Saturday, 12 May 2012
Thursday, 10 May 2012
The older the fiddler, the sweeter the tune
And today the fiddler is a year older, although still only a young forty which is no age at all compared to the Sunland Baobab or Prometheus.
Here is a self-portrait to mark the day.
Here is a self-portrait to mark the day.
Tuesday, 1 May 2012
Word clouds
Since October last year I've been doing an interdisciplinary (politics and economics) course with the Open University. Tonight I submitted the last essay for the ongoing assessment, below is the word cloud for that essay.
The two stand-out words for me were 'et' and 'al', it looks like I quoted multiple-author works a lot.
I wonder if it is possible to string together any cohesive story or argument using each of the words in the cloud just once.
The two stand-out words for me were 'et' and 'al', it looks like I quoted multiple-author works a lot.
I wonder if it is possible to string together any cohesive story or argument using each of the words in the cloud just once.
Monday, 30 April 2012
"D" - animated short film
An unusual and very creative take on the horror genre, this short film is set in a study on a dark, stormy night.
"D"
Highly recommended!
"D"
Highly recommended!
Thursday, 26 April 2012
1d10 design mistakes in DnD 4e - Damage calculations
Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition uses a fairly simple system for determining combat outcomes. A 20-sided dice roll determines if an attack is a miss, a hit or a critical hit. For a hit, damage is then rolled using various dice depending on your weapon and for a crit you always do maximum damage.
As combat is often a key dramatic part of game play, player enjoyment may be deeply linked to how combat results play out. It is therefore unfortunate that the game system has a number of design mistakes.
1) The less powerful your weapon, the more likely you will match 'critical' damage on a regular hit.
For example, with a dagger a critical hit can not be distinguished from a regular hit in 25% of all cases. This undermines the dramatic effect of critical hits.
This could have been addressed by placing critical damage outside the range of normal hits or by adding additional effects. Some efforts have been made towards that goal by giving extra effects through feats, powers or magical weapons but at low levels the reaction to a crit may often be 'meh, whatever'.
2) The higher the level of power you are using, the stronger your damage will trend towards the average.
This is quite silly as it slows down game play while players tally ever increasing number of dice rolls while at the same time making it less dramatic by making most outcomes fall in a small expected range.
At level 1, a character might roll 1D12 for damage and see maximum damage in 8% of cases - it is a completely flat distribution. At level 9, the same character rolls 3D12 and sees the maximum results in only 0.06% of cases (1 out of 1728)! Thus it is more than two orders of magnitude less likely that you will see the most powerful outcome.
More after the break.
As combat is often a key dramatic part of game play, player enjoyment may be deeply linked to how combat results play out. It is therefore unfortunate that the game system has a number of design mistakes.
1) The less powerful your weapon, the more likely you will match 'critical' damage on a regular hit.
For example, with a dagger a critical hit can not be distinguished from a regular hit in 25% of all cases. This undermines the dramatic effect of critical hits.
This could have been addressed by placing critical damage outside the range of normal hits or by adding additional effects. Some efforts have been made towards that goal by giving extra effects through feats, powers or magical weapons but at low levels the reaction to a crit may often be 'meh, whatever'.
2) The higher the level of power you are using, the stronger your damage will trend towards the average.
This is quite silly as it slows down game play while players tally ever increasing number of dice rolls while at the same time making it less dramatic by making most outcomes fall in a small expected range.
At level 1, a character might roll 1D12 for damage and see maximum damage in 8% of cases - it is a completely flat distribution. At level 9, the same character rolls 3D12 and sees the maximum results in only 0.06% of cases (1 out of 1728)! Thus it is more than two orders of magnitude less likely that you will see the most powerful outcome.
 |
| As your powers increase, you will become average. |
Tuesday, 24 April 2012
1d10 design mistakes in DnD 4e - Magical ammunition
If presented with the choice between shooting at a target with magical arrows or mundane arrows, which would you prefer?
Most people would of course prefer the magical arrow, assuming that it would bring some benefit such as greater accuracy or more severe wounds. This is based on a long tradition of fantasy literature with magical swords and such granting advantages to their owners.
However, in Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition it appears that the designers decided that the risk of players gaining advantage from ammunition was just too great and they ruled that if a magical arrow is fired from a magical bow, then the properties of both can not apply.
