PDA

View Full Version : More thoughts on v4


Jungle_Boy
October 31, 2011, 23:26
I'm enjoying playing v4, it seems much tougher than V and while I may not like the change I think it is probably for the good, just means I run through characters even faster than before. I did find a couple small issues and had some thoughts on affix naming.

I learned a staff of slow monsters by slowing an invisible unknown monster. This bug was mentioned before and I thought it was fixed perhaps it's shown up again. Unfortunately I don't remember what version of v4 it was since it's on my other computer.

This is a very small issue but See Invisible still had a ? in the 'C'haracter scren for my new weapon even though I fought invisible monsters so the item obviously did not grant see invisible.

I got the "It glows!" message upon wielding an item that I already knew had the 'golden' affix.

I've noticed a couple items whose names are too long to fit in the equipment screen.

I've found it is possible to deduce that an item has another more valuable affix because the known affix does not show up in the name.

My suggestion on naming is this: any affix whose effects can be seen in the 'i'nventory screen should not be in the name. It could still be shown in the 'I'nspect screen though. This includes, number of die, number of sides, to-hit and to-dam modifiers, weight modifiers, and AC and light radius modifiers as well as stats. All this info is easily visible already and when you have it in the name you can end up with things like a Tough Cloak of Protection [1,-1] after a couple rounds with an acid hound. This looks bad and gives a disconnect between what the item name implies and actual properties. I think if something is going to be in the name it should be something that cannot be removed and it should be significant. a dagger that is (+0,+1) does not qualify as 'Sharp' in my book, it's just a dagger that has one less knick in the blade. If you want to have these modifiers still in the name make them only apply to boni of at least +5, that would also help reduce the number of names you need to come up with.

Another possible suggestion that could help with naming and too long names is to make the name only one affix rather than a prefix and a suffix. If you have affixes of equal power call it a dagger of slays or armor of resists.

Jungle_Boy
November 1, 2011, 01:15
One more thing I just found and it may be working as intended. It's possible to get a light with the 'of Brightness' affix twice and it does stack. In my current game I found a lantern in the Black market with radius 4 light and everburning!

Magnate
November 1, 2011, 01:34
One more thing I just found and it may be working as intended. It's possible to get a light with the 'of Brightness' affix twice and it does stack. In my current game I found a lantern in the Black market with radius 4 light and everburning!That is intended, but it's a little more common than it should be just at the moment ;-) (this is because we need a few more different affixes available on lights ...)

Thanks for your reports - there are a few issues remaining to be sorted out with pseudo-ID - it doesn't work too well with rune-based ID (but it's playable).

The one about learning effects on unseen monsters is intentional - you are assumed to be able to hear them slow down! (A bit silly I know, but that's what was decided at the time.)

Being able to deduce that a more valuable affix is on the item is also intentional. But there's still no magic bullet for naming items with more than two affixes - I'm still mulling this over. I think I'm the wrong person to make the final call on this, because I actually like the flavour of all the pointless names (the ones which tell you stuff you can see about dice etc.), and I also don't mind the name not telling me everything. Ho hum.

Jungle_Boy
November 1, 2011, 03:43
I think I'm the wrong person to make the final call on this, because I actually like the flavour of all the pointless names (the ones which tell you stuff you can see about dice etc.), and I also don't mind the name not telling me everything. Ho hum.

Yea, I don't mind the name not telling me everything and I don't really mind the names for bonuses that can be seen. My problem I think is the disconnect between the name and the capabilities of the item. For instance a sharp dagger of slaying sounds awesome but could be (+1,+2). IMO that is not a sharp dagger of slaying! Or a tough cloak of protection [1,+1], not really that tough or protecting to me.

If we are going to have a sharp dagger of slaying make it be like (+4,+6) or something. Something to be excited about not just a one or two point improvement.

Magnate
November 1, 2011, 09:24
Yea, I don't mind the name not telling me everything and I don't really mind the names for bonuses that can be seen. My problem I think is the disconnect between the name and the capabilities of the item. For instance a sharp dagger of slaying sounds awesome but could be (+1,+2). IMO that is not a sharp dagger of slaying! Or a tough cloak of protection [1,+1], not really that tough or protecting to me.

If we are going to have a sharp dagger of slaying make it be like (+4,+6) or something. Something to be excited about not just a one or two point improvement.Fair enough - so what names would you want for one or two point improvements?

buzzkill
November 1, 2011, 11:12
fair enough - so what names would you want for one or two point improvements?

" "

Nomad
November 1, 2011, 12:07
Yeah, I think affix names on items that only have minor plusses to hit, dam or AC are kind of distracting and meaningless. For instance, you can have "Tough Gloves of Protection [1, +2]", which are the same as "Tough Gloves [1, +2]", and "Gloves of Protection [1, +2]" - all of which can potentially lose their enchantment and end up indistinguishable from "Gloves [1,+0]" yet still keep the names.

fizzix
November 1, 2011, 14:25
Yeah, I think affix names on items that only have minor plusses to hit, dam or AC are kind of distracting and meaningless. For instance, you can have "Tough Gloves of Protection [1, +2]", which are the same as "Tough Gloves [1, +2]", and "Gloves of Protection [1, +2]" - all of which can potentially lose their enchantment and end up indistinguishable from "Gloves [1,+0]" yet still keep the names.

This goes to an idea that Magnate and I had separately to distinguish between magical bonuses and craftsmanship bonuses. The idea would be that there is a difference between tough gloves which is a bonus due to good craftwork and gloves of protection which are enchanted.

Let's say that you had tough gloves of protection that were [1, +2, +2] where the first +2 was craftwork and the second was enchantment. If you were to get hit by acid monsters they could change the glove to [1, -1, +2] but make it no worse. Similarly, if you were to hit a disenchantment monster he could make your gloves [1, +2, +0] but no worse.

In the acid case, the equipment name should probably change to 'damaged'. In the enchantment case, it should lose the affix.

Then if you wanted to you could bring back restore item scrolls. These would repair only acid-damage. Enchantment scrolls would work no differently than now, except that they could add the 'protection' affix if appropriate.

As for renaming, the craftwork titles are fine. The enchantment titles should go something like Magical (+1-+5) Enchanted (+5-+10), Protection (>+10) with similar ideas for weapons.

Nomad
November 1, 2011, 16:22
Let's say that you had tough gloves of protection that were [1, +2, +2] where the first +2 was craftwork and the second was enchantment. If you were to get hit by acid monsters they could change the glove to [1, -1, +2] but make it no worse. Similarly, if you were to hit a disenchantment monster he could make your gloves [1, +2, +0] but no worse.

That seems a little unnecessarily over-complicated to me. Wouldn't it be simpler just to have the craftwork bonuses increase base AC? Distinguish "Tough Gloves [3,+0]" from "Gloves of Protection [1,+2]".

Derakon
November 1, 2011, 16:55
That seems a little unnecessarily over-complicated to me. Wouldn't it be simpler just to have the craftwork bonuses increase base AC? Distinguish "Tough Gloves [3,+0]" from "Gloves of Protection [1,+2]".

That works so long as acid then goes after the base AC value of the armor. Restoration scrolls could then take the item back to the base AC of a standard item of that type -- so your Tough Gloves [3] went to Damage Gloves [0] which get repaired to Gloves [1].

takkaria
November 1, 2011, 18:37
That works so long as acid then goes after the base AC value of the armor. Restoration scrolls could then take the item back to the base AC of a standard item of that type -- so your Tough Gloves [3] went to Damage Gloves [0] which get repaired to Gloves [1].

This is exactly what came up in the discussions around Repair Item before they went away again. Adjusting base AC++.

Magnate
November 1, 2011, 18:43
This is exactly what came up in the discussions around Repair Item before they went away again. Adjusting base AC++.Ok, happy to make quality prefixes affect base AC instead of +AC - that's easy enough. Making acid damage or disenchantment change the name is going to be hugely painful, but in principle I agree that the quality affix should change with acid damage, and the enchantment suffix (protection or whatever) should change with disen. It should be possible to combine that logic with whatever naming solution we end up choosing.

fizzix
November 1, 2011, 19:36
That seems a little unnecessarily over-complicated to me. Wouldn't it be simpler just to have the craftwork bonuses increase base AC? Distinguish "Tough Gloves [3,+0]" from "Gloves of Protection [1,+2]".

Yes, indeed. Things get a little fuzzier when you talk about craft/magical bonuses to weapons. The dice can't really handle to-hit changes.

takkaria
November 1, 2011, 23:47
Yes, indeed. Things get a little fuzzier when you talk about craft/magical bonuses to weapons. The dice can't really handle to-hit changes.

Can weapons really have a non-magical bonus to hit? Discuss. (3 marks)

Magnate
November 2, 2011, 00:02
Can weapons really have a non-magical bonus to hit? Discuss. (3 marks)I think so. There is precedent in other RPGs for non-magical weapon enhancement, from superior craftsmanship, being manifest in to-hit bonuses. One way to think of it is e.g. the sharpness of swords: a less sharp sword might glance off clothes/armour without wounding, where a sharper one will cut through and draw blood.

So I am not seeing +hit/+dam as purely magical (in the way that +AC is if we separate craftsmanship and magical along the base AC / +AC axis).

Derakon
November 2, 2011, 00:35
Alternately your default level of craftsmanship has imperfect balance, a slippery grip, etc. which results in the weapon being harder to use than a well-crafted one. That might not affect how hard you can strike but it could easily affect how easily you can hit your target.

sethos
November 2, 2011, 00:46
and the flip side means that an otherwise decent "Mixed bag" item, ex: broken sword of (Insert awesome affixes here) would become permanently nerfed, you can no longer "Enchant" it up to being as good as a non-broken sword.

