It's ... alive.

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

Back again. Got hit with a series of RL things, some of which went
well, and others which went ... as well as people of goodwill could
arrange. Sorry to all the fans of Sangband who have been waiting too
long for communication!

Before RL whaps me again, as it will, I fully intend to get a properly
play-tested Sangband 1.0.0 out the door. None of this "Sangband beta
#409" stuff. The most important change, among a host of others, is that
Sangband 1.0.0 will be considerably easier than Sangband 0.9.9.

I currently know nothing about the state of Angband, or any other
variant. In fact, I suspect I'm a bit out of the loop on player mods to
Sangband. I look forward to catching up.


Contact info:

- Ignore all previous contact info.
- Sangband will be hosted (in a week or two) at runegold.org. But
please note that the website has nothing on it just yet.
- I can be reached by combining the name of this site with my name
(lmarrick).

 

[magnate]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

Jeff Greene wrote:
> "Leon Marrick" <invaid@runegold.org> wrote in message
> > Back again. Got hit with a series of RL things, some of which went
> > well, and others which went ... as well as people of goodwill could
> > arrange. Sorry to all the fans of Sangband who have been waiting
too
> > long for communication!

Marriage, by any chance? I only ask because I've just signed up to the
same myself!

Anyway welcome back, and kudos to Sprintmail, who kept your website up
for your entire absence ...

> Welcome back. Somebody did release an updated Sangband source code
that
> fixed some bugs, but that person ever claimed to be the new
maintainer or
> intorduce any new features or anything like that. IIRC it was just a
big
> fan of Sangband who wanted to clean it up a little bit.

It was Scott Yost, featured in very recent threads hereabouts. He
produced beta15 and then a series of bugfixes and slight changes, which
have produced a code fork (one with just the bugfixes, one with the
additional small changes). The most radical thing he did was remove the
1 in 15 chance for a mushroom of metamorphosis to change your race,
after it nailed Eddie Grove three games in a row. I personally thought
it was a hilarious feature, but there you go.

The current available version is 0.9.9beta15d, though Scott is working
on a beta15e which will fix the time stop bug (which arises from
inscribing stuff in the quiver). The thread announcing this version is
here

http://tinyurl.com/8vnax

The two threads discussing the start of the beta15 series and the
forking are

http://tinyurl.com/8odj8

http://tinyurl.com/9bfzj

> > I currently know nothing about the state of Angband, or any other
> > variant.

Angband 3.0.6 is in public beta (though it is called alpha, I think).

Although Jeff has already replied, I would certainly have pointed you
towards NPP. It uses a lot of neat ideas from Sang (and O & Ey) and is
a great variant. I particularly like the way Jeff has done quests,
chests and dragon armour&shields. I always thought Sang's quests needed
a little fleshing out, and NPP's are great (though not without some
problems!).

While you were away, I have submitted two Sang save files for Tony
Holmes's competitions - one is current (the first ironman comp), the
other was deliberately skills-based.

Ironically, I've just emailed Scott a "wishlist" for beta15e, so I
might as well post it here and open it up for discussion:

1. Put in the Restore XP spell for necros. Preferably not in the
Necronomicon - to be fair it ought to be able to achieve 0% failure at
85% Blood Dominion (and say 18/150 INT?).

2. Do something to tone down Stormcrows: make them deeper or rarer,
slower or evil. Or make them cast only 1_IN_3. Or take away the FRIENDS
flag. Or something! (This is after lots of discussion here on rgra:
http://tinyurl.com/a32wp and so on)

3. Reduce either the hp or speed of gelatinous cubes (but not by much).
After the recent debate (http://tinyurl.com/an4w3), I think reducing
speed to -5 would be enough to make them safe in Sang's pits without
taking away from their "character".

4. Make restore exp potions more common (at least in stores - change
this from 33% to 66% or 75%). I edit store.txt in all my games, because
it drives me insane to run out of them.

5. Put some of the neat but not unbalancing items from JLE/NPP into
object.txt or ego_item.txt:
Rings & amulets of (stat) also sustain that stat (hmmm, actually that
could reduce the value of Sustain Body|Mind ...)
Amulets of Trickery/Devotion/Weaponmastery
Potions of racid/relec/resistance
Rod/staff of *ID* and Mass ID
Elvenkind shields & boots (S already has elven cloaks)
Weapons of Gondolin
Headgear/light sources of Serenity/Night & Day
Cloaks of the Magi
Boots of Stability
Buckland/Lothlorien/Haradrim launchers
Gloves of Thievery (with bonus to burglary skill!)
More ego light sources (not quite so rare)

Good to have you back,

CC

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

"Leon Marrick" <invaid@runegold.org> wrote in message news:Zl2ke.9555$8S5.7800@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> Back again. Got hit with a series of RL things, some of which went
> well, and others which went ... as well as people of goodwill could
> arrange. Sorry to all the fans of Sangband who have been waiting too
> long for communication!
>
Welcome back. Somebody did release an updated Sangband source code that fixed some bugs, but that person ever claimed to be the new maintainer or intorduce any new features or anything like that. IIRC it was just a big fan of Sangband who wanted to clean it up a little bit.

