Large swords

Feb 13, 2014, 4:09 pm
#1
Joined: Sep 8, 2010
Occupation: Petty Functionary
Location: Drinking pea soup in the world map
Interests: Mangoes
Posts: 1,113
Do large swords work better on bigger monsters?
Feb 13, 2014, 6:18 pm
#2
[Eire]MadHatter's avatar
mutant ass


Joined: Feb 5, 2014
Occupation: Sysnet Tech Support
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Interests: Computers
Posts: 59
*Shrugs shoulders*

I'll have a look at the coding but this is my logical guess...

The stat Size 175 default for the player.... is as the name implies your characters size.
Spiders are generally harder to hit because they are smaller.

Large weapons do ...as you can imagine.... do larger amounts of damage but are less accurate at hitting their targets.

So i guess....

Bigger monsters should be easier to hit and the fact two handed weapons do large amounts of damage....so yeah I guess it should work better.

[I base this knowledge on dark souls.......lets say a dagger versus a giant would take a long time to win...wheres a claymore two handed sword would finish the fight much quicker.]

My heads a bit fried at the moment so some of that might not make sense.
Feb 13, 2014, 7:39 pm
#3
Joined: Dec 11, 2008
Posts: 1,770
Dialog.txt would suggest this is true, but having looked at the damage calculations in the source code it does not seem like monster size is taken into account anywhere.
Let me clarify - Dialog.txt says that large monsters take MORE damage from "long" weapons (spear, quarterstaff, 2h sword, halberd) and LESS from "short" weapons (dagger, short sword) and that the inverse is true for small monsters. The code doesn't seem to support this.

However, like Hatter up there suggests larger targets are in fact easier to hit, much like small targets are harder to hit (good example - try hitting a floating eye with a warhammer).
Size is taken into account with to-hit values, and smaller weapons have higher to-hit values than larger ones.
Therefore, perhaps dialog.txt holds true only because a larger target is more likely to take a hit from a big weapon and take more damage than being hit with a small weapon, and that a small target it more likely to be hit by a small weapon and thus "DPS" (per turn I guess) is going to be higher than missing it 20 times with a humongous hammer.

Here's the excerpt from dialog.txt, line 2523:
Ivan perform damage with jolliness:

Point increases chance of critical hit by +50%
Cut and blunt damage simultaneous
Long weakens against small enemies and improves against large, short 
works inversely

POINT CUT BLUNT | ACCURACY DURABILITY BLOCK | special

Spear             P8 C0 B2 | A8 D1 Blo6 | long, 2hand, throw
Quarterstaff      P3 C0 B2 | A6 D1 Blo6 | long, 2hand
Bastard sword     P4 C6 B4 | A4 D7 Blo5 |
Short sword       P6 C4 B2 | A6 D8 Blo7 | short, 1hand
Longsword         P6 C5 B2 | A7 D6 Blo8 | 1hand
2-handed sword    P1 C7 B7 | A4 D6 Blo6 | long, 2hand
Axe               P0 C6 B5 | A2 D4 Blo4 |
Battle-axe        P0 C7 B6 | A4 D6 Blo5 |
Halberd           P7 C8 B8 | A4 D4 Blo5 | long, 2hand
Poleaxe           P0 C8 B8 | A4 D4 Blo4 | long, 2hand
Mace              P0 C0 B6 | A4 D4 Blo5 |
Dagger            P6 C2 B0 | A8 D2 Blo1 | short, 1hand
Feb 14, 2014, 1:23 pm
#4
Joined: Sep 8, 2010
Occupation: Petty Functionary
Location: Drinking pea soup in the world map
Interests: Mangoes
Posts: 1,113
So larger monsters are easier to hit.
Funny how the table above doesn't include scimitars.
In LIVAN more weapons were introduced, and they weren't always so balanced. You'd end up finding broken sapphire knight swords in three percent of games. I wonder how the weapons introduced in LIVAN stack up against the standard armoury from CVS?
Feb 14, 2014, 11:11 pm
#5
Joined: Dec 11, 2008
Posts: 1,770
The table also doesn't include whips or warhammers, and includes "Poleaxe" which obviously was not implemented. No idea where that was going.
Going to have to say the inclusion of flaming anything swords in LIVAN tips the balance pretty solidly in the player's favor rather than just having the standard flaming longsword.
Jump to