He had a TWC of 36. With a
> battle-axe and a shield, he had +10 to hit. With a battle-axe and a
> short sword, he had a +1 in right hand and -10 in left hand to hit
> bonus. That, and 1650 attack cost.
Maybe you should try weapons lighter than a battle axe. A battle axe
is a pretty heavy weapon, which makes using it pretty difficult for
low-level characters. Weapon weight is one of the essential factors
in this.
[...]
> Finally, the true elite fighters (fighter, ranger, assassin, weaponsmith,
> barbarian) would use the following formula:
> min [600, max (600, lower attack cost of the two weapons) ] + (right
> hand attack cost+left hand attack cost)/2 - (TWC*6)
Errr... let#s say that the lower attack cost of the two weapons is 750
(just for the sake of it). The higher cost is 850. Let's assume TWC
50.
That makes min[600, max(600, 750)] + (750 + 850)/2 - 300 = 1100.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Note that this part of the formula always yields the value 600.
--
Thomas Biskup
ADOM maintainer >=====------------=====< ADOM 0.9.9 Gamma 10 available now!
Official ADOM webpage available at http://www.adom.de
da' sweet talker
Alright, here's my take on two weapon combat:
Two weapon combat is useful for two main reasons: one, you can deliver
more damage *at once* than you can using one weapon, although your
total damage is increased only slightly (when taking the amount of
energy needed into account). The other main advantage is that wielding
two of something makes you very hard to hit (Parry/thrust at the same
time makes for a hard to hit opponent).
So, Two Weapon Combat should grant large DV bonuses (in line with the
shield skill, almost) and should allow a little increase in the amount
of damage you can two per energy unit *if* you are a class that is
"good" at TWC (rangers, fighters, etc...). To this end, I think that
the DV modifiers for wielding two weapons should be changed. Right now,
it is the modifier of the weapon in the right hand plus 1/2 the
modifier of the weapon in the left hand. That would be the baseline
value.
For classes with the TWC skill, you get the DV modifiers of both
weapons added together and multiplied by your TWC skill times .015.
For example, say you are getting +2 DV from the daggers skill, and
are duel wielding daggers. Your TWC skill is 50. Your total DV would
be (2+2)*.75, or 3. However, if this is less than the existing formula,
then the number provided by the existing formula would be used. Thus
the formula for this would be:
max{DV1+(.5DV2), (DV1+DV2)*[(TWC skill)*.015]}
Where DV1 and DV2 represent the bonuses from the weapons in the left
and right hands. This formula would be used by the "normal" fighting
classes, i.e. non-magic users excepting rangers. The maximum value
here for any weapon class (excepting whips and two-handed weapons)
would be for a character with Grand Mastery in Maces/flails,
Clubs/Hammers or Swords, getting +6 DV, and a 100 in TWC. This would
provide a DV modifier of +18, equivalent to a level 9 shield skill. For
magic users, a lesser multiplier of TWC skill would be used to account
for their poor fighting skill. This formula:
max{DV1+(.5DV2), (DV1+DV2)*[(TWC skill)*.005)]}
would be used for magical classes (wizard, necromancer, elementalist,
priest, healer, mindcrafter, druid, beastifighter, monk) and in-between
classes (thief, paladin, archer, bard, farmer, merchant) would use this
formula:
max{DV1+(.5DV2), (DV1+DV2)*[(TWC skill*.01)]}
This would mean that the best DV modifier for magical classes (this
includes monks and beastfighters) for TWC is +6, assuming Grand Mastery
in swords and a TWC skill of 100. Note that the old formula would
provide +9DV for a character with Grand Mastery in Swords. So magic
users would never get a big DV bonus out of TWC. In-between classes
would get a maximum of +12 DV, making it practical, but probably not too
beneficial.
The special case is the ranger, who I think should be set apart from
the other fighting classes. For rangers, I would use the formula:
max{DV1+(.5DV2), (DV1+DV2)*[(TWC skill)*.02]}
Which would mean a Ranger with TWC of 100 and Grand Mastery in Swords
would be getting a DV bonus of +24, equivalent to a shield skill of
12. As some people have pointed out, one of the disadvantages of TWC is
that you lose the great advantage of the shield skill - this system
would fix that problem by making TWC a poor choice for mages (who will
never get more than +9DV), a tactical decision for most fighters, and a
excellent option for Rangers (who'll likely get more DV this way than
through the shield skill).
