computer games forum

Posted: **Sun Aug 28, 2016 6:05 pm**

myoksy wrote:
jack1974 wrote:I don't even know why I did it like that in the first place!
ah, the excellent Italian wine : )

Haha, I don't even drink much wine, I'm more beer type

myoksy wrote: first feedback for the changed AoE damage formula: I like it. Before I used Wreak Havoc without thinking more or less every time as initial warrior action - and this is not useful anymore and more planning is needed (the nuclear first-strike option is anyway so ... inelegant)

Yes that was my initial reaction too, clearly the AoE were overpowered before

In particular Wreak Havoc.

Posted: **Sun Aug 28, 2016 6:55 pm**

something's off with XP points - I'm at the beginning of the second chapter and already lvl 19.

the last encounter were 2 snakes and 2 skeletons and gave over 1200 XP for each char

Posted: **Sun Aug 28, 2016 7:12 pm**

Haha wow, OK that needs changing then

The thing is that there were two formulas, but only one used. Probably I kept the wrong one

Posted: **Sun Aug 28, 2016 8:18 pm**

Made update 0.8.3, I found the mistake I was always multiplying XP based on enemy level (hidden), but in the previous version I was doing that twice... with some bad results. Now is the same as was before (I tested with 0.8.0 several fights and got same amount).

Posted: **Sun Aug 28, 2016 8:30 pm**

just downloaded it - and think I found an old-as-stone issue with merchant houses: one of the rooms is with a pendant, when one chooses to search the room instead of taking the heirloom the net result is the sum of both the pendant and the found gold : )

Posted: **Sun Aug 28, 2016 9:34 pm**

Need to look since the outcome of the choice is random, maybe in one occasion can trigger that bug

Also found another issue with the XP: in previous versions the actual XP given was inferior to the one you'd see in the battle preview, so it's still too high vs before.

Posted: **Mon Aug 29, 2016 7:31 am**

myoksy wrote:just downloaded it - and think I found an old-as-stone issue with merchant houses: one of the rooms is with a pendant, when one chooses to search the room instead of taking the heirloom the net result is the sum of both the pendant and the found gold : )

I looked but I don't think it's possible what you say. If you choose "Leave the pendant but search the room", the outcome is that they get some gold:
"You find other valuables, in particular jewelry belonging to the couple, worth [RND_robbery] gold."

RND_robbery is of course a randomized value of the target's house potential gold amount

So they don't get the pendant but find other jewerly/stuff worth X gold.

As for the XP this morning with fresh mind I finally found the issue: what you see before the battle is the TOTAL XP AMOUNT of the encounter. Then, on the post-battle screen, it gets divided by the party members (which in this game will almost always be 3). That's why they two amount didn't match before

Now I have added a small text explaining how much each sister will get in the party setup screen so it's more understandable:

This will be on next update, but I'm waiting to see if something else shows up. Current version will still give much more XP than intended even if not an insane amount like before

Posted: **Mon Aug 29, 2016 8:59 am**

jack1974 wrote:
myoksy wrote:when one chooses to search the room instead of taking the heirloom the net result is the sum of both the pendant and the found gold : )
I looked but I don't think it's possible what you say.

We are both correct: The actual party gold is increased by the second amount (found valuables in the room) but the "Stolen gold" info of the robbery displays the sum.

[Party gold 2615]
[Stolen gold 0]
[..]
[Pendant with a worth of 164 gold]
[..]
[selection] Leave the pendant but serach the room
[..]
[box] You got 154 gold coins.
[Stolen gold 318 (= 164+154)]
[Party gold 2769 (= 2615+154)]

And while trying to find the pendant room (the Random Number God* _hates_ me):
New bug! New bug! If the watch dogs get the party when using the backdoor and one chooses to flee the robbery is not ended.

jack1974 wrote:As for the XP this morning with fresh mind I finally found the issue: what you see before the battle is the TOTAL XP AMOUNT of the encounter. Then, on the post-battle screen, it gets divided by the party members (which in this game will almost always be 3).

