A lot of games use 1DN rolls, they are quick, easy to implement, and WRONG.Anybody played . . . any tabletop game, or sit down D&D ever, how many dice did you bring to the table . . . I'm going to guess more then 1. (like a small bag of them). Just one action on a tabletop game will take upwards of 5 dice easy. Why? Because multiple dice = somewhat predictable behavior.
You're standard 1DN takes 2 operations, + Random # generation or lookup. The generation of Gaussian Random numbers adds an extra 5 or 10 operations, more if you use a low efficiency algorithm, and then takes get this 2 operations. If you do your RNG in advance or during slow cycles with not much on the CPU. it's the same!!!So you've got a epic dude of Epic-ness kickass sword, expert training, Years experience. This guy is made of win.
This guy encounters a spider in the woods. Attacks, Rolls for 0 - 85 attack. gets a 3. doesn't kill the spider. Wait, What??
I understand there maybe should be some chance to miss. but then just say miss, don't embarrass . . . everybody . . . with a hit of 3.
If your TOP hit is 85. you aught be doing 60 - 65, reliably.
that's 20 + 17D5. which is a lot of operations, or Gaussian(62.5, 5) which is 2, and a Gaussian look-up.
Same goes for Armour, You're amour that gives 8 protection should almost never roll 0, unless the attacker has some special for a chance to ignore Armour.
1DN should be used exclusively when it is logically defensible that all possible outcomes aught be equally probable . . . which is in thermodynamics, or nearly never.
If anybody thinks 1DN rolls are a good idea, Speak now, or rally behind me in this crusade against the misuse of random damage, and all other occurrences of 1DN.
Robbie Price
Ha! Looking at 1.08 changelog, you specify min and max values , my guess was right! 1dN+X basically..
So sad
Did you expect otherwise? Told you not to get your hopes up.. Similar with so called free "expansion level" packs.. be realistic..!
Anyways ... Armor should be static, damage should (probably) be gaussian ... but attack really should be X + 1DN.
Of course, since armor is static (C), then the relationship between X, N, and C should be the most important.
For instance, if N is 100 (meaning a 100 point spread possible between attacker or defender ... or a 90 point spread if one were to assume a 5% "always" buffer at each end) ... then X and C should be made in relation to 100 ... like C should be something 25-50 as a "default" and increase with Dex and/or armor.
X meanwhile, should start at 0, but increase with level, as well as Strength and Dex.
Then you run a few simulations to see how strong you want Strength and Dex bonuses to be ... and you balance armor (as well as Dex"bonus" penalties to armor), and you have a good system. Armor never changes ... Attack needs to roll high enough for Attack + roll to defeat armor.
Once a "super hero" has an attack that is at least 90 points more than his opponents ... it no longer matters what he rolls cause he will always hit 95% of the time (assuming a 5% barrier is in place). Of course ... he still may want to increase his attack if there will be OTHER heroes with insanely high defense. ... this is all in the upper limits, of course.
And another thing ... there is magic involved, so just because you have insane Dex and Strength scores, doesn't give a sure win ... Wisdom and Intelligence are important too (but for this example I will ignore them).
A basic example could be ... Attack = 2(level) + 1.5(Strength-10) + 2.5(Dex-10) + 1D100
Defense = 25 + 2(luck) + (luck*5)/(1+luck) + 2 (armor) + 2.5((1/(penalty+1))*(Dex-10)
// an alternative Dex Bonus for defense could be 2.5(Dex - (10 + penalty)) ... or 1.5(Dex - (10 + penalty))
meanwhile ...
melee Damage = Weapon.Gaussian + (Strength - 10)/2
ranged Damage = Weapon.Gaussian + (Strength - 10)/4 + (Dexterity - 10)/5
//
obviously ... you'll need to balance DexPenalty differently on Armors depending on if you use 1.5(Dex-(10+penalty)) or if you use 2.5((1/(penalty+1))*(Dex-10)
it might be easier to balance the first (simple) one ... although I will work on making a better "Dex Bonus on defense" equation than either of those rough drafts.
*Resurrect*
This was a great thread. I know that I, for one, was dissapointed to see random distributions on dice rolls in the latest version. At one point on the thread, Mr. Wardell indicated that he was in agreement with the gist of the thread. Is this still in the works or is it DOA? Anyone have any insight?
Edit: Whoops, apparently the max is squared before roll, then the square root of the roll is taken.
Don't mind me!
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