I started this reply thinking that this was a bad thing...
but a "broken" sword SHOULD never be as good as a "mastercraft" sword.

I like it.

Magnate
November 2, 2011, 00:53
Hmmm. Would Restore Item restore a Broken sword to a normal (no affix) sword?

fizzix
November 2, 2011, 00:57
Can weapons really have a non-magical bonus to hit? Discuss. (3 marks)

The only argument I would make against it has to do with difficulty of displaying the information. Adding more +s and -s is a no-go with an already packed display.

However, we have something of an advantage in that to-hit values impart very little information to the end-user, where to-dam plusses clearly do. I think if this route is taken, we should strongly consider not displaying to-hit information on the main line and relegating it to the inspect screen.

Jungle_Boy
November 2, 2011, 01:11
" "

I agree with this, make affix names start at +3 or 4 bonuses.

ogozi4
November 8, 2011, 18:59
Yes, indeed. Things get a little fuzzier when you talk about craft/magical bonuses to weapons. The dice can't really handle to-hit changes.

They sure get really fuzzy! :D

Starhawk
November 8, 2011, 21:33
Can weapons really have a non-magical bonus to hit? Discuss. (3 marks)

There is plenty of precedent for this just in the various editions of D&D, where various non-magical bonuses to hit and damage were introduced. Sometimes this was because of craftsmanship (the "masterwork" quality) and other times because of the use of a special material (a mithril or adamantine weapon).

One could argue that some items in LOTR, such as Bilbo's coat of mail, were not strictly magical -- that they instead gave extra bonuses because of the manner and method of their construction and the material of which they were made. While Sting had an obvious enchantment, as did the various named magical swords such as Glamdring, I don't think your average dwarf-crafted platemail carried an enchantment in the way that we're used to thinking about such things.

Malak Darkhunter
November 23, 2011, 04:41
Item suffixes are interesting, one thing I noticed in the descriptions is what they can't be harmed by are sort of double posted, you have for instance:
it hates fire, acid, lightning etc...

and then again you have : It cannot be harmed by acid,fire, lightning,

it's sort of double described in the description.

Timo Pietilš
November 23, 2011, 08:29
Item suffixes are interesting, one thing I noticed in the descriptions is what they can't be harmed by are sort of double posted, you have for instance:
it hates fire, acid, lightning etc...

and then again you have : It cannot be harmed by acid,fire, lightning,

it's sort of double described in the description.

Doesn't "hates" mean it is harmed by corresponding element? Those are opposite of each other, not same twice?

flechette
November 23, 2011, 08:56
He's saying there are items that have 'hates fire' and 'cannot be destroyed by fire' on the same item. It needs to be one or the other, or they shouldn't be able to be on the same item...

Magnate
November 23, 2011, 09:38
He's saying there are items that have 'hates fire' and 'cannot be destroyed by fire' on the same item. It needs to be one or the other, or they shouldn't be able to be on the same item...Well, if the base object type (arrow) has HATES_FIRE, and yet the actual object (mithril arrow) has IGNORE_FIRE, then you do end up with both on the same item. This isn't a problem, providing that the description code knows how to handle it. Which it does, now. It no longer says "can be destroyed by fire" if the object has both flags, it just says "cannot be harmed by fire".

But what you're seeing is the runes, and both runes are still there. It's just that one of them is overridden by the other.

Nomad
November 23, 2011, 11:27
But what you're seeing is the runes, and both runes are still there. It's just that one of them is overridden by the other.

I think that overridden runes should be hidden too, so that you only see the best one an item has out of Immunity/Resists/Ignores/Hates. It's redundant information and the rune list already ends up epic enough on artefacts that have a ton of different properties.

Derakon
November 23, 2011, 17:10
But then you'd have extra knowledge if you saw e.g. some leather armor missing its usual hates-fire rune.

Magnate
November 23, 2011, 18:40
But then you'd have extra knowledge if you saw e.g. some leather armor missing its usual hates-fire rune.That - and some players would ask why some runes were shown but not others etc. This is one of those areas where it's not possible to please everyone.

takkaria
November 23, 2011, 18:42
But then you'd have extra knowledge if you saw e.g. some leather armor missing its usual hates-fire rune.

But does it even make sense for hates-fire to be a rune if it's a property of the material of the item? I don't see a rune on my wooden table that gives it the property of being usable to heat the room when my gas runs out.

fizzix
November 23, 2011, 22:01
But does it even make sense for hates-fire to be a rune if it's a property of the material of the item? I don't see a rune on my wooden table that gives it the property of being usable to heat the room when my gas runs out.

I think this goes back to the basics of obvious "runes" and hidden runes. It was one of the motivations for my proposal of splitting prefixes into make, material and quality. And making them all obvious. So an iron dagger is clearly iron on inspection. It doesn't need an iron rune and it should not have a rune for slay demon, since that is a property of the iron, not a magical enchantment.

This would be different to a weapon of slay demon, which looks like a normal weapon but has a magical slay demon property. This item would have a magical property that would not be known until you learn what the rune means.

Magnate
November 23, 2011, 22:48
I think this goes back to the basics of obvious "runes" and hidden runes. It was one of the motivations for my proposal of splitting prefixes into make, material and quality. And making them all obvious. So an iron dagger is clearly iron on inspection. It doesn't need an iron rune and it should not have a rune for slay demon, since that is a property of the iron, not a magical enchantment.

This would be different to a weapon of slay demon, which looks like a normal weapon but has a magical slay demon property. This item would have a magical property that would not be known until you learn what the rune means.I can see where you're coming from, but that's very painful to implement.

There are two separate axes here:

1. Not every object flag should be a rune. We already accommodate this - all the internal flags like SHOW_MODS and EASY_KNOW are not runes, so there's no problem with making HATES_FIRE not be a rune either, if people want to keep runes restricted to 'magical' stuff.

2. Some stuff should be obvious, other stuff shouldn't. This is much trickier, *especially* if you end up saying that the *same* flag should be obvious if it arrived on the item from one affix, and not obvious if it came from a different affix. It's not impossible, but it's heading towards a substantial rewrite of the ID code. But now I come to think of it, maybe that's what we need - it's a bit like the randart code - it's served us well, but it's really showing its age now, and is needing quite a lot of tweaking and massaging. Refactor mercilessly and all that.

So if we're going to do that, let's open up the discussion to what people want to see changed or improved about ID-by-use.

fizzix
November 24, 2011, 00:44
I can see where you're coming from, but that's very painful to implement.

There are two separate axes here:

1. Not every object flag should be a rune. We already accommodate this - all the internal flags like SHOW_MODS and EASY_KNOW are not runes, so there's no problem with making HATES_FIRE not be a rune either, if people want to keep runes restricted to 'magical' stuff.


I think I'm misunderstanding something. My proposal works as follows.

Some affixes should have a flag, let's call it "OBVIOUS," that automatically displays all characteristics on pickup (or sight, or detection?), and have no associated runes. In this case the affix "iron" should have the OBVIOUS flag and on sight you should know both that it is iron and that it slays demons. An iron sword does not have any runes associated with it. This may be already covered by EASY_KNOW and SHOW_MODS. I'm not well versed in their functionality. In my mind, all the affixes that fall under make, material, or quality should be OBVIOUS.

Other affixes that don't have the OBVIOUS flag, have associated runes, one per affix (?). For example, the affix "slay demon" is not obvious, so inspecting a weapon with "slay demon" would show you one unknown rune.

There's a bit of an annoyance with the case of an "iron sword of slay demon". In this case, there is an unknown rune, but it does not improve the weapon. The rune should probably be ID'd in the normal way.

Malak Darkhunter
November 24, 2011, 03:01
Just updated my character Titan on the ladder, found what seems to be a pretty powerful morningstar, but it's a little confusing to understand, reading it makes you think it grants either:

A: gives you resistance to the elements like a normal defender weapon or

B: gives you immunities to the elements, because it has the ignore properties on the item.

Not sure what to make of it.

Derakon
November 24, 2011, 03:22
Just updated my character Titan on the ladder, found what seems to be a pretty powerful morningstar, but it's a little confusing to understand, reading it makes you think it grants either:

A: gives you resistance to the elements like a normal defender weapon or

B: gives you immunities to the elements, because it has the ignore properties on the item.

Not sure what to make of it.It provides resistances and itself cannot be damaged by those elements. There should probably be an "It" in front of the "Cannot" in the "Cannot be harmed by acid, electricity, fire, cold." portion of the description; that should clear up the ambiguity.

Malak Darkhunter
November 24, 2011, 04:05
looking at my own dump file it is not giving the full discription, the full discription fills nearly a page, see if i can reproduce.

" this items known runes are: stealth, tunneling, extra blows, sustain charisma, acid resistance, electric resistance, fire resistance, cold resistance, feather falling, regeneration, see invisible, free action, ignore acid, ignore electricity, ignore fire, ignore cold, hates acid, hates fire.

+1 tunneling, attack speed
+2 stealth
provides resistance to acid, lightning, fire, cold
cannot be harmed by acid, electricity, fire, cold
sustain charisma
feather falling, speeds regeneration, prevents paralyzes, grants the ability to see invicible things."

you notice it clearly states resistance to the acid and fire, but it says hates acid and fire as well.

fizzix
November 24, 2011, 05:59
There should be a hierarchy.

hates < ignores < resists < provides immunity for.

