Angband Forums

Angband Forums (http://angband.oook.cz/forum/index.php)
-   Vanilla (http://angband.oook.cz/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   "Nick is going to butcher the game" (http://angband.oook.cz/forum/showthread.php?t=9287)

tangar February 15, 2019 07:52

"Nick is going to butcher the game"
 
Angband’s lore destruction

There were loads of new awesome stuff came in Angband: new ID, traps, curses, new light effects etc. All this enhancement of the gameplay made Angband a bit different, but the better game overall. I know some guys (eg in Discord) who like old gameplay mechanics more, buy most of players enjoying evolution of the gameplay mechanics (and I'm among them).

But currently there are coming changes to monsters and races (game's lore actually) which are NOT liked by a lot of players. This changes pushed by huge Nick's authority, which he absolutely deserved by his work on the game. But what is more important: Nick's authority or Angband itself?

What made me to write this post? New LORE-based changes in Angband:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick (Post 136153)
Healer replaced by tamer (novice druid)
Bandit replaced by ruffian (novice blackguard)
Easterling warrior renamed warrior
Master rogue renamed rogue
Black knight tweaked and renamed blackguard
...

This is just a small drop. If it was the only changes in games LORE - I won't created this thread. But it's a long lasting job on game's lore transformation. Loads of monsters changed depths (eg all nazguls now >75 lvl monsters.. Uvatha :(), renamed, revamped.. NOT rebalanced, but revamped :mad:

So the question now - could we save vanilla Angand from destroying?


Why monsters are lore?

Overall I liked a lot of stuff Nick's doing, but all past monster revamp is really bad - when he just throw away monsters which were with us FOR YEARS. I understand that Nick got his own vision on the game, but it feels like a destroying the game which we knew. New version would certainly be not an oldschool classic Angband anymore, it's a new variant. I do not know why other players are silent or only approving Nick's changes to monsters.. It can not be that I'm the only one who can't bear it. I know some people who also said that "Nick is going to butcher the game" and they do not like this stuff. Why are you silent, guys?

Certain stuff shouldn't be changed. Angband doesn't have 'lore' like some other RPG's which got a static map and a rich storyline. The only 'lore' and 'spirit' of this game is concluded in monsters. Monsters in Angband - it's LORE, A WORLD. It's a CORE of the game. It should be preserved and threated with huge respect. It should be great cautious to put our dirty fingers at any of classic monsters, which loved by thousands of players.

Traps mechanics - alright. They were boring with trap detection. Curses.. Yeah - it was annoying not to be able to drop stuff. ID system.. New one made gameplay more rich. All this stuff is an enhancement of gameplay, but the game itself stayed the same. Because it had a) roguelike concept and b) WORLD (lore)

With changing WORLD you change the game. It's becoming not an 'Angband', but something different. It's not right to do this to ~30 year old game. People loved and KNOW the monsters. They recognize them by tiny sight and they understand what to expect from them because they played Angband for years.

I've created this separate topic, cause if I'll just a reply to 'feature/monster' topic, it would be quickly buried by Nick's supporters messages. I myself got HUGE respect to Nick, his work and his personality, he is great leader. But game design, coding and game's lore is different areas of responsibility. Maybe there should be different persons in charge for this particular game component. Let's Nick would be lead gamedesigner and coder, but someone else would take lore-based decisions in their hand - some of Angband veterans. Or even create a 'council' of veterants - like 3-5 past V-maintainers who would vote for LORE-based changes.

What else could I add.. I have my own variant which would preserve classic stuff in it. I won't ever touch any respectable monster, because I'm in love with them. I know each and everyone there. Of course, monster's itself should be rebalanced sometimes, but their LORE - names and depth where you find them - wouldn't be changed. It shouldn't be changed. It's a core of the game.

Angaband is RNG-based game; I mean when each dungeon levels is created - we do not know what to expect there. The only things which we expect - is certain monsters. Each one is good known and got it's own special place. You won't meet Nazguls at -50, you know it and it's one of small static things in absolutely RNG game. The only thing which we have is lore and our knowledge of it. Please don't take it away.

The right way - is to add new stuff and to enhance the game, not to cut it's parts. How come that I'm as a huge Tolkien fan (damm I even runned in the forests with wooden sword in real life) - do not like current Angband tolkienization? Because it's a conflict of interests - Tolkien lore VS Angband lore. Sorry, but Angband is not a fanfic Tolkien website to bend it like this. In Angband 'game' it's lore and traditions more precious then Tolkien heritage. Nick doesn't feel like this it seems :( But even Gandalf was mistaken a lot of times. Let's go back...

clouded February 15, 2019 08:10

This is absolute nonsense, you haven't even played vanilla angband and no right to act like you own the game. Nick is a fantastic maintainer and is extremely open to other people's views and ideas, and to upholding the spirit of Angband. If you had been around the main Angband community (not the tomenet one) for more than a month you would realise how many times a discussion about "don't develop vanilla" has come up and how embarrasing this topic looks.

tangar February 15, 2019 08:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by clouded (Post 136174)
This is absolute nonsense, you haven't even played vanilla angband and no right to act like you own the game. Nick is a fantastic maintainer and is extremely open to other people's views and ideas, and to upholding the spirit of Angband. If you had been around the main Angband community (not the tomenet one) for more than a month you would realise how many times a discussion about "don't develop vanilla" has come up and how embarrasing this topic looks.

Thanks for a feedback. But it seems that you do not have anything to say about the subject of this topic, you only speaking about my personality. I'm touched with such attention, but still I kindly ask you to do not distract attention from the subject of this discussion.

Also please read my message more carefully one more time (if you actually bothered to read it once, which I doubt); then you would see that I respect Nick greatly, but do not agree with his past decisions. I have all rights to express my feelings in this direction; I'm sure that Nick himself would approve having alternative vision on this matters.

Pahasusi February 15, 2019 10:01

Hei,

long-time lurker here (7 years??), player of Angband since 1995 or so, done my Nethack, ADOM etc...

I made an account just to come here and post my couple of cents. What the OP wrote is in my opinion completely wrong.


I'm not bothered by the mixing of different ages of Middle Earth - what irritates me is the mixing of religious mythology, D&D monsters, David Eddings and who knows how many other sources to Middle Earth context.

Angband to me represents Tolkien's world. Removing all the outliers, D&D monsters and "funny" monsters just enhances the game - makes it more coherent and unique experience.

Going through the monsters, giving epic Tolkieny villains (for example Nazguls) their rightful place at the top of the monster food chain instead of just being pushovers is exactly the right choice.

What Nick has done to the game is great! It feels vibrant, evolving game once again, not stagnant pit that tries to preserve "a mix of bit of everything".

So I say go for it Nick! Realize your vision while taking feedback like you have done so far - those who want to stay with the old Angband can do so, but it's my opinion it's high time this great, classic game got someone with your vision to maintain it :)

Thraalbee February 15, 2019 10:21

As reminder. No one will change what is already released. Anyone can make new forks and variants. Nick has no exclusive rights for this. However, he does have very strong support from the community because of being careful, open and listening. Now, if let's say AC/DC were to publish a new album I don't like, would it be reasonable to claim they are ruining my acdc record collection? Some albums (or versions of *band) may not be the thing for me. But, the alternative - no releases is not appealing. And again, anyone is free to pickup the source and publish the "right" version.

Philip February 15, 2019 10:37

I, uh, recommend checking out how other maintainers have fundamentally changed the game (complete with lore) in the past.

Anyway, I find the past maintainer council probably the funniest and most revealing of your suggestions. First, generally, maintainers stop being maintainers because they stop having the time or inclination it on V. Therefore, I would not expect them to actually participate very much. Most of the past maintainers are unreachable at this point. However, Takkaria is still around, and seems to approve of Nick's activity. Derakon used to be part of the dev team, and not only does he apparently approve of most of the changes, he comments when he does not, and his opinions are taken into account. Lastly, past maintainers have in fact frequently made significant changes to the game, and I would expect them to more or less automatically vote in favor of whatever the current person wants to do, out of solidarity if nothing else. As for a non-maintainers council, that's all of us in the forum. We don't have any formal power, but Nick does listen. He put back Ochre Jellies and Gelatinous cubes because Derakon and I asked. If you find that you do not have much influence, perhaps you ought to look at your conduct and see if there might be reasons for that.

The current monsters are not some sort of perfectly designed ecosystem. They are more like a pile of individual statblocks, with perhaps some level of internal consistency at the genus level. The fact that they are the current monster list and that the game is fun does not mean they are a good monster list.

When you assert that a lot of people do not like these changes, and then ask why nobody else seems to be complaining, I think maybe that contradicts your assertion?

debo February 15, 2019 10:50

I'm happy to see everything change 🤷*♂️

Nick February 15, 2019 11:07

I'm rather fond of my current signature, otherwise the title of this thread would make a perfect new one :D

Seriously, I'm glad that these changes have provoked a bit of discussion. Not everyone is going to have the same vision for the game, and what we end up with will be a compromise. The more views are out there, the better chance of it being a compromise everyone can live with.

I have thought fairly hard about the monster changes, but they are certainly not perfect. I'll say some more on specifics in the feature/monster thread, but the general point is that this is a first attempt at revision of the monster list. I'm intending that some more things will change, and I'm sure that some things will change back. What I would like to see, though is more feedback from people who have spent a decent time playing with the new monsters in place (I have had quite a bit already, which I'm very grateful for).

In the end this is the community's game, and any changes I make that aren't acceptable to the community won't last very long - either I will take them out or someone else will. I certainly will not be maintainer for ever.

PS debo see how everyone else loves being chased by a million acid monsters?

