Challenge rating... Talk to me

[Legacy_FunkySwerve]

               

Rolo Kipp wrote...

<perks up...>

Hey, you have a lemure appearance? Is it HG specific?

Oops, sorry. OT. But someone was looking for one somewhere... <oh, *that's* specific!>

<...digging back into the "paragon" scroll>

We used Mane Man 2 (CODI)* - not that close, but hey.

Funky
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Pstemarie]

               Thanks FS for the explanation. It has given me somewhat of an idea about where scripting limitations may lie. I've always been hesitant to get into complex coding because my past endeavours have been somewhat...erm...critical failures. Seeing glimpses of what you guys have done at HG helps keep my motivation alive...
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Rolo Kipp]

               <squinting at his cards...>

FunkySwerve wrote...
...
He actually left that to me to decide. I figured it out by looking at where our spawns at various levels were at, and then determining what changes to make at what levels. I won't lie, it was pretty time-intensive.

Ahhh, that seems to be the standard approach. adjust->playtest->adjust iterations.  Not trying to *replace* that, but I think I have an idea that will help things a bit :-)

Happily, I already had the scalings for Legendary and Paragon levels, from the CoreStat tab of that spreadsheet I linked you in the pm, so I just had to work out where 1-40 creatures should be.

Good stuff! Like so many chaotic feedback systems, getting close to optimum before turning it over to algorithym is pretty damn important :-)

I also looked at familiars at 1 and 40 too, so I could figure out when to start scaling them up (decided level 5), and by how much (dynamically scaling them is going to be SOOO much better than 2da edits and utcs).

I am *soooo* with you on that one.  Do you know that my jaw actually dropped when I saw how Bioware implemented familiars? 40 blueprints each?! Holy moly!

I am currently using, er, damn... lemme look... Ah, MBHenchman Kit for leveling.  Just a placeholder.  I am not happy (in particular) with the scaling of equipment and making the scale class sensitive. So I'll be re-writing that eventually.

...
The results of those measurings are contained in the SummonCalcSingleLevelStats function. There's no guarantee yours will look anything like ours, but here it is all the same, in case it's of any help (you can also find it in the fky_summon_inc above, shortly to be renamed hgs_gen_summon, since it's no longer just an include)

Makes sense to me :-) And I struggled with that portion for a good hour last night, but I got it... eventually. Better, in so many respects, to what I was <vaguely> thinking... :-P

...  
I'd like a system (sensor/decider/executor/feedback) that dynamically adjusts difficulty based on how the player plays, rather than a predetermined function of how a player *ought* to play. If they are fumbling a bit, ease off. If they are burning through bosses, pour the oil on!

Ok, that should be much easier than what I'm doing. I'm scaling to hit certain benchmarks, and you don't have to. You just need various stepping stones, like our paragon code, to make 'harder', or, conversely, 'easier'. You could do something very like what Werehound was.

Actually, I want a *modifier* to the scaling.  Take the normal scaling as the baseline of what I *think* the encounter difficulty should be and then adjust it with the DCRc (Dynamic CR modifieer - combat) or DCRn (non-combat).

I would scale difficulty a number of ways, depending on how clever you want to get. One simple metric is how long it takes the player to kill something. ...

Another one, that is both simpler and provides a feedback mechanism is a ratio of damage given to damage taken, with a weight on top... generally speaking, if the PC deals massive damage while taking very little -> scale up CR. If PC takes too much damage -> scale down. Time of combat is immaterial, except I'll average the DCRc over the last 3 game days to moderate swings in the feedback.

The DCRn would have a similar ratio of xp earned (non-combat) to xp expected. If the PC is earning gobs of non-combat xp, make skill checks harder.  If they can't succeed with even simple tasks, make things easier.

Both those functions converge on a optimal difficulty setting <should, you mean>. Yes, *should* converge on an optimal setting that is controlled by the weight constant on top. For DCRc, making things easier increases damage given, which makes things harder.  The averaging function and the weight moderate swings and push the modifier to a value that suits *that particular PC's* play-style, setting things just *so* difficult, but not worse.

