Add damage to ability descriptions #3738
Open
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
For the following abilities:
Makhleb's minor destruction and major destruction are too random to describe in a simple formula in any meaningful way, except potentially we could make it state the average damage in the future. The same applies to Nemelex' cards.
In many cases, abstract the power and damage formulae for these abilities to ensure the output damage is the same as listed. This often involves listing the rounded-down damage formula, where abilities use div_rand_round on skill/XL.
There are many more abilities that it would be nice to quantify in their descriptions based on the player's current skill but don't fit neatly into the damage category. It would also be nice to list ability noise, and damage at max skill, but since abilities often don't have a clearly defined power-cap and noise is often dealt with elsewhere, this is challenging.
Nonetheless, this will hopefully be useful in allowing players to see how their skill/XL affects damage output. Players should remember that there are usually no actual breakpoints and that the damage listed has usually been rounded down.
I have checked that this all seems to be working correctly.