In your case you have resist, so there should be no need to display ignores or hates.

Nomad
November 24, 2011, 11:36
There should be a hierarchy.

hates < ignores < resists < provides immunity for.

In your case you have resist, so there should be no need to display ignores or hates.

Yep, this is my view. If you learn it's got a better rune, that should replace the previous information.

Magnate
November 24, 2011, 12:35
I think I'm misunderstanding something. My proposal works as follows.

Some affixes should have a flag, let's call it "OBVIOUS," that automatically displays all characteristics on pickup (or sight, or detection?), and have no associated runes. In this case the affix "iron" should have the OBVIOUS flag and on sight you should know both that it is iron and that it slays demons. An iron sword does not have any runes associated with it. This may be already covered by EASY_KNOW and SHOW_MODS. I'm not well versed in their functionality. In my mind, all the affixes that fall under make, material, or quality should be OBVIOUS.

Other affixes that don't have the OBVIOUS flag, have associated runes, one per affix (?). For example, the affix "slay demon" is not obvious, so inspecting a weapon with "slay demon" would show you one unknown rune.

There's a bit of an annoyance with the case of an "iron sword of slay demon". In this case, there is an unknown rune, but it does not improve the weapon. The rune should probably be ID'd in the normal way.Ok, yes, I see the problem now. The fundamental concept behind rune-based ID is that an object property such as Slay Demon is represented by a rune. (That's not a good example because x2/3/5 slays all have different runes, but anyway.)

So, every item that gives Slay Demon(x2) will have the same rune on it. Doesn't matter whether it's iron or not.

If we don't do that, rune-based ID becomes kind of pointless, because whether or not a property has a rune will be kind of arbitrary - i.e. it will depend on the item's OBVIOUS properties, which are random.

So I don't think your suggested implementation of OBVIOUS is compatible with rune-based ID as it stands - unless we're all happy for all the runes of obvious affixes to be immediately known and displayed. I guess that's possible.There should be a hierarchy.

hates < ignores < resists < provides immunity for.

In your case you have resist, so there should be no need to display ignores or hates.This works fine when the item is fully known, but what about when it's unIDd? Do you show all the unknown runes and then have the ones lower in the hierarchy simply disappear on ID? Or do you not show them, and leak information?

IMO if we're going to stick with rune-based ID we need to accept that runes are visible things and find a way to deal with that in the 'I'nspect details. I really don't like the idea of hiding runes from the player, even if they're redundant runes.

Separately, I've now realised why I have a problem with takkaria's issue of hates fire being a physical property of the material not a magical property of the item. Let's take IGNORE_FIRE instead: sometimes it's a natural property of the material (i.e. mithril), and sometimes it's a magical property of the item (e.g. Defenders). It makes no sense to me that a given property would sometimes be a rune and sometimes not be, just as with iron/Slay Demon above.

Nomad
November 24, 2011, 13:00
Ok, yes, I see the problem now. The fundamental concept behind rune-based ID is that an object property such as Slay Demon is represented by a rune. (That's not a good example because x2/3/5 slays all have different runes, but anyway.)

So, every item that gives Slay Demon(x2) will have the same rune on it. Doesn't matter whether it's iron or not.

Yeah, the slay aspect of the iron and silver affixes bugs me for exactly this reason. The same property conveyed in two different ways with different names just seems untidy and counter intuitive to me. (And the way my semi-working ego naming system is set up, it would render it "an Iron <item> of Slay Demon" and pretty much pretend it was the same as an item with the Slay Demon rune in any case.)

I'd rather see the slay removed from silver and iron entirely, honestly, and have materials and makes only affect the combat bonuses on the weapons, never the flags. (Digging on Gnomish/Dwarven/Orcish weapons bugs me too.) For a start, it makes ego squelch less of a pain because you don't have to set squelch for multiple redundant versions of the same thing.

This works fine when the item is fully known, but what about when it's unIDd? Do you show all the unknown runes and then have the ones lower in the hierarchy simply disappear on ID? Or do you not show them, and leak information?

IMO if we're going to stick with rune-based ID we need to accept that runes are visible things and find a way to deal with that in the 'I'nspect details. I really don't like the idea of hiding runes from the player, even if they're redundant runes.

I can see your point, but the paragraph of known runes ends up huge, difficult to read and full of redundant information. Maybe Inspect should only list unknown runes, and known runes can just be covered by the descriptive text that follows? I mean, "Known runes: slay evil" followed by "It slays evil creatures." is pretty redundant already.

Magnate
November 24, 2011, 13:56
Yeah, the slay aspect of the iron and silver affixes bugs me for exactly this reason. The same property conveyed in two different ways with different names just seems untidy and counter intuitive to me. (And the way my semi-working ego naming system is set up, it would render it "an Iron <item> of Slay Demon" and pretty much pretend it was the same as an item with the Slay Demon rune in any case.)

I'd rather see the slay removed from silver and iron entirely, honestly, and have materials and makes only affect the combat bonuses on the weapons, never the flags. (Digging on Gnomish/Dwarven/Orcish weapons bugs me too.) For a start, it makes ego squelch less of a pain because you don't have to set squelch for multiple redundant versions of the same thing.I'm afraid I disagree with this. I don't think the design should be constrained by the implementation details. If we need to change implementation, I'm fine with that, but saying that makes and materials can never have slay flags would be very wrong IMO. I'm happy to continue looking for a solution to the runes issue that allows the properties of Iron to be obvious while magical demon-slaying isn't.I can see your point, but the paragraph of known runes ends up huge, difficult to read and full of redundant information. Maybe Inspect should only list unknown runes, and known runes can just be covered by the descriptive text that follows? I mean, "Known runes: slay evil" followed by "It slays evil creatures." is pretty redundant already.Yes, that's a good idea. Known runes can also be looked up in the knowledge menu, so 'I'nspect displays only unknown runes is the way to go.

Nomad
November 24, 2011, 16:15
I'm afraid I disagree with this. I don't think the design should be constrained by the implementation details. If we need to change implementation, I'm fine with that, but saying that makes and materials can never have slay flags would be very wrong IMO. I'm happy to continue looking for a solution to the runes issue that allows the properties of Iron to be obvious while magical demon-slaying isn't.

I suppose my issue is not so much that they have flags as that they duplicate existing flags redundantly. But I guess that's a philosophy of item flavours thing. I see introducing a property that is functionally identical to another property but under a different name as a bad thing; it's adding flavour for no reason other than to have more flavour, which is not something I personally like. My design instinct is to restrict flavours to something as close as possible to the Vanilla ego set, only adding new names when they're essential to communicate something that doesn't exist in V.

Which is not necessarily the guiding principle other people see for v4, so fair enough.

buzzkill
November 24, 2011, 16:30
I suppose my issue is not so much that they have flags as that they duplicate existing flags redundantly.

Well that's an aspect of randomly generated environment that you have to deal with, or restrict generation, so that redundancies never occur.

I think the correct solution is that physical properties are obvious and trump identical magical runes (so they need not be displayed), or have them stack... do they stack? An iron sword of slay demon > a sword or slay demon or a plain iron sword.

I hope I added something, but I fear I just repeated what had already been stated.

Nomad
November 24, 2011, 16:40
Well that's an aspect of randomly generated environment that you have to deal with, or restrict generation, so that redundancies never occur.

I think the correct solution is that physical properties are obvious and trump identical magical runes (so they need not be displayed), or have them stack... do they stack? An iron sword of slay demon > a sword or slay demon or a plain iron sword.

I suppose my view is that the random generator should not have two things it can generate that do the same thing in the first place. ;) There should be a "Slay Demon" affix that slays demons, or there should be an "Iron" affix that slays demons, but there shouldn't be both a "Slay Demon" and an "Iron" affix that do the same thing. That's like having a random ice-cream dispenser that can dispense both "chocolate" flavour and "choc-o-tastic" flavour but will still give you a scoop from the same ice-cream box regardless of which one it picks. One-to-one flavour labelling seems like a much better idea to me personally. Different names for different things, the same name always for the same thing.

buzzkill
November 24, 2011, 16:50
I suppose my view is that the random generator should not have two things it can generate that do the same thing in the first place. ;) There should be a "Slay Demon" affix that slays demons, or there should be an "Iron" affix that slays demons, but there shouldn't be both a "Slay Demon" and an "Iron" affix that do the same thing.

Then.. you either don't need physical properties or you don't need magical properties (probably physical). That's a big loss of flavor. Personally, I'd rather they stack (and replicate the old *super slay*). Chocolate ice cream in chocolate flavored cone with chocolate syrup on top > a scoop of chocolate ice cream in styrofoam cup with little plastic spoon.

Magnate
November 24, 2011, 16:59
Then.. you either don't need physical properties or you don't need magical properties (probably physical). That's a big loss of flavor. Personally, I'd rather they stack (and replicate the old *super slay*). Chocolate ice cream in chocolate flavored cone with chocolate syrup on top > a scoop of chocolate ice cream in styrofoam cup with little plastic spoon.I'm not sure if Nomad realises, but Slay Demon is x3 whereas Iron is only x2, so they're not exactly the same. I also don't see much point in having two affixes give identical properties under different names. But I do see the point in having some items give +1 STR while others give +6. In that case there's a single rune for "affects your strength", so maybe the key to this is to get on with moving slay multipliers to a pval ...

