[ian-reeds-games] Re: Some thoughts on randomized numbers
- From: Zak Claassen <zak.claassen@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: ian-reeds-games@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 08:18:16 +0200
Hi Ian, this seems like something that could make the game more
interesting. The first option where a unit does 5% more damage than
its original damage makes more sense since it would deal the same
amount of damage to a unit regardless of its health. The "all"
keyword for all damage types could be useful, but just a question:
lets say the unit deals 2 physical damage and 2 magic damage and you
specify health_protect=1|all, would it protect against 1 of each
damage type or 1 over all, in other words would the unit lose 3 health
or 2 because it removes 1 physical damage but also 1 magic damage?
And about the range, you could use a colon if punctuation is
preferred, but it doesn't really matter, any character would be fine.
R does actually make sense since you're already using D for dice, so
nevermind.
On 1/12/13, Ian Reed <support@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I wanted to throw out a few quick thoughts I have on randomized numbers.
>
> First, a chance_of_success= flag seems like it should only take a
> percentage.
> Does anyone agree or disagree?
>
> I think the cost flags should remain solid numbers. Solid meaining
> unrandomized.
>
> Now for inflict, restore and protect.
> All of these will work basically the same way they have in the past
> except there will be 4 different ways of supplying numbers.
> 1 A solid number like health_inflict=10
> 2 A range like health_inflict=5-10
> 3 A dice roll like health_inflict=2d6
> The 2 is the number of dice and the 6 is how many siders are on each die.
> 4 A percentage like health_inflict=30%
> On inflict and restore this will inflict or restore that percentage of
> the target's total health points.
> On protect it will reduce the amount of damage taken by that damage type
> by that percent.
>
> I think that modifier flags such as health_inflict_mod= will also
> support these 4 types of numbers.
> There is a question about what the percentage number on a modifier such
> as health_inflict_mod=5% means.
> Does it mean that the original inflict amount deals 5% more damage? If
> so how does that work with damage types since even a health_inflict_mod=
> flag always requires a damage type.
> I guess it could just adjust that damage types damage by the 5%. This
> could be further helped by me adding a keyword of all that can be used
> in place of a damage type to specify you want it applied to all damage
> types.
> Such as health_inflict=5%|all versus health_inflict=5%|magic
> Or does it mean that the initial damage is dealt and then we add 5% of
> the target's health to the damage?
> I'm leaning towards the first option.
> Cost modifier flags will remain solid numbers.
>
> What do you guys think of this idea so far?
>
> Also, I have a small issue that for ranges it seems natural to use a
> dash to indicate a range, but that would make it confusing to supply
> negative numbers.
> One would think I could use something like a comma or pipe to separate
> them but then certain flags are already using those such as inflict that
> let's you specify multiple numbers and specify damage types for each.
> So that leaves me with something like using the letter r in the middle.
> Such as health_inflict=5r10
> R makes a bit of sense for range as we are using D for dice.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Ian Reed
>
>
>
Other related posts:
