Angband Forums

Angband Forums (http://angband.oook.cz/forum/index.php)
-   Vanilla (http://angband.oook.cz/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   No Sell - I am convinced (http://angband.oook.cz/forum/showthread.php?t=4550)

Bahman Rabii June 15, 2011 19:43

No Sell - I am convinced
 
After some heartfelt recommendations, I decided to try it out. Huge win. You can forget how much pain there is with managing inventory just for stuff to sell. And it gets rid of one more reason to have lots of useless items drop.

One small complaint - I understand the principle of starting no sell characters with gold and no gear, but I don't like it in practice. It slows down the start, and it leads to annoying situations (e.g. my priest who is down to 800' and still has not seen the first spellbook for sale or in the dungeon).

jens June 15, 2011 19:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bahman Rabii (Post 54795)
One small complaint - I understand the principle of starting no sell characters with gold and no gear, but I don't like it in practice. It slows down the start, and it leads to annoying situations (e.g. my priest who is down to 800' and still has not seen the first spellbook for sale or in the dungeon).

I agree, since no_selling might well become one of the standard ways of playing, it should be as easy and usable as possible.

Derakon June 15, 2011 19:59

The first spellbook wasn't for sale in the temple? That shouldn't happen. Sounds like the allocation rules in store.txt need to be tweaked to increase the number of basic spellbooks.

Some players may prefer to start with no armor and more consumables, or with a different weapon, or skip a bow when they're playing as a ranger. With selling, you can sell your starting gear and buy what you like; that's obviously not possible with no-selling, hence the change. If you have a better idea for how to start out no-selling, feel free to make your case.

d_m June 15, 2011 20:01

I agree totally. Whenever I start a game I have a 50% chance of killing the poor character by forgetting to buy a light source and/or food and/or recall.

Max Stats June 15, 2011 20:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bahman Rabii (Post 54795)
After some heartfelt recommendations, I decided to try it out. Huge win. You can forget how much pain there is with managing inventory just for stuff to sell. And it gets rid of one more reason to have lots of useless items drop.

One small complaint - I understand the principle of starting no sell characters with gold and no gear, but I don't like it in practice. It slows down the start, and it leads to annoying situations (e.g. my priest who is down to 800' and still has not seen the first spellbook for sale or in the dungeon).

A solution to this would be allowing the player to save everything in the character's inventory to a pref file, to be used as starting kit for all new characters. Only items that are part of standard store inventory should be included. For weapons and armor, this should include only unenchanted items, and jewelry should be excluded altogether. On character creation, once the new character is accepted, if starting kit is found in a pref file, the game would ask if you want to use that as your starting inventory. If you say yes, it purchases everything in the list until either the list is complete or you run out of gold.

This would have the added effect of avoiding the annoyance of not being able to find what you want in the stores. For example, when I play spellcasting classes, I like to purchase the first two books to start off because I usually stay in the dungeon long enough to learn spells from the second book before I return. However, it is common to start out without the second book in the store's inventory, so I normally quit and restart. This method should assume that if an item is part of standard store inventory, it is in stock. Black Market items not included, of course.

Since you can save class-specific pref files (Warrior.prf, Mage,prf, etc.) you can have a different set of items for each class you play (no point buying spellbooks for your warrior, of course).

jens June 15, 2011 20:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derakon (Post 54798)
The first spellbook wasn't for sale in the temple? That shouldn't happen. Sounds like the allocation rules in store.txt need to be tweaked to increase the number of basic spellbooks.

On Tobias videos his mage starts a no sell game, finds no mage book, then restarts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derakon (Post 54798)
Some players may prefer to start with no armor and more consumables, or with a different weapon, or skip a bow when they're playing as a ranger. With selling, you can sell your starting gear and buy what you like; that's obviously not possible with no-selling, hence the change. If you have a better idea for how to start out no-selling, feel free to make your case.

Ah, yes... I had thought of that before... Will have to come back to you on that one ;-)

How about mixing it up a bit? Let each character get a bare minimum of what they need to survive, then the rest of their value in gc.

Suggested list of eq:
2 torches, 2 food, 1 dagger
spell book for pure casters
balance of value in gc

If you are brave you can go straight into the dungeon, if you would have wanted to sell something, that would only be the dagger, so you didn't loose much value.

jens June 15, 2011 20:15

I take too long writing my posts...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Max Stats (Post 54800)
A solution to this would be allowing the player to save everything in the character's inventory to a pref file, to be used as starting kit for all new characters. Only items that are part of standard store inventory should be included. For weapons and armor, this should include only unenchanted items, and jewelry should be excluded altogether. On character creation, once the new character is accepted, if starting kit is found in a pref file, the game would ask if you want to use that as your starting inventory. If you say yes, it purchases everything in the list until either the list is complete or you run out of gold.

This is a great idea!

One problem I see though is that new players will not realise it's there...

CJNyfalt June 15, 2011 20:22

I think that it might be a good idea combine no sell with 'less buy'. Basically I think that making store stocks fixed and unlimited in numbers, but very restricted in what is available.
So that stores would only sell must have consumables like healing potions, ammo, Phase Door, Teleport & WoR scrolls, torches, food, oil, shovels, and lanterns. Black market would naturally be removed.

Derakon June 15, 2011 20:35

Such an approach would render money completely moot by around 1000' or so -- at that point you can buy all the consumables you'll ever need and that's all you can buy.

The Black Market still serves an important purpose by allowing the player to buy items they haven't found in the dungeon yet (or not in sufficient quantity). Important items to get from the Black Market:

* ring of Free Action
* rod of Trap Location
* scroll of Teleport / Teleport Level / Deep Descent
* potion of Speed

Of course, there's also stat gain potions, helms of telepathy, amulets of trickery, rings of damage, dungeon spellbooks, and other "I really want that but it's not vital" items. Oddly, in my experience weapons are always too weak or too expensive to bother with.

Max Stats June 15, 2011 21:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by jens (Post 54802)
One problem I see though is that new players will not realise it's there...

We now have "shopkeeper hints" that sometimes pop up when you enter a store. Maybe the first hint could always be "When you are done shopping, press <whatever> to save your starting kit."

Raxmei June 15, 2011 21:05

In the absence of the black market you'd lose your biggest money sink unless you ramp up the price of consumables really high. Looking for random cool stuff there and hoping I have enough money is interesting for the first half of the game and I'd miss that feature if it disappeared.

