Angband.oook.cz
Angband.oook.cz
AboutVariantsLadderForumCompetitionComicScreenshotsFunniesLinks

Go Back   Angband Forums > Angband > Development

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 16, 2011, 20:52   #61
Antoine
Ironband/Quickband Maintainer
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,008
Antoine is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by fizzix View Post
Antoine. What if the name doesn't change but the description does? So it's not called a "sharp broadsword" but it has a description line oon the Inspect screen that says, "it is sharper than usual"? Is this still a flavor break?

For me that's fine, an improvement on the status quo even.

A.
__________________
Ironband - http://angband.oook.cz/ironband/
Antoine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 16, 2011, 20:54   #62
Magnate
Angband Devteam member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 5,057
Magnate is on a distinguished road
Send a message via MSN to Magnate Send a message via Yahoo to Magnate
Quote:
Originally Posted by half View Post
I should add that this is a really great coding and design effort, so hopefully there is some way to proceed.
Thank you. I'll be the first to say I'm not the best person to decide on flavourful names for things - there's lots of improvement to be done there. Also, fizzix's stats are an excellent illustration of how this can be balanced - we can adjust the T: lines in ego_item.txt so that SI appears earlier, slays are less common, etc. It's fiddly work but it's iterative - large improvements come quite quickly then fine balancing takes ages.
__________________
"3.4 is much better than 3.1, 3.2 or 3.3. It still is easier than 3.0.9, but it is more convenient to play without being ridiculously easy, so it is my new favorite of the versions." - Timo Pietila
Magnate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 16, 2011, 20:54   #63
Antoine
Ironband/Quickband Maintainer
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,008
Antoine is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnate View Post
On your other point, the stats module will facilitate comparison with 3.3, but we don't have stats for earlier versions. But some devs have discussed backporting the stats code to 3.0.x precisely so that we can make these comparisons.
I would strongly support that. I don't see the benefit of balancing 3.4 based on its similarity to 3.3 when we know 3.3's object distributions are dicey.

A.
__________________
Ironband - http://angband.oook.cz/ironband/
Antoine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 16, 2011, 20:56   #64
Magnate
Angband Devteam member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 5,057
Magnate is on a distinguished road
Send a message via MSN to Magnate Send a message via Yahoo to Magnate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antoine View Post
I would strongly support that. I don't see the benefit of balancing 3.4 based on its similarity to 3.3 when we know 3.3's object distributions are dicey.
As were 3.2's, and 3.1's. It's a big ask, but hopefully someone will be motivated to do it.

That said, we know quite a lot about what was wrong with 3.3's distribution (as it's been roughly the same since 3.1.0), so even if nobody backports the stats code, we can still make sure 3.4 is *better* than 3.3, even if it's not perfect.
__________________
"3.4 is much better than 3.1, 3.2 or 3.3. It still is easier than 3.0.9, but it is more convenient to play without being ridiculously easy, so it is my new favorite of the versions." - Timo Pietila
Magnate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 16, 2011, 20:58   #65
Antoine
Ironband/Quickband Maintainer
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,008
Antoine is on a distinguished road
To Magnate the baffled

With regard to your puzzlement about my suggestion "that 3.4 should change the range of items as little as possible"

I think the problem is that you fundamentally don't believe in cautious, incremental development of V. That being the case there's not much point in me suggesting ways in which you could make change more gradual.

A.

[EDIT: This is not meant to be an unfriendly or unhelpful response]
__________________
Ironband - http://angband.oook.cz/ironband/

Last edited by Antoine; October 16, 2011 at 22:38.
Antoine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 16, 2011, 22:38   #66
Magnate
Angband Devteam member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 5,057
Magnate is on a distinguished road
Send a message via MSN to Magnate Send a message via Yahoo to Magnate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antoine View Post
To Magnate the baffled

I think the problem is that you fundamentally don't believe in cautious, incremental development of V. That being the case there's not much point in me suggesting ways in which you could make change more gradual.
I'm sorry, I thought we were exchanging views quite politely and successfully.

So your answer to my previous questions is essentially "I don't think you should add anything new because I think change should be really cautious and incremental".

That's fine - it's a well-trodden debate that takkaria started on usenet in about 2006 and was thrashed out again only a few months ago in a thread started by Timo about the pace of development. I don't need to repeat my views again, and I'm happy for us to agree to disagree.