Rydel February 15, 2019 15:26

I haven't played vanilla in a while - I've been meaning to, but I've been busy with other projects, but I wonder if the examples you gave might be a bit weak. I understand that monster that are individually forgettable can still add to the whole of the experience, but the examples of name changes you gave mostly don't change the feel.

Now, the Healer to Tamer and Easterling Warrior to Warrior do seem to be noticable flavor changes, and I'm curious as to why they changed. I'll probably need to read over the 20 page feature/monster thread unless someone knows why they changed.

For Bandit and Master Rogue, if I recall correctly, there are multiple monsters with those names. Were they all changed or just some? If it's just some, I can see reasons for this. Renaming a lower level Bandit to Ruffian can clue the player in that the later Bandits are are different, stronger monster. For Master Rogue, I remember that several of the monsters named after classes get a Master version later. Did the Rogue switch to Master Rogue earlier than the others? If so, having it switch names around the same time make sense.

For the Black Knight becoming Blackguard, I think most players who encounter a Black Knight don't think about a knight with no heraldry and likely no alliegance, probably turned to brigandry. They think of the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, which doesn't seem the be the feel the game is going for. Blackguard still maintains the feel that the term Black Knight used to have.

With the Nazgul, being some of Sauron's most powerful servants, why shouldn't they be deep? A lot of them were rather non-threatening considering what they were supposed to be.

Of course, as I said, I have played the latest versions, so my memory may be way off the mark. Grain of salt and all that.

emulord February 15, 2019 16:44

I liked the "kitchen sink" mythology of past versions, but the game should evolve over time. Past versions are still available so its just more options imo.

Pete Mack February 15, 2019 18:05

Amusingly, Easterling Warrior is a very new name. Until recently it was 'hardened warrior' or 'swordsman.'

NightLizard February 15, 2019 18:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by tangar (Post 136173)
Angband’s lore destruction

But currently there are coming changes to monsters and races (game's lore actually) which are NOT liked by a lot of players.

From this thread and the thread where Nick proposes the changes I think it looks like it is quite well received.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tangar (Post 136173)
Angband’s lore destruction

This changes pushed by huge Nick's authority, which he absolutely deserved by his work on the game. But what is more important: Nick's authority or Angband itself?

He doesn't change by "authority". He openly describes his ideas, asks for feedback and really listen to what the community say. And it seems these changes are mostly met by enthusiasm.

It is natural to have reactions to change. I also think "but I was used to that..." when I see a change (lore or not), but all that is being done is to make the lore more consistent and to make Angband feel more like Angband. The changes are also quite humble, and as others mentioned: things have changed before.

Derakon February 15, 2019 18:43

Other people have addressed other parts of your post, so I'll limit myself to this:

It's good to care deeply about the game. That's great! Angband is a great game and people are passionate about it. And it's good to have strong opinions about what the game should be like, and to like or dislike changes that are made to the game. Just recognize these two facts:

* Just because you don't like a change doesn't mean it is necessarily objectively a bad change.
* The instant Angband stops changing is the instant it dies.

It is quite literally impossible to please everyone with every change, and I daresay it is similarly difficult to not displease someone with every change! But change is vital to keeping the game alive. If it stops changing, then there stops being much to talk about, and eventually the community peters out. It might take years, decades even considering how long Angband has been around, but it will die eventually so long as it is not a "living document".

Considering that change is vital, then, you have to take the bad with the good. Some changes are going to displease you. Ideally you will find the majority of changes pleasing, not least because the maintainer typically only works on the game because they want people to play it.

But please do not scream to the heavens about how Angband has been ruined by the latest change that you personally do not like. If you can't convince people with calmer arguments, histrionics are unlikely to do any better.

Pete Mack February 15, 2019 19:14

More notably, besides the nazgul, none of these changes is particularly good. And Uvatha really is too weak, though I am not sure they should go all the way to dl70.

Ingwe Ingweron February 15, 2019 19:37

+1 to everything Derakon said. Tangar, once again your post is quite offensive, perhaps without meaning to be, but offensive nonetheless. And how is that you have the end-all-be-all survey of what "LOT'S" of Angband players feel about the changes? If anyone's posts smack of being power-mad, it's yours!

HallucinationMushroom February 15, 2019 19:42

Dammit, Nick.

Sky February 15, 2019 20:03

See, thats funny because lore does nothing for me. Id be ok with angband being based in space or on discworld. But as a long time D&D GM we all assume that all fantasy world components exist in all fsntasy worlds - maybe just in a different geographical location. Tolkien lore, greyhawk lore, norse myths, greek myths, ninjas, hobbits, kendars; obviously if you walk north long enough, you'll bump into Thor. Go east far enough and there's Amaterasu, you can't miss her.

Pete Mack February 15, 2019 20:51

D&D has evolved a bit since those days, too, I would imagine. And the main goal isn't to get rid of D&D monsters. It is to get rid of monsters that are redundant or really don't fit--the giants from ancient Greece don't fit. Norse would be so much better.

takkaria February 15, 2019 21:28

As a previous maintainer I mostly want to keep out of the way of Nick and give him latitude to make the changes he wants to make. Tangar, I am familiar with the type of post you make from spending years changing the game in various ways - there is always someone who feels that one particular change or set of changes irrevocably alters the game for the worse, turns it into a variant, etc. Sometimes it's warranted, sometimes it's not, but either way, the way Angband has worked for the last 25 years (!) is that the maintainer gets the final say as long as there is dialogue with the players.

The monster list hasn't had a good looking at since before version 3 (17 years ago! good lord), when the JLE patch was incorporated into the main game, while most other areas of the game have been altered. So it's definitely due this rework. I never really bothered with monsters because I didn't think I had a good enough feel for those things, and anyway, the object list was more urgent then.

I remember being told I had destroyed the flavour of the game when I removed the various 'broken' items in the game - rodent skeletons, kobold skulls, broken daggers, etc. Sometimes I think it would really be nice to re-incorporate those some other way, but the game has been enjoyed by many thousands of people since they were taken out, mostly without them noticing.

The other option, of course, if people want to re-add monsters, or even do their own rebalancing, is to make a patched version of the monster file. There is a precedent in Angband that when people put effort into a patch and people like playing with it, it gets added into the main game. If you really miss Easterling warriors, the Greek myth uniques etc., after the whole of the monster list rebalance is finished and other people do too, they can be added back. But I think it's good that the flavour of the game changes over time - like Derakon says, Angband will die when it's not updated with changes that some people feel are controversial (and I think it came close to dying once before, 13-ish years ago, for exactly this reason).

wobbly February 16, 2019 02:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by takkaria (Post 136203)
I remember being told I had destroyed the flavour of the game when I removed the various 'broken' items in the game - rodent skeletons, kobold skulls, broken daggers, etc. Sometimes I think it would really be nice to re-incorporate those some other way, but the game has been enjoyed by many thousands of people since they were taken out, mostly without them noticing.

Rodent skeletons are the real reason so many of us play FCPB these days.

debo February 16, 2019 03:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sky (Post 136201)
See, thats funny because lore does nothing for me. Id be ok with angband being based in space or on discworld. But as a long time D&D GM we all assume that all fantasy world components exist in all fsntasy worlds - maybe just in a different geographical location. Tolkien lore, greyhawk lore, norse myths, greek myths, ninjas, hobbits, kendars; obviously if you walk north long enough, you'll bump into Thor. Go east far enough and there's Amaterasu, you can't miss her.

Even better if those "components" shout at you in Engrish.

Sideways February 16, 2019 03:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by takkaria (Post 136203)
The monster list hasn't had a good looking at since before version 3 (17 years ago! good lord), when the JLE patch was incorporated into the main game, while most other areas of the game have been altered.

JLE's patch ruined Angband. 2.9.3 was the last real V. :D

--

Nick is a great maintainer - competent, dedicated, experienced, open to suggestions and feedback, and always ready to communicate with players. Many changes he's made I don't approve of, and many changes have not been made that I think should have been made, but I suppose that's why Nick maintains V and I maintain FrogComposband :)

Changes have happened during every Angband maintainer's tenure that some players have found offputting. That's okay - from both the player's side and the maintainer's side. It's always the maintainer's dream to keep everybody happy, but it very seldom works out that way!

And the starting point for the changes is a developing game, not one that's already perfect. For everyone who dislikes a change, there are usually two people who like it; and if I belong in the former group I wouldn't dream of holding it against Nick personally. Nick makes (and should make) the decisions, but he doesn't make them without listening to the Angband community.

For those who disagree with the direction V's taking, there are many variants to play and always room for more; and old versions of Angband itself won't disappear anywhere just because Nick's releasing new ones.

MWGE February 16, 2019 03:43

I am one of those that are mostly happy with the direction the game is going. Debate is healthy, Nick is open to this. Fair enough I say.

Sky February 16, 2019 10:16

Just to be clear, i support the idea of making Angband tolkien-only, but i question if there exists lore to replace the uniques that would need to go.
What could replace Arien ? What could replace Radagast? (These are supposed to be friendly instead of hostile)
What could replace Chronos?

Im sure there's a tolkien dragon that could replace the tarrasque, maybe shifting Ancalong up on the scale, but what about the titans? Would we just lose a bunch of uniques?

How about the trapper?? Does tolkien have an unmoving monster in his legendarium?

Nick February 16, 2019 10:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sky (Post 136212)
Just to be clear, i support the idea of making Angband tolkien-only, but i question if there exists lore to replace the uniques that would need to go.
What could replace Arien ? What could replace Radagast? (These are supposed to be friendly instead of hostile)
What could replace Chronos?