I knew this. You should ask people actually playing the game about details : P

jack1974 wrote:Current version will still give much more XP than intended even if not an insane amount like before

The pacing was imo nearly perfect - my last two play-throughs (after the first one mostly used for fooling around) ended with the needed 50k very near the recommended endgame party level (on normal, after lvl 4/5 I robbed only nobles and sold _lots_ of gems.

*) I am curious and have two RNG questions:
- What's the chance for a near-miss with halved damage? I don't have hard data but missing seems to be more often than criticals with a chance of 30+% (but this could be biased, negative experiences are more memorable than positive ones)
- The help says that exploring has a "small chance to get into trouble". I explored and robbed many many houses and never got into trouble. Can this actually happen or was I simply lucky?

--------------------------------------
eta

WinterWolves Games wrote:reached that point of development when I am like "come on stop finding bugs, I just want to release the damn thing soon!" #gamedev

haha. I already keep wondering why my forum account is not blocked.

Posted: **Mon Aug 29, 2016 10:12 am**

myoksy wrote:We are both correct: The actual party gold is increased by the second amount (found valuables in the room) but the "Stolen gold" info of the robbery displays the sum.

Ah yes because I stupidly do the total money stolen calculation in the same function I use to generate the random amount. Will need to change some stuff, this could have also happened in other scenes (not sure if / how many though).

myoksy wrote:The pacing was imo nearly perfect - my last two play-throughs (after the first one mostly used for fooling around) ended with the needed 50k very near the recommended endgame party level (on normal, after lvl 4/5 I robbed only nobles and sold _lots_ of gems.

Wait so you mean that the CURRENT XP amount reward is better than before? I could increase it a bit then... (the one I am testing now is the same of the 0.8.0 version).

myoksy wrote:- What's the chance for a near-miss with halved damage? I don't have hard data but missing seems to be more often than criticals with a chance of 30+% (but this could be biased, negative experiences are more memorable than positive ones)

If I understand correctly your question, the percentage is the one displayed below the damage preview, so 81% means has 81% of chances to hit.
Criticals you mean the critical hit stat? that is compared to the target's speed to determine the number above.
the formula is:

Code: Select all

round(75-pTarget.getValue("Speed")+self.user.getValue("Critical Hit")*100.0) <= RndInt(0,100)

so if target's speed and attacker critical hit are the same, the chances are 75% (the Critical Hit is multiplied by 100 because how it's used internally but the result is a round number).

myoksy wrote:- The help says that exploring has a "small chance to get into trouble". I explored and robbed many many houses and never got into trouble. Can this actually happen or was I simply lucky?

Ah no, I wrote that but I never implemented it, because it was too much of a pain. The only way you get into trouble is with pickpocketing. So yes need to change that text

thanks

Posted: **Mon Aug 29, 2016 10:18 am**

Maybe I understand, you asked the critical hit formula? is this one:

Code: Select all

        def crit(self, pHand):
            base = 100 ##self.getValue(self.charClass.cStat)
            #base /= 100.0
            mod = self.getValue("Critical Hit", pHand)
            if base*mod >= renpy.random.randint(1,200):
                return True
            return False

since the Critical Hit is stored as float number, I used base=100 * value. So in practice I think you could be right and the chances are halved, however I think as it is now works fine, increasing that chance would make the game a lot more random (since enemies can do criticals too). I'll check but maybe change the values displayed in the character screen to match the existing formula, definitely don't want to change this now!

computer games forum

Queen Of Thieves beta 0.8.7

Re: Queen Of Thieves beta 0.8.2

Re: Queen Of Thieves beta 0.8.2

Re: Queen Of Thieves beta 0.8.2

Re: Queen Of Thieves beta 0.8.3

Re: Queen Of Thieves beta 0.8.3

Re: Queen Of Thieves beta 0.8.3

Re: Queen Of Thieves beta 0.8.3

Re: Queen Of Thieves beta 0.8.3

Re: Queen Of Thieves beta 0.8.3

Re: Queen Of Thieves beta 0.8.3