>
> I currently know nothing about the state of Angband, or any other
> variant.

From just about the time RL took you away from Roguelikes I have been developing a variant (NPPAngband) that borrows quite heavily from Oangband, Sangband, and a good bit from EYAngband as well. I think it is fairly heavily played at this point, but I have never been shy about crediting you, Bahman, and Eytan for most of the ideas, & since I have borrowed your ideas the most I just wanted to say thanks. Demo-band was a tremendous help in helping maintainers implement 4gai, and I think more than half of the major variants use it at this point.

I did make some changes/improvements to you and Bahman's 4gai system that I affectionately call "4.1gai".

The biggest change is separate monster flow/noise code for monsters who open/bash down doors as opposed to monsters who cannot do either. Even with 4gai, if there is a closed door and two corners in the path between a monster and the player, the monster will still just step back and forth like they are lost. I also changed it so if the player is slightly out of LOS, the monsters won't hesitate to cast a ball spell to a nearly square to cause partial damage. A couple other minor things like increasing the monsters spell percentage and eliminating the best_range decision if the player is employing tactics like hack-n-back, pillar dance, or firing ball spells at a pack of hounds that think they are laying in ambush when in fact they are just sitting ducks.

Anyway, welcome back, & I look forward to seeing what you come up with next.

--
-Jeff

replace the ".spam"s with comcast.net to reply

Author of NPPAngband. Check it out at:
http://home.comcast.net/~nppangband/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

Glen Wheeler wrote:
> "magnate" <chrisc@dbass.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1116789977.284588.157220@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > Jeff Greene wrote:
> >> "Leon Marrick" <invaid@runegold.org> wrote in message
> >> > Back again. Got hit with a series of RL things, some of which
went
> >> > well, and others which went ... as well as people of goodwill
could
> >> > arrange. Sorry to all the fans of Sangband who have been
waiting
> > too
> >> > long for communication!
> >
> > [..]
> >
> > Ironically, I've just emailed Scott a "wishlist" for beta15e, so I
> > might as well post it here and open it up for discussion:
> >
> > 1. Put in the Restore XP spell for necros. Preferably not in the
> > Necronomicon - to be fair it ought to be able to achieve 0% failure
at
> > 85% Blood Dominion (and say 18/150 INT?).
> >
>
> I think just make the potion more common in the shops? It's a Good
Thing,
> IMO, that XP drain is a bigger deal in Sangband than in vanilla. I
don't
> know if necromancy should have *any* self-help (or *-help) spells at
all.

The reason that Necromancy needs Restore XP is because the Black
Mystery grants the ability to restore your experience for
non-necromancers. The documentation says that Necromancers get a spell
to do it instead - but they don't. I think it's in theme given that it
gives them more power to fight undead.

>
> > 5. Put some of the neat but not unbalancing items from JLE/NPP into
> > object.txt or ego_item.txt:
> > Rings & amulets of (stat) also sustain that stat (hmmm, actually
that
> > could reduce the value of Sustain Body|Mind ...)
> > Amulets of Trickery/Devotion/Weaponmastery
> > Potions of racid/relec/resistance
> > Rod/staff of *ID* and Mass ID
> > Elvenkind shields & boots (S already has elven cloaks)
> > Weapons of Gondolin
> > Headgear/light sources of Serenity/Night & Day
> > Cloaks of the Magi
> > Boots of Stability
> > Buckland/Lothlorien/Haradrim launchers
> > Gloves of Thievery (with bonus to burglary skill!)
> > More ego light sources (not quite so rare)
> >
>
> I think Leon would do well to look over our discussion of the
``useless''
> artifacts vs. overpowered egos. Really, do we need more egos? There
are so
> many base types, wouldn't it be better to (as S and O have already
started)
> differentiate those weapons a little more first, have a small number
of very
> interesting egos, then the artifacts suddenly become all that more
special.
>


My main comment about this list is that I feel it's highly unlikely
that Mass ID will make it into Sangband except possibly as a mid-late
game Wizardry spell. The Sangband philosophy is that the game will
provide fewer items, and those it provides will be more useful, and
less of it will require ID. Mass ID is kind of a solution to the
too-much-junk problem, which S attempts to address in another fashion.
I do agree that ego light sources are too rare. I tend to barely see
one an entire game, and always long after I have found an artifact
light source.
Headgear of Serenity is in the game, too, though not light sources like
Pete mentions.