Im sure there's a tolkien dragon that could replace the tarrasque, maybe shifting Ancalong up on the scale, but what about the titans? Would we just lose a bunch of uniques?

How about the trapper?? Does tolkien have an unmoving monster in his legendarium?

I think this post explains how I'm planning to deal with this the best. A bunch of those replacements are already done on the feature/monster branch, too.

fph February 17, 2019 02:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sky (Post 136212)
Im sure there's a tolkien dragon that could replace the tarrasque, maybe shifting Ancalong up on the scale, but what about the titans? Would we just lose a bunch of uniques?

I wouldn't mind losing a bunch of uniques. And a bunch of levels, for that matter --- I don't think anyone clears the whole 100 levels anymore these days. Angband has a distinctive 'marathon' feeling, but it would retain it also with, say, 50 or 75 levels.

mrfy February 17, 2019 03:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by fph (Post 136223)
I wouldn't mind losing a bunch of uniques. And a bunch of levels, for that matter --- I don't think anyone clears the whole 100 levels anymore these days. Angband has a distinctive 'marathon' feeling, but it would retain it also with, say, 50 or 75 levels.

I clear ever level. (exvept for the few at the beginning when I discover Deep Descent).

Djabanete February 17, 2019 04:33

I think Nick has a good approach. I can't say I've played V lately or followed every change to the game, but I have confidence in the process that Nick, Derakon, and so many other members of the Angband community are following. Last time I picked up V after a long hiatus, I was truly pleased and impressed by the changes. Keep up the good work!

As for mixing different lores and themes (Greek/Tolkien/etc.), that's never bothered me; rather the reverse, which is why I most recently played variants in the Hengband branch of the family tree.

wobbly February 17, 2019 05:14

I like fantasy kitchen sink when it's explicitly fantasy kitchen sink. Medusa would not look the slightest bit out of place in the Heng-like variants.

Vanilla angband is however in a very awkward middle place where it's got a heavy Tolkien theme but with a lot out of place. While it's a little on the large size for a pure theme I think using themed monsters where possible is a definite improvement. There's no reason to have ninjas when some other form of spy or assassin could take it's place.

I think ninjas were fine in Moria which never had much theme despite being called Moria & having the Balrog. Moria was here's a scorpion, here's a mummy, here's a ninja. It's not particularly serious in it's design.

Edit: Honestly it's a shame Nick the butcher would be out of place as a unique.

Adam February 17, 2019 11:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by wobbly (Post 136226)
Edit: Honestly it's a shame Nick the butcher would be out of place as a unique.

With attack type "summon bugs"? :)
A butcher is definitely not out of place in the town so you could put him there.
Or at least put him into store.txt selling "fresh meat" ;)

On the topic itself: I'm pleased with the recent gameplay changes and don't really care about renaming the monsters. Actually if it's more coherent, more logical then it's better in my opinion.
I'll miss some of the uniques but that's not a big deal.
Btw we are talking about monsters which can be customized to anyone's desire via a simple txt file if i'm not mistaken. You just need to keep the old file - i think it's structure does not change too often. And even if it happens writing a converter is probably not much time.

tangar February 17, 2019 12:55

End of vanilla Angband

It was interesting to read the feedback :rolleyes:

I donno why some other folk with whom I discussed this matters in Discord are silent.. I suppose there could be two reasons:

1) people who do not like what's going on - do not participate in Angband forum discussions anymore.. Why?

Because they do not see any way to stop this butchering. The only man who could stop Angband's lore destruction is Nick or next maintainer who (hopefully) may consider to revert this monsters/races changes. At the same time I really do not want to see anyone else as maintainer, Nick is really genious in terms of gameplay mechanics (traps, ID, curses etc). Nick please don't go away! (my poor Russian soul: you love and hate him at the same time).

And now I understand this 'out-of-forum' people. I myself after reading this thread feel that it's really pointless for me to participate in V-discussions anymore; it's pointless to try and save certain monsters from destruction, it won't save V. I do not want to dramatize, but just look at this new execution list and say goodbye to Angband which you know and to your memories:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick (Post 136231)
Dark elf replaced by eastern dwarf
Dark elven mage replaced by blacklock mage
Dark elven warrior replaced by stonefoot warrior
Gnome mage replaced by drúadan mage
Dark elven priest replaced by ironfist priest
Dark elven lord replaced by dark dwarven lord
Dark elven druid buffed, moved deeper and renamed drúadan druid
New monster green elf archer
Dark elven sorcerer replaced by stiffbeard sorcerer (this one's for HallucinationMushroom)

I wanna note again - this is just another tiny drop of Vanilla blood.. There already were a lot of changes like this. Nick is doing a very smart thing (as I said before - he is a great leader and knows the stuff) - he makes 'butchering' in tiny portions so community won't notice the whole picture and won't react to it. Everything is going according The Dark Lords plan :cool:...

2) there are people who participate the discussions on this forums, but silent in this particular one. Why? Because they are too.. gentle. This is very good virtue of human, but not in all conditions.

Some people do not speak what they think because it's 'western' politcorrect bahaviour. This is a very interesting issue and I wanna share some thoughts about it because it's not the first time when I note this: if some 'western' people do not agree with something - they are just keep silence (I mean highly cultured people; for example, ones who play intellectual roguelike games like Angband).

On contrary Russian people (even roguelike players) are very straight-forward and sometimes you could think that they are even offencive. We do not have political correctness in our culture and we tell what we think. It's truth that in some cases it produces bad bahaviour (like someone could start harassment and swearing). But sometimes such properties gives an advantage - you could get real, fair feedback from such people - without politically correct behaviour which is harmful in certain conditions... Everyone are kind and loyal to Nick (and me too, I love this man), but there should be a difference between being kind to person and to give a real and clear feedback on his actions.

This 'gentleness' makes people who do not agree - just to be silent so they won't offend beloved person / won't go agains it's supporters.

So the picture is: people who like what's Nick doing are supporting him on this forum (obviously). But people who do not agree - are silent (again, I know such people as I've spoken to them via Discord).

Does it matter really? No. Just an interesting observation. I suppose most of the V-players would support anything what Nick's doing, like lemmings.. and if he would say "Jump from the cliff, fools!".. they would jump ;) And minority of the community are looking at this picture from the distance, being sad and silent.

--

Now I wanna write a note considering comments like "you are free to have your own variant with old monsters" or "you could use monster.txt from past version".

The problem is: vanilla is the Core. It's the exemplar. A lot of non-Lore, good gameplay changes upcoming there. A lot of new monsters are going to appear. How to be up-to-date with new versions now? After this revamp, 'new Angband' monsters would not be compatible to real 'vanilla Angband' (sorry, but I'm going to call Angband with new Lore as 'new Angband', not 'Vanilla'). It would be _very hard_ to be up-to-date and look into 'new Angband' config files while there are so much monsters deleted/renamed/changed compare to 'Vanilla'. I know what I'm speaking about as I'm currently working with Angband gamedata customization a lot.

That's why this isn't a 'vanilla Angband' anymore. 'New Angband' monster list won't be compatible to previous versions and variants. I want to emphasize: this is not about physical compatibility (gamedata configs are the same), but about monsters compatibility - you can not compare two monster.txt files properly (old and new one) to make your version of the game up-to-date - if they got so much differences between monsters and their names.

If before that changes, Vanilla was a place from where you take stuff for old game versions or another variant - 'new Angband' would be itself variant-like game. This is very bad for Angbands' evolution.

Sideways February 17, 2019 13:29

JLE's patch was a huge change, in terms of rebalancing but also in terms of changing the monster lore. It added a huge heap of D&D stuff, turned some monsters that used to be classic @-killers into "just another monster" and generally created the feel of today's Angband monster list.

Then there was the recasting of angels as Maiar - which was pretty much exactly equivalent to what Nick's doing here, tweaking and renaming monsters who'd been part of Angband and its lore for a long time to give the game a more Tolkien feel.

Those are just the big monster lore ones; there have been other similar changes that didn't involve monster lore. I'm not saying you don't have every right to feel as you do; I'm saying similar changes have happened before, Nick's is not the first, it will probably not be the last, every one of those changes left a few people feeling the way you do now, and everybody else, including you, just kept playing. For you, maybe a couple other people, this is the big change that ruins everything. But there have been fifty big changes that ruined everything before, and yet Angband is still here.

MattB February 17, 2019 13:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrfy (Post 136224)
I clear ever level. (exvept for the few at the beginning when I discover Deep Descent).

Me too. I squelch deep descent the moment I find it. But then again, I always play forced descent so I never get bogged down.

EDIT: I just died on dlvl70 to a force breath from Baphomet (I always forget he can do that) with a character who could easily have killed Morgoth so... er...

MattB February 17, 2019 13:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by tangar (Post 136232)
End of vanilla Angband
This 'gentleness' makes people who do not agree - just to be silent so they won't offend beloved person / won't go agains it's supporters.

I wasn't going to reply to this thread, but since you have accused non-repliers of being tacit disagreers who are keeping silent out of politeness, I feel I am now forced to reply and say that I agree with most of the changes, disagree with a few, and am totally confident that the net result will be significantly better than the starting point.

Now on politeness, I think you've got it the wrong way round (speaking only for myself, of course). The reason I didn't reply was not out of politeness and not wishing to offend. Rather, the reason I didn't reply was because I felt the original post was too impolite to warrant a reply.

debo February 17, 2019 19:10

Look, Vanilla was ruined from the moment that Nick decided to not have rockets in it. Who cares about the rest.

Thraalbee February 17, 2019 19:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by debo (Post 136244)
Look, Vanilla was ruined from the moment that Nick decided to not have rockets in it. Who cares about the rest.

