v0.8.9 (Bugfixes + translations) released to Google Play!

Useful links
Source code of the game - Contribution guide - ATCS Editor - Translate the game on Weblate - Example walkthrough - Andor's Trail Directory - Join the Discord
Get the game (v0.8.9) from Google, F-Droid, our server, or itch.io

Crit Boon

Unstructured ideas, requests and suggestions for the development of the game.
User avatar
rijackson741
Posts: 4451
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:04 am
android_version: 10 - Android 10
Location: Somewhere in Dhayavar
Contact:

Re: Crit Boon

Post by rijackson741 »

As I have thought about it more, I have also swung over to the idea of altering ECC. Here's why. This is the current formula for calculating ECC from CS:
CR3.jpg
It's just a non-linear mapping of CS to ECC, which was done because CS was overpowered (that was before my time around here, so Zukero had better correct me if I'm wrong about that). This would be the new formula:
CR4.jpg
So now the chance of a critical hit depends on the critical skill of the attacker and the critical resistance of the attacked. This makes a lot of sense to me. It's conceptually easy to understand, which is a big plus.
Voom wrote:However, I think we should forget about negative critical resistance. If you want to include negative CR, than you are adding a new function instead of just fixing an old one. And if so, what's the reasoning? I could make my own reason, but you suggested it so I think you should have the first opportunity to do so.

I didn't suggest it. My first post about changing monsters suggested a critical immunity stat ranging from 0 to 1. Zukero suggested a critical resistance stat (a much better choice of wording; you can be immune, or not, but you can't be 50% immune!) that included the possibility of negative values. I interpret that as meaning the monster (or even possibly player) would be particularly susceptible to critical hits.
Voom wrote:Having a CR range from -1 to 0 to 1 applied to ECC simply functions as a inverted percentage of 'oldECC', similar to the skill Piercing Criticals described previously.
It makes the monsters more susceptible to critical hits, but it does not require the player to get yet another criticals based skill to do it.
Voom wrote:Applying this formula (first one shown by rijackson) requires that every mob be implemented with their own CR value
Yes, but that's easy to do. To start they would just all get either 0 or 1, so they are the same as they are now.
Voom wrote:all these values would be adjusted with the skill Zukero mentioned, but before dice is rolled. How do we do that? To be clear, how does is this skill implemented?
I think you misunderstand the nature of the skill (either that, or I do). It has no effect on your chance of a critical hit. It affects the chance of a monster getting a critical hit on you. In AT there is no difference between you attacking a monster and a monster attacking you. A character and a monster have the same stats. A character can have skills that affect those stats, which monsters don't, and monsters may have actor effects, which you only get from some weapons or armor, but the base stats are the same. The same math is applied to them regardless of who is attacking who. So the skill affects your CR, not the monsters. A players starting CR would be 0, but this could be modified to 25% or 50% with one or two levels of CR.

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a CR stat. In addition to making monsters more variable, and adding a skill, there could be potions that temporarily boosted the players CR, and actor effects that reduce CR (even making it negative :evil: ). Imagine going up against a monster that not only could dish out critical hits, but could also reduce your CR every time it hit you :twisted:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Level:71, XP:6493739, PV:608, FQ:84
HP:210, AC:212, AD:58-77, AP:4, ECC:16%, CM:1.5, BC:188, DR:3
Gold: 237559 | RoLS:1, RoL:1, GoW:1, VSH:1, RoFLS:1, WoB:1
HH:1, WA:1, CS:2, Cl:1, IF:4, Ev:3, Re:2, WP:DA:1, WP:1S:1, WP:B:1, AP:L:1, FS:DW:2, S:DW:1
User avatar
Voom
VIP
Posts: 617
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 5:24 pm
android_version: 7.0
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

Re: Crit Boon

Post by Voom »

rijackson741 wrote:As I have thought about it more, I have also swung over to the idea of altering ECC. Here's why. This is the current formula for calculating ECC from CS:
CR3.jpg
It's just a non-linear mapping of CS to ECC, which was done because CS was overpowered (that was before my time around here, so Zukero had better correct me if I'm wrong about that). This would be the new formula:
CR4.jpg
So now the chance of a critical hit depends on the critical skill of the attacker and the critical resistance of the attacked. This makes a lot of sense to me. It's conceptually easy to understand, which is a big plus.


It makes a lot of sense to me too. I like this formula a lot. It is what I had in mind exactly, however, you took it in the right direction. Great job!
rijackson741 wrote: I didn't suggest it. My first post about changing monsters suggested a critical immunity stat ranging from 0 to 1. Zukero suggested a critical resistance stat (a much better choice of wording; you can be immune, or not, but you can't be 50% immune!) that included the possibility of negative values. I interpret that as meaning the monster (or even possibly player) would be particularly susceptible to critical hits.