 

[magnate]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

Glen Wheeler wrote:
> "magnate" <chrisc@dbass.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

> > Ironically, I've just emailed Scott a "wishlist" for beta15e, so I
> > might as well post it here and open it up for discussion:

> > 1. Put in the Restore XP spell for necros. Preferably not in the
> > Necronomicon - to be fair it ought to be able to achieve 0% failure
at
> > 85% Blood Dominion (and say 18/150 INT?).

> I think just make the potion more common in the shops? It's a Good
Thing,
> IMO, that XP drain is a bigger deal in Sangband than in vanilla. I
don't
> know if necromancy should have *any* self-help (or *-help) spells at
all.

In S you are denied the talents of your realm skill (Wizardry, Holy
Alliance, Nature Lore, Blood Dominion), because your spells cover those
effects (and more). Restore xp is an anomaly in that a necro spell does
not exist for it. (While we're at it, is there actually a wizard spell
for restore mana? I've never got that far with a wizard ...)

> > 2. Do something to tone down Stormcrows: make them deeper or rarer,
> > slower or evil. Or make them cast only 1_IN_3. Or take away the
FRIENDS
> > flag. Or something! (This is after lots of discussion here on rgra:
> > http://tinyurl.com/a32wp and so on)

[snip]

> These are really important lessons. Once the player knows about
the
> general tactics of the correct fight/flight response they can deal
with many
> surprising OOD critters. It strikes me that the people whining about

> stormcrows simply have the wrong attitude, wrong approach or wrong
idea of
> what the monsters in Sangband should be. They should be deadly...I
would
> personally be more in favour adding or altering monsters to make more
of the
> stormcrow-esque creatures.

The point is not that all monsters should be easy, it's fine to have
monsters which are particularly tough for their depths or (better)
which have one especially nasty ability or something, providing they
aren't too common and appear on their own. But Stormcrows come in
groups, and failing to detect them is often fatal, because of the power
and frequency of their spells. If you really want to leave them as a
lesson, at least make them evil so that priests & necros without nature
lore can detect them.

> > 3. Reduce either the hp or speed of gelatinous cubes (but not by
much).
> > After the recent debate (http://tinyurl.com/an4w3), I think
reducing
> > speed to -5 would be enough to make them safe in Sang's pits
without
> > taking away from their "character".

> Gelatinous cubes are another learning curve monster. They really
aren't
> that dangerous. Ironman exaggerates the situation, don't judge based
on
> that. If the cube is faster than you then phase/teleport and leave
the
> level. They have no painful ranged attacks. If you *can* kill them
easily,
> are faster than them, or any number of other advantages then they are
easy
> kills! Argh.

I guess I was smarting from the fact that it was an ironman game, but
nonetheless it seems silly to me to have monsters in the same family so
far out of kilter. The black pudding is simply nothing but a far weaker
gcube which is worth a lot more xp. That's just a bit silly - it should
be made faster or tougher or something.

> > 5. Put some of the neat but not unbalancing items from JLE/NPP into
> > object.txt or ego_item.txt:
> > Rings & amulets of (stat) also sustain that stat (hmmm, actually
that
> > could reduce the value of Sustain Body|Mind ...)
> > Amulets of Trickery/Devotion/Weaponmastery
> > Potions of racid/relec/resistance
> > Rod/staff of *ID* and Mass ID
> > Elvenkind shields & boots (S already has elven cloaks)
> > Weapons of Gondolin
> > Headgear/light sources of Serenity/Night & Day
> > Cloaks of the Magi
> > Boots of Stability
> > Buckland/Lothlorien/Haradrim launchers
> > Gloves of Thievery (with bonus to burglary skill!)
> > More ego light sources (not quite so rare)

> I think Leon would do well to look over our discussion of the
``useless''
> artifacts vs. overpowered egos. Really, do we need more egos? There
are so
> many base types, wouldn't it be better to (as S and O have already
started)
> differentiate those weapons a little more first, have a small number
of very
> interesting egos, then the artifacts suddenly become all that more
special.

This is a fair point, as was Scott's reminder about forging - it is
indeed possible to forge stuff at least as good as elvenkind shields,
boots of stability etc. I guess it's quite tricky to get exactly the
right balance of ego types so that the game is equally well balanced
for chars with and without forging skill.

On useless artifacts, I've almost never found one in S. I don't know
whether artifacts are rarer, or their depths have been sorted out so
that they're found when they're useful, or something.

I guess the amulets and the light sources are the only ones on the
above list that you can't forge (and cloaks, of course).

Ooh, I've just remembered a buglet I found just before the comp:
pseudo-ID of special artifacts is broken. I found an unID'd amulet, put
it on, and a few hundred turns later I got a message saying "You feel
you are wearing a The Amulet around your neck". I still had to ID it
(turned out to be Carlammas). Not sure what the solution is here -
perhaps special artifacts should just pseduo ID to "You feel you are
wearing/wielding an artifact of great power"?