If there are any *other* reasons not to allow the new object generation algorithms to generate stuff that couldn't be generated by their predecessors, let me know. (Personally I think I have some misgivings about allowing of Warding to be generated on non-theme items, and a host of other detailed criticisms - just because I published it doesn't mean I think it's perfect.)
__________________
"3.4 is much better than 3.1, 3.2 or 3.3. It still is easier than 3.0.9, but it is more convenient to play without being ridiculously easy, so it is my new favorite of the versions." - Timo Pietila
Magnate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 16, 2011, 22:51   #67
Nomad
Knight
 
Nomad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 958
Nomad is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnate View Post
You aren't supposed to find (+0, +0) weapons deep in the dungeon either - that wasn't my intention, and means there aren't enough high-level affixes which boost hit and dam. This is the problem with Nomad's suggestion of reducing the number of hit/dam affixes, btw.
Given that the affixes are numbered, is there any issue with using duplicate names? i.e. Could you have an "of Damage" that gives 1d5 dam that's rated "good", and another "of Damage" giving 6-10 dam that's rated "great"?

Or could you somehow give affixes an alias - maybe have some sort of pseudo-theme with a name that's automatically used if the item has any one of a possible set of affixes? So all the hit/dam affecting affixes would show up named as an ego "of Slaying". (Perhaps combined with the suggestion fizzix made of showing the actual affix details in the item description.) Either of those would help reduce the flood of unfamiliar names required to specify many essentially similar hit/dam boosting affixes.

Another, less ideal solution to the lack of hit/dam might be to enforce a random boost to both in high-level themes (with a possibility of that boost being 0), or include it as an aspect of other affixes, i.e. a high level weapon affix comes with built-in hit/dam bonuses of 0-5.

Beyond that, I think flavour-wise material-based affix names (and, I'm afraid, blandly descriptive ones), are probably less intrusive than other types: an "Iron" Sword stands out less than a "Keen" one, an ego "of Sustain Strength" blends better than a "Robust" one. Go with clean and simple at first, change it up later when somebody inevitably complains about how all the boring old affix names are totally lacking in flavour.
Nomad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 16, 2011, 22:53   #68
Antoine
Ironband/Quickband Maintainer
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,008
Antoine is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnate View Post
I'm sorry, I thought we were exchanging views quite politely and successfully.
I think so too, but I think we end up agreeing to disagree on the pace of V development (it wouldn't be the first time).

[EDIT] I won't be surprised if Timo makes some similar comments.

A.
__________________
Ironband - http://angband.oook.cz/ironband/

Last edited by Antoine; October 16, 2011 at 23:08.
Antoine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 16, 2011, 23:09   #69
Magnate
Angband Devteam member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 5,057
Magnate is on a distinguished road
Send a message via MSN to Magnate Send a message via Yahoo to Magnate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antoine View Post
I think so too, but I think we end up agreeing to disagree on the pace of V development (it wouldn't be the first time).
It's funny you should say that. I went back and read the thread Timo started and was surprised to recall that you were very supportive of the proposals at that time. We froze 3.3.0 and did a lot of fixing and polishing before it was released. We've released 3.3.1 with bugfixes, and are right on the cusp of releasing 3.3.2 with some more (and as the release manager for all those, let me tell you it isn't a whole lot of fun cherry-picking bugfixes, building and testing). The rest of the proposals involved "introducing major changes earlier in the development cycle" so they can be properly tested (and if necessary reverted) before the next release. You now seem to be saying that major changes shouldn't be introduced at all - or maybe you were just operating with a different definition of "major" at the time. But look at how many suggested changes to ego items I *didn't* make!
__________________
"3.4 is much better than 3.1, 3.2 or 3.3. It still is easier than 3.0.9, but it is more convenient to play without being ridiculously easy, so it is my new favorite of the versions." - Timo Pietila
Magnate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 16, 2011, 23:10   #70
Antoine
Ironband/Quickband Maintainer
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,008
Antoine is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnate View Post
we know quite a lot about what was wrong with 3.3's distribution (as it's been roughly the same since 3.1.0
Can you tell me what the devteam consider the current object distribution problems to be, or point me towards a thread or ticket that describes them?

A.
__________________
Ironband - http://angband.oook.cz/ironband/
Antoine is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Experimenting with no-egos bron Vanilla 19 September 7, 2010 21:22
just for magnate PowerDiver AAR 12 August 31, 2010 19:51
Magnate's thread Magnate Vanilla 7 December 23, 2009 16:53


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:01.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.