Angband.oook.cz
Angband.oook.cz
AboutDownloadVariantsLadderForumCompetitionSpoilersComicScreenshotsFunniesLinks

Go Back   Angband Forums > Angband > v4

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 29, 2012, 09:00   #11
Magnate
Angband Devteam member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 4,988
Magnate is on a distinguished road
Send a message via MSN to Magnate Send a message via Yahoo to Magnate Send a message via Skype™ to Magnate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derakon View Post
Hm, my guess is that none of these would count, as they all act by "removing the monster from the level", not by killing them. I guess the short answer would be, if you get experience for it, then it counts.
This feels intuitively wrong. Genocide and destruction should certainly count - the very names imply death, not banishment. Banishment itself could be construed as banished elsewhere in the ecosystem, or outside it - so could count or not. For consistency I'd say it ought to count.

This is, I accept, a case where the 'right' answer is more hassle to implement. But it's not impossible - we can adjust populations and fecundities so that monster races aren't too badly hit by the occasional genocide or banishment. But if a mage wants to take the trouble to banish Zs at the start of every level, his/her reward will be the absence of Zs. I don't think we should spike that.

This is a good example of where one proposed change relies on or is affected by another. We've talked a lot about making changes to the banishment effect to make it less abusable. If we were to introduce this change to monster populations, the repeatable versions of these effects (spell, device, activation but not necessarily scroll) would need to be reined in a bit.
__________________
"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 May 29, 2012, 13:36   #12
CliffStamp
Apprentice
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 64
CliffStamp is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnate View Post
We've talked a lot about making changes to the banishment effect to make it less abusable. If we were to introduce this change to monster populations, the repeatable versions of these effects (spell, device, activation but not necessarily scroll) would need to be reined in a bit.
Genocide was intended to be a utility, never really a pruning effect. The simplest solution is just to make the use of it much more harsh. This would have no effect on the utility aspect, but would prevent it from being an item/scum tool. As just one example, if use of genocide had a chance of permanently draining stats and experience based on the number of monsters genocided. Or consider any genocide attempt on a non-LOS monster can be resisted based on the monster type/cl and if they pass it they are aggravated or make it distance based where it gets less effective (and more draining) if the monsters are far away.
CliffStamp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29, 2012, 15:36   #13
fizzix
Prophet
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Madison, Wisconsin, US
Posts: 2,598
fizzix is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffStamp View Post
Genocide was intended to be a utility, never really a pruning effect. The simplest solution is just to make the use of it much more harsh. This would have no effect on the utility aspect, but would prevent it from being an item/scum tool. As just one example, if use of genocide had a chance of permanently draining stats and experience based on the number of monsters genocided. Or consider any genocide attempt on a non-LOS monster can be resisted based on the monster type/cl and if they pass it they are aggravated or make it distance based where it gets less effective (and more draining) if the monsters are far away.
I'm not so sure I like punishing a player because there was a demon pit on the other side of the level and they just wanted to banish the two pit fiends that Pazuzu summoned.

In general though, I'm ok with a weakening of banishment/genocide but I also think that it needs to come with some corresponding weakening of monster summoning. This does happen if you can eliminate the summonses as previously suggested. Summons are too strong and they always have been. But that's why destruction and banishment are too strong as well.

A long time back I suggested an idea where banished monsters went into (limbo) and these would be given priority to be resummoned when they were called. It wasn't a very popular suggestion, but I thought I'd throw it out here again in this discussion.
fizzix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29, 2012, 16:10   #14
CliffStamp
Apprentice
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 64
CliffStamp is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by fizzix View Post
I'm not so sure I like punishing a player because there was a demon pit on the other side of the level and they just wanted to banish the two pit fiends that Pazuzu summoned.
But this happens in Angband anyway if you play and ignore the level and just focus where you are right now. It is for example one of the most common causes of death, especially for the inexperienced where they take on a high level unique which is going to require multiple wear downs and teleport out right next to something while weakened -> Tombstone.
CliffStamp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29, 2012, 20:16   #15
emulord
Adept
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 142
emulord is on a distinguished road
Heres a way to balance genocide/destruction. Make monsters removed be considered a kill, but worth negative exp. That way you cannot spam genocide without first getting some way to grind your exp up. This prevents the whole "divers are invulnerable" problem and makes it a tradeoff.

Obviously uniques are teleported out still.

I don't agree with "increase power of uniques as they get deeper." It would be counter-intuitive because no regular monster has that effect. Also it would be very hard to balance. Gothmog isn't so bad with double resist fire but if he gets cold breath too for example? I don't like it.
emulord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29, 2012, 21:31   #16
Derakon
Prophet
 
Derakon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 5,817
Derakon is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by emulord View Post
Heres a way to balance genocide/destruction. Make monsters removed be considered a kill, but worth negative exp. That way you cannot spam genocide without first getting some way to grind your exp up. This prevents the whole "divers are invulnerable" problem and makes it a tradeoff.
That's...actually really clever! I like it.
Derakon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 2012, 02:18   #17
myshkin
Angband Devteam member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 304
myshkin is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derakon View Post
That's...actually really clever! I like it.
Experience penalties have traditionally not been that big of a deal, although with a sufficiently large one, they might give a player pause (e.g. each monster banished generates a 0.1% chance of losing a level and an 0.2% chance of losing half a level -- measure these penalties to the lowest XP requirement for the previous level so as not to neuter them for clvl 50, and make them not recoverable by !RestoreLifeLevels). I might suggest some effect akin to GF_TIME as well; if you like, it can be the wrath of Eru.