CC

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

magnate wrote:
>
> 2. Do something to tone down Stormcrows: make them deeper or rarer,
> slower or evil. Or make them cast only 1_IN_3. Or take away the FRIENDS
> flag. Or something! (This is after lots of discussion here on rgra:
> http://tinyurl.com/a32wp and so on)
>
Stormcrows are animals. Detect animals is easy to get, (Nature Lore 25).
Not too expensive and some monsters should be avoided anyway.

>
> 5. Put some of the neat but not unbalancing items from JLE/NPP into
> object.txt or ego_item.txt:

(Some are in the game already - potions of resistance for example)

I think forging and randarts means there is enough powerful weapons and
armor available. Chunk of Steel can be converted to something as good as
Shield of Elvenkind. Adamant can be forged to items similar to most
powerful artifacts.

Mass ID would be very nice. Sorting the loot is tedious.

The biggest problem I consistently have in Sang is getting a good cloak.
I am not sure if new ego types are the best solution. Cloak of Magi
would not help Fighters or WIS-based spellcasters. Maybe some of the
artifacts could be easier to find.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

Atriel wrote:
>
> My only point to S, as a powergamer
> I *hate* the fact that if i want i can max every skill in the chosen
oath
> (or no oath). There´s NO limiting. This makes NO possible optimum
> endgame big variance, unlike O that has the Specs, and Specs
> do have a huge impact in gameplay and most important, in endgame
> variance...
> So, say I pick oath of iron. Why wouldnt i at some point
> not max everything I can? Only variance is made by race...
> IMHO, there should be some sort of limit, to make the player
> do some sort of planning ahead... maybe limit maximum
> number of skill... or/and maybe make the player have to
> "forget" skills he no longer wants to pick new skills,
> based on the limitation.

Why not? Because it's boring and you could just beat the game instead.
The same argument could apply to gear as well, although it's "harder"
to get the best gear. But if I'm a warrior, why don't I scum level 99
for Bladeturner and The One Ring? Because you don't have to, you can
just go ahead and beat the game. There's no possible optimum endgame
variance given that you could pick out an optimal set of kit from the
list of all possible artifacts, and dig for it.
I think see the point you are trying to make but I feel that it goes in
the land of letting the player play how ever they want. Some people
like to max every possible skill to 100% (my roommate did this - he is
obsessive about video games sometimes), some people enjoy trying to
beat the game with the minimum possible power.
The score, if it worked, would be a tangible reward for people who like
the latter approach. I'd rather the scoring function be fixed than the
skill system changed in this manner.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

Leon Marrick!

Wow... It is absolutely great to have you back.

--
Bahman Rabii

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

"Leon Marrick" <invaid@runegold.org> wrote in message
news:Zl2ke.9555$8S5.7800@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> Back again. Got hit with a series of RL things, some of which went
> well, and others which went ... as well as people of goodwill could
> arrange. Sorry to all the fans of Sangband who have been waiting too
> long for communication!
>
> Before RL whaps me again, as it will, I fully intend to get a properly
> play-tested Sangband 1.0.0 out the door. None of this "Sangband beta
> #409" stuff. The most important change, among a host of others, is that
> Sangband 1.0.0 will be considerably easier than Sangband 0.9.9.
>
> I currently know nothing about the state of Angband, or any other
> variant. In fact, I suspect I'm a bit out of the loop on player mods to
> Sangband. I look forward to catching up.
>

Leon! Welcome back. To my great dismay I was but the second to beat the
new incarnation of Sangband. Scott Yost has fixed a few minor bugs and
other anomalies (sorry Scott but they escape me at this time). There have
been plenty of arguments about various Sang related things which you may do
well to google. I, and surely others as well, would like to hear your
opinions. There is currently a Sang competition (ironman) going on, which
is quite fun to play.

On a more technical note: are you going to be maintaining the DOS
version? I've never felt quite as comfortable playing the windows versions
of *band. I think it's to do with my massive resolution making me squint to
see the characters, and increasing the font/tile size makes things look ugly
(like walls not lining up).

Also, in a few weeks I will have a month off work. If you need any help
with the code...

Awesome to see your return.

--
Glen
Lyt E+++ T-- R+ P+++ D+ G+ F:*band !RL RLA-
W:AF Q+++ AI++ GFX++ SFX-- RN++++ PO--- !Hp Re-- S+

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

"magnate" <chrisc@dbass.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1116789977.284588.157220@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Jeff Greene wrote:
>> "Leon Marrick" <invaid@runegold.org> wrote in message
>> > Back again. Got hit with a series of RL things, some of which went
>> > well, and others which went ... as well as people of goodwill could
>> > arrange. Sorry to all the fans of Sangband who have been waiting
> too
>> > long for communication!
>
> [..]
>
> Ironically, I've just emailed Scott a "wishlist" for beta15e, so I
> might as well post it here and open it up for discussion:
>
> 1. Put in the Restore XP spell for necros. Preferably not in the
> Necronomicon - to be fair it ought to be able to achieve 0% failure at
> 85% Blood Dominion (and say 18/150 INT?).
>

I think just make the potion more common in the shops? It's a Good Thing,
IMO, that XP drain is a bigger deal in Sangband than in vanilla. I don't
know if necromancy should have *any* self-help (or *-help) spells at all.

