Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
There is always a trade-off between an absolute minimum resource usage, and flexibility. One number vs. two numbers, even in 1999, wasn't a big deal performance wise. The problem with your idea of a single 1-100 number is you cannot give individual percentages to stun AND interrupt chance. This is because the numbers are tied together. If you have a 30% stun chance, you can NOT have greater than a 70% interrupt chance.
From a game design perspective, it is better to take the very slight performance hit, and keep the two chances separate. This allows greater flexibility for balance tweaking. Overall, this is a better design pattern too, because you can keep the stun function generic. This means a stun from bash and a stun from spells can share the same stun function. Having a specially designed stun function for bash, and a specially designed stun function for spells, is harder to maintain.
From a pure programming perspective, the logic I described is a more common design pattern.
From a pure story perspective, this makes sense too. If an ogre is tough enough to brush off a blow that would otherwise stun a normal human being, it would make sense that they are less likely to be interrupted while casting a spell. The idea is they are less affected by heavy blows.
|
They would still be less affected because instead of getting stunned they only have the spell interrupted, at which point they can immediately start casting again. As far as "server performance", you generally want to optimize the system however it currently works. If eventually they want to change the system, it will be easy enough to simply change the code.