10 Oct, 2015, triskaledia wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
I thought that I had damage modified by armor of the pc/npc, a long time ago, but I was wrong.
Turns out that damage was just because of the random damage modifier I added.
So, this is my latest attempt at coding some damage modifications. Seems to work out decently
until damage is replayed back. Missed attacks are now shown as negative numbers instead
of actually missing. So the next thought was to make it so if damage was less than 0 it would
change damage to 0, but that messes with other aspects of combat. I then attempted to
divide/multiply the damage, but that ended up being a disaster. I guess the question I'm trying to get at
would be is there a simple way to allow for this damage modification without tampering with missed attacks.
Under: bool damage (CHAR_DATA * ch, CHAR_DATA * victim, int dam, int dt, int dam_type, bool show)
* Damage modifiers.

if (dam > 1 && !IS_NPC (victim)
&& victim->pcdata->condition[COND_DRUNK] > 10)
dam = 9 * dam / 10;

switch (dam_type)
case (DAM_PIERCE):
dam -= (GET_AC (victim, AC_PIERCE) / 25) * -1;
case (DAM_BASH):
dam -= (GET_AC (victim, AC_BASH) / 25) * -1;
case (DAM_SLASH):
dam -= (GET_AC (victim, AC_SLASH) / 25) * -1;
dam -= (GET_AC (victim, AC_EXOTIC) / 25) * -1;
10 Oct, 2015, plamzi wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
triskaledia said:
I guess the question I'm trying to get at
would be is there a simple way to allow for this damage modification without tampering with missed attacks.

I don't see how you can modify damage from one place without handling all the implications downstream. I'm not sure why forcing negative damage to 0 didn't work for you. If you have other custom code complaining that the damage has become 0 too early or something, then you'll have to refactor that code.
11 Oct, 2015, triskaledia wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
Im glad you mentioned the chain of things. I realized very quickly after that I have stuff all out of whack for some affect stuff I did also.
I'll set it so dam = 0 if < 0 and see how it pans out before the show damage.
11 Oct, 2015, Davion wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
Out of curiosity, why are you adding this? I'm assuming you've seen the other place AC is used and it does quite a bit from just that one spot. You may be adding too much emphasis into AC on your MUD. If one were to max out their AC (say, -600) and saves (maybe -18) they'd probably never get hit, and when they did, it wouldn't do very much.
11 Oct, 2015, quixadhal wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
Just as a guess, I suspect the OP may be used to newer D&D systems, or perhaps other games like Pillars of Eternity, where Damage Reduction is part of the system. DikuMUD is based on 2nd edition AD&D rules, which has no such mechanic, and adding one in makes it much more difficult to balance the system.

Now, AD&D 2E did have damage types, as part of the extended ruleset. However, it didn't use damage reduction, it simply adjusted the AC on the defensive side (for armor), and the to-hit/damage rolls on the offensive side (weapons).

So, for example, if you were wearing plate mail, and I were wielding a stiletto, we have plate armor vs. piercing damage. If I remember right, piercing weapons get a +2 to-hit vs. plate, which simulates the punch-through effect of poking a metal plate on a very tiny spot. OTOH, if I were using a broadsword, I'd have a -2 to-hit, simulating the likelihood of the edge of my weapon glancing or sliding off the plate without gaining any traction.

My suggestion is, if you really want your combat system to be balanced, get yourself a copy of 2nd edition AD&D rules (along with some of the extended books for various classes), and read those. See how the code follows it, and how it deviates from it. See how various changes over the years have changed it even more. A great many MUD authors seemed to like big numbers for the sake of big numbers, and usually didn't bother to analyze what their changes would actually do to the whole system as they tossed new stuff in.
11 Oct, 2015, triskaledia wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
Out of curiosity, why are you adding this?

As far as I could tell a couple years back when I was actually deep into my code,
all armor was for was to check if there was a hit or miss. To me, it seemed like
armor should have done much more, so I went about trying to make a simple
hack to have it reduce damage by a small amount.

A great many MUD authors seemed to like big numbers for the sake of big numbers

I'm not a big fan of really big numbers. Seeing 5000damage just seems overdone
when it could just as simply be 500. I try to keep my MAX damages up to about 2000.
(Kind of off topic:) Not a lot of things hit that hard, but I coded VORPAL to do between 2000,3000 damage
instead of the instant kill that was there.
12 Oct, 2015, quixadhal wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0

My old mud's hardest hitting weapon was, I believe, a cudgel doing 3d8+4 damage. I think my 2H berserker axe with a horrible special procedure to make the wielder mostly insane did 3d12+1 damage. The fireball spell did level/3+2 d6. Most players had about 200 to 300 hit points. I think a dual-classed warrior/cleric with an 18 constitution could get up to about 350hp and add another 50 or so via one of the clerical spells.

