[EEWorzelle]

Ironmaster, I sure agree with you that this information should be available. It is sort of sick and disturbing that developers (thanks for the info, Ziggurat) would consider something as elementary as the formulas they use as their "secret sauce". That's like revealing that your secret, advance car design is going to have tires. Formulas are the kinds of things developers should share as a community, with other, much more subtle, aspects such as balance, separating the mediocre from the excellent. Players are only interested in the results of what affects what and how much, not what the programmer did to get there.

D.W. Bradley did a great job with puzzles and complexity in the Wizardry games he worked on, particularly the unparalleled Wizardry 7. I have to admit, however, that the Wizardry 8 team, building upon his earlier good work, went well beyond it and did much better in the strategic aspects of the game. They removed the ridiculous twitch skill needed in the player for locks and traps, made expert skills centrally strategic, rather than based upon finding them in the game, and made character creation and increases at level up strategic rather than random. The smaller (but not small), less complex, Wizardry 8 design may have had more to do with shrinking financial budgets rather than intentionally giving us less game. I suspect that the more strategy-orientated developers of this game would have been more forthcoming if the strategy guide writer thought to ask. I could be wrong about that.

Personally, I enjoy a RPG game much more if I take some time, up front, to study non-spoiling strategic information (like formulas and what effects what), so I can make an attempt to create a great party even the first time I play. If available, I will play on whatever expert mode is available, to compensate for the advantage that gives. I find it desirable to do that the first time I play because usually I would play RPGs once, or the really good ones twice. The incredible replay fun of Wizardry 8, even after many times through the game, is new to me.

Sultan and ScottG - We, like many others, have an urge to advise new and experienced players of the game, in order to enhance their fun. Those players do not want to be given complex mathematical formulas. They want to know things like, "What weapon should I use with my Valkyrie?" The formulas help those who would advise others to give correct advice not based on speculation, guesses, or only their own, limited playing experience. Not every new player wants advice, but if they do, those who give it have a natural urge to want to do it with... quality.

We as players who would advise, even informally as one player to another, have a right, or even duty to determine the actual formulas, as well as possible, to publish our results so others can attack their veracity, and to remove as much of the speculation as possible. This shouldn't be necessary. The developers should simply do this, but in the meantime, it is important to not make advice "too strong" before it can be based upon fact.

Regarding the specific points about Critical Strike and other key capabilities affected by many things, you are both correct that a model is needed, before measurements can be meaningfully taken.

Concerning specific speculations, arguments such as the 10 to 1 ratio are very effective, because we are trying to get inside the designer's heads, in a sense, and assumptions of simplicity make for higher quality guesses.

Okay, so here's my take -

There are several decisions or rolls involved, as you both said. Of course it is not exponential (low order polynomial) but the gist of that word (exponential) is commonly known and so it's use is a good way to communicate the behavior. Actually, the most fun games have the characteristic that excellent, or "optomized." is much, much more powerful than the nearly excellent or "optomized". That makes it worthwhile and fun to really go for excellent! I put "optomized" in quotes because it is always relative to the party and combat style, to some degree.

The evidence is that the maximum number of attacks in a round is determined at the very beginning of the round, before any actions take place. For example casting Haste does not increase one attack, in the round it is cast, to the two that a particular Hasted character might get in the next round and thereafter, for example. Attacks might be lost during the round, however, if the character is struck enough. They might also be lost due to "good" reasons, as you suggested, Scott. I think I remember attacks after an attack that gave a Lightning Strike, in the same round of combat, but I don't remember for certain (I will watch for this one). Speed, dexterity and weapon initiative clearly affect this. I'm not certain if weapon skill does... probably. Stamina and encumberance can clearly affect it negatively.

At the beginning of an attack, the maximum number of swings in that attack is determined. I'm not certain if Lightning Strike is determined per attack or per swing, but it might be the former, and that it gives x extra swings in that attack. A number of factors are involved in the determination. If the target dies, I believe the rest of the swings in that attack are lost, Lightning Strike or not. I can recall killing one target and attacking another in the next attack in the same round as very common, but not moving to a new target within the same attack.

For each swing, there is a chance to hit. The AC of the foe is involved in this one. Level of the character may matter. When Dexterity is maxed and senses are high, this can, in my experience, become a near certainty. In the case of Lightning Strike, each swing is determined here, as to whether it hits. I have seen many times where some swings in the Lightning Strike hit, and some don't.

Penetration is determined seperately, I believe, but there may or may not be an independent roll for it. Ninjas get auto-penetrate on ranged attacks and Powerstrike greatly impacts this for melee attacks, as two examples. With very high Powerstrike, this can become a near certainty, too, depending upon the foe. This is probably when Critical Strike is determined, making no damage calculation necessary.

Next is damage determination. This is affected by damage percentage increase which is based upon Strength, plus factors which double it (ex. target crippled) or half it (ex. bosses?). Chances are, by this point, weapon skill (unless 2x against those foes), and many other factors considered above don't matter.

Given a choice of model, it then becomes a matter of taking the measurements.

For example, we can try out a model that says that the Critical Strike percentage (assumming Scott is correct that it is Critical Strike Skill divided by 10 plus weapon Critical Strike), is what will apply, on the average, unless other factors reduce it. Then we (or other players who wish to particate) can measure the actual percentages (by averaging), come up with some hypothesis as to how it is affected, so players who want to get more precise, like Ironmaster, can be advised what to consider in order to maximize the Critical Strike capability of his or her character. If the model and measurements are close to correct, a pattern will appear that can be further tested and nailed down as factual.

Speculation and complexity are part of the road that needs to be taken to get there, but simplicity and facts are the destination. I doubt many players would be interested in doing this kind of... work, for a game, but many more would be interested in the simple facts, if someone does go get them.

[ 08-19-2003, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: EEWorzelle ]