Re: [Crawl-ref-discuss] weapon to-dam vs slaying discrepancy

[David P. <dp...@mi...>]

On Sun, 9 Oct 2011, Mike wrote:

> If your goal is to just reduce disparity, any formula will work.
>
> However, if your goal is to reduce confusion, you should use the "f(x)
> = x" formula. Players are often surprised by the fact that damage
> bonuses are actually 1d(to_dam) and not just +to_dam. This formula is
> the clearest to understand, the most intutitive, and therefore the
> least confusing. I think it is always good to have a combat system
> that is intuitive.

Most sentences here sound good to me, but I disagree a bit with the sum of 
them. The disparity is the most confusing part, in my experience. Whether 
to_dam is added to damage or not is a quantitative matter, whereas slaying 
working differently than to_dam is qualitative.
I am not sure if players should/do bother with numbers -- they don't know 
monster hit points either, for example.

What I dislike about f(x) = x is the pure non-randomness. By the way, I am 
not sure that a change with this formula even constitutes a nerf. The idea 
of guaranteed damage seems very odd to me, this is why I proposed f(x) = 
d(2,x)/2 for same expected value, but reduced variance.

> This will also make the slaying nerf less extreme.

>From how I interpret game reports, slaying seems too strong. Already early 
on, when the skill factor does not fully kick in yet.

> Another thing to note is that if slaying is changed, it should no
> longer be an expensive ring (it is very expensive now).

This was listed in the first mail.

David