Nomad
November 24, 2011, 17:10
I'm not sure if Nomad realises, but Slay Demon is x3 whereas Iron is only x2, so they're not exactly the same. I also don't see much point in having two affixes give identical properties under different names. But I do see the point in having some items give +1 STR while others give +6. In that case there's a single rune for "affects your strength", so maybe the key to this is to get on with moving slay multipliers to a pval ...

No, I didn't know that, and yes it does make a difference. (If there are HURT_X flags for x2 damage, does that mean SLAY_EVIL and SLAY_ANIMAL now do x3, or are they still x2 as before? I'm horribly confused.) But I do think pval is the way to move, because inconsistency in naming bugs me as well. ;)

Magnate
November 25, 2011, 10:31
No, I didn't know that, and yes it does make a difference. (If there are HURT_X flags for x2 damage, does that mean SLAY_EVIL and SLAY_ANIMAL now do x3, or are they still x2 as before? I'm horribly confused.) But I do think pval is the way to move, because inconsistency in naming bugs me as well. ;)Good, that's settled then - slays and brands will be pvals and there will only be one rune for each type. That still doesn't quite solve the conundrum of how to deal with obvious affixes which have runes, but we're getting there.

Yes, I'm afraid SLAY_ANIMAL and SLAY_EVIL really ought to be HURT_ANIMAL and HURT_EVIL because they are still only x2 ... but this will soon all be irrelevant ...

takkaria
November 25, 2011, 15:06
Separately, I've now realised why I have a problem with takkaria's issue of hates fire being a physical property of the material not a magical property of the item. Let's take IGNORE_FIRE instead: sometimes it's a natural property of the material (i.e. mithril), and sometimes it's a magical property of the item (e.g. Defenders). It makes no sense to me that a given property would sometimes be a rune and sometimes not be.

Why not? Some things don't catch fire naturally (rocks) and other things need fire-retardant spray (fabric). The rock doesn't have (or need) a rune, the fabric does. You have to distinguish the fact that an object has a property from its origin, e.g. keep magical/natural flags separately, if you want it to make sense.

It would be a massive headache to code up, but there's no conceptual problem in it. :)

Magnate
November 25, 2011, 15:32
You have to distinguish the fact that an object has a property from its origin, e.g. keep magical/natural flags separately, if you want it to make sense.

It would be a massive headache to code up, but there's no conceptual problem in it. :)I see what you did there ;-)

Ok, added to the to-do list as #1589. I just wish I could close tickets as fast as I create them.

takkaria
November 25, 2011, 15:57
I see what you did there ;-)

Thought you'd like that ;)

fizzix
November 30, 2011, 20:14
Had some time to test-play v4 a little this week (still plan to do a lot more) but here's two issues that cropped up.

1) When takkaria proposed making torches radius 1 light I didn't like the change but decided to wait until I got a chance to play with it and see if I was being hasty in my decision. After playing with radius-1 torches, I've decided that I still don't like it at all. It's fine for every race except for dunadan and human, but these two races have the problem that they can run into e's, j's and m's in early levels and get immediately killed. Radius-1 light makes no-infravision characters have a very painful first couple of levels, and I don't find it enjoyable at all.

2) Playing with no-selling it can sometimes be very difficult to find a cheap weapon in town. In 4 starts, the cheapest weapon I found in either the armory or the temple was over 150 gp. I think either a cheap dagger/whip should be available always in the town, or that characters should start with a dagger and 550 gp.

Magnate
November 30, 2011, 20:49
2) Playing with no-selling it can sometimes be very difficult to find a cheap weapon in town. In 4 starts, the cheapest weapon I found in either the armory or the temple was over 150 gp. I think either a cheap dagger/whip should be available always in the town, or that characters should start with a dagger and 550 gp.I am not really buying this one. I've played quite a lot of games with no selling, and I find the money invested in the initial weapon (be that a launcher or melee weapon) to be well worth every gp. I often spend 500gp or more on a starting weapon with plusses.

That said, I have no objection to ensuring that the general store carries unenchanted daggers or whips.

fizzix
December 1, 2011, 02:54
That said, I have no objection to ensuring that the general store carries unenchanted daggers or whips.

It's possible I need to recalibrate my early dive distance to be different from v4. In V I'd go down to about dlevel 15 or so on the first dive, maybe I can't do that in v4.

I think unenchanted daggers in the general store is a good approach.

Malak Darkhunter
December 1, 2011, 04:14
Any thoughts on fixing the wierd hight/weight attributes of the races? This has always been a pet peeve of mine, specificaly half-trolls and High-elves, and dunadan, High-elves aren't 8 foot tall and weigh 170lbs half-trolls arent 9feet tall and 250lbs, I never heard of the dunedain being 7 foot tall brutes either, seems kind of messed up to me, but that's my opinion, take it for what it's worth.

Derakon
December 1, 2011, 05:59
I must admit I haven't played Angband in awhile, but I fired v4 up tonight and gave it a whirl. Dwarf warrior, starting with 18/40 STR, 17 DEX, 18 CON.

* This is enough to give me 3.7 blows/turn at +3 damage. Who needs weapons? I can punch my enemies to death.

* The game's default was to put no points into CON in favor of getting DEX to 18. This required 4 extra build points, and the point of DEX didn't help my blows any. Probably the auto-allocation shouldn't try to focus on any one stat so heavily.

* I can also punch down walls fairly reliably. While I couldn't bash down a door at 50' after 17 attempts, I could dig through the granite wall next to it in 84 turns, and a quartz wall with treasure took 17. There's something wrong with the game when a character can more readily tunnel through rock than bash down doors. Even if I devoted fewer turns to bashing the door down (uncertain due to the paralysis from being knocked off-balance), I certainly devoted more player effort to it.

* I found a Whip of Piety with known properties "of Piety, of Piety". I automatically recognized the rune, perhaps because I'd seen a weapon of Piety in a store?

* Grammar error: "the Manes hits you." "The" should be capitalized at the start of a sentence.

* I'm digging the runed items which don't have magical pluses. They should really smooth out the power curve early on. :) For example, a Sapphire Trident of Slay Animal (+0,+0) vs. a Cheap Dagger of Slaying (-1,+1) -- already I have a swap weapon...which came in useful vs. Golfimbul, who resists cold.

* Radius-1 torches really make you appreciate your first lantern. Good!

* Found a Ring of Resist Poison at 600', dropped by a hill orc. At first I thought someone had taken my suggestion to make them common items, but no, I just got extremely lucky. :( To make up for it, Wormtongue dropped a shovel of Impact (a.k.a. earthquakes).

* The description of bolts starts with "A short A short projectile...". I guess our narrator is Foghorn Leghorn?

* Mimics are pretty obvious when they block corridors, preventing other monsters from getting to you. Not sure there's much to be done about this since letting two monsters occupy the same space seems like asking for trouble.

At this point I'm at clvl 18, dlvl 14. I could probably dive a bit more, but the lack of magical pluses on weapons is starting to slow me down. Hooray!

Magnate
December 1, 2011, 13:31
I must admit I haven't played Angband in awhile, but I fired v4 up tonight and gave it a whirl. Dwarf warrior, starting with 18/40 STR, 17 DEX, 18 CON.

* This is enough to give me 3.7 blows/turn at +3 damage. Who needs weapons? I can punch my enemies to death.This isn't specific to v4, but is indeed a problem, even after the reduction in birth points. My personal view is that it's only going to be solved by a fundamental re-working of combat, but that's a way off. (I also think it would be good to introduce some proper unarmed combat stuff into v4.) * The game's default was to put no points into CON in favor of getting DEX to 18. This required 4 extra build points, and the point of DEX didn't help my blows any. Probably the auto-allocation shouldn't try to focus on any one stat so heavily.This is left over from the days when DEX breakpoints were much more significant for blows. You're right that the birth code needs to tone down the emphasis on DEX now we have fractional blows. * I can also punch down walls fairly reliably. While I couldn't bash down a door at 50' after 17 attempts, I could dig through the granite wall next to it in 84 turns, and a quartz wall with treasure took 17. There's something wrong with the game when a character can more readily tunnel through rock than bash down doors. Even if I devoted fewer turns to bashing the door down (uncertain due to the paralysis from being knocked off-balance), I certainly devoted more player effort to it.I love this, it's a great observation (again not specific to v4). At the moment the digging ability is linear, with digging tools giving a linear addition (+20 per pval IIRC). IMO this needs to be non-linear, with digger-less digging being much more difficult, even for super-strong chars. Bashing down doors could stand to be a smidgin easier too, perhaps. * I found a Whip of Piety with known properties "of Piety, of Piety". I automatically recognized the rune, perhaps because I'd seen a weapon of Piety in a store?Yup. * Grammar error: "the Manes hits you." "The" should be capitalized at the start of a sentence.Yes, well spotted - this is a curious side effect of some refactoring of capitalisation. I don't understand why it's happening, but quite a lot of sentences now start uncapitalised. This needs a ticket. * Found a Ring of Resist Poison at 600', dropped by a hill orc. At first I thought someone had taken my suggestion to make them common items, but no, I just got extremely lucky. :( To make up for it, Wormtongue dropped a shovel of Impact (a.k.a. earthquakes).Not quite - Impact is purely the earthquake effect, but Of Earthquakes is a theme which matches the V ego of the same name - it also has +STR and +digging IIRC. * The description of bolts starts with "A short A short projectile...". I guess our narrator is Foghorn Leghorn?Er, I assume that's an editing error in object.txt - thanks for spotting. * Mimics are pretty obvious when they block corridors, preventing other monsters from getting to you. Not sure there's much to be done about this since letting two monsters occupy the same space seems like asking for trouble.Yes. It's an edge case, I think - I can't remember the last time I met a mimic in a corridor which gave itself away that way. I tend to find most of them in rooms, and those I find in corridors have usually woken up before that happens.