I do agree that more things should be guaranteed in stock. Basic spellbooks being absent doesn't serve much purpose and low CCW supply has caused some aggravation but hasn't altered my behavior in any way I would consider desireable.

Bahman Rabii June 15, 2011 21:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derakon (Post 54798)
Some players may prefer to start with no armor and more consumables, or with a different weapon, or skip a bow when they're playing as a ranger. With selling, you can sell your starting gear and buy what you like; that's obviously not possible with no-selling, hence the change. If you have a better idea for how to start out no-selling, feel free to make your case.

I agree that it is nice to have these choices. I just don't think it is worth the cost. Sticking new characters with standard starting gear is not *that* bad.

If you really see this as an issue we could have a separate birth option to start with standard gear vs start with all cash. I am generally not a fan of birth options, but this one seems relatively benign.

dos350 June 15, 2011 22:00

no selling ~ why bother??

please no rage!

Derakon June 15, 2011 22:09

Because it's more fun!

Have you tried no-selling yet? I know you've said you don't like it, but I can't tell if that's an informed opinion or just your reaction to the concept.

Max Stats June 15, 2011 22:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by dos350 (Post 54820)
no selling ~ why bother??

please no rage!

Trust me, you should try it. I thought there was no way I would, but it turns out I love it!

Bahman Rabii June 15, 2011 22:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by dos350 (Post 54820)
no selling ~ why bother??

Do you like heading back to town just to sell stuff?

Do you like being slowed because you are carrying heavy items you will never use because they are "valuable" for selling?

Do you like giving up inventory space you could use for useful, fun items?

If you answered "no" to any of the above, you may like no-sell. The only think I don't like is that I didn't think of it myself.

Netbrian June 15, 2011 23:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by dos350 (Post 54820)
no selling ~ why bother??

Since it means I don't have to sell anything, and compensates by giving me significantly more money from drops?

soyaki June 15, 2011 23:30

Trophy room
 
The thing I hate about "no selling":

finding low-priority Artifacts in the dungeon and deciding I need to keep, say, my stack of !CCW and thus I wind up leaving the Arty on the floor of the dungeon. The floor! It's disgraceful! :)

With selling ON at least I could find a good home for that artifact--and grab 10-30K AU on the side (though usually at the point this happens AU is no longer a concern.)

I think what would make me more happy about no sellling would be a special room in my Home where I can place objects and then come back to look at them--but never again use them. I think I actually would drag up that useless pair of RandArt boots (especially if they are a Unique drop) if I could just mount them somewhere nice.

I realize it's irrational. But hey, it's a game.

Bahman Rabii June 15, 2011 23:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by soyaki (Post 54836)
The thing I hate about "no selling":

finding low-priority Artifacts in the dungeon and deciding I need to keep, say, my stack of !CCW and thus I wind up leaving the Arty on the floor of the dungeon. The floor! It's disgraceful! :)

With selling ON at least I could find a good home for that artifact--and grab 10-30K AU on the side (though usually at the point this happens AU is no longer a concern.)

I think what would make me more happy about no sellling would be a special room in my Home where I can place objects and then come back to look at them--but never again use them. I think I actually would drag up that useless pair of RandArt boots (especially if they are a Unique drop) if I could just mount them somewhere nice.

I realize it's irrational. But hey, it's a game.

There is such a place. It's the end of your character dump where all your found artifacts are listed.

Derakon June 15, 2011 23:48

Every once in awhile someone suggests adding a Mathom House to the town, where you could deposit but not withdraw any number of items. I'm confident if someone were to submit a patch adding such a building, it'd be accepted.

takkaria June 16, 2011 00:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derakon (Post 54798)
The first spellbook wasn't for sale in the temple? That shouldn't happen. Sounds like the allocation rules in store.txt need to be tweaked to increase the number of basic spellbooks.

If anyone wants to put together a proposal about what stores:

1. should always have (permanent infinite supply)
2. should normally have
3. should sometimes have

that would be amazing, then I can write the code to do it and we can stop having these problems. :) [preferably in a new thread]

takkaria June 16, 2011 00:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derakon (Post 54839)
Every once in awhile someone suggests adding a Mathom House to the town, where you could deposit but not withdraw any number of items. I'm confident if someone were to submit a patch adding such a building, it'd be accepted.

Yup! We'd have to rearrange the stores again so that everything fitted in 8 buildings but that's fine. :)

Timo Pietilä June 16, 2011 05:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by d_m (Post 54799)
I agree totally. Whenever I start a game I have a 50% chance of killing the poor character by forgetting to buy a light source and/or food and/or recall.

My last warrior actually started without food or lightsource. I was so delighted to find out that I can afford xbow that I forgot to buy torches. Disconnected stairs of course. Made first level .... interesting. Good thing that darkness doesn't prevent infravision from working.

ChodTheWacko June 16, 2011 06:08

I've been trying no-selling with my current character and I have to agree, it's a lot of fun.
dos350, don't knock it till you try it.

There are only two annoyances (?) with it.
1) It's a bit annoying when there is something in the BM that I could buy if I could sell stuff.
2) Playing a dwarf priest, I kind of feel like I need to dig out all the treasure now. This slows me down and I also kind of want a 'stop running when you detect treasure' option.




As far as default starting gear, I have a simple suggestion:

When the character goes down the first down staircase, save their current starting gear as the 'start gear'. The next time they create a character, ask if they want to use their previous start set.

- Frank

Belgen June 16, 2011 07:03

I think really need to start with an initial equipment to avoid the situation start with gnome mage and go buy a book from the Magic Shop, but the entrance waiting Battle-scarred veteran ...

Sorry for my bad english.

dos350 June 16, 2011 11:46

eeeeeee, please no rage but u dont hav to sell in normal play, lol~!

once u get a little far into the game , usually one will hav hundreds of thousands of gold anyway,..........

all this hooballa about the start equip, lol???

im still not wanting to try no selling~!