As for the amount of time it takes characters to attack using TWC, I
think that it is already just about right. For a great increase in
instantaneous damage, the character has to wait around longer than they
would have to. The only suggested change I would make is to change
the base energy cost in the formula, 800, to be different for various
classes. The formula is 800 plus the greater of the two energies you
need to attack with two weapons minus (TWC skill*4). I'd make that 800
a 700 for Rangers, 800 for other fighters, and 900 for magic users. As
for the argument that low-level fighters with "average" TWC scores in
the 40 to 60 range aren't effective TWC people, that's as it should be.
TWC is the realm of higher-level fighters, the truly heroic characters.
As another poster noted, your average foot soldier in the army (a low
level PC, in my eyes) is slaughtered if he doesn't have a shield to
use. Heroic characters can get the benefits a shield gives by wielding
two weapons, as they are skilled enough to do so effectively.
Osku Salerma
>[snip TWC stuff]
>
>Alright, here's my take on two weapon combat:
>
>Two weapon combat is useful for two main reasons: one, you can deliver
>more damage *at once* than you can using one weapon, although your
>total damage is increased only slightly (when taking the amount of
>energy needed into account). The other main advantage is that wielding
>two of something makes you very hard to hit (Parry/thrust at the same
>time makes for a hard to hit opponent).
Well, we have totally opposite views on the matter then. I think
at least some fighter classes should specialize in *offensive* combat.
As it is with the current "one weapon and a shield" system, priests
and other spellcasters can be 85% as good at fighting as fighter
types. *And* they get all the neat spells.
So maybe we should divide TWC into two skills, one offensive, one
defensive, and then decide which class gets which. One would get lower
attack costs, one would get higher DV bonuses.
Osku Salerma
>Osku Salerma (os...@iki.fi) wrote:
>
>>Two weapon combat totally sucks. [...]
>
>>I propose the following attack cost formula for spell-casters
>>(priest,mindcrafter,druid,elementalist,wizard,healer,monk,
>>beastfighter):
>
Maybe. But do necromancers find enough spellbooks in the game to be
classified as a class that relies on spells for damage? I don't play
them myself so I don't know.
>>Monks should have the same kind of penalties for weapon
>>use as beastfighters currently have, IMHO.
>
>I don't agree with this. Monks lose their unarmed fighting prowess when
>Burdened, and Monks are supposed to be effective with Staves (at least
>in my interpretation).
Well, they could be allowed to use Staves. But a monk skilled at using
swords?
>I think this is too powerful. Maybe for Rangers only (since they're
>supposed to be specialists in TWC), but not for the other classes you've
>listed here.
>
>For the other "elite fighter" classes,
>
> 750+(attack cost of right hand weapon+attack cost of left hand weapon)
> / 2 - (TWC skill*5)
>
>sounds a little better to me. In your example, this would give our
>warrior a cost of 750+(940+895)/2-40*5 = 1467, or about 63% more energy
>than the axe alone. At higher level -- say, your phase daggers -- it
>would give a cost of 750+(750+750)/2-75*5 = 1125 (50% more energy than
>a single dagger).
I could live with the above formula. Then you'd be able to use weapons
at a skill level of 13, with TWC at 100, with an attack cost of 865.
Single weapon attack would take 615, so this would provide 42% more
damage per energy unit.
Osku Salerma
>Osku Salerma wrote:
>Ok. lets say at the start GAMMA 8 WAS TO EASY! Gamma 9 was to hard,
>gamma ten whilst not 'just right' is well on the way.
Easy has its attractions. I remember taking out the casino shopkeeper
in pure melee combat in gamma 8 with a drakeling something. I don't
think that's possible for any character in gamma 10. I'd like to be
proven wrong, though.
>uh-hu. You expect a level 4 ANYTHING to have really good skill's and
>bonii to hit? Well, unfortunately, if they did then level fifty
>characters would tend to be a mite over powered.
Well, to hit bonuses were just a side issue in my post. Thinking about
it some more, low-level characters should stick with a shield and a
weapon, with maybe rangers being the exception.
