|
| Thread: Attack, Defence, Power and Knowledge! will they be missed? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · «PREV |
|
niteshade
Known Hero
|
posted September 07, 2001 11:18 PM |
|
|
I'm afraid your example doesn't work
"How much do you adjust the HP and damage values? Not all creatures would be affected by as much. Let's continue my example from above. The Champion, because its attack is 5 less than the Devil's defense, deals 10% less damage. So you decide to give the Devil 11% more hit points (178 instead of 160), reducing the effective damage by 10%. But look at the Stone Gargoyle. Its attack is 15 less than the Devil's defense, so it should deal 30% less damage (dropping it to 1.4-2.1 instead of 2-3). But just giving the Devil 11% extra hit points instead improves the Gargoyles' damage-dealing ability by 29% (from 1.4-2.1 to effectively 1.8-2.7). So which creature do you use to base the HP and damage adjustments on? No matter which one you do, you cannot get the same effect as using attack "
Your wrong, you can still get the same effect. Here is how you do it.....
Take the base damage values, and base hps values.
For every point of attack, increase damage by 5%
For every point of defence, increase hps by 5%
So essentialy you are basing attack and defence on a creature with no attack and defence.
This is basicaly the same thing I described before. If you actualy take the time to do the math, you should see it works out.
|
|
StormWarning
Promising
Famous Hero
Archmage of Thunder
|
|
posted September 08, 2001 12:03 AM |
|
|
Let's try that
I'll use different creatures this time - Unicorn and Griffin. So the Unicorn gets 90 + 70% = 153 hp and does 20 + 75% = 35 damage (average), and the Griffin gets 25 + 40% = 35 hp and does 4.5 + 40% = 6.3 damage (average). The Griffin would, on average, require 25 hits to kill the Unicorn. The Unicorn's hit, on average, would be just enough to drop a Griffin. Compare to the real results:
Unicorn's average damage - 20 + 35% = 27, 8% more effective.
Griffin's average damage - 4.5 - 12% = 3.96, requiring 23 hits (again, about 8% more effective)
So not quite going to work like that, but if you add a base of about 10% on to the health, it might work. Let me try out another example, with Minotaur Kings and Gnolls.
Your system (with 10% bonus health):
Minotaur King - 50 + 75% = 87.5, add 8% to make 98 hp. Damage - 16 + 75% = 28 (average).
Gnoll - 6 + 25% = 7.5, add 10% to make 8 hp. Damage - 2.5 + 15% = 2.875 (average).
Gnoll requires 34 hits to kill the MK, MK kills 3 and halves another.
Real system:
Minotaur King - 16 + 50% = 24 damage, kills 4.
Gnoll - 2.5 - 24% = 1.9, requires 27 hits.
It wouldn't come out quite even, but it's close. I suppose it could work, but the calculations weren't that complicated to begin with. Plus at least the base stats stay out of the weird numbers.  I won't argue that it couldn't be done without attack and defense, but I still think it was worthwhile. Time will tell whether they've done well with this change or not.
____________
The calm before the storm is about to end.
|
|
niteshade
Known Hero
|
|
posted September 08, 2001 01:14 AM |
|
|
Your right, my system does not work perfectly, but it is quite close. It breaks down a little more with really big creatures fighting really small creatures as well. But in general it does a very good job replicating the system without the need for attack and defence. The issue about having wierd base stats is only true because we are converting an existing system. If we designed a new system around this (like h4 is doing) we can avoid the wacky base stat numbers.
And this new way really is alot simpler. Sure the old system wasn't horribly complicated but still if we compare the steps you have to take to determine damage....
Old system
1)Multiply # of creature by creature damage
2)Look up attack value of attacker and defence value of defender
3)Subtract defence from attack
4)Multiply the new number by 5% if positive, or 2.5% if negative
5)Multiply the new number by the number you get in step 1
New system
1)Multiply # of creatures by damage done
So while the old system may not have been horribly complicated I think we can agree that the new system is much, much, simpler.
|
| |
|
|
