<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1276" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=502235713-27012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I
think that in general we want to stay away from "table lookup" in terms of
running the game activities (I don't thing it is a problem for character,
treasure or encounter generation).</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=502235713-27012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=502235713-27012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Combat
and skill use is much more streamlined if all you need do is roll the dice and
judge the results right there. when you add the table
lookup/cross-reference it interrupts the pace.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=502235713-27012004></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<P><FONT face="Courier New"
size=2>----------------------------------------</FONT> <BR><B><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Burton Choinski</FONT></B> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Principal Software
Engineer, Quality Engineering</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>email:
burton.choinski@matrixone.com</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>phone:</FONT> <FONT face=Arial color=#000000
size=2>978-589-4089</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>fax: </FONT> <FONT face=Arial color=#000000
size=2>978-589-5903</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>MatrixOne, Inc.</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>210 Littleton Rd.</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Westford, Ma
01886</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>www.matrixone.com</FONT> </P>
<P><I><FONT face=Arial size=2>The First in Intelligent Collaborative
Commerce</FONT></I> <BR><FONT face="Courier New"
size=2>----------------------------------------</FONT> </P>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Albert Sales
[mailto:drite_mi@YAHOO.COM]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, January 26, 2004 3:05
PM<BR><B>To:</B> POWERS-AND-PERILS@GEO.CITG.TUDELFT.NL<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re:
Skill resolution mechanics<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>I did a similar comparison before, myself. The table is close to an
arithmetic sequence on some parts, and exponential in others.</DIV>
<DIV> The solution is sound, but I see a slight twist.
Instead of making the skill more like combat/magic, why not make combat/magic
more like the skills. </DIV>
<DIV> Both systems use 5 levels of success, so they are already
parallel in that respect. The hardest dificulties should reflect the
exponential factor shown on the combat table for severe and deadly hits. (7%
for deadly and about 13% for severe iswhat I discovered, with an offset of -10
and +15, respectively from a base 10). The simple levels show as pretty
arithmetic. A single table CAN be used to reflect this for skills and combat,
and I have already worked on a lot of peicing together.</DIV>
<DIV> Magic is the factor that does not fall into this group
neatly, however it does fall in. The best 2 stages of magic are both success.
The next two are failure, and the worst is abysmal failure. A similar
exponential-arithmetic sequence comes close to fitting the magic table, after
using this consideration, but with a slightly different offset and base.</DIV>
<DIV> I tested an exponential table with my players, and they
liked it (a lot). They said it was easy to read and use (two said easier, but
I don't know if I agree with them). The key to a centralized table is finding
a good rate, base, and off-set. If anyone is interested, I can try to dig the
old tables out.<BR><BR><B><I>"Choinski, Burton"
<Burton.Choinski@MATRIXONE.COM></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">
<P><FONT size=2>I'm not sure if we want to use the combat table (or even a
combat-tableoid thing) unless it could be regularized in some
way.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>A while back I was doing some research on revamping the
table (if you plot out the effectiveness curves (actual % per line for each
level of success) in excel it looks real wierd). I found that in going
from some lines on the table to the next higher linn you actually LOST
effectiveness (i.e lose 1% of severe to get 1% of normal, etc). I had
figured out a regularized table of percentages that, while not as "smooth"
as the existing normal hit chance, it was more consistent. In this
case I actually figured out a power curve that fit the shield hit chance and
modeled from there.</FONT></P><BR><BR>
<P> </P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>