>Ok. your assumptions are bad, but what the hell. 1) all my dammage
>goes at once, thereby making it easier to kill monsters which heal.
But since you're spending 1000+ amounts of energy instead of 800 or
whatever, every couple of turns, the monster gets an extra turn to
himself in which to heal himself. If you use single handed combat,
you're using 800 energy, and every once in a while its YOU who get the
extra turn to whack at the enemy while he hasn't been given the chance
to heal himself.
Your argument is correct in the case of yellow oozes or something else
which has a low amount of hitpoints, but if you're discussing barney
or something, it's another matter.
>2) look at reality here - in
>real medieval warfare, their tended to be two classes of fighters -
>those who had shields, and those who were dead. Almost every army worth
>its salt used them, because they were just so damn effective - even
>classic 'beserker/barbarian' groups, such as the vikings, would always
>use a sheild if they could. Sheilds just *ARE* good.
Realism for the sake of realism isn't a good idea. Otherwise we should
remove dragons, frost bolts, and everything else from the game which
isn't "real".
>> [25% more damage]
>Like I said, that will save your but VS ACW, among others.
But it's way too little compared with previous gammas where you got
100% more damage. Have the monsters really been tuned down enough to
make up for that difference? I don't think so.
>> happened. It certainly was only thought out for the magic users. Now
>> they can wear two shields and get ridiculous DV's with absolute ease.
>> Two decent shields and a decent shield skill gives you at least a +45
>> DV bonus. Then switch your tactics to coward and it's a pretty safe
>> world out there, isn't it?
>
>Does the shield bonus apply to both sheilds? i thought no longer, but
>that might be just me. I agree that the sheild skill needs rebalancing a
>little, but not a huge amount.
+45 DV bonus is quite possible with a single shield skill bonus. Wear
two adamantium large shields [+16, +4] or something, and you get +32
DV from the shields. Then have a shield skill level of 9, and you get
+18 DV from the skill. That combines for +50 DV. Then switch to coward
and get +10 more. +60 DV when compared to a fighter type using TWC.
Unfair? I think so.
>I disagree. My only winner so far this gamma has been an archer, not a
>mage. My next 3 nearest have been a pladin, a barbarian and a... wizard,
>I think. Not all mages - the game is relatively balanced (unless you try
>and play the 'hard classes' like merchant - it's still damn hard for
>them (for me)).
Sure you can win with a fighter class, but my point was that it's just
not as much fun as it was when TWC was the norm. I don't want to
micromanage between using a weapon and a shield vs TWC. I want to be
able to use TWC effectively the whole time. There should be at least
one class that is truly oriented towards offensive type of play.
>Ok, problem - if I were doing twice as much dammage per energy with TWC
>than with one weapon and a sheild, i'd never touch another sheild. As a
>matter of fact, I'm sure we all noticed g8 broken in the other direction
>- who the hell ever used a sheild then?
And I liked it better that way. Shields are boring for offensively
oriented fighter types.
>> To sum it up, I think true fighter types need some serious tuning to
>> two weapon combat. Mages have all sorts of fancy spells, but the
>> average hack'n'slash character has been tuned to hell lately. It's sad
>>
>> that a priest is just as good at fighting than a barbarian is. 50%
>> more marks needed for weapon skills, who really cares? You get a lousy
>>
>> +8 damage bonus with lvl 13 in most weapon types, big deal if you'll
>> only advance to lvl 10 and get +6 as a priest.
>
>Hmm, ok - fighter types get more + to hit just natural, as far as I'm
>aware. Fighter types train weapon skills faster. And maybe they're just
>harder, but I'm not so sure that they are.
Well, as you pointed out yourself, pretty soon in the game +to hit
just doesn't matter anymore. And like I said, it's not that big a
difference between getting to weapon skill level 10 vs 13 or whatever
difference is between playing a fighter type of class vs priest. They
should get some compensation for not being able to cast spells.
Andy Williams
>But do necromancers find enough spellbooks in the game to be
>classified as a class that relies on spells for damage?
--
Andy Williams - real address andywlms at ct2 dot nai dot net
da' sweet talker
> >
> >Alright, here's my take on two weapon combat:
> >
> >Two weapon combat is useful for two main reasons: one, you can deliver
> >more damage *at once* than you can using one weapon, although your
> >total damage is increased only slightly (when taking the amount of
> >energy needed into account). The other main advantage is that wielding
> >two of something makes you very hard to hit (Parry/thrust at the same
> >time makes for a hard to hit opponent).