> 2. Do something to tone down Stormcrows: make them deeper or rarer,
> slower or evil. Or make them cast only 1_IN_3. Or take away the FRIENDS
> flag. Or something! (This is after lots of discussion here on rgra:
> http://tinyurl.com/a32wp and so on)
>

No! Argh! Stormcrows are a *good monster*! They teach the player great
habits that will keep them alive. If all the monsters were non-threatening
then the only thing we could do to make the game interesting at all is dive
like a lunatic (which most of us do anyway...). That's the sad state
vanilla is in: if I start a game of vanilla it is just not interesting
unless I dive and make things risky.

Stormcrows are a little bit dangerous, a little bit annoying and quite
instructive. They teach the player several things:

- Some monsters are not worth the XP for the danger
- Some monsters do not have a good enough drop for the danger
- Some monsters are quite simply deadly and should be removed from the
dungeon or teleported (yourself or them)

These are really important lessons. Once the player knows about the
general tactics of the correct fight/flight response they can deal with many
surprising OOD critters. It strikes me that the people whining about
stormcrows simply have the wrong attitude, wrong approach or wrong idea of
what the monsters in Sangband should be. They should be deadly...I would
personally be more in favour adding or altering monsters to make more of the
stormcrow-esque creatures.

> 3. Reduce either the hp or speed of gelatinous cubes (but not by much).
> After the recent debate (http://tinyurl.com/an4w3), I think reducing
> speed to -5 would be enough to make them safe in Sang's pits without
> taking away from their "character".
>

Gelatinous cubes are another learning curve monster. They really aren't
that dangerous. Ironman exaggerates the situation, don't judge based on
that. If the cube is faster than you then phase/teleport and leave the
level. They have no painful ranged attacks. If you *can* kill them easily,
are faster than them, or any number of other advantages then they are easy
kills! Argh.

> 4. Make restore exp potions more common (at least in stores - change
> this from 33% to 66% or 75%). I edit store.txt in all my games, because
> it drives me insane to run out of them.
>

Maybe not that big of a change...but yeah, restore xp should be a little
more common.

> 5. Put some of the neat but not unbalancing items from JLE/NPP into
> object.txt or ego_item.txt:
> Rings & amulets of (stat) also sustain that stat (hmmm, actually that
> could reduce the value of Sustain Body|Mind ...)
> Amulets of Trickery/Devotion/Weaponmastery
> Potions of racid/relec/resistance
> Rod/staff of *ID* and Mass ID
> Elvenkind shields & boots (S already has elven cloaks)
> Weapons of Gondolin
> Headgear/light sources of Serenity/Night & Day
> Cloaks of the Magi
> Boots of Stability
> Buckland/Lothlorien/Haradrim launchers
> Gloves of Thievery (with bonus to burglary skill!)
> More ego light sources (not quite so rare)
>

I think Leon would do well to look over our discussion of the ``useless''
artifacts vs. overpowered egos. Really, do we need more egos? There are so
many base types, wouldn't it be better to (as S and O have already started)
differentiate those weapons a little more first, have a small number of very
interesting egos, then the artifacts suddenly become all that more special.

Anyway. Maybe I'm just a little sick of seeing the steady increase in
power of ego types over the last few years. Ever since the stacking patch,
things have just been poorly balanced (all IMO of course).

--
Glen
Lyt E+++ T-- R+ P+++ D+ G+ F:*band !RL RLA-
W:AF Q+++ AI++ GFX++ SFX-- RN++++ PO--- !Hp Re-- S+

> Good to have you back,
>
> CC
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

On 2005-05-23 08:45:20, "Glen Wheeler" <gew75@uow.edu.au> wrote:

> "magnate" wrote in message
> news:1116789977.284588.157220@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > 2. Do something to tone down Stormcrows: make them deeper or rarer,
> > slower or evil. Or make them cast only 1_IN_3. Or take away the FRIENDS
> > flag. Or something! (This is after lots of discussion here on rgra:
> > http://tinyurl.com/a32wp and so on)
> >
>
> No! Argh! Stormcrows are a *good monster*! They teach the player great
> habits that will keep them alive. If all the monsters were non-threatening
> then the only thing we could do to make the game interesting at all is dive
> like a lunatic (which most of us do anyway...). That's the sad state
> vanilla is in: if I start a game of vanilla it is just not interesting
> unless I dive and make things risky.
>
> Stormcrows are a little bit dangerous, a little bit annoying and quite
> instructive. They teach the player several things:
>
> - Some monsters are not worth the XP for the danger
> - Some monsters do not have a good enough drop for the danger
> - Some monsters are quite simply deadly and should be removed from the
> dungeon or teleported (yourself or them)
>
> These are really important lessons. Once the player knows about the
> general tactics of the correct fight/flight response they can deal with many
> surprising OOD critters. It strikes me that the people whining about
> stormcrows simply have the wrong attitude, wrong approach or wrong idea of
> what the monsters in Sangband should be. They should be deadly...I would
> personally be more in favour adding or altering monsters to make more of the
> stormcrow-esque creatures.