The biggest damage spell in the game is technically the clerical spell harm, since it reduces the target to d4 hit points, if they fail their saving throw. :)
12 Oct, 2015, triskaledia wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
There was a MUD a couple years back called ConQUEST, that you stayed at 100hp and did 1-10damage at most through combat.
It was a very interesting place to play. I kind that place was still around.
14 Oct, 2015, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
Big number allow for more drama if done well, but whatever the numbers you should never try to change some formulas without thinking how it impacts other.
It is very impossible to go from a 100hp max game to a 30k one without changing everything.
And even when you reached a stable 30k hp system, donc think you can tune it to 100k just by changing the max limits.
Unless you want to break your game

Mostly go for a stable combat system then find other ideas than upping number to keep people interested. It is a bad idea.
14 Oct, 2015, quixadhal wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
The problem with that logic is that increasing numbers leads to ridiculous scenarios where the game mechanics are trivialized.

Consider. 2nd edition AD&D was designed for 20 levels, and was setup in such a way that a typical adventurer would start out having around 8 hit points (average), and could end up having around 200 hit points. Typical weapon damage was along the lines of 6 hit points per hit for normal weapons, and up to 12 for heavy and slow weapons. "Uber" high end magical weapons use the same base numbers, but add a few points to bring up the average, and the real power was in the fact that fighter types started getting multiple attacks per round, and had a wider crit range (getting a critical hit on 18-20, rather than just 20).

Even in a system carefully balanced like this, you still would have situations where a high level player with 150hp and a -8AC would stand in a small mob of peasants, all pelting him with rocks and doing 1d2 damage each, and it would take HOURS to kill the guy from just raw damage. In such cases, most DM's would cheat and claim a critical hit that knocked the player unconcious, at which point their AC was 10 and even if nobody slit their throat, they'd die in a few minutes.

In these MUD's where players end up having THOUSANDS of hit points, it means (1) unless PvP is limited to people within a few levels of one another, it's a gankfest where newbies have to just hope nobody finds them, and (2) a higher level person can walk through a newbie zone and kill everything just by walking past it.

I also dislike the accumulating number game, because it turns everything into a gear grind. Most MMOs fall into this trap, and they get incredibly boring and tedius because your character stops being developed, but in order to beat the next encounter, you need more numbers… so you have to add it to gear. At that point, you aren't really playing, you gear is playing and you're watching the numbers roll by.
14 Oct, 2015, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
> you still would have situations where a high level player with 150hp and a -8AC would stand in a small mob of peasants, all pelting him with rocks and doing 1d2 damage each, and it would take HOURS to kill the guy from just raw damage

In a situation like these, a player would just anihilate all the other iun a breeze.
Like a dragon would torch an army.
I do not think this is a 'problem'
My game user 'lower level' (basically goig from 1 to 100) just to make people learn a few skilsl at a time, so they actually know them before going to the other. They are not pk if they dont want to. (at this point, but at level 95, you have to make your choice once and for all)
At level 100 the only differnce is in hit point, a lower legend would basically have 2,5k-3k (I give a decreasing bonus per level of 8 or 9k to a PK), an uber legend that spent countless hours up to 25K (but 10k stored on an item that they will most probably lose (get lotted) if they die

Thing is a group of 3 (if not only two) skilled player (so a total of 30khp minimum) would probably defeat this uber legend easily anyway.

Long fight ? again nope, there are 3 stances, a fighter starting in offensive against a magician in defensive stance will eat him in 10 to 15 round. (if the magic user is not quick enough to incapacitete the fighter (who will have no saves if he wants to do damage) But two figther against each other in defensive stance ? yep???can be pretty boring…but thats the point..when you are in defensive.

It is a pretty well balanced equilibrium between stances, equipment, and skills.
And it allows much more visible variation. When the highest difference in damage point is 1 to 10.. and you average between 4 and 6..hard to see any difference. If you have a wider range, it allows a lot more randomness , while still having a meanigful base damage as well. (randomness is fun, it allows for epic change of situation because of a fluke),
15 Oct, 2015, quixadhal wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
Just to harp on the 1 vs. many scenario a bit.

One of my pet peeves with D&D, and all systems derived from it, is this notion of higher level people somehow being invincible. I'm not trying to advocate some uber-realistic simulation, but nothing destroys your immersion like having a single warrior in plate mail standing in a town square being attacked by the ENTIRE town's population, and winning.

