Angband.oook.cz
Angband.oook.cz
AboutVariantsLadderForumCompetitionComicScreenshotsFunniesLinks

Go Back   Angband Forums > Angband > Vanilla

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old August 12, 2011, 09:54   #41
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
Can you retrospectively patch it into 3.0.something or other, to get a point of comparison?

Or is that harder than it sounds?

A.
It is quite hard, but I know that myshkin wanted to try to do that. I wouldn't want to speculate on how likely it is to happen - I'm just pleased we now have a way of tracking change from 3.3.0 onwards.

EDIT: Just to say, I used the term "Magnate's Object Simulator" because you did. I'd like everybody to know that all the real work was done by myshkin and fizzix.
__________________
"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 August 12, 2011, 12:57   #42
Timo Pietilš
Prophet
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Climbing up from hole I just dug.
Posts: 4,093
Timo Pietilš is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnate View Post
The basic issue is that the devteam don't share Timo's view on how the game should be made harder, so every now and then he posts threads like this to generate some debate. This is fine - debate is healthy, and as I said in my first post in this thread, I agree with some of Timo's suggestions, especially about detection and traps. But the general gist of "stop changing stuff, and make it more like 3.0.x" has already been answered.
Many of the things I posted in original were not suggestions, just observations of how old angband did things.

I'm past "stop changing things"-phase, now I want things to be changed, but in other direction than I fear devteam is planning to steer the game. I don't like weakening the reward part of the result of what has already been done. If you make game "harder" that way, people just stop playing because then there is no satisfaction in playing the game.
Timo Pietilš is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 12, 2011, 13:45   #43
buzzkill
Prophet
 
buzzkill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 2,939
Donated: $8
buzzkill is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by flammableBen View Post
What happens if monsters dropped items which were only based on their natural depth with no input from the depth you were actually fighting them?

It would stop people diving and killing the same monsters for better reward.
This isn't a bad idea. Why would cave orcs at 3000' have better stuff? I see it accomplishing two things.

1. Less junk. The stuff early monster's drop in the late game would probably be considered junk, and therefore squelched. No more room full of egos after mowing through a lowly troll pit.

2. It would make the players actually want/need to fight in depth monsters. Why kill an dracolich when killing a forest troll yields the same reward? Actually, most pushovers appear in groups, so the same reward x12 or x100.
__________________
www.mediafire.com/buzzkill - Get your 32x32 tiles here. UT32 now compatible Ironband and Quickband 9/6/2012.
My banding life on Buzzkill's ladder.
buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 12, 2011, 13:57   #44
Timo Pietilš
Prophet
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Climbing up from hole I just dug.
Posts: 4,093
Timo Pietilš is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzkill View Post
This isn't a bad idea. Why would cave orcs at 3000' have better stuff? I see it accomplishing two things.

1. Less junk. The stuff early monster's drop in the late game would probably be considered junk, and therefore squelched. No more room full of egos after mowing through a lowly troll pit.

2. It would make the players actually want/need to fight in depth monsters. Why kill an dracolich when killing a forest troll yields the same reward? Actually, most pushovers appear in groups, so the same reward x12 or x100.
Reward is not the same with shallower monsters. It gets better, but it is (monster native depth or (monster native depth + dungeon depth) /2) whichever is higher. That means that dracolich and scout have a bit over thousand feet difference in drop quality at dracolichs native depth.

In depth monsters do give better drops, also OoD monsters give better drops than in depth monsters.

IMO current system is quite OK.
Timo Pietilš is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 12, 2011, 14:43   #45
fizzix
Prophet
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Madison, Wisconsin, US
Posts: 3,001
fizzix is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzkill View Post
This isn't a bad idea. Why would cave orcs at 3000' have better stuff? I see it accomplishing two things.

1. Less junk. The stuff early monster's drop in the late game would probably be considered junk, and therefore squelched. No more room full of egos after mowing through a lowly troll pit.

2. It would make the players actually want/need to fight in depth monsters. Why kill an dracolich when killing a forest troll yields the same reward? Actually, most pushovers appear in groups, so the same reward x12 or x100.
In order for this to work you'd need to remove DROP_GOOD from deep monsters, or add consumables to those drops. Otherwise, you could only get the high level staves from the floor. I think this removal should be done anyway as DROP_GOOD should actually be interpreted as DROP_JUNK_THAT_YOU_NEED_TO_IDENTIFY.

Also, there is a more pernicious problem. Monsters like white wolves are very annoying in the late game. They pose no danger at all, but you still have to kill them. They give no XP and don't drop anything either. Now imagine what would happen if every monster had the same lack of reward. It's already annoying to have to wade through a group of orcs at dlevel 90, without even the possibility of a stat potion drop, it'd be almost unbearably boring.

(My solution of course, is to make orcs not appear deep in the dungeon at all, so you can instead deal with more interesting/dangerous monsters with better drops)
fizzix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 12, 2011, 16:35   #46
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 fizzix View Post
In order for this to work you'd need to remove DROP_GOOD from deep monsters, or add consumables to those drops. Otherwise, you could only get the high level staves from the floor. I think this removal should be done anyway as DROP_GOOD should actually be interpreted as DROP_JUNK_THAT_YOU_NEED_TO_IDENTIFY.

Also, there is a more pernicious problem. Monsters like white wolves are very annoying in the late game. They pose no danger at all, but you still have to kill them. They give no XP and don't drop anything either. Now imagine what would happen if every monster had the same lack of reward. It's already annoying to have to wade through a group of orcs at dlevel 90, without even the possibility of a stat potion drop, it'd be almost unbearably boring.

(My solution of course, is to make orcs not appear deep in the dungeon at all, so you can instead deal with more interesting/dangerous monsters with better drops)
I think the occasional annoyance monster adds flavour to the game, but agree that they shouldn't be very common.