I completely agree with you Glen, *bands are far more interesting knowing that
at any depth you can die if you lose concentration - having monsters like
Stormcrows (admittedly, I've only got deep enough to find them once on Sang)
create a much more rounded playing style than Vanilla, which is normally as
follows:

1) Recall down
2) Clear Level
3) Up/Down Staircase
4) Clear Another Level
5) Recall Up
6) Goto 1

Or something similar. I actually (as mentioned in my signature), want free
roaming intelligent monsters just generally running around, and attacking you
if they see, smell, hear you. I also would like to see HP toned down and a more
player-style approach from monsters. For example Sauron should have mana and
cast spells according to cost, teleporting away whenever in trouble etc... but
do so like a player would. Of course, 10,000 HP would be rather too much for a
player in the dungeon with the ability to cast Mana storms, and this would
require balancing -- but in the end nasty monsters would have to be outwitted,
not just ground down with patience and, to be honest, slight tedium.

> > 3. Reduce either the hp or speed of gelatinous cubes (but not by much).
> > After the recent debate (http://tinyurl.com/an4w3), I think reducing
> > speed to -5 would be enough to make them safe in Sang's pits without
> > taking away from their "character".
> >
>
> Gelatinous cubes are another learning curve monster. They really aren't
> that dangerous. Ironman exaggerates the situation, don't judge based on
> that. If the cube is faster than you then phase/teleport and leave the
> level. They have no painful ranged attacks. If you *can* kill them easily,
> are faster than them, or any number of other advantages then they are easy
> kills! Argh.

Ditto, I agree with you again here..

> > 4. Make restore exp potions more common (at least in stores - change
> > this from 33% to 66% or 75%). I edit store.txt in all my games, because
> > it drives me insane to run out of them.
> >
>
> Maybe not that big of a change...but yeah, restore xp should be a little
> more common.
>
> > 5. Put some of the neat but not unbalancing items from JLE/NPP into
> > object.txt or ego_item.txt:
> > Rings & amulets of (stat) also sustain that stat (hmmm, actually that
> > could reduce the value of Sustain Body|Mind ...)
> > Amulets of Trickery/Devotion/Weaponmastery
> > Potions of racid/relec/resistance
> > Rod/staff of *ID* and Mass ID
> > Elvenkind shields & boots (S already has elven cloaks)
> > Weapons of Gondolin
> > Headgear/light sources of Serenity/Night & Day
> > Cloaks of the Magi
> > Boots of Stability
> > Buckland/Lothlorien/Haradrim launchers
> > Gloves of Thievery (with bonus to burglary skill!)
> > More ego light sources (not quite so rare)
> >
>
> I think Leon would do well to look over our discussion of the ``useless''
> artifacts vs. overpowered egos. Really, do we need more egos? There are so
> many base types, wouldn't it be better to (as S and O have already started)
> differentiate those weapons a little more first, have a small number of very
> interesting egos, then the artifacts suddenly become all that more special.
>

I think Artifacts need to be more desirable than they are. I got equally
frustrated many years ago by a game called "Master of Magic" (which some of you
may remember), where almost no artifact was as powerful as something you could
self-make only half way through a game.

The top artifacts should be particularly powerful in some way - for example on
Diablo II (where Max resistance is normally 75%) you can get gloves that may up
the max to 85%, increase actual resistance by 30% and give extra fire damage,
but do _nothing_ else -- I like this as it requires other items to pick up the
shortfall of the gloves, which were used only for 1 specific purpose.

Just my 2p.

--
Take Care,
Graham

Pos(0.3.0a2) Alpha "Natar" XX L:1 DL:50' !A R--- !Sp w:Short Sword +0,+0
Pos(V/T//NPP) W H- D+ c-- f PV+ s- TT? d P++ M+
C-- S+ I- So B ac GHB- SQ+ RQ+ V+ F:Better monster AI (Acting like decent
players without automatically knowing where the player is - randomly roaming
the dungeon etc...)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

"Leon Marrick" <invaid@runegold.org> writes:

> Back again. Got hit with a series of RL things, some of which went
> well, and others which went ... as well as people of goodwill could
> arrange. Sorry to all the fans of Sangband who have been waiting too
> long for communication!
>
> Before RL whaps me again, as it will, I fully intend to get a properly
> play-tested Sangband 1.0.0 out the door. None of this "Sangband beta
> #409" stuff. The most important change, among a host of others, is that
> Sangband 1.0.0 will be considerably easier than Sangband 0.9.9.