Sorry, that's nonsense. :)

In a situation with a live DM, the DM can obviously make sure the player realizes this and either drive him off, or kill him if he's too stubborn to know when to run. But in a computer game, you need alternate mechanics to try and handle that kind of thing.

I've always had this strange notion that a multiplayer game should be designed and balanced around GROUP mechanics, not for 1 vs. 1 combat. Weird huh? The idea that people should have to work together to defeat the game's content, rather than soloing everything…

To that end, I devised a combat mechanic that I named a buffer system. The idea was to have a secondary pool of hit points that recovers quickly, and from which damage is taken first. Other games have done this, but my twist on it was that the buffer's hit points would scale up by the number of players in your group, and would scale down by the number of opponents you faced.

In addition, a certain amount of damage would "punch through" into your real hit points, so particularly heavy hits would do lasting damage that you couldn't just shrug off.

So, in an even fight, people would be pretty much the same as they were in the current system. But as soon as the odds were against you, things go downhill quickly. In an example combat runthrough, a single fighter standing against a half dozen peasents didn't do well at all…. and that's what I'd expect to happen in real life.
15 Oct, 2015, Nathan wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
I would say that part of the dilemma in such a scenario is actually the lack of more realistic simulation. In the real world, wearing that kind of armor would make you pretty tired after a while. Additionally, the armor being rigid would transmit force to your body, probably netting you a lot of bruises in the bargain unless it was really well padded. If the entire town's population doesn't have anything better than sticks and stones it might be very difficult to cause any real harm to an armored warrior. Of course, they could probably rush you and knock you over, which would reduce your ability to do anything offensive to pretty much nil. Of course, punching someone with your mail/plate gauntlet could cause some serious harm. The tactics of the townspeople matter a lot here and very few people in the real world would have charged an armored warrior with sticks and/or rocks. Because the whole situation is artificial, you don't get realistic results.

Giving the hostiles better tactics/strategy and implementing a stamina mechanic that modifies your effectiveness might be a solution of sorts. To simulate being tired, you might be less able to swing your sword effectively preventing you from delivering killing blows and increasing the odds of missing somehow.

Some games push a win-lose mechanic pretty strongly. If you leave, your previous efforts are undone, which does not promote any strategy besides big numbers and a strong push.

If the DM has to do the things you describe, then I think his game is flawed and he is punishing the player for his own (the DM's) mistakes.
15 Oct, 2015, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
>Sorry, that's nonsense. :)

Sorry, but are you talking about nonsense in a world where magic exists ? ahem….
Considering that at high level, a warrior has 'magical' artefact as armor/weapon…
16 Oct, 2015, quixadhal wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
Using the tired old handwaving of "Hurrrrr, there's MAGICKS" is boring.

Whenever you are creating any kind of fictional system, there are two things you have to address. The first is to ensure the system is self-consistent, and the second is to find ways to overcome the common sense and logic which the reader's life experiences will bring to the table.

The more often you handwave aside criticisms of things that violate that "common sense" aspect, the harder it is to keep the player accepting the suspension of disbelief that makes them feel part of the game.

Casting a "fireball" spell is fairly simple and easy. Once the player can accept the idea of "magic" and focusing magical energy, casting a spell isn't a deal breaker as long as the system is consistent. Having one spell be a mere flick of the wrist, yet another similar one requires hours of work violates that consistency.

In the above scenario of a single fighter defeating the entire town's population, you have to not only fight against the concepts of magic, but the common sense experience of physics. Anyone with common sense will think to themselves, "even if the guy was really strong, and had some uber weapon that sliced through people in one shot, wouldn't dozens of peasants just pile up on him and drag him down, and then strip off his armor as they beat him?"

You are, effectively, asking the player to not only believe in magic, but that some magic can make this fighter immune to physics so that they can always remain on their feet, and continue to swing their sword, despite being hemmed in on all sides. Further, they must have a magical shield that allows them to breathe, but prevents ALL projectiles from getting through their armor. And, further still, their armor cannot dent or buckle under all the attacks, because if it did, that would pass damage in to the wearer.

To me, that seems like a LOT of things to ignore for the sake of having uber-large numbers and being able to wade through low level critters as if they weren't even there. I'd rather make my game system reward players who recognize no-win scenarios and find alternate ways to solve their problems, rather than charging ahead and turning it into a text based Diablo 2.

18 Oct, 2015, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
>In the above scenario of a single fighter defeating the entire town's population, you have to not only fight against the concepts of magic, but the common sense experience of physics

No. in a world of magic, where armors and weapons are also magical esepcially at high level, physics only apply to peon that do not have access to magic.