This leads to the perverse situation that a character may lose a significant part of their ability to deal damage by using better arrows!
Using a paragon-level ranger as an example, consider the case of using the Twin Strike power ten times with a +3 bow and mundane arrows against a target where the ranger has 75% chance to hit. Each Twin Strike involves firing two arrows, so a total of 20 arrows are used and 15 are expected to hit. Each hit does an average of 12 damage, for a total of 180 damage.
Now switch to +1 arrows with some added property that makes them desirable to use. In order to enable that property, the ranger must calculate the attacks using the +1 bonus of the arrows and can not use the +3 bonus of the bow. This drops the hit chance to 65% and the average damage to 10 points, resulting in only 13 hits and 130 damage.
Thus the magical arrows do only 72% of the damage that the mundane arrows would do. It also understates the damage lost somewhat as using the properties of the arrow also involves giving up the effect on critical hit that most weapons have. This is counter-intuitive, using better (and highly expensive) ammunition should never result in a worse outcome.
I'll look at how this probably came to be and how it could have been done after the break.
Most people would of course prefer the magical arrow, assuming that it would bring some benefit such as greater accuracy or more severe wounds. This is based on a long tradition of fantasy literature with magical swords and such granting advantages to their owners.
However, in Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition it appears that the designers decided that the risk of players gaining advantage from ammunition was just too great and they ruled that if a magical arrow is fired from a magical bow, then the properties of both can not apply.
This leads to the perverse situation that a character may lose a significant part of their ability to deal damage by using better arrows!
Using a paragon-level ranger as an example, consider the case of using the Twin Strike power ten times with a +3 bow and mundane arrows against a target where the ranger has 75% chance to hit. Each Twin Strike involves firing two arrows, so a total of 20 arrows are used and 15 are expected to hit. Each hit does an average of 12 damage, for a total of 180 damage.
Now switch to +1 arrows with some added property that makes them desirable to use. In order to enable that property, the ranger must calculate the attacks using the +1 bonus of the arrows and can not use the +3 bonus of the bow. This drops the hit chance to 65% and the average damage to 10 points, resulting in only 13 hits and 130 damage.
Thus the magical arrows do only 72% of the damage that the mundane arrows would do. It also understates the damage lost somewhat as using the properties of the arrow also involves giving up the effect on critical hit that most weapons have. This is counter-intuitive, using better (and highly expensive) ammunition should never result in a worse outcome.
I'll look at how this probably came to be and how it could have been done after the break.
Small World Underground
The original Small World is a fast-playing strategy game for up to 5 players who take turns commanding quirky races conquering provinces on a map which quickly becomes crowded.
The mechanics ensure that each race reaches the limit of their ability to expand in about three turns, encouraging players to place the race into decline and move on to another race. This results in waves of expansion which are more dynamic than a typical 'province control' game where players gradually accumulate ever larger stacks of counters (such as RISK).
The Underground sequel introduces a number of new game elements, adding a certain amount of complexity and uncertainty to the gameplay.
Relics are powerful magical items that provide new powers. The relics move to wherever they are used and therefore usually end up on the frontlines where they are exposed to counterattack and seizure by other players. For example a magical rug (shown in image below) allows your force to fly anywhere on the map, giving you the option of a surprise attack behind the front lines but then leaves the rug in that spot.
Places are stationary sources of additional income or abilities, such as a deep mine providing extra income or a keep providing defences and income (shown in picture below). They often become the focus for savage battles between the races as successive waves of invaders try to seize them for advantage.
While it could be argued that relics and places are too central to winning and therefore detract from what was a more balanced, free-for-all approach in the original game I would counter that there is a valid winning strategy in avoiding relics and places altogether. Maintaining a low profile and staying out of bloody wars can boost income as much or more than holding a mine for a short time.
Similar to the original Small World game, each race is randomly matched with a power. As these combinations vary each time you play the game will remain fresh for longer, throwing up new twists that change how each race plays and adds a degree of strategic choice about when to activate a specific race. Some powers encourage cannibalisation of your declined race while others may provide income when other players attack you. They may also give specific advantages linked to terrain, not having neighbours of another race and so on. This provides a strong influence on tactics.