Jazerus June 16, 2011 13:58

dos350, it's really worth a try! Not selling anything with regular birth settings sets you at a serious disadvantage compared to normal, while no_sell eliminates that disadvantage while retaining the better gameplay that comes out of it. Out of curiosity, do you really enjoy vacuuming the dungeon for junk to sell that much? You can get the same monetary benefits without having to clog your inventory constantly with no_sell on. Just so you know, you *can* still sell things for sell ID, you just won't get any gold out of it, if that's your concern.

dos350 June 16, 2011 16:31

you seem to not understand me,

you sell til u are really wealthy, then never need to "vacuum blah blah"

please no rage~!

and even before that stage, some items are worth so much and i hav found piles of gold of like 16k , normal selling~!~! so i dont see point, at all~!!!~!~

Derakon June 16, 2011 16:33

And you aren't going to see the point until you actually try it. Which you really, really should do. If you don't like it, then feel free to go back to selling! But you should try the option before saying it sucks. That way at least your opinion will be informed.

dos350 June 16, 2011 16:34

i think its safe to assume it sucks lol,

Derakon June 16, 2011 17:03

No, it isn't. Have you noticed how many people have said "Man, no-selling sounds like a terrible idea", then tried it, and said "Wow, this is a lot better than I thought it would be!"? I don't think I've seen more than two people on this forum not like no-selling after having tried it.

dhegler June 16, 2011 18:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derakon (Post 54905)
No, it isn't. Have you noticed how many people have said "Man, no-selling sounds like a terrible idea", then tried it, and said "Wow, this is a lot better than I thought it would be!"? I don't think I've seen more than two people on this forum not like no-selling after having tried it.

Agreed. I've played for years and the tedium of selling took so much time and I felt so OCD to keep shifting things in inventory that had more value to sell. I believe they changed it so a no_sell game has larger gold drops as well, which more than makes up for it. Don't knock it til you tried it! :)

dos350 June 16, 2011 18:02

i cant see anything that would come out of trying it but problems,

Bahman Rabii June 16, 2011 18:19

http://xkcd.com/386/

We probably do not need to argue it any further.

ChodTheWacko June 16, 2011 18:31

dos350,

If you have no interest in trying it, then fine - that's your choice.
But when other people say 'you would be surprised how much nice it is', you should reconsider.
Especially when people say 'I thought I wouldn't like it, but after trying it, I did'

If you want your point to hold any weight, you need to either:
1) Give a rational reason why you think it isn't a good idea, or
2) Try it and give reasons why you didn't like it.

You can't win an argument if you respond to "why?" with "oh, no reason in particular"


By the way, the above statements don't just apply to Angband.
They apply to life in general.



You did say one thing I want to comment on - you are correct that after you reach a certain amount, money becomes meaningless.
In my games that is usually around 200K or so.

But until you reach that, money is quite signifigant.
Bare minimum is you need enough money to rebuy consumables, but there are plenty of objects in the black market
that I will immediately burn money on - telepathy, speed, !con, teleport other, ? deep descent, etc, etc.


- Frank

dos350 June 16, 2011 18:53

excuse me chod,

blah blah valid point blah life general blah? ~ u didnt read wat i said?

it is useless option because~ selling is good sometimes in earlygame , and money is not an issue anyway in late game.. that seems a valid point to me ?~!~!?~!

normal play giv u freedom to choose,

please no rage rofl~!

chris June 16, 2011 19:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derakon (Post 54905)
No, it isn't. Have you noticed how many people have said "Man, no-selling sounds like a terrible idea", then tried it, and said "Wow, this is a lot better than I thought it would be!"? I don't think I've seen more than two people on this forum not like no-selling after having tried it.

I'm just glad I no longer have to haggle :)

relic June 16, 2011 19:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bahman Rabii (Post 54828)
Do you like heading back to town just to sell stuff?

Do you like being slowed because you are carrying heavy items you will never use because they are "valuable" for selling?

Do you like giving up inventory space you could use for useful, fun items?

If you answered "no" to any of the above, you may like no-sell. The only think I don't like is that I didn't think of it myself.


1. I never head back to town just to sell stuff.

2. I would never pick up a heavy item to sell if it slowed me, (but I may pick it up to bring it to the home if it could become useful.)

3. I don't think I ever have chosen a "sellable" item before a "fun and useful" item .

OMG. How do you guys play? Do you really do these things with selling? I can't understand it. No wonder you don't like it.

My 2 cents: Selling for me is the number one method for identifying stuff (except weapons and armor) at least in the early part of the game, or playing a Paladin or Rogue for example. I know that there is ID-by-use now, but for hardware reasons I can't play the later versions without difficulty, so I haven't been able to try it. Occasionally I quaff a potion or read a scroll when in mortal danger, and some wands, rods and staffs I try to use and identify.

Also, let's say I have a number of CCW potions, and then start collecting Healing potions; when I have enough of those I sell the CCW rather then just dump them somewhere.

To summarize: To me, selling is a fun and enjoyable part of the game.

-

Derakon June 16, 2011 20:17

The newer versions of Vanilla have made ID-by-use much less dangerous -- potions of Weakness, Sickness, etc. are gone, for example. It's generally safe to try out items to see what they do. I used to sell to ID items, as you do, but it's not really needed any more.

In your selling games, would you carry a scroll of Detect Invisible? Would you use a wand of Confuse Monster, rather than hold it to sell? How many inventory slots are full before you go into the dungeon? In no-selling games, all of my inventory is for items that I'd either want to use at some point, or that I'm waiting on pseudo to ID for me. I can carry tons of niche crap that I'd pretty much squelch right off in a selling game, because I'd get a better return on devoting the inventory slot to something salable.

In selling games, when my pack fills up with vendor trash, I either recall or start ditching the least valuable items so I can fit in more valuable stuff (or the occasional, rare actually usable item). With no-selling, my pack fills far less quickly, even though I've stuffed so many low-odds items in it, because there are far fewer usable items than there are salable items. If it's full, it's full of things that are either currently useful or will be useful in the future, which means it's time to return home to stash some of it in the home.

In short, in no-selling games, you return to town to store items in the home, to replenish consumables, and to check out the Black Market. Selling games have all that plus the need to haul useless stuff back to town to sell. Thus trips to the town will be strictly more common in selling games than in no-selling games. The town is boring. Who wants to go there more often?

ChodTheWacko June 16, 2011 20:29

Okay, dos350, I'll admit my post was a bit much - but your posts do have the trend of an unwillingness to consider/discuss new ideas.


BTW, relic, No-selling doesn't mean you can't sell - it just means you get zero gold for sales. You can still sell to ID objects, which I do.

I'm curious how often you buy stuff from the BM, since my gut feeling is it would take you a very long time to afford expensive objects. I tend to be close (or over) my inventory weight limit, so I can barely pick up anything 'extra' without slowing down. In the early/mid game, the valuable objects are usually ego weapons.

The 'selling grind' allows you to buy game-altering objects from the BM sooner, which for me has always offsetted the work of the grind. Aggressive selling gains you even more gold than no-selling, but the 'fun' benefits of no-selling (covered by the other posts) make the change worthwhile for me. Selling isn't -that- painful (it was far worse when you had to haggle), but it's a tedium I'll gladly live without.