I beg to differ. Can't have rockets without rodent skeletons, can you?

Nick February 17, 2019 20:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by tangar (Post 136232)
If before that changes, Vanilla was a place from where you take stuff for old game versions or another variant - 'new Angband' would be itself variant-like game. This is very bad for Angbands' evolution.

This raises an interesting point.

The standard advice to anyone who has an idea that they want implemented in Angband has for a long time been "Make a variant, you can do what you want". I think this is good advice, but it has a kind of evil twin which is "That doesn't belong in Vanilla, that belongs in a variant". I think we need to be careful not to allow the variants to weigh down Vanilla, or define it as all the stuff that every variant should have.

In particular, tangar, I don't think you actually play Vanilla Angband very much. It seems to me that you're treating it a bit like your childhood home - you don't want it to change, but you don't want to live there either. Whereas the people who actually live there are probably the ones I should be listening to the most.

tangar February 17, 2019 21:23

Angband as an educational game

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick (Post 136248)
In particular, tangar, I don't think you actually play Vanilla Angband very much. It seems to me that you're treating it a bit like your childhood home - you don't want it to change, but you don't want to live there either. Whereas the people who actually live there are probably the ones I should be listening to the most.

I played TomeNET ~4 years which is basically multiplayer vanilla with whistles and bells. As I do not play in party, I always play solo - my gameplay experience is very close to Angband singleplayer (but with real-time which makes game much harder). And now I work/play at Angband Online which is based on PWMAngband which is much, much closer to vanilla then TomeNET; all PWMA gamedata is just a copy of V-Angband with a few additions.. And if TomeNET is based at old Angband, PWMA based at modern core.

And before that I played Moria and Rogue. So I know where this staff came from. Btw, speaking about Moria - a few years ago I've wrote an article to popular Russian game magazine which had a name: "Roguelike: where do Diablo's ears stick out": http://tangar.info/game-magazine/roguelike-history, to popularize rlg genre.

So I know Angband lore and spirit firsthand. I know monsters which you delete from the game. I know a lot of their properties by heart as while you play in real-time - you can not look in spoilers.

And I'm not just playing the game, I'm streaming - communicating with viewers, reading their comments at the same time when I play real-time Angband. It's pretty special experience which require some skills (yep, I'm not too humble when someone occuse me being incompetent).

But it doesn't matter - the most important that I love Vanilla World. I learned A LOT from it.

I was Tolkien maniac for a long time. I didn't read much fantasy exept him, I've continued to read LOTR again and again. But after playing Angband (TomeNET) - I've met there a lot of monsters which I didn't recognize. I've read their description and I opened new books and new fantasy universes and worlds for myself. This is USEFUL, educational element of the game which you destroying right now. Even having Medusa giving some new lore to 'modern' gamers who do not really read a lot of books, but watching movies.

Vanilla had HUGE advantage towards strict-universe games cause there you got a lot of different mythology. Devs should enhance this direction for the game - it gives players new knowledge. Having a lot of Tolkien is cool thing too, but purging everything else and making it pure-Tolkien game is a mistake.

debo February 17, 2019 21:39

Didn't tomenet fork from Angband like, a billion years ago? Why are we even talking about this?

takkaria February 17, 2019 22:50

tangar, I understand you think you're "in the right" here. But there isn't a right or wrong; we're talking about aesthetics. This is the kind of thing where there are preferences and not facts. It's not a democracy, so citing that other people agree with you doesn't make an argument stronger either.

Nick as the maintainer has a preference for altering elements of the monster list that clash with the Tolkien theme and it doesn't seem like this is going to change. He has no intention of making it a pure-Tolkien game, though it's an interesting point you raise about how the multiple sources of content lead to a more educational game. But ultimately, all maintainers make aesthetic decisions and the players just have to put up with it :D

PWMAngband and your own variant are very welcome to keep the old monsters, or add to them or mix between the different monster lists to your heart's content. Personally I like the new dwarven monster names over the old dark elven ones; they add more distinctiveness and flavour.

From your post history, I didn't see that you'd engaged that much in the past with developments in Vanilla, so you might not have the context for some of these changes:
  • One recurring topic of discussion has been whether the game should be shortened (50 or 70 dlevs). Nick has chosen to expand the monster list and buff monsters so that they fill the space available instead of doing this.
  • "Just add more stuff and leave the old stuff alone" is not a very good approach to designing a game and doesn't lead to balance. The history of modern Angband (for better or for worse) is one of removing stuff as well as reworking existing elements, to achieve a better overall balance.
  • A lot of people have made the same kinds of claim you've made here - that some particular element of the game is sacred, makes the game "Angband", that removing/changing it/adding to it is the end of Angband. But we also have some players who have played since 2.4.frog-knows and have seen almost everything in the game change in some way, including the monster list, and they still call it "Angband".

I think it's fair to say that everyone who has seen your posts on the forum, tangar, understands you have a strong attachment to the current monster file as of Angband 4.1, and that you don't want to see things removed. It sucks when games change in ways you don't like. But maybe give the changes a go? You might find that an updated monster list is a new challenge to master, rather than a loss of hard-won knowledge. Personally, I've been playing the game more recently than I have in ages because I'm excited to see the changes.

Pete Mack February 17, 2019 23:22

I think Nick is mostly right on this--the same list forever is kind of dull.

Carnivean February 18, 2019 04:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by tangar (Post 136232)
2) there are people who participate the discussions on this forums, but silent in this particular one. Why? Because they are too.. gentle. This is very good virtue of human, but not in all conditions.

I participate a reasonable amount in discussions, but have been silent in this one, and it is for the reason that you mention here. I have been refraining from commenting because my reaction is harsh and many people here are genteel and polite to a fault.

I think you should go away and never come back. You are a toxic piece of garbage who chased away T4nk who was a valuable contributor with a nasty, vile piece of trash series of comments.

I don't know if you suffer from some kind of mental illness, but such is the delusion of grandeur in your posts that I don't care. This forum would be better without you.

Derakon February 18, 2019 05:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by takkaria (Post 136252)
A lot of people have made the same kinds of claim you've made here - that some particular element of the game is sacred, makes the game "Angband", that removing/changing it/adding to it is the end of Angband. But we also have some players who have played since 2.4.frog-knows and have seen almost everything in the game change in some way, including the monster list, and they still call it "Angband".

Hi.

For what it's worth, I still feel like a lot of the JLE monsters don't fit, and it bugs me how good Amulets of Trickery are. Back in the old days, you wore an Amulet of Wisdom +6 because the marginal improvement it gave to your saving throw was better than anything else you could get until the artifacts came in...and they were pretty underwhelming too! As I recall, the de facto best amulet was usually Carlammas because it gave +2 CON and basically nothing else.

But yeah, they got added to the game and somehow I neglected to get upset about it or quit the community.

(Also, I can't help but feel some responsibility for affecting the game balance, seeing as I added the "Miniature Cell" vault, which had 5 of the "monster 40 levels OOD with guaranteed-excellent item 20 levels OOD" tiles, and nothing else, in particular had nothing preventing those monsters from getting out of the vault. That thing wisely got nerfed shortly after being added to Vanilla)

tangar February 18, 2019 05:43

Angband as the heritage

Quote:

Originally Posted by takkaria (Post 136252)
tangar, I understand you think you're "in the right" here. But there isn't a right or wrong; we're talking about aesthetics. This is the kind of thing where there are preferences and not facts.

Aesthetics - beautiful and right term. But why there shouldn't be a discussion about it? Let's take Vincent van Gogh.. A 'majority' didn't understand his works aesthetics for a long time. And when 'they' finally managed to comprehend - it was to late, he was dead. I'm an artist myself and I see an Angband as a masterpiece in a certain way. When I see it's destruction I can't just stay beside and watch on it. Even if I'm the only one who understand it's aesthetics. Who knows, maybe 'they' would understand it later, but it would be too late?..

I just have another POV on Angband in terms of gamedesign and actually cultural phenomena. I see V-Angband as the étalon (reference, standard, model) which is very close to perfection because it's being actively developed over ~30 years and which is based at gamedesign concepts of Moria and Rogue which gives yet another 10 yeards to this concept - Angband is closer than eg Nethack to 'original' Rogue and we actually could call Angband as Rogue III (Moria is Rogue II).

So we could say that Angband has 40 years gamedesign in total. 40 years of gameplay and lore evolution. A lot of classic vanilla monsters went through it and I feel them as a thing close to perfection which we, of course, should enrich and rebalance, but being very cautions and respectable to the heritage. "One Does Not Simply Walk into Mordor".. lol this discussion remind me of Council of Elrond..

Quote:

Strangers from distant lands, friends of old, you have been summoned here to answer the threat of Mordor. Vanilla Angband stands upon the brink of destruction; none can escape it. You will unite or you will fall. Each race is bound to this fate, this one doom. Bring forth the word about Lore...
Considering criticism:
Quote:

Never before has anyone dared utter words of that tongue here, in Imladris.
But:
Quote:

The Lore cannot be destroyed by any craft that we here possess. The Lore was made in the fires of Mount Doom. Only there can it be unmade. It must be taken deep into Mordor and cast back into the fiery chasm from whence it came! One of you... must do this.
And:
Quote:

Have you heard nothing Lord Nick has said? The Lore must be destroyed!
:D

But I understand that I'm a minority there and as I said in my past post - I've stopped struggle for Vanilla lore. I won't participate in monster/race discussions further except this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carnivean (Post 136255)
I think you should go away and never come back. You are a toxic piece of garbage who chased away T4nk who was a valuable contributor with a nasty, vile piece of trash series of comments.