>
> at least some fighter classes should specialize in *offensive* combat.
> As it is with the current "one weapon and a shield" system, priests
> and other spellcasters can be 85% as good at fighting as fighter
> types. *And* they get all the neat spells.
>
> So maybe we should divide TWC into two skills, one offensive, one
> defensive, and then decide which class gets which. One would get lower
> attack costs, one would get higher DV bonuses.
Hmmm . . . let me clarify that. In earlier gammas, TWC allowed fighters
to basically double their damage per energy unit. By slightly, I mean
something between a 30% increase (for low-level fighters) to a 60%
increase (for rangers). Fighters (the class) along with Barbarians,
Weaponsmiths and Assassins would probably see a 40%-50% increase in
damage per energy unit when they have a TWC skill of 100 and are level
13 in the operative weapon group(s). Also, the DV bonuses I outlined in
my original post would be in effect in addition to this damage ability,
which is higher than what is in g10, but lower than what it was in g8 or
g6. That way, TWC, at high levels, would allow for large DV bonuses to
make up for the shield skill *and* would allow for goodly amounts of
damage per energy unit. At low levels and for spellcasters, however, it
would provide practically no DV benefit beyond what wielding one weapon
would, and would provide poor damage per energy unit ratios. As it
should be, IMO.
Krzysztof Potocki
This is directly pointer at our lovely Osku something: STFU!!!
Or at least try READING whay creator of this game have written in response
to your bitching before you issue another bitching post.
Man, ppl like you should be shoot down at sigh, or hunt on nearest tree branch.
Too bad we would soon run out of bullets/trees, so great is the number of
idiots around.
PS. If you dont know what stfu abbreviation means, try deciphering it like that:
S for shut, T for the, F for F***en and U for up. And each time you are about
to write something here, please remind yourself of that.
***FLAME OFF***
ny...@my-dejanews.com
schrieb "Vyolynce" <g...@wpi.edu>:
>
> Andrew Vance wrote in message <361AFF01...@interact.net.au>...
> >Osku Salerma wrote:
>
> <snip, snip>
> >> just tried a lvl 4 human fighter. He had a TWC of 36. With a
> >> battle-axe and a shield, he had +10 to hit. With a battle-axe and a
> >> short sword, he had a +1 in right hand and -10 in left hand to hit
> >> bonus. That, and 1650 attack cost.
A battle axe weighs 70s. A short sword weighs 30s. I think the
"limit" (i.e. the maximum combined weight a character who's not
a lvl 32+ ranger can wield without incurring to-hit penalties) is
60s and non- rangers get a slight penalty anyway.
You're above the limit *and* your TWC skill is too low.It's
all written in the manual. Look up the ranger class powers and
the skill section on Two Weapon Combat.
If you manage to get your TWC above the 60-70 range, wielding
two weapons simultaneously will become rewarding, but even then,
you should only use weapons you're already skilled in to some
extent (weapon skill 5 or 6 at least). The above combo and the
given energy cost look like you were wielding a weapon you had
only one skill level with.
For an example, if you have a TWC skill of 100 and wield two
weapons with a skill level of 10 in each, an attack uses up
1200 energy.
With TWC 80 and a minimum weapon skill of 5, an attack would
cost 1380.I think a fighter easily can achieve this before she
reaches level 10.
For Rangers it's even good to start wielding the two weapons
they begin with ,given these aren't too heavy - the slight ranger
bonus means that they have a better chance of actually hitting
an opponent when double-wielding.
> >> I don't know about you out there,
> >> but I think a lvl 4 FIGHTER should be able to FIGHT, not hide behind
> >> some wimpy shield
Level 4 is *way* too early for bothering about two-weapon fighting
if you weren't born to it (i.e. you're a ranger); you can become
half-decent by this level if you really concentrate on advancing
double-wielding when gaining levels, but with a fighter, i'd rather
not try before level six.
And who says you'll have to use a shield? Just get a good two-handed
weapon (if you can find one that early [1]) and start bashing some
heads in.