- Frank

Bahman Rabii June 16, 2011 20:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by relic (Post 54921)
1. I never head back to town just to sell stuff.

Really? That's my main reason for going up to town in sell games. My next two reasons are both more rare: I am almost never forced up because I am out of consumables (my inventory fills with sellables first), and I almost never recall up just to buy gear/books (again, my inventory fills up fast enough).

Quote:

Originally Posted by relic (Post 54921)
2. I would never pick up a heavy item to sell if it slowed me, (but I may pick it up to bring it to the home if it could become useful.)

Even if you never take a speed penalty, you are still paying for your "cargo capacity" by carrying fewer consumables and less swap gear.

Maybe that's why you never go to town to sell stuff - you are carrying so few consumables (to make room for sellables) that you are constantly going to town to replenish those anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by relic (Post 54921)
3. I don't think I ever have chosen a "sellable" item before a "fun and useful" item .

I bet you set a higher bar for "useful" than you would if you were not saving space for loot to sell. In no sell games, minor/situational buffs and attacks are worth carrying and using. In sell games they are not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by relic (Post 54921)
To summarize: To me, selling is a fun and enjoyable part of the game.

To summarize: You and the "no rage" guy have not tried what you are criticizing.

relic June 16, 2011 21:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derakon (Post 54925)
In your selling games, would you carry a scroll of Detect Invisible? Would you use a wand of Confuse Monster, rather than hold it to sell? How many inventory slots are full before you go into the dungeon? In no-selling games, all of my inventory is for items that I'd either want to use at some point, or that I'm waiting on pseudo to ID for me. I can carry tons of niche crap that I'd pretty much squelch right off in a selling game, because I'd get a better return on devoting the inventory slot to something salable.

In selling games, when my pack fills up with vendor trash, I either recall or start ditching the least valuable items so I can fit in more valuable stuff (or the occasional, rare actually usable item). With no-selling, my pack fills far less quickly, even though I've stuffed so many low-odds items in it, because there are far fewer usable items than there are salable items. If it's full, it's full of things that are either currently useful or will be useful in the future, which means it's time to return home to stash some of it in the home.

In short, in no-selling games, you return to town to store items in the home, to replenish consumables, and to check out the Black Market. Selling games have all that plus the need to haul useless stuff back to town to sell. Thus trips to the town will be strictly more common in selling games than in no-selling games. The town is boring. Who wants to go there more often?

As I said, I don't understand. Do you really pick up things for their monetary value in a selling game? Pick up useless stuff to sell? Why? Of course that is boring.

My priorities to pick up are: unidentified items, useful items and potentially useful weapons and armor. For example: Most identified wands, rods and staffs I just leave. I rather pick up an unidentified mushroom than an identified ring of protection, even in an early game.

So, in my games, i do just as you do: store items in the home, to replenish consumables, and to check out the Black Market, plus sell unidentified items.

As for the town being boring, that may be so. But I find it relaxing or de-stressing after an often dangerous trip to the dungeon to return to town. With no town, like in NetHack for instance, the only time to relax would be to save the character and quit the game.

So my point is: a no-selling game may be wonderful, but a selling-game can be fun if you play it the right way.

Max Stats June 16, 2011 21:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChodTheWacko (Post 54927)
No-selling doesn't mean you can't sell - it just means you get zero gold for sales.

And, amusingly enough, if you sell an unidentified item and it turns out to be bad, the shopkeeper will still react in anguish--even though he got the item for free!

Derakon June 16, 2011 21:11

He may get a bulk rate on ID, but that doesn't mean that it's free for him. :)

relic June 16, 2011 21:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bahman Rabii (Post 54928)

To summarize: You and the "no rage" guy have not tried what you are criticizing.

You misunderstand me. I don't criticize a no-selling game. It may possibly be wonderful. I just don't understand the arguments against a selling-game.

Edited and corrected wrong word in bold face.

Magnate June 16, 2011 21:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by takkaria (Post 54843)
Yup! We'd have to rearrange the stores again so that everything fitted in 8 buildings but that's fine. :)

We have a hard-coded limit of eight buildings??

Derakon June 16, 2011 21:49

I think he was talking about the town layout, which is roughly a 4x2 grid of buildings.

camlost June 16, 2011 21:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by relic (Post 54934)
I just don't understand the arguments against a selling-game.

I'll boil them down for you: most players spend time/effort dealing with items they only intend sell instead of playing other parts of the game they prefer more.

Magnate June 16, 2011 21:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by jens (Post 54802)
This is a great idea!

One problem I see though is that new players will not realise it's there...

My thought was to do something a little different, which wouldn't require saving and loading of kit. (Well actually it wasn't my idea, apparently it was in EyAngband). Instead it was to provide a list of possible kits at the end of character creation, showing the amount of gold remaining. I was imagining up to half a dozen could be available for any given class. So for example a mage might choose from:

1. book 1, sling, 20 iron shots, 5 rations, 3 torches, ?WoR

2. book 1, dagger, soft leather, wicker shield, 5 rations, 3 torches, ?WoR

3. book 1, book 2, 5 rations, 3 torches, 5 !CSW

4. book 1, book 2, main gauche, ?WoR, ?satisfy

... etc. It occurs to me that this would combine well with the load/save idea: we could provide a small number of basic kits, but players could add kits of their own which they prefer ...

Magnate June 16, 2011 21:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derakon (Post 54940)
I think he was talking about the town layout, which is roughly a 4x2 grid of buildings.

But there's no reason why it has to be, surely?

takkaria June 16, 2011 22:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magnate (Post 54944)
But there's no reason why it has to be, surely?

I'd like it to be ^_^

relic June 16, 2011 22:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by camlost (Post 54942)
I'll boil them down for you: most players spend time/effort dealing with items they only intend sell instead of playing other parts of the game they prefer more.

I guess I should have written: I don't understand why some players play in such a way that causes them to have arguments against it.

Anyway, why do they spend time/effort dealing with items they only intend sell.
They don't want to do it and don't need to do it either. Or maybe they do feel the need to do it? (in my opinion unnecessarily so).

Susramanian June 16, 2011 22:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by relic (Post 54934)
I just don't understand the arguments against a selling-game.

