Re: Just noticed that you added a #def for triple damage

[Jeffrey Hantin <jhantin@derringer.net>]

Admittedly, without the damage tripling, the cones are a good deal 
weaker.  However, this thread was a followup to Cater's message 
recommending that cones be de-powered, and in part was a suggestion of 
an alternate means of reducing their punch, while picking up 
performance on the side.

However, with the damage tripling, they are still about the same 
strength.  To get equivalent strength out of a triple-cone, however, 
just back up a space or two, you'll waste maybe 2-4 of the cone's hp, 
no big deal (except for holy word).  Also, a triple-cone blown through 
a hole emerges uniformly triple strength.

I've been running with the weakened cones for quite some time now, and 
this hasn't really gotten more than some minor grumbling from my 
players (or from me about my own characters).  Holy word is the only 
cone spell that seems underpowered at this point, the level 1 
elemental cones being covered for by the level 1 ball and level 2-3 
bolt spells.   Besides, it seems to me that since a bolt is a narrow 
beam, and costs about twice what a cone does sp-wise (at least at low 
level), it should be simply devastating relative to a cone.  Maybe 
holy word needs a bdur/bdam boost, or holy orb needs its level 
dropped, or maybe we need holy bolt?

As for modifying the cone patch to exhibit that intensity variation: 
okay, I guess I could manage that, but I might have to tear apart 
ok_to_put_more() and use an extra variable in the cone objects.

> But that has the effect of making the edges of the cone as strong
> as the center....

> So either the cones are a lot weaker, or significantly stronger,
> under your proposed patches.

> Also, there is this effect:  objects in the center will get
> hit 3 times, causing a peaked statistical distribution of damage,
> rather than once, causing a flat distribution of damage.

> I agree that using a single object is better:  can you modify
> your patch so that it'll do the "cone-is-weaker-at-the-edge" thing?

> PeterM

> > > Another play balance issue. We have found NO_CONE_PROPAGATE to even up
> > the game
> > > a lot.
> >
> > > Should this be the default behaviour? Has anyone else tried using this
> > option
> > > recently?
> >
> > I think that's not the real problem with cones though.  Cones are
> > currently hyper-powered because a cone spell in fact fires three
> > overlapping cones, one from each initial square, due to some odd
> > behavior in cast_cone(), which also causes cones in flight to chew up
> > 3 times as many active objects as necessary (which can make a server
> > drag if you're being spammed by a mob of skulls or the like).
> >
> > John, you might want to try the attached patch and remove
> > NO_CONE_PROPAGATE.  It removes this triple overlapping behavior, and
> > depending on whether you #define BALANCE_CONES, either leaves the net
> > damage as before (by tripling the damage from each cone cell), or cuts
> > it to 1/3 (by leaving the damage numbers alone).
> >
> > Any comments, questions, flames, lightning bolts, or other feedback?
> > :-)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To submit a bug: http://bugzilla.real-time.com
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
rte-crossfire-unsubscribe@listserv.real-time.com
> > For additional commands, e-mail: 
rte-crossfire-help@listserv.real-time.com
> >

> ------- End of Forwarded Message


> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To submit a bug: http://bugzilla.real-time.com
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
rte-crossfire-unsubscribe@listserv.real-time.com
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
rte-crossfire-help@listserv.real-time.com