> >> until he's level 35 and has found those two swords
> >> of sharpness. Though, what's the point of switching even then if
> >> you're still more effective with just one of them and a shield..
TWC has been re-tuned for g10 and i really like the way it works now,
as once again wielding two weapons is a tradeoff between more attack
power and better defense (or better single-attack capacity with
two-handed weapons). In g9, double-wielding was completely pointless
with anything but Needle and Sting.
> And I think that there's a more obvious problem here: A TWC of 36 isn't
> nearly good enough to warrant impressive boni when wielding TWO COMPLETELY
> UNCOMPLEMENTARY WEAPONS.
I haven't seen any actual proof for this in my games. I think the penal-
ty is only due to the excess weight of the weapon combination and poor
skill. Has anyone really gone to the lengths of checking weight-identi-
cal weapon combinations against each other ?
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
ny...@my-dejanews.com
ny...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > >Osku Salerma wrote:
> > >> I don't know about you out there,
> > >> but I think a lvl 4 FIGHTER should be able to FIGHT, not hide behind
> > >> some wimpy shield
>
> weapon (if you can find one that early [1]) and start bashing some
> heads in.
Forgot the footnote:
[1] If you wield a spear as two-handed weapon (i.e. there's nothing
in your other hand), you will gain an additional +2 damage bonus.
I noticed this in g8/g9, and i think i've checked it for g10.
So orcish spears are among the best low-level weapons (1d8+4 damage
from the weapon alone - 8,5 hp on average against 5 for broadswords
or 4,5 for battle-axes/longswords or 5,5 for quarterstaves).
Osku Salerma
>Osku Salerma <os...@iki.fi> wrote:
>> Two decent shields and a decent shield skill gives you at least a +45
>> DV bonus. Then switch your tactics to coward and it's a pretty safe
>> world out there, isn't it?
>
>shields. You only get the better bonus.
Well, to nitpick, +45 DV from shields is quite possible with gamma 10.
Use two [+16, +xx] shields and get to shield skill level 7. That's
16*2+7*2 = +46 DV.
>Maybe you should try weapons lighter than a battle axe. A battle axe
>is a pretty heavy weapon, which makes using it pretty difficult for
>low-level characters. Weapon weight is one of the essential factors
>in this.
Yes, my comment on a lvl 4 character's flaws was a bit stupid. But +to
hit bonuses weren't my main point, since they're rather unimportant
once you get to lvl 15 or so.
>That makes min[600, max(600, 750)] + (750 + 850)/2 - 300 = 1100.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Note that this part of the formula always yields the value 600.
Uhm..You're right. I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that.
But I see from your updated ADOM web pages that you've adjusted the
weapon attack costs, so I'll wait until gamma 11 to see what formula
you came up with before commenting any more on this.
Daniel Reid, Osmosisch
<6vkis8$art$1...@gemini.coi.pw.edu.pl>...
| ***FLAME ON***
[snip]
| ***FLAME OFF***
Could this kind of testosterone-waving be done in e-mail please ?
Daniel Reid, Osmosisch
Current CD : KoRn|Follow the Leader
"I see your pretty face / Smashed against / The bathroom floor."
Dmitriy
base energy cost by 100 or so.
Making it harder for non-fighters to use is, I think bad. Right now, wizard IS
better off not using it, but has a chance to use it. It is not overpowered that
way, and why remove a possibility?
As for people complaining about high shield DV bonus: Well, 1). It's your choice
what to use, 2h combat can stillbe very useful and
2). Remember, if you use two weapons, you do get a slight DV bonus (small one, but
don't forget about it).
Andrew Vance
> Am I the only one thinking that 2 weapon combad is basically OK? Maybe
> lower it's
> base energy cost by 100 or so.
> Making it harder for non-fighters to use is, I think bad. Right now,
> wizard IS
> better off not using it, but has a chance to use it. It is not
> overpowered that
> way, and why remove a possibility?
>
I fairly much agree - it needs a little tweaking, perhaps, but not the
radical overhall that is being looked for by the originator of this
thread. Perhaps just marginally increasing the speed bonus from TWC to 5
* skill instead of 4*. this would give some extra speed, but not an
excessive amount. Or perhaps the hard spellcasters could be 4*, the half
fighters 5*, the full fighters 6*. Anyone?
matt kracht
>> no chance of using it (except maybe for rangers). My test character,
>> lvl 4 human fighter, has a two-weapon combat skill of 36 which is
>> described as "fair".