Here's a well-written essay on a somewhat related topic that offers some insight into why many players despise selling games: http://www.designer-notes.com/?p=369

To summarize the bit that applies to the current discussion, optimal gameplay is mandatory for many players. These are players that approach a game as a puzzle to which an optimal solution must be found. These are players for whom discovering an exploit or cheesy tactic destroys all fun, since they have discovered an optimal solution for the puzzle which removes challenge, and that solution cannot be undiscovered. Selling carefully and frequently certainly isn't an exploit or cheesy tactic, but it is optimal gameplay and therefore mandatory for a certain (very common, I suspect) type of player. Many of these players don't even realize that their optimal gameplay is less fun than it could be until the rules change, and suddenly something they had previously felt compelled to do is no longer possible.

It's like shedding a set of iron shackles.

Those that don't approach games this way probably don't even realize the existence of the mindset I just described, and are thus mystified when they hear for people calling for the abolition of selling. They say, "if you don't like it, then don't do it!" It doesn't work that way for the mandatory-optimization players. They pit their wits against the rule set as it exists, and they have to do their best. If something isn't fun, but it gives them an edge, they'll do it.

To make these mandatory-optimization players happiest, developers should strive to make optimal gameplay align perfectly with fun gameplay. This is exactly what the no-selling game does.

relic June 16, 2011 22:30

Thanks for your reply, Susramanian. This explains a lot. I am surely not one of those optimal gameplay persons, at least not in that sense. That is, I believe (maybe fooling myself) that my game-style is optimal in some other sense.

takkaria June 16, 2011 22:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susramanian (Post 54949)
Here's a well-written essay on a somewhat related topic that offers some insight into why many players despise selling games: http://www.designer-notes.com/?p=369

To summarize the bit that applies to the current discussion, optimal gameplay is mandatory for many players. These are players that approach a game as a puzzle to which an optimal solution must be found. These are players for whom discovering an exploit or cheesy tactic destroys all fun, since they have discovered an optimal solution for the puzzle which removes challenge, and that solution cannot be undiscovered. Selling carefully and frequently certainly isn't an exploit or cheesy tactic, but it is optimal gameplay and therefore mandatory for a certain (very common, I suspect) type of player. Many of these players don't even realize that their optimal gameplay is less fun than it could be until the rules change, and suddenly something they had previously felt compelled to do is no longer possible.

It's like shedding a set of iron shackles.

Those that don't approach games this way probably don't even realize the existence of the mindset I just described, and are thus mystified when they hear for people calling for the abolition of selling. They say, "if you don't like it, then don't do it!" It doesn't work that way for the mandatory-optimization players. They pit their wits against the rule set as it exists, and they have to do their best. If something isn't fun, but it gives them an edge, they'll do it.

To make these mandatory-optimization players happiest, developers should strive to make optimal gameplay align perfectly with fun gameplay. This is exactly what the no-selling game does.

That's interesting, thanks.

relic June 16, 2011 22:54

OK ending my part of this discussion, I just want to say that I realize now that the selling part of Angband is not favorable to some (most?) players, although it's still hard to believe, but that's just projection from my part.

I guess I could characterize myself as a VLS-person, as in Very Little Selling. But that little selling I do, I like.

ChodTheWacko June 16, 2011 23:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by relic (Post 54947)
Anyway, why do they spend time/effort dealing with items they only intend sell.
They don't want to do it and don't need to do it either. Or maybe they do feel the need to do it? (in my opinion unnecessarily so).

Every time I go into the Black Market and see something I really want but can't afford, it reinforces the selling mentality.

- Frank

Max Stats June 16, 2011 23:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magnate (Post 54944)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Derakon (Post 54940)
I think he was talking about the town layout, which is roughly a 4x2 grid of buildings.

But there's no reason why it has to be, surely?

You'd have to get it past the neighborhood association first.

Bahman Rabii June 16, 2011 23:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChodTheWacko (Post 54957)
Every time I go into the Black Market and see something I really want but can't afford, it reinforces the selling mentality.

- Frank

That is only because you think of selling as the way to get gold. When you break that association - and start to value gold drops and the increased value of the no-sell gold drops - then you won't have that reaction.

buzzkill June 17, 2011 03:34

I think Relic and DOS have a point here, reinforced by Susramanian's blurb. I was never a compulsive seller, but every once in a while, I'd need gold so I'd sell stuff, sometime even useful stuff. I like no selling, but I could play with selling too, without it ruling my world.

It's possible they just don't see the need for no selling because selling was never first and foremost. The fact that gold drops were exaggerated to compensate for no selling makes it's widespread acceptance somewhat tainted.

Timo Pietilä June 17, 2011 04:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derakon (Post 54905)
No, it isn't. Have you noticed how many people have said "Man, no-selling sounds like a terrible idea", then tried it, and said "Wow, this is a lot better than I thought it would be!"? I don't think I've seen more than two people on this forum not like no-selling after having tried it.

Two? No Rage here and who else?

Derakon June 17, 2011 04:23

DOS350 hasn't tried it so he doesn't count for that statement. I don't recall exact nicks; I just seem to recall someone having made an informed decision that it wasn't for them, then I padded the number to be on the safe side.

Timo Pietilä June 17, 2011 04:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChodTheWacko (Post 54927)
I'm curious how often you buy stuff from the BM, since my gut feeling is it would take you a very long time to afford expensive objects. I tend to be close (or over) my inventory weight limit, so I can barely pick up anything 'extra' without slowing down. In the early/mid game, the valuable objects are usually ego weapons.

I usually buy cheap items that do not exist in other shops from BM, teleport scrolls, potions of speed, rings of resist poison if I need one, lantern if it appears there before I find it in dungeon, staves of speed etc.

Every now and then it then has something I really really want, like gauntlets of power/agility, but that is not why I check it every time I visit town.

Zyphyr June 17, 2011 05:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derakon (Post 54977)
DOS350 hasn't tried it so he doesn't count for that statement. I don't recall exact nicks; I just seem to recall someone having made an informed decision that it wasn't for them, then I padded the number to be on the safe side.

I'm may be the one you are remembering.

One of these days I may try a few more times, but I don't really expect to change my mind.

dos350 June 17, 2011 10:26

excuse me, no selling ,~ useless restriction of play, theres enough gold anyway, and its only some blah blah inventory blah weight blah back to town "vaccuum" insanity~ if u let it be , please. please~ no rage

Raggy June 17, 2011 11:12

Im convinced as well, on my 3rd char with no selling now, and not looking back.