The map has a dark colour theme, well suited to the underground realms it seeks to depict. A major feature is the river which divides the map, providing either an obstacle to expansion or a highway for rapid conquest depending on which race you control.
The game ships with multiple maps, each adapted to suit a certain number of players. This is a very welcome addition that should be adopted by other game makers.
Because of the way the river splits the board it could cause the game to split into two separate battlefields, however if the aquatic Kraken and Lizardmen come into play or if the rug or pipes are in play then this counteracts this tendency. Any race with the Quarrelling attribute may also find the river useful as a way of quickly expanding into pockets of occupation to maximise their income.
Counters are of good quality with distinctive graphics, using colours, icons and illustrations to allow easy identification. They are also sufficiently thick to make it easy to pick them up. Reverse side is used for when the race is in decline.
Game play is fast, with the situation on the board changing rapidly with each player turn. The objective is to accumulate victory coins which are rewarded primarily from province control exerted both by the active race and the race in decline for each player at the end of his or her turn. Coins are kept face down, making it difficult to track the exact position of each player and victory thus remains uncertain until the very last turn and counting of coins.
The game ends when the turn marker has reached the last position (nine turns for a 5-player game) so typically each player will control three races, two of which will have been put into decline.
Overall this is an excellent game for a small group and I would definitely recommend checking it out.
These photographs are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
The mechanics ensure that each race reaches the limit of their ability to expand in about three turns, encouraging players to place the race into decline and move on to another race. This results in waves of expansion which are more dynamic than a typical 'province control' game where players gradually accumulate ever larger stacks of counters (such as RISK).
The Underground sequel introduces a number of new game elements, adding a certain amount of complexity and uncertainty to the gameplay.
Relics are powerful magical items that provide new powers. The relics move to wherever they are used and therefore usually end up on the frontlines where they are exposed to counterattack and seizure by other players. For example a magical rug (shown in image below) allows your force to fly anywhere on the map, giving you the option of a surprise attack behind the front lines but then leaves the rug in that spot.
Places are stationary sources of additional income or abilities, such as a deep mine providing extra income or a keep providing defences and income (shown in picture below). They often become the focus for savage battles between the races as successive waves of invaders try to seize them for advantage.
While it could be argued that relics and places are too central to winning and therefore detract from what was a more balanced, free-for-all approach in the original game I would counter that there is a valid winning strategy in avoiding relics and places altogether. Maintaining a low profile and staying out of bloody wars can boost income as much or more than holding a mine for a short time.
Similar to the original Small World game, each race is randomly matched with a power. As these combinations vary each time you play the game will remain fresh for longer, throwing up new twists that change how each race plays and adds a degree of strategic choice about when to activate a specific race. Some powers encourage cannibalisation of your declined race while others may provide income when other players attack you. They may also give specific advantages linked to terrain, not having neighbours of another race and so on. This provides a strong influence on tactics.
The map has a dark colour theme, well suited to the underground realms it seeks to depict. A major feature is the river which divides the map, providing either an obstacle to expansion or a highway for rapid conquest depending on which race you control.
The game ships with multiple maps, each adapted to suit a certain number of players. This is a very welcome addition that should be adopted by other game makers.
Because of the way the river splits the board it could cause the game to split into two separate battlefields, however if the aquatic Kraken and Lizardmen come into play or if the rug or pipes are in play then this counteracts this tendency. Any race with the Quarrelling attribute may also find the river useful as a way of quickly expanding into pockets of occupation to maximise their income.
Counters are of good quality with distinctive graphics, using colours, icons and illustrations to allow easy identification. They are also sufficiently thick to make it easy to pick them up. Reverse side is used for when the race is in decline.
Game play is fast, with the situation on the board changing rapidly with each player turn. The objective is to accumulate victory coins which are rewarded primarily from province control exerted both by the active race and the race in decline for each player at the end of his or her turn. Coins are kept face down, making it difficult to track the exact position of each player and victory thus remains uncertain until the very last turn and counting of coins.
The game ends when the turn marker has reached the last position (nine turns for a 5-player game) so typically each player will control three races, two of which will have been put into decline.
Overall this is an excellent game for a small group and I would definitely recommend checking it out.
These photographs are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)