Re: Evaluation of item activations (long, spoily)

On Feb 26, 9:55 am, "Magnate" <n...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<eddiegr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote

I think this whole attempt is misguided.  I'm opposed to the whole
idea of calculating power values and then trying to match them.  Just
set up some rules that each flag or flag group has some probability of

.... but how will we choose these probabilities if not by deciding how
desirable the abilities are?

There are plenty of ways, and the particular choice doesn't matter
much. I don't see the point thinking about specifics if there isn't
any will to do it my way, so I haven't bothered.

occurring on a randart in a particular slot at a particular depth
[increasing with depth] and some rules for how many randarts are
likely at each depth, and generate away.

Surely you agree that there needs to be some distinction between abilities?

Sure. That's not hard in principle or practice.

If you agree that there is to be a distinction, on what basis do we
distinguish? Surely you accept the principle that the rarer abilities are
"worth" more - or conversely that abilities which are more
desirable/important should be rarer (as is the generally case with the
standard artifact set). If not that, how else do you distinguish between
abilities and generate useful/sensible randarts?

You divide the flags [and sets of flags like rBase] into groups, and
put IID likelihoods on each flag in a group. You experiment, and if
something is coming up too often you move it to a rarer group. Lather
rinse repeat.

I'm quite happy to be criticised for calculating power in the wrong way, but
I'm surprised that you think the whole idea is misguided. It's based on
evidence that the ratings debated and agreed in 2001 have clearly not stood
the test of time. Do you really think it's a better idea to use arbitrary
values and have annual debates about how desirable each ability is?

Is it better to have annual debates about the power rankings for
artifacts? I think the whole idea of additive power rankings is so
absurd that I don't even get into the discussions. Actually, I don't
even see the point of a separate class of objects we call artifacts.
I don't see the point of limited choices of egos. There should be
item generation creating items with flags. I think a uniform global
solution would be preferable to the current system. I don't think
anyone is ready for that now, and I'm not pushing for it, but it
certainly guides my viewpoint on related issues.

I think a clean break with power rankings would clear the path to a
better solution, even if I don't currently know what that solution
would look like.

I think your presumption that the standard artifacts are well-balanced
is incorrect. I also think that in a time of great change, there is
no point in trying to make a particular subsystem [artifacts] try to
mimic the past. 3.1 is too easy right now. If the artifact system
changed to be less powerful, that might be a good thing. Or maybe
they should be more powerful, and something else should change. Now
is a good time to address big issues, and wait until things settle
before worrying about setting parameters to optimize play balance.

Apologies if I've completely misunderstood your post.

I think you understood just fine.


Eddie
.

Relevant Pages
Loading