Many thanks for the report.

Timo Pietilš
December 1, 2011, 14:01
I must admit I haven't played Angband in awhile, but I fired v4 up tonight and gave it a whirl. Dwarf warrior, starting with 18/40 STR, 17 DEX, 18 CON.

* I can also punch down walls fairly reliably. While I couldn't bash down a door at 50' after 17 attempts, I could dig through the granite wall next to it in 84 turns, and a quartz wall with treasure took 17. There's something wrong with the game when a character can more readily tunnel through rock than bash down doors. Even if I devoted fewer turns to bashing the door down (uncertain due to the paralysis from being knocked off-balance), I certainly devoted more player effort to it.

This is partially because of your race selection. Dwarf gets innate digging bonus in 3.x, and I don't think that is changed in v4. With H-Troll warrior barehanded digging would be much harder. With high-level dwarf you can cut thru rock like it is not there with good enough digger. I get single-digit numbers for granite, usually 1.something turns if the digger is good enough.

You could require a digger of some sort, heavy emphasis on weight for weapons and digging PVAL on diggers and add dwarf bonus to that, but not allow barehanded digging at all.

fizzix
December 1, 2011, 14:03
* The game's default was to put no points into CON in favor of getting DEX to 18. This required 4 extra build points, and the point of DEX didn't help my blows any. Probably the auto-allocation shouldn't try to focus on any one stat so heavily.

The automatic allocation works ok except for a few race/class combos where it has trouble. Dwarf warrior happens to be a trouble case. It's really hard to deal with every race/class case without doing them individually in a table form, which may be the best option at this point.


* Radius-1 torches really make you appreciate your first lantern. Good!


Play a human priest next and see if you still think it's good. Radius-1 doesn't matter if you have infravision. The problem is with no-infravision characters.

ekolis
December 1, 2011, 16:42
For the radius-1 torches with non-infravision characters, why not borrow a tack from Sangband? In Sangband, monsters that are 1 square away from being visible appear as gray *'s - you can tell SOMETHING is there, you just don't know WHAT!

Derakon
December 1, 2011, 17:22
Play a human priest next and see if you still think it's good. Radius-1 doesn't matter if you have infravision. The problem is with no-infravision characters.

While you may well have a point, I don't think that it's enough to take torches back to radius 2. The vast majority of characters won't have a problem; those that do can simply suffer until they get a lantern. Or experiment with ekolis's suggestion. *shrug*

My main issue with the auto-allocator is that it sunk 12 allocation points into a single stat. That should practically never happen IMO, since the diminishing returns on that last point are so bad (4 allocation points for 1 stat point).

Timo: good call on the dwarven digging bonus. I'd forgotten about that. If any race should be able to bash down walls with their bare hands, it should be the dwarves. :) I still think that bashing down doors at 50' should be a fairly trivial matter for any warrior though; currently such doors appear to be basically impassible. Shouldn't bashing down a door be strictly easier than, say, tunneling through a magma vein? In fact, why not allow 'T'unneling through doors?

bio_hazard
December 1, 2011, 21:35
* I found a Whip of Piety with known properties "of Piety, of Piety". I automatically recognized the rune, perhaps because I'd seen a weapon of Piety in a store?



I'd be in favor of removing the ability to learn runes from browsing store inventory. Fine if you want to buy something and sell it back- the price difference is then the cost for learning that rune. Otherwise, it seems to encourage a rather tedious activity of inspecting undiscovered items in stores. This would also seem to be an unnecessary penalty for playing ironman or other options with non-standard store access.

We can imagine the items are all in the back of the store, and the storekeeper has a catalog.

If we want to keep learning from store inventories, how about giving the player a message that we just learned a rune (could apply to ID-ing by use or magic in the dungeon as well).

Also- this might have been addressed before, but the way runes are categorized gives some information in an n-1 degrees of freedom sort of way. For example, I learned the runes for resisting acid, cold and fire. this left one unknown elemental rune (lightning), that by process of elimination I as a player knew although my character did not yet know it. I think I would support also allowing the character to know right away what rLighting is, if we are assuming they know there are four basic elements.

fizzix
December 2, 2011, 03:22
While you may well have a point, I don't think that it's enough to take torches back to radius 2. The vast majority of characters won't have a problem; those that do can simply suffer until they get a lantern. Or experiment with ekolis's suggestion. *shrug*

It's possible that my strongest objections would go away if we gave certain monsters the LIGHT attribute. Specifically, floating eyes, radiation eyes, bloodshot eyes, disenchanter eyes, red molds (already have it), and disenchanter molds. Most of these monsters seem like they should have LIGHT based on their descriptions.

If people think radius-1 light makes for good gameplay, then I guess it should stay.


My main issue with the auto-allocator is that it sunk 12 allocation points into a single stat. That should practically never happen IMO, since the diminishing returns on that last point are so bad (4 allocation points for 1 stat point).


Ok, I'll look at the code again. Maybe I could set the limit to 8 with minimal problems.

Timo Pietilš
December 2, 2011, 04:04
If people think radius-1 light makes for good gameplay, then I guess it should stay.

I see two approach to that:

1) keep radius one in order to have real benefit from finding/buying lantern
2) remove torches

Radius 2 torches are just weaker form of lantern. There is no real difference between two, except that torches are a bit more annoying to use.

Radius 1 torch is different from lantern, making transition to lantern a reward.

I think this is a diver-dilemma. Divers have used to been able to dive early levels like if they were never there. This has been made possible by some of the latest changes in game, it wasn't that easy earlier. One reason to that is radius 2 torches. Early levels are less dangerous when you can see danger before you step right next to it. Difference between seeing danger one turn earlier is a big benefit.

buzzkill
December 2, 2011, 04:41
Or experiment with ekolis's suggestion. *shrug*

As long as we already have 'fuzzy' detection, why not implement this (v4). You (think you) see 'something' just outside the radius of your torchlight. It works thematically and for gameplay. Maybe press s to squint :).

If not, walking into a floating eyes isn't necessarily death. You do get a save, right? And if the reaper does prevail, a infant character so unconcerned with his longevity that he couldn't be bothered to find a lantern bites the dust, big deal!

Orcs carry torches... cause theer shtupid, are oyu?

This post courtesy of Great Lakes Brewing Co.

Napsterbater
December 2, 2011, 06:08
It's an edge case, I think - I can't remember the last time I met a mimic in a corridor which gave itself away that way. I tend to find most of them in rooms, and those I find in corridors have usually woken up before that happens.

Many thanks for the report.
You could make mimics behave exactly as items up until a player invades its space or just gets in attack range. Monsters can walk over them. Maybe have area of effect spells silently decrease its health.

Derakon
December 2, 2011, 06:19
I fired up my dwarf again, so here's some more thoughts:

* The burden information from the inventory display is gone. It was useful for checking how close I was to overloading; could we please have it back?

* I picked up a scimitar: "You have a Scimitar of Piety (4d2) {splendid}." A turn later: "You feel the Scimitar of Piety (u) in your pack is splendid..." Inspecting it also didn't list the unknown runes on the item, even though i t also said I didn't know the full extent of its powers.

* Thoughts on squelching: it seems like a good place to start would be "squelch all items of this base type that have at most these runes." That is, if I find e.g. a Stone Awl-Pike of Sharpness and squelch it with that option, then all Awl-Pikes that have the Stone, Sharpness, or Stone + Sharpness runes would be squelched. And of course the option to extend that to hafted weapons as well. Players should be able to say "This particular combination of runes is not desirable in any circumstance" while leaving the door open for that combination plus other runes to still be desirable.

* Digging up treasure is representing a significant portion of my income at this point, aided significantly by the Gloves of Digging [3,+3] (+2) I picked up for a song from the Black Market for a mere 900AU. I am playing no-selling, though, which inflates the value of treasure seams.

* Eating a ration took me straight from not-full to gorged. I thought that wasn't possible. Oh well.

* Throwing a Tough Jerkin of Protection broke it. Armor, especially soft armor, probably shouldn't break easily.

* Early uniques are a lot more dangerous without strong weapons. I've burned !Speed on practically every one I've encountered...assuming I didn't just run away. As of clvl 25 I'm still dealing only 48 damage/round; 300HP isn't really enough to survive melee with these guys at that damage rate.

* I spotted some mithril coins sitting in a room, thought "Ah! A mimic!" (it being far too early for mithril to show up on the floor at all often), and fired a bolt at them. The bolt just landed to the side. It was a mimic, of course; are we not allowed to reveal them with ranged attacks? What about spells?

* In retrospect, colbrans are freaking terrifying. Fast, durable, 520 hitpoints, frequent casters, and they start showing up at 1350'! Even with using a speed potion I barely took that one down. Shortly thereafter a horde of black puddings showed up; with me at 1400' they're out of depth by 9 levels. The dungeon's certainly scarier than I remember it being...

* On that note, teleport away from black puddings, land next to Angamaite. Teleport away from Angamaite, land next to black puddings. Teleport away from black puddings, land next to Angamaite. Really, game? Really?

* Bows should probably not be made of diamond. Or at least, such should not make them better.

sethos
December 2, 2011, 06:32
I fired up my dwarf again, so here's some more thoughts:

* The burden information from the inventory display is gone. It was useful for checking how close I was to overloading; could we please have it back?