I don't remember as being particularly hard, unless you insist
on it being hard. If you toss experience into burglary and forging,
it is much easier than [V]. If you do not, you have only yourself
to blame.

> I currently know nothing about the state of Angband, or any other
> variant. In fact, I suspect I'm a bit out of the loop on player mods to
> Sangband. I look forward to catching up.

I did a bunch of mods to , but never released them. I reported a
few bugs, but fixed a bunch more. More importantly, I made changes
that made the game more enjoyable to me. If you are interested,
send me mail and I will send you the modified src directory. I no
longer remember half the changes I made. I think everything is
#ifdefed so it should be easy to peruse the code to see the changes.

If you want a laugh, google on me posting about mushrooms of
metamorph. I'd look up the link for you, but it would just make me
cry.

The most important change in the *banding community [as represented in
this newsgroup] is an acceptance of the principles behind Dave
Blackston's squelching patch. IMO, you won't really have a 1.0.0
until you incorporate some form of squelching. You should definitely
look at NPP, preferably by playing a full game. You might find things
that you like.


Eddie

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

magnate wrote:
>
> I guess it's quite tricky to get exactly the
> right balance of ego types so that the game is equally well balanced
> for chars with and without forging skill.
>
Forging gives very powerful items, examples:

Runegold: cap with ESP, res_conf, +3 to speed
Mithril: sling (x4) with res_shards, res_nether, +6 to speed
You can get better stuff if you use adamant.

IMO egos are more for midgame, Boots of Speed and Cloaks of Aman
excluded. (and cloaks can not be forged) Now forging is used to create
randarts... if forged items were like egos, or not very useful for
endgame, why should the player invest experience in getting more egos
that will be dumped once he finds a good artifact? I would go for
something useful in the endgame. (some talent perhaps)

Any char without forging is challenge compared to forgers. Actually this
could be a birth option. Do not allow putting skill points into
weaponsmithing, alchemy and other skills that allow making items, and do
not generate raw materials.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

Eddie Grove <eddiegrove@hot.NOSPAM.mail.com> writes:

> The most important change in the *banding community [as represented in
> this newsgroup] is an acceptance of the principles behind Dave
> Blackston's squelching patch. IMO, you won't really have a 1.0.0
> until you incorporate some form of squelching.

I would not say that. Over the years several variants (at least
Oangband, Sangband, and Zangband) have tried to fix this problem the
right way: by reducing the number of drop and increasing quality.
Recently, Steamband has gotten it right, showing that you can play a
perfectly enjoyable game without ever having or wanting any form of
autosquelch.

Autosquelch (or the extreme of autosquelch + mass identify) is one way
to clean up the dungeon, but it is not the only way. We now have
practical evidence that the less hackish, more user friendly solution
works.

--
Bahman Rabii

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

> create a much more rounded playing style than Vanilla, which is normally as
> follows:
>
> 1) Recall down
> 2) Clear Level
> 3) Up/Down Staircase
> 4) Clear Another Level
> 5) Recall Up
> 6) Goto 1
>
> Or something similar. I actually (as mentioned in my signature), want free
> roaming intelligent monsters just generally running around, and attacking

Clear level hahahahahhah is something almost impossible in O and S
my algorythm is more or less like this

1. Recall Down
2. Scan (detect object, monsters, traps), pick objects if no nasty near,
fight killable monsters; Re-scan after walking 1.5 scan range.
3. On finding death possibilities, use Teleport Away if rewards < risks,
or leave level by stairs, usually running from a pack of Stormcrows /
graveyard monsters / breeding monsters out of control /
some evil unique. Completely clean levels are like... 1 in 50.
4. Go to 2 unless inventory is full of shineys or buffs/healings ended
5. Recall up
6. Goto 1

My only point to S, as a powergamer
I *hate* the fact that if i want i can max every skill in the chosen oath
(or no oath). There´s NO limiting. This makes NO possible optimum
endgame big variance, unlike O that has the Specs, and Specs
do have a huge impact in gameplay and most important, in endgame
variance...
So, say I pick oath of iron. Why wouldnt i at some point
not max everything I can? Only variance is made by race...
IMHO, there should be some sort of limit, to make the player
do some sort of planning ahead... maybe limit maximum
number of skill... or/and maybe make the player have to
"forget" skills he no longer wants to pick new skills,
based on the limitation.
Score is very broken too.... and one more reason to max everything,
but I wouldnt care to score if there was a limit to skill points.
If limiting is implemented, i think max skill points should take into
account race modifiers... that would be perfect.

