My Thoughts on 4.2

[DavidMedley]

Originally Posted by wobbly

If you have full monster memory it is. I actually like it being there as I don't always remember which trolls are light vulnerable & which ones I've tested.

That's a good point. That must be why it's in there.

[DavidMedley]

Originally Posted by Nick

1. BR_DARK monsters already resist dark (this is true of all breaths, not just dark)
2. The damage of this spell was designed for the fact that few things resist it.

I didn't know that first part, but it makes sense. I figured the second. But if you look through, there's lots of creatures that cast darkness but don't breathe dark that seem like they should definitely resist. Huorn, Shadow Drake, wraiths, shadow. A lot of those have negative light, though, so that could be another key to look for. IDK if light-sensitive creatures should resist dark like trolls and vampires... it seems like if they hate light they should love dark but dark is not really the same thing as darkness attacks.

I just feel like it's weird for the dark depths to have fewer monsters that resist dark than other elements. It seems path dependent, not a choice any Angband developer would make if starting from scratch.

[fph]

Originally Posted by DavidMedley

Also, it'd be awesome to remove "bright light" and "rock remover" from monster resists in recall, which is redundant. Leave it only in the "hurt by" section. This is how the monster files are written anyway, so it's curious that they ever came to be written this way in recall.

I am not sure I understand here. There are three possible messages that you want to convey in the monster recall: (1) resists bright light, (2) does not resist / is hurt by bright light (3) you don't know yet because you never pointed a laser at it. Are you suggesting that (1) and (3) should get the same recall entry?

[DavidMedley]

Originally Posted by fph

I am not sure I understand here. There are three possible messages that you want to convey in the monster recall: (1) resists bright light, (2) does not resist / is hurt by bright light (3) you don't know yet because you never pointed a laser at it. Are you suggesting that (1) and (3) should get the same recall entry?

Wobbly already pointed this out, and I agreed it's a good point. Here is what I'll say about it: The things listed in the resists part are exceptions, and the things listed in the "does not resist" part are typical. I (and I imagine most players) read the "is hurt by" and resists sections carefully and skim the does not resist section, at best. So maybe put bright light and rock remover at the end of the does not resist section? That would be a bit wonky, but it would save us all from reading "resists bright light and rock remover" in almost every recall when we're looking for useful information.

[fph]

Ah, I see, this makes sense; I agree that it stands out more than it should now.