What I dont like about it, is starting gear, and the dilamma of buying ?WOR, or being forced to go up stair by stair the first dungeon trip

Magnate June 17, 2011 12:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susramanian (Post 54949)
To make these mandatory-optimization players happiest, developers should strive to make optimal gameplay align perfectly with fun gameplay. This is exactly what the no-selling game does.

Thank you - I've been wanting to describe my approach to games properly for years. I am quite severely afflicted by mandatory optimisation (which is why I feel strongly about store stocking and selling). I couldn't play Dragon Age: Origins past the town with the infinite-xp exploit, because I couldn't not use it. Argh.

This is why I want to remove "no-brainer" choices from the game. In 3.3, there will finally be a shield which can compete with Thorin.

EDIT: after reading the full article I am tickled by this bit: "With Civ 3, we introduced a feature that preserved the game’s random seed in the save game file, guaranteeing that individual combats would play out the same way regardless of how many times the player reloaded the game."

tony June 17, 2011 14:10

"mandatory-optimization players "

Well at least I know what box I belong in now and it seriously surprises me that there are players that don't play that way.

Currently playing "no sell" and enjoying the freedom!

Derakon June 17, 2011 15:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by dos350 (Post 55002)
excuse me, no selling ,~ useless restriction of play, theres enough gold anyway, and its only some blah blah inventory blah weight blah back to town "vaccuum" insanity~ if u let it be , please. please~ no rage

To be frank, nobody's going to listen to your opinion on this until you've tried it.

Chud June 17, 2011 17:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by dos350 (Post 55002)
excuse me, no selling ,~ useless restriction of play, theres enough gold anyway, and its only some blah blah inventory blah weight blah back to town "vaccuum" insanity~ if u let it be , please. please~ no rage

Hey, you know, it's a game to be played for fun and you should absolutely play it with whatever settings are the most fun for you. If you're sure you always want selling on, and even if you're never going to sample the alternatives, hey it's your fun and there's nothing at all wrong with that. Go for it.

But - if you come to a forum and ask why, THEN don't be surprised if people ask you to try a taste before promoting in discussion how little sense an option makes (and then begin to take you less seriously when you repeatedly decline). Especially if you are clearly part of a small minority on this topic, and especially if lots of people have now explained at some length what they like about it.

Of course play the game the way you like it best. I suspect you've gleaned as much enlightenment from the discussions as there is to be had on this topic, though, until you decide to sample the other settings (and if that never happens, that's fine too - it's your game).

Timo Pietilä June 17, 2011 17:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derakon (Post 55048)
To be frank, nobody's going to listen to your opinion on this until you've tried it.

and, frankly, probably not even after you have tried it. Person that complains about every single change is like person who yells "Wolf" one too many time.

dos350 June 17, 2011 18:30

i dont need to try it , i know from reading about it that it sucks alot and i wouldnt like it!

Magnate June 17, 2011 18:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timo Pietilä (Post 55073)
Person that complains about every single change is like person who yells "Wolf" one too many time.

fx: sound of Magnate's jaw hitting floor.

jens June 17, 2011 18:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magnate (Post 55086)
fx: sound of Magnate's jaw hitting floor.

Was thinking about commenting something similar... But then I realised that even if it doesn't always sound like it, Timo likes quite a lot of the changes :)

dos350 June 17, 2011 20:02

please, instead of removing things from game and making it a mental attack on players to encourage certain styles of play, just keep the game good and maybe like chill out!

please , please! no rage!!~

i cant stress enough , truly~ this game is going downhill if u let it~!~!~!

Therem Harth June 17, 2011 20:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by dos350 (Post 55083)
i dont need to try it , i know from reading about it that it sucks alot and i wouldnt like it!

With lines like that, I don't think your pleas of "no rage!" are going to avail you. Just sayin'.

As far as "no sell" gameplay goes... I will admit I haven't tried it. However, if it reduces the amount of time I spend scumming around for cash to buy necessary stuff at stores, then I'm all for it.

(Take my input with a grain of salt though; my *banding habits do not fit the normal profile.)

Derakon June 17, 2011 20:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by dos350 (Post 55097)
please, instead of removing things from game and making it a mental attack on players to encourage certain styles of play, just keep the game good and maybe like chill out!

From where I stand, you're the one trying to remove things from the game. Specifically, you're trying to remove the no-selling option, which I happen to hold quite dearly.

Nobody's forcing you to play with no-selling; we're just saying that you can't make a compelling case for it being a bad idea, especially since you haven't tried it.

dos350 June 17, 2011 20:36

excuse me again~! i never said to remove it ,

but i certainly dont want to see it become the default option, nor can i understand why people would like it..

there really is no point to it at all...

as for scumming for gold etc, its not an issue, from wat i see u no sell fanatics are creating worst case gold fantasies to validate this new fad of no sell~~ please , no rage ,, eeeeeee!

Magnate June 17, 2011 20:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by dos350 (Post 55102)
excuse me again~! i never said to remove it ,

but i certainly dont want to see it become the default option, nor can i understand why people would like it..

Well, you're in a tiny minority there. I don't have any inside info, but my money is firmly on takkaria making no_selling on by default in 3.3 ....

EDIT: ah no wait, I remember a conversation about this. It has to be off by default to avoid scaring/confusing new players. Never mind.

Max Stats June 17, 2011 21:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magnate (Post 55106)
Well, you're in a tiny minority there.

Looks like it's time for a poll to settle this.

Jazerus June 17, 2011 21:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magnate (Post 55106)
Well, you're in a tiny minority there. I don't have any inside info, but my money is firmly on takkaria making no_selling on by default in 3.3 ....

EDIT: ah no wait, I remember a conversation about this. It has to be off by default to avoid scaring/confusing new players. Never mind.

This could be circumvented with clever enough flavor text in the shops, I think. Something that could probably use updating is the description of no_sell in the birth options - as it stands, the one-line description doesn't mention that gold drops are boosted so it sounds like a ridiculous challenge option to someone who hasn't read up on it here.

Magnate June 17, 2011 23:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jazerus (Post 55122)
This could be circumvented with clever enough flavor text in the shops, I think. Something that could probably use updating is the description of no_sell in the birth options - as it stands, the one-line description doesn't mention that gold drops are boosted so it sounds like a ridiculous challenge option to someone who hasn't read up on it here.

There *is* help on this option, but it's only available during the birth process, not during the game (see ticket #1447).

Bahman Rabii June 18, 2011 02:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magnate (Post 55106)
EDIT: ah no wait, I remember a conversation about this. It has to be off by default to avoid scaring/confusing new players. Never mind.