I don't know if you suffer from some kind of mental illness, but such is the delusion of grandeur in your posts that I don't care. This forum would be better without you.

It was pretty obvious to see such reaction at my past message, so I'm not offended. It's just a good proof of the concept about why there are no negative feedback on lore destruction, but vice versa, from:

Quote:

Originally Posted by tangar (Post 136232)
2) ..... This 'gentleness' makes people who do not agree - just to be silent so they won't offend beloved person / won't go agains it's supporters.

And an insults from fanboys make people go to #1:

Quote:

Originally Posted by tangar (Post 136232)
1) people who do not like what's going on - do not participate in Angband forum discussions anymore..

There are always people who do not have anything to say about topic of the discussion and their the only argument is to 'go personal'. Enjoy yourself! :cool:

wobbly February 18, 2019 07:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by tangar (Post 136232)

Rip vanilla. Bring back Vorpal bunnies and Hobgoblins.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carnivean (Post 136255)
T4nk

I too was upset to see him go. But not as upset as I'd be to see another forum-ite go, over something similar. Never commented because basically I'm glad I'm not actually a moderator.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tangar (Post 136258)
fanboys

I'm probably the worst person to be calling people up on rudeness, being prone to getting rude myself on design choices in Angband but I'm going to make a request anyway. At least consider the possibility that the people calling you out on rudeness (multiple people) has more to do with the way you're saying things then simple disagreement.

tangar February 18, 2019 08:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by wobbly (Post 136259)
At least consider the possibility that the people calling you out on rudeness (multiple people) has more to do with the way you're saying things then simple disagreement.

It's very pretty how you quote this 'rude' word:

Quote:

Originally Posted by tangar (Post 136258)
fanboys

And do not notice any rudeness this message:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carnivean (Post 136255)
I think you should go away and never come back. You are a toxic piece of garbage who chased away T4nk who was a valuable contributor with a nasty, vile piece of trash series of comments.

I don't know if you suffer from some kind of mental illness, but such is the delusion of grandeur in your posts that I don't care. This forum would be better without you.

wobbly, thank you very much for providing such beautiful evidence to typical double standarts! Good job! :cool:

Quote:

Originally Posted by tangar (Post 136258)
There are always people who do not have anything to say about topic of the discussion and their the only argument is to 'go personal'.


wobbly February 18, 2019 08:19

One word, but I had a billion to choose from. Simple fact: you're rude, I'm rude. Neither of us have special privilidge.

Done.

PowerWyrm February 18, 2019 16:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by wobbly (Post 136226)
Edit: Honestly it's a shame Nick the butcher would be out of place as a unique.

Too late! This is gonna be a unique in my variant now! :D
The Butcher of Baddu-Bak is having a new husband! :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by debo (Post 136244)
Look, Vanilla was ruined from the moment that Nick decided to not have rockets in it. Who cares about the rest.

Rockets pfft. Final Fantasy has nuclear bombs, so why just play with small rockets, we need some BFGs... :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by tangar (Post 136232)
I donno why some other folk with whom I discussed this matters in Discord are silent..

Because it was not the time to say something. The current monster overhaul is WIP, not finished work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by takkaria (Post 136252)
PWMAngband and your own variant are very welcome to keep the old monsters, or add to them or mix between the different monster lists to your heart's content.

Exactly, and that's what I've been doing for the past 12 years. PWMAngband started as a fork of MAngband, because I wasn't satisfied with the turn TomeNET was taking and wanted to play a real-time version with stuff I liked while keeping the core Angband feel. That's why I'm following all the changes while porting only some of them for PWMAngband -- that's what variants are for. If you look more closely at the latest PWMAngband source, you'll probably find out that most of the changes from latest V are there... but not all of them. This will also be the case for post 4.1.2 chances about races and monsters. I will not contest the changes in Angband, just adapt them for my variant if I dislike them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by takkaria (Post 136252)
I think it's fair to say that everyone who has seen your posts on the forum, tangar, understands you have a strong attachment to the current monster file as of Angband 4.1, and that you don't want to see things removed. It sucks when games change in ways you don't like. But maybe give the changes a go? You might find that an updated monster list is a new challenge to master, rather than a loss of hard-won knowledge. Personally, I've been playing the game more recently than I have in ages because I'm excited to see the changes.

I understand Tangar, as the change to the monster list is BRUTAL. I felt the same way 10+ years ago around v3 when half of the list was switched around, many monsters removed and replaced. Who here remembers the name given to The Balrog of Moria (Muar) or to the Witch-King (Murazor)? I used to play and fight Cerberus and suddenly he was gone... But then I thought... why we would have to fight Cerberus in the Pits of Angband? This makes no sense... And Carcharoth was adopted. And I felt happy with the changes.

Sphara February 18, 2019 17:19

Only time I've felt strongly about Angband development was few months ago, when traps were just obnoxiously dangerous. I don't know if dragon/demon summoning traps are nerfed nowadays, but those did one-shot me few times. Also it wasn't rare to lose majority of your town-bought healing supplies to early spiked pit traps. And if you did not have any, you could just die to bleeding+poison.

These incoming changes today, I just look forward to and wanna see how they play. Every change is likely displease some players, there's no way around that for a game with this long of a history. I bet there are people who still miss ant lions and evil iggies.

eMeM February 19, 2019 11:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pahasusi (Post 136177)
Hei,

long-time lurker here (7 years??), player of Angband since 1995 or so, done my Nethack, ADOM etc...

I made an account just to come here and post my couple of cents. What the OP wrote is in my opinion completely wrong.


I'm not bothered by the mixing of different ages of Middle Earth - what irritates me is the mixing of religious mythology, D&D monsters, David Eddings and who knows how many other sources to Middle Earth context.

Angband to me represents Tolkien's world. Removing all the outliers, D&D monsters and "funny" monsters just enhances the game - makes it more coherent and unique experience.

Going through the monsters, giving epic Tolkieny villains (for example Nazguls) their rightful place at the top of the monster food chain instead of just being pushovers is exactly the right choice.

What Nick has done to the game is great! It feels vibrant, evolving game once again, not stagnant pit that tries to preserve "a mix of bit of everything".

So I say go for it Nick! Realize your vision while taking feedback like you have done so far - those who want to stay with the old Angband can do so, but it's my opinion it's high time this great, classic game got someone with your vision to maintain it :)

From day 1 when Nick was "appointed" as a Angband maintainer it was obvious from his previous work he will make it more Tolkienised. And from day 1 I knew I will not like that sort of changes because I'm not into Tolkien's books or any other fantasy books. I just liked Angband as a ASCII roguelike game played on a fullscreen DOS/Linux. Side note it's not possible to play it that way in Windows for many years and no maintainer cares enough to fix it.

Overall I admit that I don't like changes in Vanilla in last 15 years. There are some nice user interface improvement but much more things are made in what I perceive as a wrong direction. Some of fun is removed because maintainer feels it's annoying to him. Some annoying things are introduced because maintainer feels it's more fun to him. I just know that if I don't follow current maintainer's philosophy then I will just get disappointed reading what's going on in Angband development. Might be a reason why I quit playing in last few years.

Back to main subject of Angband LORE changes. I understand tangar's concerns. I understand that some monsters should stay in the game with their non-Tolkien roots, non-Tolkien names. On the other hand I agree that some monster needs to be moved to different depth. I'm not attached to a monster's name.

Myself I though that 50' depth should be different from any other level. More safe, single monsters, no packs, no invisible monsters, no paralise monsters, no OOD monsters. But for someone else that would be a LORE change and maybe they would quote Tolkien that dungeon is never a safe place to be.

Huqhox February 19, 2019 11:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by eMeM (Post 136278)
Myself I though that 50' depth should be different from any other level. More safe, single monsters, no packs, no invisible monsters, no paralise monsters, no OOD monsters. But for someone else that would be a LORE change and maybe they would quote Tolkien that dungeon is never a safe place to be.

50' depth is now considerably safer than it was 15 years ago...

Pete Mack February 20, 2019 02:30

Yup. No lethal traps, no instadeath to floating eyes found with a torch, or around a blind corner.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Huqhox (Post 136279)
50' depth is now considerably safer than it was 15 years ago...


tangar February 20, 2019 10:56

Angband: epilogue

a) it's my last word (like before execution) - my last message about this topic.

b) this thread got in it a lot of interesting opinions, but it lacks of proper analysis and facts (except Takkaria's answers). I myself want to propose some; to combine my main ideas from past messages in paragraphs, so it would be easier to see the whole picture.

c) it would be fun to see a proper answer to this (last) message. What is a proper answer? It's an answer with facts and specifics, without common words. I write there particular paragraphs - 1, 2, 3, 4... Proper answer is to take this paragraphs and provide an opinion based at facts and evidence; if you are not agree with particular paragraphs - you should explain why you are not agree and to provide logical arguments towards your position.

d) I do not expect that something would be changed because:
- Angband got authoritarian dev system (it's not a defect, I'm also using such managment when I play in MMORPG and create guilds; it's good for small-scale operation).
- I'm among minority.. But even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth (Gandhi).

So it's just my last words with some facts (which could be wrong, please take a go to prove it):

1) Angband as the heritage.

- Angband could be considered as 'Rogue 3' (while 'Moria' is 'Rogue 2').
- Angband got it's own unique world and lore, which is focused in it's bestiary.
- Angband lore based at mixed fantasy universe, mainly DnD which consist of greek, norsa, Tolkien etc
- As Angband got ~40 years history (counting from 'Rogue 1') and it's lore should be threated with huge respect.

2) Monsters knowledge as the only persistent gameplay factor.