Last edited by myshkin; May 30, 2012 at 02:19. Reason: Added omitted clause
myshkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 2012, 03:01   #18
Derakon
Prophet
 
Derakon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 5,817
Derakon is on a distinguished road
The important thing with banishment is that it should be useful occasionally, but not abusable. Experience penalties become significant only when you're abusing the spell, so there you go, problem solved.
Derakon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 2012, 03:59   #19
fizzix
Prophet
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Madison, Wisconsin, US
Posts: 2,598
fizzix is on a distinguished road
Been thinking about this a bit. Basically the idea of having a finite supply of slowly breeding monsters is to give both a positive incentive and a negative incentive to killing monsters that you might normally avoid. After all this is one of the reasons we kill many uniques. For there to be a positive incentive, it means that a normal play through will allow the opportunity to see a marked decrease in monsters provided you kill them off. A negative incentive implies that you are likely to encounter more of the monsters later if you don't kill them off. Just like Adunaphel keeps on hounding you until you silence her.

The way I see it, we need four variables. The current number of monsters, the breeding rate, an allocation weight, and a max population.

In the extreme case of a heavy breeder like lice you'd have a high max population, a high breeding rate, and a low allocation probability. In essence the number of monsters always remains constant regardless of how many you kill, and there is no change in allocation probability. I see most grouped monsters fitting this pattern besides Zephyr hounds. (because if you can't eliminate zephyr hounds, I've stopped caring.)

At the other end of the spectrum you have unique monsters which have a low max population (1), a 0 breeding rate, and a high allocation probability. You'll have something like 65536 lice and only one unique (ok 2^16 is overkill, but still it's going to be more than 1k), so if you want them to have the same allocation, the difference in allocation probs needs to have that same ratio.

For the positive incentive to be worthwhile you need a way for a player to make headway on the maximum population. That means extremely annoying monsters (think beholder hive mother) fall close to uniques on the spectrum. Low max pop, low or even 0 breeding rate, high allocation. If there were 5 beholder hive mothers total then killing one might be worth it, but probably not. Lucrative monsters could fit this pattern as well. Dragons and Wyrms could have a finite supply.

Now there's a bit of a problem because this doesn't quite work with the negative incentive. The negative incentive implies that you should have a reasonably high breeding rate so you kill off the hive mothers so they don't swamp the level. I'm not sure how to get both incentives to work. Maybe it's impossible?

I tend to favor the positive incentives over negative ones in this case anyway. If you were to tell me that if I kill 10 undead beholders I'd never see another one again, I probably still wouldn't bother, but some player might! If you were to tell me that if I didn't kill an undead beholder per level, level 99 would be full of them, I'd probably not want to play anymore. That goes double for time hounds, except I might actually kill the time hounds to prevent them from showing up later. Basically if I could eliminate all the possible dangerous monsters for Morgoth to summon, I just might, if only because then I can do something silly like punch him to death.

Breeding rates are tricky, because you don't want to unduly affect divers vs clearers. I'd recommend some bastard approach that breeds monsters based on number of killed. You can cause breeding to occur after you've killed 100 monsters or so. I think this is better than breeding after a set number of turns because that means if you didn't economize turncount (which really shouldn't be standard gameplay) you get hit with more annoying monsters deep to eliminate.

Ok, that's probably long enough for now.
fizzix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 2012, 16:56   #20
CliffStamp
Apprentice
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 64
CliffStamp is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by fizzix View Post
The current number of monsters, the breeding rate, an allocation weight, and a max population.
It can be fairly complicated, but at a first pass it can also be fairly trivial. Monsters already have a rarity used for generation this can just be modified. A basic algorithm would be that when monsters are generated it decreases this rarity, as they are killed it increases it. Pick a balance point say that if you kill 50% of monsters the rarity would be unchanged.

There would always be some small chance that monsters would be generated even if you always killed everything (they wander in from outside) so a min limit would be set, similar a max limit if you ignored everything as you would assume that other things would kill the lice if they got completely out of hand.

But this while not a huge difference would be seen in you played in either extreme. If you killed every Z that you saw you would start to see less of them. If you ignored every graveyard then undead would start popping up more and more.
CliffStamp 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
New monster? the Invisible Stalker Development 11 January 27, 2011 01:07
ToME - Genocide? Narvius Variants 4 December 27, 2007 20:09
Monster AI Malak Darkhunter Vanilla 3 December 9, 2007 07:05


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:08.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.