>
>uh-hu. You expect a level 4 ANYTHING to have really good skill's and
>bonii to hit? Well, unfortunately, if they did then level fifty
>characters would tend to be a mite over powered.
I think high level characters' to-hit bonuses are a bit high. In AD&D,
your THAC0 goes down pretty quickly, but you don't see demigods with
+50 to-hit.
When was the last time a level 20+ character missed? It's not so much a
matter of *if* you hit but how much damage you'll do *when* you hit.
In the early game, dual-wielding is very bad idea for anyone but rangers
(and, even then, I sometimes remove the second weapon until second or
third level, when I've had a chance to improve TWC). In the mid-game,
when your TWC skill is pretty good and you've got a good to-hit bonus,
dual-wielding is very attractive. After a while, though, the bonuses
get so large, it's ridiculous. You become a human juggernaut.
>I disagree. My only winner so far this gamma has been an archer, not a
>mage. My next 3 nearest have been a pladin, a barbarian and a... wizard,
>I think. Not all mages - the game is relatively balanced (unless you try
>and play the 'hard classes' like merchant - it's still damn hard for
>them (for me)).
I keep getting so close, only to be killed by an Emperor Lich in an undead
vault, a Greater Moloch, or very experienced Doppelganger King. It's so
unfair.
>Ok, problem - if I were doing twice as much dammage per energy with TWC
>than with one weapon and a sheild, i'd never touch another sheild. As a
>matter of fact, I'm sure we all noticed g8 broken in the other direction
>- who the hell ever used a sheild then?
I used shields sometimes. I think the DV bonuses from shield skill
is a little silly. +30 DV just from using a shield? And monsters
still destroy you if you don't have a good PV. I've had characters
who thought they were ready to take on Doppelganger Kings and Greater
Molochs, as their DV was astronomical (almost 100), but they get hit
with every blow. Ouch. I guess a high DV doesn't really mean all
that much. The numbers can go to your head and make you cocky,
though.
>and I think a level four fighter is LEVEL FOUR! You've still got 46
>levels to go - don't worry, it'll get better.
If someone really wants to dual-wield at level four, he should be playing
a ranger, not a fighter.
da' sweet talker
>
> Dmitriy wrote:
>
> > Am I the only one thinking that 2 weapon combad is basically OK? Maybe
> > lower it's
> > base energy cost by 100 or so.
> > Making it harder for non-fighters to use is, I think bad. Right now,
> > wizard IS
> > better off not using it, but has a chance to use it. It is not
> > overpowered that
> > way, and why remove a possibility?
> >
>
> I fairly much agree - it needs a little tweaking, perhaps, but not the
> radical overhall that is being looked for by the originator of this
> thread. Perhaps just marginally increasing the speed bonus from TWC to 5
> * skill instead of 4*. this would give some extra speed, but not an
> excessive amount. Or perhaps the hard spellcasters could be 4*, the half
> fighters 5*, the full fighters 6*. Anyone?
I'd say pure spellcasters 4, Rangers 6, and everyone else 5. Also, I put
up a few formulas earlier in one of the TWC threads for providing a
higher DV bonus which is (IMO) in order - basically, it allowed Rangers
a +18 DV bonus if dual wielding weapons they had Grand Mastery in swords
and a TWC of 100. Spellcasters topped out at +9, and everyone else at
+12. I've changed it to this:
The formulas were:
max{DV1+(.5DV2), (DV1+DV2)*[(TWC skill)*.02]} for Rangers,
max{DV1+(.5DV2), (DV1+DV2)*[(TWC skill)*.005)]} for magic-users and
max{DV1+(.5DV2), (DV1+DV2)*[(TWC skill*.015)]} for everyone else.
In all these, DV1 is the DV bonus of the weapon in the right hand, and
DV2 is the bonus of the weapon in the left hand. This gives rangers a
max DV bnous (assuming Grand Mastery in Swords and a TWC skill of 100)
of +24, magic users a max of +9, and everyone else a max of +18. Note
that the left hand side of the Max equation (DV1+(.5DV2)) is what is
currently used for characters wielding two weapons, and is treated as a
baseline value.