- Angband as all rlgs is RNG-based game.
- It's gameplay learning curve is heavely based at it's monsters knowledge - as it's one of the few factors which is static.
- Not rebalancing, but removing/renaming/revamping monsters is a mistake as it destroy knowledge of thousands Angband players which they accumulated during long years.
- We are (community) too old to learn this changes (or at least to have fun from such learning). It's good to continue development and make game more interesting, but devs should add new monsters for this reason, without removing old ones. I'm not 14 y.o. boy to have time to re-learn monsters' names after each revamp. Renaming monsters - is like destroying players' brain cells.

3) Angband as an educational game.

Multi-lore universe gives Angband an unique advantage to be a educational game. Each monster got a description which often contain poetic and beautiful quotes from the books which players could start reading after playing the game.

4) With new monstrers Angband loosing it's compatibility.

Technically it would become almost impossible for old versions of Angband and it's variant to be up-to-date with 'new Angband'. The end of continuity.

5) Angband already took everything it could from Tolkien lore.

- All Tolkien's lore which is possible to extract from his works was already extracted and added to Angband in past years.
- Most of stuff which is currently renamed/revamped is kinda pulled out of thin air (or other 'a' place) and not well-known even by Tolkien fans. This looks like strained effort to replace stuff with 'at least something'.
- There are always would be stuff which Tolkien doesn't have and which Angband players love (eyes, krakens etc) which leads to a lot of subjectivety in assessment - which monsters should stay and which should go.

6) No one asked to change Angband lore.

- I didn't find players requests considering changes in current Angband lore. Of course, most of the players do not really care about it, they are mostly neutral.. and they trusting maintainers. But even in this topic there some opinions that players miss old monsters.
- It looks that this revamp of Angband lore is an initiative of one person which is kinda 'forced' it by his authority. No one asked for it (no offence meant, just a fact).

7) Splitting community. (coming from previous one)

- As lore changes do not really bother most of the players there were no need to make them.
- At the same time for some players, who takes the game seriously - it's very painful changes and it's split's community (this topic is good example; there are a lot of personal offencive words - words not about particular facts of this discussion, but about personal properties. Bad sign).

7) Pure-Tolkien games is a danger of copyright.

Angband was a 'loosely' Tolkien-based game. Current lore revamp makes it quite 'strongly' focused. This is the least important factor imho, but it still exist.

8) Nostalgia.

As I said in #2 - we are not young. Among Angband and roguelike community in general are not too much new players in this stupid age when modern graphics overcome the gameplay.

And each of us have a lot of stories about Angband monsters - funny and exiting stories. We love this monsters. We love Angband LORE.

ANGBAND LORE - EXIST.

Not much players realise that. But actually everyone got it's in their hearts. Lore is this stories and memories. Removing traditional lore from the game, this monsters which everyone know - it's a position that "Angband do not posses it's own lore". But it's there. It was there.

Good bye.

Ingwe Ingweron February 20, 2019 19:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattB (Post 136236)
Now on politeness, I think you've got it the wrong way round (speaking only for myself, of course). The reason I didn't reply was not out of politeness and not wishing to offend. Rather, the reason I didn't reply was because I felt the original post was too impolite to warrant a reply.

+1 !!! At this point, I find the Tangar posts to have "become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal." To quote the Bible when referencing those of sharp tongues that have not charity in their hearts.

Philip February 20, 2019 20:10

Wait a sec, Krakens are not and have never been a monster in V. You don't care about the V monster list at all, do you? Hell, you don't apparently even care about being right enough to check.

Anyway, the notion that Angband has some sort of pure unspoiled continuity from Rogue is nonsense. The 3.x.y series monster list isn't even similar to the Moria one (aside from early levels), let alone to Rogue. One reason for this is that Angband has more than 5 elements, which Moria did not. Angband has been ruining the lore and continuity of itself since the very first release.

The fun part of Angband is learning the game. If this change ruins all your game knowledge then great, you get to learn again.

If you want a grab-bag variant, then that's what the various iterations of frogcomposchengband are for.

Nick February 20, 2019 20:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by tangar (Post 136297)
So it's just my last words with some facts (which could be wrong, please take a go to prove it)

OK, then!

Quote:

Originally Posted by tangar (Post 136297)
1) Angband as the heritage.

- Angband could be considered as 'Rogue 3' (while 'Moria' is 'Rogue 2').
- Angband got it's own unique world and lore, which is focused in it's bestiary.
- Angband lore based at mixed fantasy universe, mainly DnD which consist of greek, norsa, Tolkien etc
- As Angband got ~40 years history (counting from 'Rogue 1') and it's lore should be threated with huge respect.

Angband does indeed have a rich history and lore, and some of that is focused in its bestiary. But it is also in its objects, in the construction of its dungeons, and in its players.

I first started playing Angband in the early 2000s, and loved the objects, the monsters, the messages. Then, a little later, I discovered the community, at that time centred at rec.games.roguelike.angband. Here, then, was the true heart of Angband in my opinion - people from around the world coming together to tell stories and discuss possibilities for this game (or many games really) that they all enjoyed.

There was a lot of talk about the history, future and variants of Angband, but little about Moria and none about Rogue. In the interests of respecting Angband's history and lore I've been determined to keep the community involved in the development process, and give everyone a chance to have their say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tangar (Post 136297)
2) Monsters knowledge as the only persistent gameplay factor.

- Angband as all rlgs is RNG-based game.
- It's gameplay learning curve is heavely based at it's monsters knowledge - as it's one of the few factors which is static.
- Not rebalancing, but removing/renaming/revamping monsters is a mistake as it destroy knowledge of thousands Angband players which they accumulated during long years.
- We are (community) too old to learn this changes (or at least to have fun from such learning). It's good to continue development and make game more interesting, but devs should add new monsters for this reason, without removing old ones. I'm not 14 y.o. boy to have time to re-learn monsters' names after each revamp. Renaming monsters - is like destroying players' brain cells.

I think you're assuming here that the Angband community is a static group of people who started playing when the game began and are all growing old together. I don't think this is true - although I think that developing as if that were true would probably make it true. There are new people arriving and old ones leaving from this forum all the time. Moreover, there is plenty of interest in Angband from the wider roguelike community, and Angband in my view needs to have an appeal to the potential new player who knows they like roguelike games and is looking for one to play.

Plus monsters have been being removed/renamed/revamped all through Angband's history. As such a keen student of Angband's lore, surely you've noticed this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tangar (Post 136297)
3) Angband as an educational game.

Multi-lore universe gives Angband an unique advantage to be a educational game. Each monster got a description which often contain poetic and beautiful quotes from the books which players could start reading after playing the game.

So surely the new monsters are another great educational opportunity? They all have descriptions too.

That said, like takkaria I think your "having other mythologies represented is a gateway to them" argument is probably the best one you have. However there are plenty of variants which are a much bigger melange of mythology from everywhere - notably the currently popular Poscheng/Compos/Frog etc ones - and I think it works quite well for Vanilla to stick to the core mythology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tangar (Post 136297)
4) With new monstrers Angband loosing it's compatibility.

Technically it would become almost impossible for old versions of Angband and it's variant to be up-to-date with 'new Angband'. The end of continuity.

I don't even know what you mean here. New versions are always different to old versions, and there have been like 50 new versions of Vanilla Angband, let alone all the variants. Look at 3.5.1 and see how compatible that is with 2.4.f-k - I think you'll find not very.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tangar (Post 136297)
5) Angband already took everything it could from Tolkien lore.

- All Tolkien's lore which is possible to extract from his works was already extracted and added to Angband in past years.
- Most of stuff which is currently renamed/revamped is kinda pulled out of thin air (or other 'a' place) and not well-known even by Tolkien fans. This looks like strained effort to replace stuff with 'at least something'.
- There are always would be stuff which Tolkien doesn't have and which Angband players love (eyes, krakens etc) which leads to a lot of subjectivety in assessment - which monsters should stay and which should go.

This is clearly not true, as I have just put in a lot of Tolkien stuff which was not there before.

Yes, there is always subjectivity about what to keep and what to remove. As I've explained a number of times to everyone, and directly to you in particular, my view was basically to remove things that were boring or that clashed with Tolkien stuff - so things like eyes stayed, but trolls drawn specifically from a different mythology were changed to be more Tolkienian.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tangar (Post 136297)
6) No one asked to change Angband lore.

- I didn't find players requests considering changes in current Angband lore. Of course, most of the players do not really care about it, they are mostly neutral.. and they trusting maintainers. But even in this topic there some opinions that players miss old monsters.
- It looks that this revamp of Angband lore is an initiative of one person which is kinda 'forced' it by his authority. No one asked for it (no offence meant, just a fact).

No-one asked for this particular set of changes, but I've been talking about it for a long time and have got quite a lot of encouragement. Also it is a topic that comes up from time to time here, and I judged that community sentiment wasn't against it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tangar (Post 136297)
7) Splitting community. (coming from previous one)

- As lore changes do not really bother most of the players there were no need to make them.
- At the same time for some players, who takes the game seriously - it's very painful changes and it's split's community (this topic is good example; there are a lot of personal offencive words - words not about particular facts of this discussion, but about personal properties. Bad sign).

I don't really see this as having split the community. It's generated a lot of discussion, but it's mostly been civil, and there's been no-one saying "these monster changes are going to make me leave the Angband community and never come back".

Quote:

Originally Posted by tangar (Post 136297)
7) Pure-Tolkien games is a danger of copyright.

Angband was a 'loosely' Tolkien-based game. Current lore revamp makes it quite 'strongly' focused. This is the least important factor imho, but it still exist.