Armors will magically repels everything that does not attain a certain speed/energy (so throwing stones or whatever would be useless as they ont even touch the fighter)
Enhance speed (so the fighter can avoid being swarm as well, not even talking about 'flying above thenm) ad weapons would cut the flesh of peons effortlessly.

It is not about saying 'magic duh', it s about there is magic…thus, the only reason you even think a fighter is bound to common physics just because he is not a 'magician' is stupid in itself.
19 Oct, 2015, quixadhal wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
Maybe if you actually tried writing fiction, you'd understand the concept of "suspension of disbelief."

Throwing the term "magic" around isn't a free pass to do whatever you want without any explainations or restrictions because… "magic." There is a human on the other end of the game client, and if what you're doing makes no sense to them, no amount of lipstick will make the pig attractive.

Maybe if your target audience is 3 year old children, you can get away with more. But, I wrote my MUD for college students (at the time), and I don't assume they're brain dead. I assume they would like things to either make sense, or to have explicit reasoning for "magic" allowing them to do fun and supernatural things.

I mean, if you're just going to dismiss any attempt at realism because "magic" exists, why even bother with mundane fighting. Just assume everyone has infinite shields that reflect everything and magic weapons that call down lightning and fire with every swing… oh wait, DBZ. :)
19 Oct, 2015, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
>Maybe if you actually tried writing fiction, you'd understand the concept of "suspension of disbelief."

Sorry but the problem is in yourself. If you are so stuck about fighters who cannot use magical weapons and armors.
If you accept magics from people in dress, then if you cannot accept magic from fighters in plate, it means you are not fit to write fiction at all.
20 Oct, 2015, Ssolvarain wrote in the 19th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
Throwing the term "magic" around isn't a free pass to do whatever you want without any explainations or restrictions because… "magic."

Did you not read Lord of the Rings?

You're seriously picking a fight with Tolkien with your argument lol

It's clear the two of you have differing tastes.

Quixadhal likes his magic in nice, neat, little rational systems (which is silly, but occasionally entertaining)
While you seem to like to do whatever, however. (Which is also silly, but occasionally entertaining)

There's a time and place for both, inclusive or exclusive to a setting. It's like the difference between coded combat and RP combat. You can have both, neither, either. Depends on the author :3
20 Oct, 2015, quixadhal wrote in the 20th comment:
Votes: 0
I did read Lord of the Rings, quite a few times actually, from a young age. :)

You know, many people seem to think Tolkien was "high fantasy" with tons of magic all over the place, but actually, magic wasn't used all that often, and when it was used, it was usually in pretty small doses.

I mean, compare Tolkien to any typical D&D campaign.

If magic were as prevalent as people seem to think it was, why didn't Gandalf just teleport around? Where were the fireball and lightning bolt spells? Setting aside the movie and sticking with the books, what were the most powerful magic spells used in the whole series? Elrond drowned a bunch of people by calling upon the river. Gandalf enhanced a few fires, made light, and broke a bridge.

Even the most powerful magical artifact of the age, "the one ring", basically only gave you invisibility and established a telepathic link with Sauron… and a pretty poor link at that.

I'm not complaining here. But, all of Tolkien's magic seems to be about what a 5th level mage can do in AD&D. I mean, come on…. Boromir was one of the greatest warriors of Gondor. Why didn't he have a simple shield spell, even if it were on a scroll he had to read?

Where I think Tolkien got it right is that he didn't make magic an explicit thing very often. Most of those magic uses were things the reader (or other observers) could dismiss as tricks. The reader could easily imagine the water elementals surging down the river to drown the enemies of Rivendell… *OR* you could imagine he pulled a lever and opened some gates on a dam.

The duel with the balrog. You can easily imagine Gandalf summoning a spell and striking the bridge to break it, or you can imagine it just broke under their weight and because it was ancient.

The ring is the only real concrete bit of magic you are asked to accept, and thus it's very easy to suspend your disbelief and buy into the story. To me at least, Tolkien's magic never felt out of control or random. I didn't know what the rules were, but I got the feeling there were rules and that's why everyone didn't just throw magic around for everything.

That's why Rarva's assertion of "it's magic" annoys me. He seems to be arguing that magic shouldn't have any sort of system or logic at all, and that it should just do whatever you imagine with no effort. That seems like a fun dream, but makes for horrible game mechanics. Games are all about risk vs. reward, and immersion. If there's no risk, or if the rules seem to change randomly, it's not very fun.