ap0 wrote: http://openmw.org/wiki/index.php?title=Formulae
I've created an article in the wiki, with a lot of formulae.
Someone else know any other ?
Star-Demon wrote:A lot of them can be found on elder scrolls wiki, Although there are a LOT of mechanics, and since luck plays into all of them, I'm not sure.ap0 wrote:http://openmw.org/wiki/index.php?title=Formulae
I've created an article in the wiki, with a lot of formulae.
Someone else know any other ?
many mechanics are at a base level in the engine, such as spell cost, lava damage, time versus distance traveled, and so on.
What I suggest is that each section be divided into two: the top section explains briefly the formulae and nuts and bolts of a mechanic, and the other is what OpenMW will use. That way the discussion pages will be used for new ideas to improve mechanics (like magic, regen and HP.)
We should start at high level, then fill it in. There's a lot of crunching going on.
Today I'm starting on wiki stuff, so maybe I'll look at what you got and then get that in today.
Okay. lemme take a look, here...I got my coffee, I got donuts, I'm ready to roll, today.
Star-Demon wrote: I filled it in with some structure, I'm still new to wiki, so I'm just kinda structuring it and learning as I look at existing stuff. http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Morrowind:Morrowind has lots of stuff, we can just cite it for now and copy, then explain it ourselves.
Zini wrote:I don't think we should implement alternative formulas in OpenMW. What we should do (past 1.0) is make them configurable. Changing formulas to improve gameplay would then fall into the area of content development (which is out of scope for the OpenMW project).What I suggest is that each section be divided into two: the top section explains briefly the formulae and nuts and bolts of a mechanic, and the other is what OpenMW will use
ap0 wrote: The goal of OpenMw is to completely reimplement Morrowind, not to improve his mechanics.
Improvements will happen after the 1.0 version.
edit : Err, doubled by Zini !
Star-Demon wrote:hehe This is being discussed in a couple of places, yeah. More or less I agree on that, which is why I'm not making a big deal out of it, if you look at the article now. I included the section at the bottom because some mechanics are simply missing or did not work correctly.Zini wrote:I don't think we should implement alternative formulas in OpenMW. What we should do (past 1.0) is make them configurable. Changing formulas to improve gameplay would then fall into the area of content development (which is out of scope for the OpenMW project).What I suggest is that each section be divided into two: the top section explains briefly the formulae and nuts and bolts of a mechanic, and the other is what OpenMW will use
Petrell wrote:What about extending engine capability when possible and otherwise removing (or rather not implementing) limitations pre 1.0? I've read that MW engine has quite a lot of those (animations in paticular come to mind).ap0 wrote:The goal of OpenMw is to completely reimplement Morrowind, not to improve his mechanics.
Improvements will happen after the 1.0 version.
Also what is project stance on MW engine bugs? Will you be 'reimplementing' them just because MW engine worked that way? (The Morrowind Code Patch project comes to mind here)
nicolay wrote: No I personally don't think we will or should reimplement bugs, unless there's a specific reason to do so (eg. removing it breaks something else that is important.)
OTOH, some limitations might be natural to keep (for now) if that is the easiest way to implement things. Then we can work on removing them later.
I guess we'll have to figure this out on a case-by-case basis, but in principle there's no reason to actively reimplement bugs, no
nicolay wrote:Forgot to say this, but great work. BTW do you think you could link it from somewhere else in the wiki, preferably somewhere on the front page? Orphan pages tend to get lost and forgotten after a while.ap0 wrote:http://openmw.org/wiki/index.php?title=Formulae
I've created an article in the wiki, with a lot of formulae.
Someone else know any other ?
ap0 wrote: It's linked to the "Developer Resources".
Do you think it should be on the front page ?
nicolay wrote: Ah, on the Tools and Documents page, didn't look there. I guess that's a suitable place to link it from.
sir_herrbatka wrote: Hey, ap0! Can you add alchemy?
Code: Select all
Duration = [(Alchemy + [(Inteligence + Luck) / 10]) / Cost] * quality
The quality of mortar.
The cost is related to basic cost of effect. I have full list of it.
The power is = duration/3
Alembic reduces the time of negative effects:
Duration with alembic=Duration without alembic/(1+quality of alembic)
and also power of negative effects.
Duration (with alembic)/3
No info how the rest of stuff works but probably pretty much the same way.
ap0 wrote: done.
but, it's a wiki : you can edit it by yourself
Star-Demon wrote: I was going to make mention of this later, since we're just throwing thing up there to get it filled, but we should really standardize the way all these expressions are made. A lot of them have intermediary steps that aren't intelligible. z, x, y may be arbitrary intermediate values for later calculations, but they really should have a name that means something, and all of the expressions should be written the same way. Preferably in C++, with meaningful names.
sir_herrbatka wrote: thx!
Yes, but I don't want to create another account.but, it's a wiki : you can edit it by yourself
BTW: this formula was found on a website and I didn't test it. I shall do it, coz Lucky seems to be to important... This shouldn't be to hard to check... tomorrow.
Good night
Star-Demon wrote:Wiki account works off your Forum account.sir_herrbatka wrote:thx!
Yes, but I don't want to create another account.but, it's a wiki : you can edit it by yourself
BTW: this formula was found on a website and I didn't test it. I shall do it, coz Lucky seems to be to important... This shouldn't be to hard to check... tomorrow.
Good night
pogzy wrote: Hi,
I change the layout of the front page, could be better but the idea is here, two columns eanbles us to put more things in the home page.
sir_herrbatka wrote: I can't log in wiki. Cookies problem. Anyway: this formula is correct. I've just tested it.
PShmmm... Chest armor gives 40% of total AP, I think that it gets 40% of blows. Hands, legs, head etc. gets 10% of hits each one.Bodypart Hit Chance
And how to check speed movement?
BTW: MW seems to treat npcs and PC in diffrent manner. I even tried to create 1 point levitate on touch spell as a ultimate slow down but it didn't work
EDITChance to cast according to ElderScroller (The value for CastPenalty can be accessed with the function GetCastPenalty). I think that it's right.Code: Select all
% Chance of Successful Spell Cast: (Spell'sSkill * 2 + Willpower / 5 + Luck / 10 - SpellCost + CastPenalty) * (CurrentFatigue + MaximumFatigue * 1.5) / (MaximumFatigue * 2)
EDIT
Wiki hates me and don't want to let me in
sir_herrbatka wrote: I see that we are making progress! As Zini suggested I added section about PC dynamic stats with HP and magic formula. I will try to test fatigue, coz Ivan already added armor rating.
Edit:
Ivan added fatigue. Bastard.