I don't think that's even a remote danger. The Tolkien Estate is chiefly concerned with protecting the author's intellectual legacy; making Angband truer to his works probably makes us safer, if anything, but I think we're so far below the radar that we never have to think about that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tangar (Post 136297)
8) Nostalgia.

As I said in #2 - we are not young. Among Angband and roguelike community in general are not too much new players in this stupid age when modern graphics overcome the gameplay.

And each of us have a lot of stories about Angband monsters - funny and exiting stories. We love this monsters. We love Angband LORE.

ANGBAND LORE - EXIST.

Not much players realise that. But actually everyone got it's in their hearts. Lore is this stories and memories. Removing traditional lore from the game, this monsters which everyone know - it's a position that "Angband do not posses it's own lore". But it's there. It was there.

I've already addressed the we're not young bit. As for stories - now there are new monsters to have stories about, and changes don't invalidate the old stories.

Of course Angband lore exists, and mostly it exists in the community. We're contributing to it right now. Changing a few monsters in the monster list certainly doesn't destroy Angband lore.

fph February 20, 2019 21:33

It looks like most of your arguments boil down to "we've always done it this way".

Pete Mack February 21, 2019 00:07

Rogue had only a handful of monster types--less than 52. It also had no spells, minimal scrolls,etc. If you want a proper successor to it, try Sil. It is much closer to Rogue 3 than Angband ever was (or was intended to be.)

Derakon February 21, 2019 01:26

Angband was basically "maximalist Moria" when it first came out. Moria has 50 levels? Angband has 100! You can beat Moria at around clvl 30? In Angband you can go all the way up to clvl 50! Moria has warrior, rogue, paladin, mage, and priest? Angband has rangers too and everyone (except the warrior) gets twice as many spellbooks! Moria has ego items? Angband has artifacts! Moria has 150 monster types (or however many it was)? Angband has 500, and some of them are unique!

Neither game was particularly serious in tone. Moria had the Grape Jelly and Evil Iggy, and Angband had Qlzqqlzuup and potions of Slime Mold Juice.

Carnivean February 21, 2019 13:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derakon (Post 136321)
Neither game was particularly serious in tone.

I remember a story about the original Moria maintainer and his sense of fun. He'd developed the game for his college, but another college had gotten word of it and wanted in. The dev changed the monster list for the town to make a "football fan" of his college that was a rapid breeder and always awake, so as soon as the new college students started playing they were swarmed and killed. After both sides had a laugh he showed them how to revert the monster list and play normally.

Clearly the whole thing is a sacred tome and should never be changed.

MattB February 25, 2019 21:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by tangar (Post 136297)
7) Pure-Tolkien games is a danger of copyright.

Angband was a 'loosely' Tolkien-based game. Current lore revamp makes it quite 'strongly' focused. This is the least important factor imho, but it still exist.

Show me the person who is making money out of Angband. Because that will be the only person they can sue.

Derakon February 25, 2019 21:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattB (Post 136417)
Show me the person who is making money out of Angband. Because that will be the only person they can sue.

Plenty of not-for-profit fangames get cease-and-desist letters. Just because you're not making a profit doesn't mean you can do whatever you like with other peoples' IP. Even if you are in the clear (generally meaning your use falls under "fair use"), just having to fight it out in court represents a huge expenditure of time and energy.

There's a reason why PernAngband became ToME and replaced all the dragonriders with "thunderlords".

(I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice)

fph February 25, 2019 23:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carnivean (Post 136328)
I remember a story about the original Moria maintainer and his sense of fun. He'd developed the game for his college, but another college had gotten word of it and wanted in. The dev changed the monster list for the town to make a "football fan" of his college that was a rapid breeder and always awake, so as soon as the new college students started playing they were swarmed and killed. After both sides had a laugh he showed them how to revert the monster list and play normally.

You can read more about it in "Dungeon Hacks", a book on the history of roguelikes. It's among a lot of other interesting stories, some of them featuring users of this forum.

dos350 February 26, 2019 17:42

wow wow wow!
great read

honestly i dont see the point in updating monster names,, so wat if its tolkien or watever, it became its own hybrid lore: angband

i will miss dark elf and etc

Djabanete February 26, 2019 20:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derakon (Post 136321)
Neither game was particularly serious in tone. Moria had the Grape Jelly and Evil Iggy, and Angband had Qlzqqlzuup and potions of Slime Mold Juice.

Duuude...

Nick is butchering the game unless he brings back the Evil Iggy.

PowerWyrm February 27, 2019 08:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Djabanete (Post 136434)
Duuude...

Nick is butchering the game unless he brings back the Evil Iggy.

Don't forget the Stooges!

Pete Mack February 28, 2019 02:29

Hey, he can also bring in some joke monsters like that dl1 unique mold in ToME, especially if he is already adding Power Dragons or their equivalent.
Quote:

Originally Posted by PowerWyrm (Post 136437)
Don't forget the Stooges!


Derakon February 28, 2019 03:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete Mack (Post 136444)
Hey, he can also bring in some joke monsters like that dl1 unique mold in ToME, especially if he is already adding Power Dragons or their equivalent.

Don't forget about Barney the Dinosaur, Bull Gates, the toxic-waste breath ability, and some random Finnish politician.

Pete Mack February 28, 2019 05:46

@Derakon
Sure. But I particularly liked that mold. It is a great joke.

kandrc February 28, 2019 15:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete Mack (Post 136444)
Hey, he can also bring in some joke monsters like that dl1 unique mold in ToME, especially if he is already adding Power Dragons or their equivalent.

Fungi and molds are not the same thing, but: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141...m-in-the-world

Pete Mack February 28, 2019 21:41

kandrc-- honey mushroom would have to be a special level, not just a single monster.

Therem Harth February 28, 2019 23:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete Mack (Post 136459)
kandrc-- honey mushroom would have to be a special level, not just a single monster.

immediately goes off to implement this in a new variant with a misleading name and terrible code

Pete Mack March 1, 2019 01:08

You have 31 days to finish. Call it narocomo. (Natl roguelike code month.)

Nick March 1, 2019 01:43

This thread has gone way off topic, we need to ... never mind.

Pete Mack March 1, 2019 03:14

It is entirely on topic, Nick: we are all trying hard to come up with novel ways to help you butcher the game.

Youssarian March 1, 2019 03:37

You could add in monsters from other, well loved things. Like an entire level that JUST has care bears that you get to kill.

Derakon March 1, 2019 05:00

I suggest that Vanilla stochastically incorporate features from other variants with each game. So in one game you might have the PosChengband monster list, FAAngband's overworld, ToME's skill system, and Sil's combat mechanics, in another you'd have ZAngband's dungeon generator, Kamband's magic, Drangband's race/class list, and 2.4 frog-knows' UI.

That sounds doable for 4.2, wouldn't you say?

Therem Harth March 1, 2019 16:49

@Derakon

We can call it a meta-roguelike, because anything meta is trendy right now.

Pete Mack March 2, 2019 08:11

@Therem-
metabland, combining meta, metal (alloy), band, blend, and--well--bland. Not to be confused with metalband.

Also, rebalance XP and dungeon depth according to danger of monsters. No more diving at CL 20 and hoping for a herd of Vrock or Mumak to help you out. Since coffeeband is already taken, call it grindband.

Derakon March 2, 2019 15:02

Along the lines of coffee, I just realized my ridiculous suggestion should be called Angblend.

Pete Mack March 2, 2019 23:20

This is roughly where i was going when I imagined the fungus level. I particularly like the idea of an Oz level, with good and bad witches, yellow floor tiles, and a pair of red slippers carried by the gnome king quest monster. There are plenty of monsters in Oz.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Youssarian (Post 136470)
You could add in monsters from other, well loved things. Like an entire level that JUST has care bears that you get to kill.


Mondkalb March 3, 2019 06:49

Really, there should be an Ozband. :)

Antoine March 4, 2019 00:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derakon (Post 136494)
Along the lines of coffee, I just realized my ridiculous suggestion should be called Angblend.

Then 'Angbland', combining the least interesting features of every variant into a single game

A.

Tibarius March 4, 2019 15:05

"Developing" of Angband
 
From my perspective Nick is destroying Angband. He creates something new so different from the game i knew that i cannot identify it as the same game anymore.

But most of all i disagre to the statement that a game must evolve or constantly be changed to stay alive. That is total nonsense ... software development goes by the requirements made. Only if the requirements change it is to needed to change the code. In my world view there is a "perfect" solution once the requirements are defined. And since my personal requirements to Angband never changed i am totall against what Nick does to the game.

If the game would be moddable to a higher degree i eventually would try to create the game i loved so much. But it isn't and the major drawbacks are not subject to change from Nick. So i went basically silent and didn't bother to spend time thinking about how the game should evolve or post comments. This is just a reaction to Tangar who was wondering why nobody else complains about Nick's behavior.

Pete Mack March 4, 2019 16:25

The game is far more easily modified no than it ever was in the past. What mods do you want to make, and why are they difficult?
And who would want to be maintainer for a static game?

Hounded March 4, 2019 20:09

I confess I'm puzzled. Dune 2 was better than Dune 2000. So I stayed with that. Civ 2 beats hell out of Empire :) but I found Alpha Centauri lacking by comparison so I play Civ 2 (I may be unusual but I'm comfortable with that).

I just don't understand why someone would be opposed to development of a game which they are not being forced to play? Especially with V. Angband where there isn't a multi-player component and all of the older versions with a plethora of variants remain available.

If I don't like a movie, I get up and leave. If I don't like a new game I stick with the old. I can't see why someone would be so invested in pushing others efforts, especially volunteer effors, to suit their own vision.