I strongly recommend keeping the DROP_GOOD and DROP_GREAT monster flags, but changing how they work. We need to add OF_GOOD to any non-wearables which should be available in DROP_GOOD, and OF_GREAT to any we want included in DROP_GREAT. So gain-one-lose-one potions should have OF_GOOD, and Augmentation/*Enlightenment* etc. should have OF_GREAT. Similarly high-end devices, scrolls, etc. Of course, we then need to balance the drop system so that they're not too common etc.

The alternative is to throw out the GOOD/GREAT concepts entirely and do the whole drop system using some other heuristic (object power, depth, price, whatever). I'm not convinced that the extra work would bring commensurate extra benefits.
__________________
"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 August 12, 2011, 16:38   #47
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 Timo Pietilš View Post
Many of the things I posted in original were not suggestions, just observations of how old angband did things.
Indeed, and it was useful and thought-provoking. Some of them are things we ought to do to make 3.4 a better game, and maybe we will.
Quote:
I'm past "stop changing things"-phase, now I want things to be changed, but in other direction than I fear devteam is planning to steer the game. I don't like weakening the reward part of the result of what has already been done. If you make game "harder" that way, people just stop playing because then there is no satisfaction in playing the game.
I don't know how or why you come to characterise the direction of development in this way. I think I can confidently speak for most if not all contributors when I say it honestly isn't how we intend it to be, and in fact I don't think this is what's happening. Nobody has played much 3.3.0 yet, and 3.4 is barely started, so it seems very odd to have this view about where the game is going.
__________________
"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 August 12, 2011, 18:15   #48
fizzix
Prophet
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Madison, Wisconsin, US
Posts: 3,001
fizzix is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnate View Post
I think the occasional annoyance monster adds flavour to the game, but agree that they shouldn't be very common.
There's a huge difference between annoyance monsters like water hounds or fire vortices that actually have some effect. I'm talking more about monsters that are not a danger, cannot damage equipment, have no status attacks (like stat draining) don't impede progress (even create darkness is ok). This group of monsters includes the wolves and orcs past about dlevel 30, and trolls past about dlevel 60. Because of large group sizes and low rarity, there are a lot of them in the dungeon. At least the orcs and trolls have some chance of dropping useful items currently.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnate
I strongly recommend keeping the DROP_GOOD and DROP_GREAT monster flags, but changing how they work. We need to add OF_GOOD to any non-wearables which should be available in DROP_GOOD, and OF_GREAT to any we want included in DROP_GREAT. So gain-one-lose-one potions should have OF_GOOD, and Augmentation/*Enlightenment* etc. should have OF_GREAT. Similarly high-end devices, scrolls, etc. Of course, we then need to balance the drop system so that they're not too common etc.

The alternative is to throw out the GOOD/GREAT concepts entirely and do the whole drop system using some other heuristic (object power, depth, price, whatever). I'm not convinced that the extra work would bring commensurate extra benefits.
I added some emphasis, because I agree that this is important and difficult. One of my original suggestions was to expand the DROP_GOOD category. Although, i'm not entirely sure now that this is the best option. We already have an in-game mechanic for limiting what can be dropped based on maximum and minimum level. Right now every monster deeper than dlevel 60 has DROP_GOOD excepting the jabberwock and the dreadlord. Deep monsters are already going to drop items that are deeper than their level, so they're almost guaranteed to be "good" anyway. The DROP_GOOD flag limits the drops to be weapons and armor, which most of the time is useless. I'd strip the flags out entirely for all but UNIQUES, and maybe some select few monsters scattered around the dungeon.
fizzix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 12, 2011, 21:20   #49
ChodTheWacko
Adept
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 155
ChodTheWacko is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnate View Post
You can *always* detect monsters before they come into visual or spell range.
Not necessarily true.

I have a suggestion - If you spawn a monster, don't put it within 'monster detection range'. It's unfair to 'slide one in' after the player did detect monsters.

The fact that we need 'disturb when leaving trap detection range' implies to me we might need 'disturb when leaving monster detect range' but perhaps not.

- Frank
ChodTheWacko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 12, 2011, 21:28   #50
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 fizzix View Post
I added some emphasis, because I agree that this is important and difficult. One of my original suggestions was to expand the DROP_GOOD category. Although, i'm not entirely sure now that this is the best option. We already have an in-game mechanic for limiting what can be dropped based on maximum and minimum level. Right now every monster deeper than dlevel 60 has DROP_GOOD excepting the jabberwock and the dreadlord. Deep monsters are already going to drop items that are deeper than their level, so they're almost guaranteed to be "good" anyway. The DROP_GOOD flag limits the drops to be weapons and armor, which most of the time is useless. I'd strip the flags out entirely for all but UNIQUES, and maybe some select few monsters scattered around the dungeon.
This is exactly the opposite of what I was trying to say. IMO the DROP_GOOD flag is a useful device for ensuring that deep monsters drop only useful items (for values of useful with a high variance). The problem is that DROP_GOOD is currently limited to weapons and armour. (There is a further problem that "good" weapons and armour are largely rubbish, but that's orthogonal.) So my suggestion is to make lots of useful non-wearables "good" so that they can be dropped with DROP_GOOD.

But your way may work better.
__________________
"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
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
Rogue Ideas UglySquirrell Vanilla 31 July 22, 2011 10:05
New monster ideas Derakon Vanilla 35 August 2, 2010 00:32
Random ideas... dhegler Vanilla 7 December 18, 2009 09:42
[UN] Suggestions/Ideas Karzack Variants 13 March 17, 2009 10:44
Ideas I thought up Diogenes Vanilla 1 October 6, 2007 17:15


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 16:26.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.