A word of warning: if the players figure out what you're doing, this could be eminently exploitable - though I don't suppose it'd matter if you're talking single player. Might want to keep it somewhat hush-hush - there's no easy way for them to tell what you're doing.

That very sticking point is what led me <by the nose... a very big nose> to this approach.  Power gaming (nothing against it - there is no cheating, only advanced playing techniques (APT!)) is basically playing a game by the meta-rules.  So, whatever I did re:scaling has to be resistant to APT.

To take advantage of the DCRc, a player would have to intentionally take massive damage while dealing very little. And death is permanent on Amethyst. Not a terribly viable option. Still, one could sand-bag minor combats before a boss battle... but that is analogous to keeping an ace up you sleeve and suprising the bugger. Excuse my british :-P

...We've scaled them so they they ensure a little risk to a run - the wrong combination of paragons can SERIOUSLY challenge even the most uber party of vets.There is a certain sadistic glee to be had from watching players scurry frantically around trying to avoid getting flattened...but I digress.  

No comment =)

Ok, one comment.  The original "Banish V'rax'l" (actual title - "Ouch.") campaign took place in the '80s.  A group of 12 players burned through 93 PCs to accomplish the act (including Rolo, who "died" (as nearly as he can) 7 times). The players would plan strategy meetings (away from me ;-) to plan out their next hour of game time. It took 6 months (Westpac) and 50 years gametime to complete. It was the single most intense and fulfilling campaign I ever ran. Oh. Yeah. One survivor. ;-) Who is now a High One recurring NPC/DM.

...
Just remember to account for all classes' strengths and weakness. Mages, increase/decrease enemy SR, saves, and hp (more hp means more spells burnt, though more hp works well enough for many classes). ...

Yes. class & race context is going to be very important to me.  I do *not* believe in balancing things by making everything work for everyone. :-/ Another pet peeve of mine, OT :-P class and Race, like the PCs death, should *mean* something.

Anyway, thank you very much for all the time and consideration you take ;-) This really does help me.  And hopefully others.

<...and tossing a bit of gold in the pot>
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Rolo Kipp, 23 octobre 2011 - 04:03 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Rolo Kipp]

               <laughing...>

FunkySwerve wrote...
We used Mane Man 2 (CODI)* - not that close, but hey.

Hey, that's the exact model I thought of when I saw Shadow's suggestion :-P

Great minds think alike :-)
<or, by necessity, lesser minds run in the same rut>
What? What are you babbling about, bird?
<...>

<...his fool head off>
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_FunkySwerve]

               The problem with the damage metric is that players don't have a working ondamaged. You can approximate it with onhits, as someone...I think Shadow, outline, but it caps the number of firings per round, which is problem for precision in higher-intensity combat. A search on these forums should turn up the specifics - it was a fairly recent thread.

Funky
               
               

               

                     Modifié par FunkySwerve, 23 octobre 2011 - 04:23 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Rolo Kipp]

               <looking just a bit...>

And I read that, too. Hmm... listener to capture the damage floaty text? Damage healed?
Grrr... I'll think of something.

<sigh>

<...disconcerted>
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_ffbj]

               Plus various conditional things like stunned,  poisoned, diseased, could be more important than the actual hit points a player has left.  Though I supposed you could do that through a combat rd end check.  So you are trying to keep the player on the knife's edge so most combats will neither be too difficult nor too easy.  So on a scale of 1-10 1 being trivial and 10 certain death you want most combats in the 5-6-7 range.  Philosophically I get it and try to do something similar mostly through creature ai.  Some monsters will flee you or hide if you are too much for them, or try other tactics to avoid direct confrontation.  Others will pour it on if they think you are weak, though some monsters will, while not entirely ignoring you, act as though you are beneath their contempt, unless you really insist on dying to them
I think the scaling approach is a valid one, though I just usually spawn more creatures, with more frequency to counter tougher PC's and vice verse for lesser PC's.
I think in some ways you can go too far to try and get that perfect match.  Some fights will be easier, some harder, and some builds will just work better.  If you have a chest that can't be based open, or has a nasty trap destroying all the contents the tough fighter is out of their depth.  Also spot/listen search other skills that are class specific should matter.  Overall module design and how various character builds do should vary.  Though I do get where you are coming from as in my own module some builds are just more effective in fights than others.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Rolo Kipp]