* I picked up a scimitar: "You have a Scimitar of Piety (4d2) {splendid}." A turn later: "You feel the Scimitar of Piety (u) in your pack is splendid..." Inspecting it also didn't list the unknown runes on the item, even though i t also said I didn't know the full extent of its powers.

* Thoughts on squelching: it seems like a good place to start would be "squelch all items of this base type that have at most these runes." That is, if I find e.g. a Stone Awl-Pike of Sharpness and squelch it with that option, then all Awl-Pikes that have the Stone, Sharpness, or Stone + Sharpness runes would be squelched. And of course the option to extend that to hafted weapons as well. Players should be able to say "This particular combination of runes is not desirable in any circumstance" while leaving the door open for that combination plus other runes to still be desirable.

* Digging up treasure is representing a significant portion of my income at this point, aided significantly by the Gloves of Digging [3,+3] (+2) I picked up for a song from the Black Market for a mere 900AU. I am playing no-selling, though, which inflates the value of treasure seams.

* Eating a ration took me straight from not-full to gorged. I thought that wasn't possible. Oh well.

* Throwing a Tough Jerkin of Protection broke it. Armor, especially soft armor, probably shouldn't break easily.

* Early uniques are a lot more dangerous without strong weapons. I've burned !Speed on practically every one I've encountered...assuming I didn't just run away. As of clvl 25 I'm still dealing only 48 damage/round; 300HP isn't really enough to survive melee with these guys at that damage rate.

* I spotted some mithril coins sitting in a room, thought "Ah! A mimic!" (it being far too early for mithril to show up on the floor at all often), and fired a bolt at them. The bolt just landed to the side. It was a mimic, of course; are we not allowed to reveal them with ranged attacks? What about spells?

* In retrospect, colbrans are freaking terrifying. Fast, durable, 520 hitpoints, frequent casters, and they start showing up at 1350'! Even with using a speed potion I barely took that one down. Shortly thereafter a horde of black puddings showed up; with me at 1400' they're out of depth by 9 levels. The dungeon's certainly scarier than I remember it being...

* On that note, teleport away from black puddings, land next to Angamaite. Teleport away from Angamaite, land next to black puddings. Teleport away from black puddings, land next to Angamaite. Really, game? Really?

* Bows should probably not be made of diamond. Or at least, such should not make them better.


Sorry, But I actually laughed when I read the part about teleport. *GRIN* that really sucks.

But I like Diamond bows... they make great clubs, and they're all sparkly.

Otherwise, This seems like some good stuff... Maybe I should stop playing NPP for a little while... Maybe... urghh... Not easy.

shreesh
December 2, 2011, 14:09
After several games with v4 I got a high-elf ranger deep enough in the dungeon and suddenly I started seeing extra entries in the artifact knowledge menu. Had a suspicion that it may be a bug, and I won't be getting those artifacts again.

So after a YASD, I started in debug mode, and sure enough, if I loiter around long enough, without collecting anything, I start seeing entries in the artifact history.

The way to repeat it, start a new character, power up for enough HP, jump to level 99 a few times (I would say about 20 times), and you must see some artifacts in history. And then if I generate thousands of great objects, I get other artifacts but not them.

I checked with 3.3 and this did not happen there.

So, I wonder, if this is indeed a bug, what will happen to the artifact spell books? It would be terrible if they are lost.

Magnate
December 2, 2011, 23:40
* The burden information from the inventory display is gone. It was useful for checking how close I was to overloading; could we please have it back?I don't think anyone removed this intentionally, though it was changed from % to lbs remaining. If anyone can corroborate this please open a ticket. * I picked up a scimitar: "You have a Scimitar of Piety (4d2) {splendid}." A turn later: "You feel the Scimitar of Piety (u) in your pack is splendid..." Inspecting it also didn't list the unknown runes on the item, even though i t also said I didn't know the full extent of its powers.Hmmm. The message sequencing is a known bug. I think the inspection issue is a case of runes interacting badly with the old pseudo tiers. It's splendid because it has Blessed, and you already know that rune. It has other properties you don't know, but which have no associated runes (e.g. modified damage dice). Not sure what if anything to do about this. * Thoughts on squelching: it seems like a good place to start would be "squelch all items of this base type that have at most these runes." That is, if I find e.g. a Stone Awl-Pike of Sharpness and squelch it with that option, then all Awl-Pikes that have the Stone, Sharpness, or Stone + Sharpness runes would be squelched. And of course the option to extend that to hafted weapons as well. Players should be able to say "This particular combination of runes is not desirable in any circumstance" while leaving the door open for that combination plus other runes to still be desirable.Change "rune" to "affix" and that's exactly how it works. You can squelch individual affixes on all items, or on individual base item types (tvals), and the item will be squelched if you have chosen to squelch all its affixes. (We use affixes instead of runes for precisely the issue you note above: not all properties can be represented by runes.) * Digging up treasure is representing a significant portion of my income at this point, aided significantly by the Gloves of Digging [3,+3] (+2) I picked up for a song from the Black Market for a mere 900AU. I am playing no-selling, though, which inflates the value of treasure seams.That sounds pretty cool to me, though I am still of the view that nobody (even Dwarves) should be able to dig without a digging bonus somewhere on their equipment. * Eating a ration took me straight from not-full to gorged. I thought that wasn't possible. Oh well.Neither did I. You're sure it wasn't Waybread? * Throwing a Tough Jerkin of Protection broke it. Armor, especially soft armor, probably shouldn't break easily. Personally I think the breakage chance should move from tval to k_idx. It seems silly to me that all bladed weapons (or all lights, or whatever) would have exactly the same breakage chance. * I spotted some mithril coins sitting in a room, thought "Ah! A mimic!" (it being far too early for mithril to show up on the floor at all often), and fired a bolt at them. The bolt just landed to the side. It was a mimic, of course; are we not allowed to reveal them with ranged attacks? What about spells?Maybe you just missed with the bolt? I think attacking (successfully) by any means does wake them up. * In retrospect, colbrans are freaking terrifying. Fast, durable, 520 hitpoints, frequent casters, and they start showing up at 1350'! Even with using a speed potion I barely took that one down. Shortly thereafter a horde of black puddings showed up; with me at 1400' they're out of depth by 9 levels. The dungeon's certainly scarier than I remember it being...Good. I've always had colbrans on my hate list, since one killed one of my very first characters. * On that note, teleport away from black puddings, land next to Angamaite. Teleport away from Angamaite, land next to black puddings. Teleport away from black puddings, land next to Angamaite. Really, game? Really?This is depressingly common with certain dungeon layouts. You can end up in a situation where all the legal targets of a teleport are in one room, exactly as you experienced. We should perhaps make the code more intelligent at looking farther afield (or less far) in those situations. * Bows should probably not be made of diamond. Or at least, such should not make them better.Think of it as "diamond-reinforced" rather than pure diamond. Or suggest some different affixes for launchers.

Thanks again for the observations - I hope it's more challenging in the good old days sense, rather than just irritating or tedious.

Derakon
December 3, 2011, 02:33
So far it's definitely more challenging, not just more tedious. I've made it down to 2200' and have never really reached a point where I thought "Ah! Now I'm set for awhile!". Though buying a Ring of Speed +6 from the Black Market (for 49k AU -- I could just barely afford it after a quick hop back to the dungeon to murder some cutpurses) helped quite a bit. I went ahead and uploaded Barlowe to the ladder (http://angband.oook.cz/ladder-show.php?id=12051). From the notes I've made:

For the bow materials, how about Yew, Compound, and Laminate? I'm not an archer, mind, but there's plenty of historical "we're going to make these tweaks to how bows are put together to improve draw weight" that could replace the existing materials.

On a related materials note, you shouldn't be able to get dragon scale chain mail. You can't make rings from scales!

Some lucky finds:
* !Augmentation and "Sustenance from a minor vault at 1600'
* -DragonBreath at 1650'
* -Healing at 1700' from an iron chest
* ?Acquirement at 1800'

Other notes:
* It'd be nice if crows and crebains were colored differently. Or we could just remove crows altogether.

* I received a Low Hitpoint Warning when a monster cast a fear spell at me. Expected? Desired?

* I've encountered a lot of significantly out-of-depth monsters / situations. Not just the aforementioned puddings, but also e.g. Itangast 500' OOD, a Zoo at 2050', etc. Also plenty of small vaults, which is nice even if they rarely have anything notable.

* Notes still get cut off in the file well before they get cut off when you're writing them in-game.

* My first artifact was a set of greaves at 2050' which did nothing but give rDark and 20 AC. My weapon is still basically a frostbrand Main Gauche with +10 to-damage -- and I added three of those damage points myself.

* Rods of Recall seem to be a lot more common than they used to be. I've found three already and seen a fourth for sale.

* I get the message "Something fiddles with a lock" even when I can see the monster doing it (via telepathy). Wouldn't be surprised if the same applies to the bash-door message.

* My AC is noticeably lower than I'm used to at this stage -- before I found a cloak of Aman [3,+27] my AC was a mere 48, and the largest magical bonus to AC I've seen was less than 10.

* There's some kind of display bug with the monsters that have accented names -- messages involving them don't always get completely cleared after the message is dismissed, and the names themselves can have unusual spacing (IIRC Nar had an extra space in his name somewhere, e.g. "Nŗr, the Dwarf"). This may be platform-specific; I'm on OSX here.

* Character dumps don't include item details, as you can see in the ladder post. That's not a bug with the ladder; the dump file on my computer is also missing details.