Huh? New players have no expectations at all about this, so why would they be "scared"?

Jazerus June 18, 2011 03:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bahman Rabii (Post 55155)
Huh? New players have no expectations at all about this, so why would they be "scared"?

In the context of roguelikes, and video games in general, "selling" things for 0 gold doesn't make terribly much sense. Without some flavor text, perhaps portraying a no_sell selling interaction more as the shopkeeper identifying the item for you, but keeping it, then this probably would be persistently reported as a bug by confused new players.

kaypy June 18, 2011 03:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bahman Rabii (Post 55155)
Huh? New players have no expectations at all about this, so why would they be "scared"?

New players have expectations from *other* games they have played. Since vendor trash is the default state for RPGs you can expect players to expect it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jazerus (Post 55122)
Something that could probably use updating is the description of no_sell in the birth options

"Find more gold instead of selling items" would fit on one line there

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magnate (Post 55139)
There *is* help on this option, but it's only available during the birth process, not during the game (see ticket #1447).

It seems to work in the nightlies...

ChodTheWacko June 18, 2011 03:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jazerus (Post 55158)
In the context of roguelikes, and video games in general, "selling" things for 0 gold doesn't make terribly much sense. Without some flavor text, perhaps portraying a no_sell selling interaction more as the shopkeeper identifying the item for you, but keeping it, then this probably would be persistently reported as a bug by confused new players.

There is no need to show '0 gold' at all.
No need to even call it selling - it could be 'sacrifice' or donate.

'k' doesn't actually destroy objects (it's just hidden, squelch style), or I'd actually suggest that the 'k' command should identify the object before destroying it.

- Frank

Bahman Rabii June 18, 2011 03:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChodTheWacko (Post 55162)
There is no need to show '0 gold' at all.
No need to even call it selling - it could be 'sacrifice' or donate.

'k' doesn't actually destroy objects (it's just hidden, squelch style), or I'd actually suggest that the 'k' command should identify the object before destroying it.

- Frank

Why not just remove the sell command? Identifying has already gotten really easy and store identify is not really a must.

Then there would be no source of confusion.

Timo Pietilä June 18, 2011 06:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChodTheWacko (Post 55162)
There is no need to show '0 gold' at all.
No need to even call it selling - it could be 'sacrifice' or donate.

"Donate" would be good.

If you think modern shops I don't think many of them do trades. They just sell, they do not buy.

Magnate June 18, 2011 08:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bahman Rabii (Post 55163)
Why not just remove the sell command? Identifying has already gotten really easy and store identify is not really a must.

Then there would be no source of confusion.

I suspect that's where we'll end up, but we can't do that while no_selling remains an option. (The original issue here was whether the option should default to on or off.)

IMO new players to Angband are unlikely to be entirely new to the concept of role-playing, and will expect to be able to sell items in shops because that's what most role-playing scenarios involve. As someone else said, we'll get a lot of spurious bug reports if we default it to on - unless we also change the store code to do something other than offer 0 gold (e.g. shopkeeper says "I do not buy items from my customers") - but that causes problems for the sell-to-ID mechanic ... and so on. Nothing is ever straightforward.

jens June 18, 2011 09:58

So when rune based ID has been working in the game for a while, and we decide that we don't need the ID by store mechanic any more, we can turn the stores to real stores that only sell to you :-)

Icon June 18, 2011 15:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by relic (Post 54921)
1. I never head back to town just to sell stuff.

2. I would never pick up a heavy item to sell if it slowed me, (but I may pick it up to bring it to the home if it could become useful.)

3. I don't think I ever have chosen a "sellable" item before a "fun and useful" item .

Put me down for most of the above (I will pick up heavy items and carry them if I think they are going to be useful, dropping them as needed in order to fight).


Quote:

Originally Posted by Derakon (Post 54925)
In your selling games, would you carry a scroll of Detect Invisible? Would you use a wand of Confuse Monster, rather than hold it to sell? How many inventory slots are full before you go into the dungeon? In no-selling games, all of my inventory is for items that I'd either want to use at some point, or that I'm waiting on pseudo to ID for me. I can carry tons of niche crap that I'd pretty much squelch right off in a selling game, because I'd get a better return on devoting the inventory slot to something salable.

I typically am leaving slots t though w open for new items and carrying two slots of items I can dump if I judge an item is worth having (Scrolls of Phase Door and Identify--the latter of which use themselves up in dungeons thereby freeing up another slot).

Quote:

In selling games, when my pack fills up with vendor trash, I either recall or start ditching the least valuable items so I can fit in more valuable stuff (or the occasional, rare actually usable item).
I often leave items on the ground of types that just aren't a great fit for the character I'm playing. I'm not seeing how not being able to sell items changes that routine. I still don't understand what is is about the possibility of selling that makes you have to play inventory management games when you claim you don't want to do that. Leave the "valuable" items on the ground.

Quote:

With no-selling, my pack fills far less quickly, even though I've stuffed so many low-odds items in it, because there are far fewer usable items than there are salable items.
Clearly I'm paranoid because I consider my a-q slots to be mandatory, must carry items. (Well, not actually a-q since items get packed in a certain way, but a-q worth of slots).

Derakon June 18, 2011 16:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Icon (Post 55202)
Clearly I'm paranoid because I consider my a-q slots to be mandatory, must carry items. (Well, not actually a-q since items get packed in a certain way, but a-q worth of slots).

I'm not talking so much about the late game as I am about the early- and mid-game, when you haven't necessarily found all the consumables you normally want to carry with you. In the early game, my "must-have" inventory are phase door, word of recall, some form of healing potion(s), and (if I'm playing a pure caster) a couple of spellbooks. Everything else is the random stuff I find in the dungeon, but if I'm playing with selling on, low-value items that still have some utility, like the aforementioned ?DetectInvisible, will get tossed in favor of something that is worth money. Since there's a lot of potentially moneymaking items to be found, my early dives with selling on don't usually make it past 500'; with no-selling, I can get all the way down to 900' pretty reliably before the lack of a stock of midgame consumables makes me antsy.

So yeah, about doubling my dungeon dive length is what really sells me on no-selling.