               <peeking over...>

ffbj wrote...
Plus various conditional things like stunned,  poisoned, diseased, could be more important than the actual hit points a player has left.  Though I supposed you could do that through a combat rd end check.

Hmmm, I think all those effects are secondary *in the long run*. They help you hurt NPCs and be hurt by NPCs, but I think the damge dealt/taken metric is the primary combat measurement.  I.e. it doesn't matter a hoot if you stun your opponent, if you do not follow it up with damage (or take the opportunity to run like blazes and *avoid* damage ;-).

So you are trying to keep the player on the knife's edge so most combats will neither be too difficult nor too easy.  So on a scale of 1-10 1 being trivial and 10 certain death you want most combats in the 5-6-7 range.

Something like that, yes. But not a static, sustained level of difficulty.  I read somewhere (Richard Garriot? Can't remember) that the most addictive "combat rhythm" was something like easy-easy-medium-hard and back to the beginning.

Philosophically I get it and try to do something similar mostly through creature ai.  Some monsters will flee you or hide if you are too much for them, or try other tactics to avoid direct confrontation.  Others will pour it on if they think you are weak, though some monsters will, while not entirely ignoring you, act as though you are beneath their contempt, unless you really insist on dying to them

Oh, yes.  I will certainly have different *behaviors* for NPCs :-) And just because those goblins are cowards doesn't mean their fussilade of tiny poisoned arrows won't be a *serious* encounter ;-) After all, if strafing & kiting works so well for PCs... it ought to work for NPCs :-) Nothing like a weak, cowardly goblin screaming in fear and running to get the PC rushing headlong into a *proper* ambush.

I think the scaling approach is a valid one, though I just usually spawn more creatures, with more frequency to counter tougher PC's and vice verse for lesser PC's.

That's the execution of the algorythm, how you *apply* the modifier. This, also, should be context sensitive, I think.  With unique/solitary types, you buff them up.  With gang-bangers, you mob them.  If you are not wearing plate, you *never* want to start a blood-frenzy of scragger (land pirhana) in the World's Edge :-) On the other hand, all the armor you can afford will do little against an elder troll with a control gem.

I think in some ways you can go too far to try and get that perfect match.  Some fights will be easier, some harder, and some builds will just work better.

Yup. As FS said, it's a question of how much effort/time you want to put into something that may have little impact. Diminishing returns.  Frankly, my creation cycle could never survive commercial development.  I can and do work in that environment, but NwN is *not* work, for me.  I am, therefore, free to be as wasteful of my own resources as I wish <and the gf allows> Ug. That's right. Groceries to day ;-/ <sigh>

If you have a chest that can't be based open, or has a nasty trap destroying all the contents the tough fighter is out of their depth.  Also spot/listen search other skills that are class specific should matter.  Overall module design and how various character builds do should vary.  Though I do get where you are coming from as in my own module some builds are just more effective in fights than others.

The key phrase there is "in fights". I do have a skill overlay in the works that makes non-combat play-styles more viable :-)

And hopefully develops deeper, richer characters who don't mind walking on...

<...the edge>
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_ffbj]

               Yeah that's a good analysis and response.
Mostly the poisoned, disease, etc.. was a response to trying to lighten up on the PC if they are in a world of hurt.  Yes hp's are the most important, but other negative conditions can result in your hp's dropping like a rock.  That's all I was trying to point out.
Just as an example of this sort of need based response, I have divine intervention, which can occur if the PC is over a certain level and is on good terms with their god.  It occurs rarely, though it has saved my PC a few times.