Overall, the power curve is a lot slower than in Vanilla 3.3. Based on this one character, I think what could stand to change now is pushing back stat gain and then making magical pluses (AC/hit/dam) a bit more available. My character's maxed STR and DEX already and that's been the main avenue for increasing my damage, since weapons have consistently given only marginal upgrades. I don't think the game's too hard; I just feel like there should be some level of "the gear is better than the character" that happens before the character gets really into stat-gain.

For what it's worth, the only stat boost I'm getting from my gear right now is +2 WIS from my helm.

Prismatic
December 3, 2011, 03:26
For the bow materials, how about Yew, Compound, and Laminate? I'm not an archer, mind, but there's plenty of historical "we're going to make these tweaks to how bows are put together to improve draw weight" that could replace the existing materials.

On a related materials note, you shouldn't be able to get dragon scale chain mail. You can't make rings from scales!


I'm not an archer either but these are probably okay (though compound bows are too recent, so a recurve bow is probably better). There is a minor issue in that one of those is a design while the others are materials and as such wouldn't be logically mutually exclusive, but it probably doesn't matter for game purposes.

Also, I'm just imagining an oversized dwarven hole-punch to put holes in the scales for the chainmail...

myshkin
December 3, 2011, 03:35
There's some kind of display bug with the monsters that have accented names -- messages involving them don't always get completely cleared after the message is dismissed, and the names themselves can have unusual spacing (IIRC Nar had an extra space in his name somewhere, e.g. "Nŗr, the Dwarf"). This may be platform-specific; I'm on OSX here.

For what it's worth, I expect this behavior got introduced in the OS X UTF-8 changes. Can you be more specific about the incomplete clearing? I think I've seen the unusual spacing.

bio_hazard
December 3, 2011, 06:22
I reported the text corruption in another thread (I'm also on OSX). Screen grabs linked in the post below.

http://angband.oook.cz/forum/showpost.php?p=63128&postcount=18

sethos
December 3, 2011, 07:27
For bows, you could use these materials:
Stonewood and Ironwood jump to mind from my D&D days (though that may have been something my group came up with)
Quickly: Stonewood was so hard that only a magicked weapon would be able to cut through it, and ironwood was just slightly less difficult to cut through. It would burn hotter and longer than any other wood (though It'd take magical fire to start). those could be very high end materials for bows.
Mithril Banded, Hemlock, Petrified, Entwood (ouch.) and Yew also sound like they'd be better quality (flavor-wise, anyways.)

So my list would be:
Stonewood, Ironwood, Entwood (ouch again), Mithril banded, Petrified, Hemlock, and yew. I think that might be a reasonable list for starters :)

Magnate
December 3, 2011, 08:24
So far it's definitely more challenging, not just more tedious. I've made it down to 2200' and have never really reached a point where I thought "Ah! Now I'm set for awhile!". Though buying a Ring of Speed +6 from the Black Market (for 49k AU -- I could just barely afford it after a quick hop back to the dungeon to murder some cutpurses) helped quite a bit.Interesting - a lot of people think that should have cost upwards of a quarter million gold.On a related materials note, you shouldn't be able to get dragon scale chain mail. You can't make rings from scales!Hmmm. I'm kind of with the big dwarven hole punch idea here. It seems a shame to get too realistic about it. * I received a Low Hitpoint Warning when a monster cast a fear spell at me. Expected? Desired?More evidence that we need the master message buffer. Presumably the message was warranted given your hp warning setting, but just at the wrong time. * I've encountered a lot of significantly out-of-depth monsters / situations. Not just the aforementioned puddings, but also e.g. Itangast 500' OOD, a Zoo at 2050', etc.These are the result of the most recent changes - you're exploring new territory here. Sounds good so far. * Notes still get cut off in the file well before they get cut off when you're writing them in-game.I'm not 100% sure how this works, but it should be fixable by just increasing char[80] to char[500] somewhere. * Rods of Recall seem to be a lot more common than they used to be. I've found three already and seen a fourth for sale.Well, the stats say that the difference is 16%, the same as most consumables - so this is an unusual game, I think. Average per game is about 6.9 in v4, but sigma is probably two or three, so you'll occasionally see ten or twelve in a game. * I get the message "Something fiddles with a lock" even when I can see the monster doing it (via telepathy). Wouldn't be surprised if the same applies to the bash-door message.Hmm. This is from artes's door changes in 3.3, and I guess it's using player_can_see_bold rather than m_ptr->ml. Shouldn't be too hard to fix. * Character dumps don't include item details, as you can see in the ladder post. That's not a bug with the ladder; the dump file on my computer is also missing details. Yes, this is widely reported and completely untraceable. I *think* it's something to do with the autobuilder, because it hasn't been reported by anyone who has compiled their own executable from source.Overall, the power curve is a lot slower than in Vanilla 3.3. Based on this one character, I think what could stand to change now is pushing back stat gain and then making magical pluses (AC/hit/dam) a bit more available. My character's maxed STR and DEX already and that's been the main avenue for increasing my damage, since weapons have consistently given only marginal upgrades. I don't think the game's too hard; I just feel like there should be some level of "the gear is better than the character" that happens before the character gets really into stat-gain. I think pushing back stat gain is the next step following the changes to item generation and monster distribution. Plusses have been boosted once since the start of v4, but it seems like they could do with a second go. I think the time to do this is when we solve the whole issue of what's magical and what isn't. At the moment we're using a single magical affix (Slaying for weapons, Protection for armour) to provide extra plusses beyond those granted by the non-magical affixes, and this is a bit crude.

Derakon
December 3, 2011, 17:26
Yes, this is widely reported and completely untraceable. I *think* it's something to do with the autobuilder, because it hasn't been reported by anyone who has compiled their own executable from source.

Yes it has. :) I'm playing a built-from-source version; git cloned the repo then did "make -f Makefile.osx".

fizzix
December 3, 2011, 17:27
More small feedback.

1) Rune information leaks (I think). The unknown runes are visible in their appropriate categories, so you know what general class a rune is. Furthermore, I think they're ordered so that, with enough outside knowledge, you can determine what each rune is.

2) Call light should either be changed to be a ball spell of radius that varies with level (not forced to center around the player) or it should have a minimum radius of 2.

re: Derakon. Many monsters are deeper but uniques are not. Uniques are now extremely powerful for their level. If this is problematic, we'll figure out what to do about it. I did not move colbrans or pukelmen deeper, but maybe I should.

buzzkill
December 3, 2011, 18:06
2) Call light should either be changed to be a ball spell of radius that varies with level (not forced to center around the player) or it should have a minimum radius of 2.

Yes, yes, yes. Can it still light a room? If yes, can it light a room from a distance?

Nomad
December 3, 2011, 18:21
Yes it has. :) I'm playing a built-from-source version; git cloned the repo then did "make -f Makefile.osx".

Then maybe the issue is with the makefiles? I'm compiling mine using the CodeBlocks IDE and haven't seen the chardump bug again since I started doing that.

Derakon
December 3, 2011, 18:34
Change "rune" to "affix" and that's exactly how it works. You can squelch individual affixes on all items, or on individual base item types (tvals), and the item will be squelched if you have chosen to squelch all its affixes. (We use affixes instead of runes for precisely the issue you note above: not all properties can be represented by runes.)

Backing up a bit, regarding squelching: this isn't evident to me. I'm still seeing the "squelch good / squelch excellent with no high resists / squelch non-artifact" delineations. There doesn't seem to be any way to squelch affixes as far as I can tell. I'd also like to be able to say "squelch all Maces" before "squelch all Hafted Weapons".

Nomad
December 3, 2011, 18:43
Backing up a bit, regarding squelching: this isn't evident to me. I'm still seeing the "squelch good / squelch excellent with no high resists / squelch non-artifact" delineations. There doesn't seem to be any way to squelch affixes as far as I can tell. I'd also like to be able to say "squelch all Maces" before "squelch all Hafted Weapons".

It's done via the knowledge menu, under "ego item knowledge".

Derakon
December 3, 2011, 18:49
It's done via the knowledge menu, under "ego item knowledge".

Ah. I was looking under the rune knowledge menu.

It would be great if squelching could all be done via the menu that pops up when you squelch something. That's by far the most accessible squelching available.

Magnate
December 3, 2011, 20:39
It would be great if squelching could all be done via the menu that pops up when you squelch something. That's by far the most accessible squelching available.Eventually, yes, the popup menu will offer you "squelch all <this tval>s with <this affix>" and "squelch all items with <this affix>" for affixes on the item. But that's a while a way, since I'm not good with UI code. Eventually the separate squelch menu will also go, and all squelch permutations will be selectable via the knowledge interface. At least, I think that was the consensus - but it was quite a while ago now. (EDIT: found it - #1115)

@fizzix: I'm fine with making call light targetable. A test case for the new effects code!

Nomad
December 4, 2011, 01:18
I think there might be something slightly amiss with artefact drops in the very early levels of the dungeon. AKA "I was mentally composing my chardump post about how much it feels like cheating to find the Arkenstone at 100' when I found a randart ring at 200' in the same game."

I've noticed before that there seems to be an oddly high probability of finding a very OOD artefact in the first half dozen levels, but this game has just crossed a whole new threshold in ridiculousness.

Derakon
December 4, 2011, 01:26
Meanwhile, while I've made a number of lucky finds (including Boots of Speed +10 at 2350'), I've only found two artifacts, one of which I can't even use because I need my telepathy helmet, and the other of which was distinctly underwhelming and has now been replaced by the aforementioned boots. Now clvl 36, dlvl 58 (2900').