That's correct, but even so, I don't know if I'm a big fan of particular susceptibility to critical hits. I would need some convincing because weak mobs that you would realistically able to critically hit 100% percent of the time (lvl 99 player vs a beetle getting stepped on) wouldn't need to be critically hit in the first place when normal attacks would do perfectly. Overkill much? I would understand if this was Pokémon and it was water vs fire, but AT has no such elements or circle of strength and weaknesses to base a "super effective" hit on.
rijackson741 wrote: I think you misunderstand the nature of the skill (either that, or I do). It has no effect on your chance of a critical hit. It affects the chance of a monster getting a critical hit on you.

So the skill affects your CR, not the monsters. A players starting CR would be 0, but this could be modified to 25% or 50% with one or two levels of CR.
I understood the skill to decrease the CR of the mob that is attacked, not increase a player's CR. Wasn't the point of this whole concept to alleviate the burden of making crit builds? I thought all of this was to fix a problem, not create a new feature unrelated to this issue. It's a great feature, but not on point. I'm sorry, I just don't want to get confused about it all. So if I exclude what we said about the skill, what we get is that each mob will have a predetermined CR (not all immune mobs to be immune, but vary in degree of resistance) to lighten the load on critical builds? If that's it and I understood correctly, than the problem has been solved, right?
Voom
User avatar
rijackson741
Posts: 4451
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:04 am
android_version: 10 - Android 10
Location: Somewhere in Dhayavar
Contact:

Re: Crit Boon

Post by rijackson741 »

Voom wrote:I don't know if I'm a big fan of particular susceptibility to critical hits. I would need some convincing because weak mobs that you would realistically able to critically hit 100% percent of the time (lvl 99 player vs a beetle getting stepped on) wouldn't need to be critically hit in the first place when normal attacks would do perfectly. Overkill much?
I am neither particularly for it or against it. If CR were to be introduced I don't see any reason to exclude it though. It should only be for a very limited number of monsters, and I don't think it should ever be as low as -1, but it's just an extension of the idea that immunity/resistance to critical hits should be continuously variable, rather than just 0 or 1.
Voom wrote:Wasn't the point of this whole concept to alleviate the burden of making crit builds? I thought all of this was to fix a problem, not create a new feature unrelated to this issue. It's a great feature, but not on point.
Yes, you are right, but if monsters have a CR stat then so do players. That's not the goal of introducing CR, but an inevitable side effect. One option would be to always have the players CR set to 0, and not display it. But if it's there, why not have some way to vary it (skills, potions, actor effects)?
Voom wrote:So if I exclude what we said about the skill, what we get is that each mob will have a predetermined CR (not all immune mobs to be immune, but vary in degree of resistance) to lighten the load on critical builds?
Yes
Voom wrote: If that's it and I understood correctly, than the problem has been solved, right?
Improved, anyway ;)
Level:71, XP:6493739, PV:608, FQ:84
HP:210, AC:212, AD:58-77, AP:4, ECC:16%, CM:1.5, BC:188, DR:3
Gold: 237559 | RoLS:1, RoL:1, GoW:1, VSH:1, RoFLS:1, WoB:1
HH:1, WA:1, CS:2, Cl:1, IF:4, Ev:3, Re:2, WP:DA:1, WP:1S:1, WP:B:1, AP:L:1, FS:DW:2, S:DW:1
User avatar
Voom
VIP
Posts: 617
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 5:24 pm
android_version: 7.0
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

Re: Crit Boon

Post by Voom »

rijackson741 wrote: I am neither particularly for it or against it. If CR were to be introduced I don't see any reason to exclude it though. It should only be for a very limited number of monsters, and I don't think it should ever be as low as -1, but it's just an extension of the idea that immunity/resistance to critical hits should be continuously variable, rather than just 0 or 1.
Whose to determine the CR of mobs, let alone which mobs get negative CR? It seems like an arbitrary process if there is no explicit reasoning.
rijackson741 wrote: Yes, you are right, but if monsters have a CR stat then so do players. That's not the goal of introducing CR, but an inevitable side effect. One option would be to always have the players CR set to 0, and not display it. But if it's there, why not have some way to vary it (skills, potions, actor effects)?
Certainly, it would add a little more depth to AT, I agree.
Voom wrote: If that's it and I understood correctly, than the problem has been solved, right?
rijackson741 wrote:Improved, anyway ;)
Well, at least it's a good start. :)
Voom
Post Reply