Icon June 18, 2011 21:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derakon (Post 55218)
I'm not talking so much about the late game as I am about the early- and mid-game, when you haven't necessarily found all the consumables you normally want to carry with you. In the early game, my "must-have" inventory are phase door, word of recall, some form of healing potion(s), and (if I'm playing a pure caster) a couple of spellbooks. Everything else is the random stuff I find in the dungeon, but if I'm playing with selling on, low-value items that still have some utility, like the aforementioned ?DetectInvisible, will get tossed in favor of something that is worth money. Since there's a lot of potentially moneymaking items to be found, my early dives with selling on don't usually make it past 500'; with no-selling, I can get all the way down to 900' pretty reliably before the lack of a stock of midgame consumables makes me antsy.

So yeah, about doubling my dungeon dive length is what really sells me on no-selling.

My priest is carrying books in slots a-d (still low enough level not to have found one of the advanced books), 12 cure criticals, 3 Healing, and 3 Speed potions slots e-g, 5 phase doors, 5 Identifies, 5 Word of Recalls slots h-j, 3 rods of light (which since I just found The Phial of Galadriel I suppose I can get rid of), 4 wands of Lightning Bolts, a wand of Teleport Other slots k-m, a staff of curing, 3 rings of teleportation, a ring of escaping, 2 amulets of teleportation in various other slots but occupying effectively slots n-q, and 14 iron shot in effective slot r.

I don't consider any of that stuff optional. At lower levels some of the wands might be different and the potioins would be one of the lesser cures but the rest of it is pretty much must have.

What gets tossed is what can almost invariably be found at town level--scrolls of phase door and scrolls of word of recall (but only after having read one).

Derakon June 18, 2011 21:53

You have different definitions of non-optional gear than I do. At your level, I'd feel uncomfortable without:

* The four town books
* 15 !CCW
* 15 ?Phase Door
* 2 !Speed (stash any extra in the home)
* 5+ ?WoR
* -TeleportOther if available
* Possibly another attack wand, whatever's handy
* _Teleport
* _Identify

Particularly, I don't like rings of escaping (they strike me as cheesy) and items with random teleportation are way too unreliable. If I need speed I burn a !Speed, or just avoid the fight in the first place. Staves of curing are worse than useless -- CCW potions do everything they do, while having a 0% failure rate, less weight per-charge, and no chance of losing the entire thing to one instance of inventory damage. The only time I'd consider using one is if the fight's already over and I have some lingering status ailment to take care of, but at that point I can rest and/or cast Neutralize Poison as appropriate. Or chug a !CCW, since I carry so many spares.

At some point I do start carrying !Healing, but not this early, especially since as a priest I can cast the spell. Rods of Light are briefly useful for taking out orcs, but very quickly either you can take them out without needing the rods, or they're immune to light. Finally, ammo for a priest isn't generally all that great until rather later in the game; in the meantime, OoD suffices.

All told, that's 12 items, for slots a-l. Tack on -DetectTreasure, and maybe some !Heroism and ?HolyChant, and you're still only up to slot o. There's plenty left for random marginal-utility stuff. So yeah, I do end up carrying rods of Light longer than I should, as well as a couple of miscellaneous attack wands that I keep forgetting about. :)

Icon June 18, 2011 22:07

The difference between 12 and 15 CCW is negligible, so we agree on that.

15 Phase Door? I rarely use 2 let alone anywhere near 15.

Speed I try to reserve for unique fights. As goes teleport items, they are absolute, last ditch items because of their questionable reliability. But they have saved characters before so I prefer to carry though most times if I am looking at escaping Portal is likely to be used (preferably at a point where I can portal again if I don't like the arrival spot--happens enough one should be prepared).

I was carrying the rods of light because somewhere, long ago, I lost a character due to insufficient light and a need to read a scroll. As I noted, since I found Phial (this morning even) I can get rid of them.

As for ammo, finishing off low hp stragglers is what I carry it for. OoD is wonderful but also 14% of my mana with each cast. I could use one of the wands but I find just enough things fleeing in situations where I need to keep my mana up that packing ammo seems to make sense.

Heroism and Holy Chant. . .I really don't use them much. Blessing myself seems more reasonable than using the slots that way. Am I missing something?

Derakon June 18, 2011 22:22

Oh right, priests can cast bless, so no need for ?HolyChant. Heroism's handy for the fear immunity if nothing else, though I don't know if I'd carry it on an earlygame priest.

Phase door is useful for avoiding melee, which is how most earlygame uniques will kill you. You can safely take out the Sons of Mim, the orc uniques, Sangahyando, etc. by casting spells / aiming wands / firing ammo (as appropriate to class) and using phase door when they get close. This works even on fast uniques so long as they don't have dangerous spells, but that tends to burn through scrolls quickly since you only get a turn or maybe two before having to phase again.

If you're in the situation where you need to teleport, an item whose sole purpose is teleportation is a lot more reliable than an item that might choose to teleport you if it's feeling nice.

Icon June 18, 2011 22:37

You see my preference for saving Speed potions for uniques. Most (so far anyway) have met the hit and move back death, with the occasionally phase door and OoD/ammo tossed in.

Back on topic, no_selling doesn't strike me as unreasonable, broken, or cheating the game and I'm all for people who like it using it. I don't mind selling, but no doubt there were people who actually liked haggling too.

artes June 20, 2011 11:53

The economical system in Angband always bothered me because it is not balanced. The shop keepers seem to lose a lot of money since they buy for a lot more than they are selling for. In the real world they would be out of money fast. If Angband was realistic, they would pay less for the things they buy from the player. Maybe 10% of the price they sell things for. Now it seems like it is 50% or more.

Derakon June 20, 2011 15:17

They give a discount to their suppliers (a.k.a. adventurers). You should see the prices people from out of town have to pay!

ekolis June 20, 2011 23:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by artes (Post 55414)
The economical system in Angband always bothered me because it is not balanced. The shop keepers seem to lose a lot of money since they buy for a lot more than they are selling for. In the real world they would be out of money fast. If Angband was realistic, they would pay less for the things they buy from the player. Maybe 10% of the price they sell things for. Now it seems like it is 50% or more.

Eh? Since when did THAT happen? Admittedly I haven't played V in a while, but last I checked, if I bought something from a shop, and sold it back (or sold something and bought it back), I'd lose about 50% on the deal... if you really could sell something for some amount of money and buy it back for less, then you could get unlimited money from the shopkeepers by buying and selling repeatedly!

Or do you mean that the volume of selling that a player does at a shop is greater than the volume of buying, so eventually the merchant would theoretically bankrupt himself with a large amount of unsalable stock? I suppose that can be explained by saying that the timed restocks of shops represent NPC transactions... though I do seem to recall years ago there was this one variant with an actual free-market system whereby prices fluctuated over time based on supply and demand...!


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:05.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.