Derakon
December 4, 2011, 04:33
Okay, new progress report. First off, here's some shots of the message box when accented characters are displayed:

http://derakon.dyndns.org/~chriswei/temp2/angaccent1.png
Nothing particularly off here except for the double space, which I'm pretty sure isn't normal.

http://derakon.dyndns.org/~chriswei/temp2/angaccent2.png
The space before "terror" is definitely wrong.

http://derakon.dyndns.org/~chriswei/temp2/angaccent3.png
Stray character introduced at the end of the string.

http://derakon.dyndns.org/~chriswei/temp2/angaccent4.png
Unrecognized character! Uh oh.

http://derakon.dyndns.org/~chriswei/temp2/angaccent5.png
This immediately followed the previous message. Note the space in "have".

It looks like there's some form of string corruption. My guess is that a wide character (2 bytes) is being used somewhere when only 1 byte is expected. In the middle of a string, this would result in extra spaces (since the wide character would probably print as a space), but off the end of the string we get garbage characters instead because we're reading uninitialized memory.

Anyway, onwards! For context: currently clvl38, dlvl67 (3350').

* Spellbooks found: Resistances at 2600', Ethereal Openings at 3050', Mordenkainen's at 3150'. The first two feel a bit late, but Mordy's is normal IMO.

* Notable finds: Boots of Speed +10 at 2350' (dropped by Ulfast), *Acquirement* at 2950', "ESP at 3050' (finally can wear that artifact helm I found much earlier),

* I've found one more artifact, a hammer (playing randarts). It only became worth using once I got some +DEX from my gear -- and even then, it only barely outdamages my old dagger.

* It took me until 2950' to find a Rod of Illumination. That was annoying.

* Acquirement and *Acquirement* are noticeably more common now. Of course, they still usually don't generate anything interesting. I did get a shield with a triple-stacked Protection affix, though (total +50 to AC!). Is that intentional?

* Object detection frequently gives false positives (i.e. red stars where there aren't actually any items). Intended?

* Scrolls of Deep Descent should mention the delay, like Word of Recall items do.

* Staves of Remove Curse seem singularly useless to me right now. Not that the scrolls are much more useful, but the effect is inherently single-shot.

* Maul description: "A heavy war hammer with a larger head." I guess the "larger" could mean "in comparison to normal war hammers", but it should still just be "large" IMO.

* Dwar dropped ?Acquirement, which, when read, generated ?*Acquirement*.

* "Reached level X" notes are added to the log multiple times if you have to regain the level due to experience drain.

* I found a pile of creeping adamantite coins worth only 295 AU. In practice adamantite is always at least 800 AU when found normally, so that's a bit of a giveaway.

* There's no way to squelch ordinary lanterns without squelching the good ones too, at least not from the 'k' menu. Incidentally, I'm still using an Everburning Lantern of Observation (a.k.a. See Invisible). No Phial.

Magnate
December 4, 2011, 10:32
OMG! Nearly four thousand posts later, magnate learns how to resize the Reply box. ARGH!

Anyway, @Nomad: yes, the stats agree with you: the first six or seven levels in v4 are *much* more likely to produce artifacts. This would reward scumming and probably needs to be toned down. * Spellbooks found: Resistances at 2600', Ethereal Openings at 3050', Mordenkainen's at 3150'. The first two feel a bit late, but Mordy's is normal IMO.Did you get them from certain uniques, or just random finds? * It took me until 2950' to find a Rod of Illumination. That was annoying.

* Acquirement and *Acquirement* are noticeably more common now. Of course, they still usually don't generate anything interesting. I did get a shield with a triple-stacked Protection affix, though (total +50 to AC!). Is that intentional?

* Object detection frequently gives false positives (i.e. red stars where there aren't actually any items). Intended?The rod of illumination is a fluke - it's as common as it is in V (slightly more so, in fact).

The Acquirement scrolls are indeed more common, as noted in the stats thread. Normal Acq is about 2x and *Acq* is about 3x as common as in V. This is a result of the object generation changes and can be rebalanced - though of course since the ego items fetched by them are noticeably less powerful, it might not actually be a problem. And yes, an acquirement scroll is now a legal target for acquirement.

Object detection giving false positives is a new one - I doubt that they are completely random asterisks. Perhaps they are squelched items? * "Reached level X" notes are added to the log multiple times if you have to regain the level due to experience drain.Wow, I fixed this back in 3.1.x - not sure how that's come back. * There's no way to squelch ordinary lanterns without squelching the good ones too, at least not from the 'k' menu.I think this has something to do with EASY_KNOW; I remember discussing it with someone before. Now that lanterns are the same as other non-jewelry wearables in terms of affixes, it should be possible to fix this.

I haven't commented on everything, but I don't have any issues with the rest of it. Thanks for the details on the utf-8 issue - hopefully this will enable noz and/or myshkin to trace the problem.

Thanks for the report - hope it's still fun.

Nomad
December 4, 2011, 12:37
Anyway, @Nomad: yes, the stats agree with you: the first six or seven levels in v4 are *much* more likely to produce artifacts. This would reward scumming and probably needs to be toned down.

Yeah, the two I found were effectively a product of 'accidental scumming'; I sold my WoR to buy a good weapon, descended a bit to get enough money to replace it, accidentally read a DD when I was nearly back to the surface, ascended again... It seems like any play pattern like that, or just being cautious enough to hang around in the early dungeon for a while to level up, is going to produce quite high odds of finding an artefact.

Magnate
December 4, 2011, 14:38
Yeah, the two I found were effectively a product of 'accidental scumming'; I sold my WoR to buy a good weapon, descended a bit to get enough money to replace it, accidentally read a DD when I was nearly back to the surface, ascended again... It seems like any play pattern like that, or just being cautious enough to hang around in the early dungeon for a while to level up, is going to produce quite high odds of finding an artefact.Yes, but statistically 90% of the artifacts found in the first five levels are 'thancs. Even so, I've committed a small hack to bring artifact frequency in line with V at these levels.

I've also fixed the false positives in fuzzy detection - I think. Please report if this continues in the new version.

P.S. This thread is getting a bit long and old - could we start a new thread or two with any new issues?

P.P.S. The feature of "reached level X" appearing more than once in the history is WAD - it was a deliberate decision as part of the fix for #1170.

buzzkill
December 4, 2011, 16:37
I've also fixed the false positives in fuzzy detection - I think. Please report if this continues in the new version.

Were they true false positives or squelched items as you speculated earlier? I not sure that squelched items shouldn't be detected if that is indeed what's happening.

Magnate
December 4, 2011, 22:19
Were they true false positives or squelched items as you speculated earlier? I not sure that squelched items shouldn't be detected if that is indeed what's happening.Well, I didn't find any real false positives, so I think they were squelched items. We must keep squelch (which is part of the UI layer) completely separate from gameplay. So detection must not show squelched items, either as asterisks or as items.

Timo Pietilš
December 5, 2011, 00:24
Well, I didn't find any real false positives, so I think they were squelched items. We must keep squelch (which is part of the UI layer) completely separate from gameplay. So detection must not show squelched items, either as asterisks or as items.

You could argue about that in exact opposite way: if you can narrow down fuzzy detection by changing squelch-settings then that interferes with the gameplay. Other way around it works exactly like it should: as soon as you have confirmation what the item is it gets squelched from sight.

That has a nasty side-effect of apparently empty space showing like item, but I think "false positive" when there is an item is better than no "false positive".

Else you could do things like: see couple of stars around you, no need to collect if they are not at least artifacts, change settings to check if any of those are artifacts, see stars disappear, restore setting.

Antoine
December 5, 2011, 01:05
You could argue about that in exact opposite way: if you can narrow down fuzzy detection by changing squelch-settings then that interferes with the gameplay. Other way around it works exactly like it should: as soon as you have confirmation what the item is it gets squelched from sight.


Yes Timo is correct

Move to purple-dot squelch if necessary

A.

Derakon
December 5, 2011, 01:09
As I said in the other thread, I strongly doubt that anyone's going to go to the trouble of trying to abuse this; it's too much of a hassle. Is it really that big a deal?

Antoine
December 5, 2011, 01:14
As I said in the other thread, I strongly doubt that anyone's going to go to the trouble of trying to abuse this; it's too much of a hassle. Is it really that big a deal?

Well, does the artifact-detection routine Timo describes above work??

A/

Derakon
December 5, 2011, 02:15
Well, does the artifact-detection routine Timo describes above work??

A/The way my game's been going so far? Sure. It'll cheerfully inform you that there are no artifacts anywhere, every time. :)

Antoine
December 5, 2011, 07:34
The way my game's been going so far? Sure. It'll cheerfully inform you that there are no artifacts anywhere, every time. :)

Turn off 'squelch all artifacts' mate :)

A.

Timo Pietilš
December 5, 2011, 11:20
As I said in the other thread, I strongly doubt that anyone's going to go to the trouble of trying to abuse this; it's too much of a hassle. Is it really that big a deal?

In fact it is. Entire reason for fuzzy detection is to not give away what the item is forcing player to seek it out, that means player should go and look what it is. If you remove that, then there is no reason to have fuzzy detection at all. You could as well look at item list and mentally choose that this I want and those are useless. IOW if fuzzy detection doesn't show items that you have squelched it becomes meaningless.

Maybe message is needed. "you recognize detected item as [enter item here]"

EpicMan
December 5, 2011, 17:25
As far as launcher affixes, the part of the Silmarillion about Numenor mentions the Numenoreans using bows made out of (hollow? Don't remember) steel, so a 'Numenorean Steel Bow" Could be a higher-end bow affix.