Thraalbee March 4, 2019 20:12

Change is toxic. To some people

Nick March 4, 2019 20:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tibarius (Post 136501)
But most of all i disagre to the statement that a game must evolve or constantly be changed to stay alive. That is total nonsense ... software development goes by the requirements made. Only if the requirements change it is to needed to change the code. In my world view there is a "perfect" solution once the requirements are defined. And since my personal requirements to Angband never changed i am totall against what Nick does to the game.

This argument would have some force if Angband had been essentially the same for a long time and then I was suddenly changing it. The fact is, though, that there have been 30 or so progressively changing, distinctly different versions of Angband over the last 28 or so years - and that's only if you count "official" Angband releases and ignore the 100+ variants.

So, which of those is the one that you think is perfect? 2.6.1? 2.8.3? 3.0.3? 3.4.1? Should staves stack? What do you think of the JLE monsters? Are randarts an acceptable new addition to the game? What about the Palantir - should that have been removed? Are amulets of Weaponmastery OK? What is your position on Tiamat, or the sword of Eowyn, or the bonuses on Narya?

I await your answers to these questions with interest.

misanthropope March 4, 2019 22:06

i have a concern about over-tolkienization of angband. angband is fundamentally a d&d experience ("murder hobo"), not a tolkien one. i like JRR as much as the next guy, but the old boy took himself seriously to a degree that angband just can't.

70% tolkien? loving it. 100%? im thinking it just makes "buy lantern, kill morgoth" that much less suspension-of-disbelief-able.

in my view, it would be altogether meet and decorous for angband to feature one monster in its list from each and every suitably well-loved fantasy franchise. there's a hundred bloody levels, you got room.

Voovus March 4, 2019 23:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hounded (Post 136504)
I confess I'm puzzled. Dune 2 was better than Dune 2000. So I stayed with that. Civ 2 beats hell out of Empire :) but I found Alpha Centauri lacking by comparison so I play Civ 2 (I may be unusual but I'm comfortable with that).

I agree with all three comparisons. :)

But... Wouldn't it have been great if the Civ series, instead of taking the wrong turn after Civ 2 and ending up with four meh sequels, would have developed into something even more amazing?

On to the oliphaunt in the room (or an oliphaunt, at any rate). If, in five years time, the vanilla maintainer removes the bit of Angband that's sacred to me personally, I'll be cross. Banning half-troll warriors might do it for some, or maybe stopping natural spell point regeneration, or perhaps introducing care bears that you had to kill - most of us have a breaking point. The worst bit is that it would not only spoil the current version of Vanilla Angband, but it would likely spoil all future versions of Angband for me too. And if I had been with the Angband community for many years, and have been hoping to stay with it for many more years, then I might get very cross. So, please, Angband community, don't just say "no-one else has a problem with X, go away", even when no-one else does have a problem with X. :(

I'm not offering a solution.

In an attempt to be a bit more constructive: my impression is that changes that concern balancing, removal of tedium (selling, identify, remove curse, traps) or new additions to the game (vaults, artifacts, uniques, druid, necromancer) go down relatively well. Alterations to well-functioning parts of the game (changing an existing play style, changing "lore" from Total Mess to Tolkien) are asking for trouble.

... and since this is an annoying post anyway: :rolleyes:

@ Pete Mack: please, Rogue had 26 monsters. Yes, I know that's <52.
@ Derakon: Moria already had rangers, and "slime mold juice" is a Rogue thing (the taste of a potion of see invisible).

Derakon March 5, 2019 00:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voovus (Post 136509)
@ Derakon: Moria already had rangers, and "slime mold juice" is a Rogue thing (the taste of a potion of see invisible).

Thanks for the corrections. I've never played Rogue, and I couldn't remember if Rangers were stock. I remember playing a Moria that had druids, which could cast both mage and priest spells, but I'm pretty sure that was a Moria variant and not "true" Moria. To the extent there is such a thing of course!

I forget -- did Moria have Blubbering Icky Things and Green Glutton Ghosts? It certainly didn't have Death Molds!

Nick March 5, 2019 11:41

My approach to implementing (most of) my plans for 4.2 has been to get the two big items - classes and monsters - roughly done first, and then let that settle for a bit while making other, smaller changes.

So that's where we are now. It's worth emphasising, I think, that particularly in the case of monsters we're not finished yet. This development is being done publicly with as much chance as possible for players to comment on what they do and don't like. I am entirely happy to revert any bits that are clearly not working; sometimes it's difficult to judge, though, when that is the case.

So, to be specific, if people think we were better with dark elves as they were instead of the replacement dwarves, we can do that. If people don't like the new classes, we can get rid of them. But I would ask for specific criticism as much as possible, and as time goes on I will be asking specifically about specific changes to get a sense of whether people think they're good or bad.

Bostock March 5, 2019 11:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voovus (Post 136509)
Wouldn't it have been great if the Civ series, instead of taking the wrong turn after Civ 2 and ending up with four meh sequels,

Fight me. :-P

(Except when it comes to Civ 3. Civ 3 can go suck an egg.)

Hounded March 5, 2019 16:26

Thank you Voovus. I apologize if I came across as "if you don't like it, leave". That wasn't my intention. More that if someone feels that strongly then, as I've seen suggested elsewhere, their efforts would be best spent in doing a parallel effort to maintain Vanilla (call it VanillaX or something for the moment and lobby to become the maintainer after Nick, I dunno). If support for retention rather than for the changes Nick has incorporated is that strong then it will quickly become apparent.

Youssarian March 6, 2019 01:41

Of all the changes, I think changing the standard classes is the one that seems the most drastic to me.

I wish you could keep both. Have a standard option when creating your character. And then have advanced classes for those who want to play something a little different.

And I don't mean so that I can swap the file myself. Make it so they can both exists side by side.

This gives those who like the old classes and those who like the new ones the option to play they way they prefer. I would like to see the spell books fixed so that it's clear which ones go to which of the new jobs.

Change is about balance. No change at all is just as bad as too much change too quickly.

kandrc March 6, 2019 14:56

There really is no such thing as an "official" vanilla Angband. What is considered to be "official" comes by de facto acceptance of the community. Nick is only the maintainer because a critical mass of the Angband community agrees on it. Anybody can pick up any old version of Angband, hack on it, fork a release, call it vanilla Angband foo.bar, claim to be the official maintainer, etc., and if that person amasses sufficient support from the community, then all of the claims are de facto true.

Claiming that the maintainer is ruining the game without forking and doing it yourself is just lame you don't really have the right to complain*, but you do have the right to do it "right" yourself.

Anybody who claims the game is moving in the wrong direction can just fork off.

* To be clear, you absolutely have the right to make suggestions, critique, etc., and the maintainer has the right to entertain or ignore them, but you don't have the right to engage in verbal diatribe against the efforts of the maintainer. That's just a dick move. Seriously, I don't understand why people have to be told these kinds of things.

Mars March 6, 2019 22:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Youssarian (Post 136519)
Of all the changes, I think changing the standard classes is the one that seems the most drastic to me.

I wish you could keep both. Have a standard option when creating your character. And then have advanced classes for those who want to play something a little different.

And I don't mean so that I can swap the file myself. Make it so they can both exists side by side.

This gives those who like the old classes and those who like the new ones the option to play they way they prefer. I would like to see the spell books fixed so that it's clear which ones go to which of the new jobs.

Change is about balance. No change at all is just as bad as too much change too quickly.

The danger of that approach is feature bloat, which is detrimental for both maintainer and player ("gee, which of these gazillion things to choose from. Meh, never mind.").

Hounded March 6, 2019 23:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick (Post 136513)
My approach to implementing (most of) my plans for 4.2 has been to get the two big items - classes and monsters - roughly done first, and then let that settle for a bit while making other, smaller changes.

So that's where we are now. It's worth emphasising, I think, that particularly in the case of monsters we're not finished yet. This development is being done publicly with as much chance as possible for players to comment on what they do and don't like. I am entirely happy to revert any bits that are clearly not working; sometimes it's difficult to judge, though, when that is the case.

So, to be specific, if people think we were better with dark elves as they were instead of the replacement dwarves, we can do that. If people don't like the new classes, we can get rid of them. But I would ask for specific criticism as much as possible, and as time goes on I will be asking specifically about specific changes to get a sense of whether people think they're good or bad.

There's personal bias at play here but I'm excited for the concept of switching to Dwarves.

They're vastly underrepresented in the fantasy realm and I've always preferred them in concept to the pointy-eared munchkins regardless of the setting (three cheers for Markus Heitz for putting them back where they belong as "a force to be reckoned with").

fph March 7, 2019 00:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mars (Post 136523)
The danger of that approach is feature bloat, which is detrimental for both maintainer and player ("gee, which of these gazillion things to choose from. Meh, never mind.").

The other danger is having too many things to keep tested, bug-free and balanced. Same reason why many uncommon game options got removed from the = menu.

Youssarian March 7, 2019 15:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mars (Post 136523)
The danger of that approach is feature bloat, which is detrimental for both maintainer and player ("gee, which of these gazillion things to choose from. Meh, never mind.").


Yes, but I'm not talking about leaving everything in the game that was ever there and just adding to it. Classes are a base function and why even bother to include the option to switch to them if its too hard to balance and maintain them all? By that reasoning there should never be a way to regress the game.

From my perspective, the new jobs change the game which is fine. But the core classes are well known commodities by players who have enjoyed this game for many years. I am merely stating my preference to keep them and the others. Or give it as a base option just like no gold, or randarts, or no selling. Put the option there for the player to opt for original classes; new classes or both.

If it is too much work, then I understand as I cannot code so can't answer as to that.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 17:41.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.