Cheers
--
I will hold the candle till it burns up my arm.
I'll keep taking punches until their will grows tired.
I will stare the sun down until my eyes go blind.
I won't change direction and I won't change my mind...
How much difference does it make?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

> Any char without forging is challenge compared to forgers. Actually this
> could be a birth option. Do not allow putting skill points into
> weaponsmithing, alchemy and other skills that allow making items, and do
> not generate raw materials.

I have a much better sugestion

Raise cost of Forging skill by quite a while
AND
Limit maximum number of points aplied to all skills BEFORE the
race multiplier (to get fair), like i said in my other post.

Wanna get Forging? Be aware you´ll have to put LOTS of valuable
skill points into it, and give up a lot of other skills.

--
I will hold the candle till it burns up my arm.
I'll keep taking punches until their will grows tired.
I will stare the sun down until my eyes go blind.
I won't change direction and I won't change my mind...
How much difference does it make?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

"magnate" <chrisc@dbass.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:1116839751.432344.320330@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> In S you are denied the talents of your realm skill (Wizardry, Holy
> Alliance, Nature Lore, Blood Dominion), because your spells cover
those
> effects (and more).

I was actually annoyed by that detail, if it is indeed how the help
files say.

Why should a Warrior that has studied Wizardry be able to short
range teleport without a book when a Wizard cannot?

If the spells really do outdo the realm skills, then the realm skills
aren't negating the purpose of the spells. Whether it be early
availability (getting the spell long before you can get the talent),
or a better success rate, or better effects, or even the ability to
cast multiple times while a talent has to recharge, or a combination
of all of the above.

So I don't see the point of blocking a specialist from his own realm
talents. Let the wizard teleport by talent if he wants. If he doesn't
like where he lands or wants to go further, then he can cast a teleport
spell. If he never casts a teleport spell again (unlikely), then maybe
something needs adjusting. Let the others detect and mend and restore
by talent. If they have to detect again, or take another hit, they can
use some other means if they have the appropriate book. But it is just
weird that they in a way are worse in their respective field than the
generalists, being forced to rely on a book for their own specialty that
others can do without.

(Note that I do say if the help files are accurate. I haven't played
a Sangband wizard, priest, ranger or necromancer. Just warrior.)

> On useless artifacts, I've almost never found one in S. I don't know
> whether artifacts are rarer, or their depths have been sorted out so
> that they're found when they're useful, or something.

The closest thing to useless artifacts I've encountered in S are ones
that are beaten "enough" by self-forged items. It isn't even that the
artifact is necessarily worse, but that the forged item fits what I
need more than the artifact. (I'll take a useful resist cover over
stat boosts, for example. Though I'll keep the stat boost artifact
until it gets outclassed in case the resist is covered elsewhere.)
Though I mentioned before that the helm that activates by detection
seems a bit less powerful when you can fairly easily get the detection
talents. Doesn't make the helm useless though, as it does other things
as well.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

"Scott Yost" <yostage@gmail.com> wrote in news:1116879626.725801.261400
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Some people
> like to max every possible skill to 100% (my roommate did this - he is
> obsessive about video games sometimes), some people enjoy trying to
> beat the game with the minimum possible power.

Console RPGs and strategy games will actually try to cater to both
markets as well. Games will offer items and abilities well beyond what
you need to beat the game.

I remember Persona (PS1) having major items that you cannot even use
until you reach levels beyond 70 or higher, and the game is fairly
easily beaten well before you reach that point. You have to
intentionally farm random encounters for days of extra play. And there
are people that do it. Heck, Atlus does it because they know a small
part of their core audience likes that kind of thing. Or you can rush
things and even talk your way out of random encounters, keeping low
skill levels throughout. Or, if you have the Japanese version, you can
play the alternate "saving exits the game, you die and it is erased"
quest.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

"magnate" <chrisc@dbass.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1116839751.432344.320330@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Glen Wheeler wrote:
>> "magnate" <chrisc@dbass.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
>> > Ironically, I've just emailed Scott a "wishlist" for beta15e, so I
>> > might as well post it here and open it up for discussion:
>
>> > 1. Put in the Restore XP spell for necros. Preferably not in the
>> > Necronomicon - to be fair it ought to be able to achieve 0% failure
> at
>> > 85% Blood Dominion (and say 18/150 INT?).
>
>> I think just make the potion more common in the shops? It's a Good
> Thing,
>> IMO, that XP drain is a bigger deal in Sangband than in vanilla. I
> don't
>> know if necromancy should have *any* self-help (or *-help) spells at
> all.
>
> In S you are denied the talents of your realm skill (Wizardry, Holy
> Alliance, Nature Lore, Blood Dominion), because your spells cover those
> effects (and more). Restore xp is an anomaly in that a necro spell does
> not exist for it. (While we're at it, is there actually a wizard spell
> for restore mana? I've never got that far with a wizard ...)
>

Ah yes, I recall this. Apologies for my speaking-without-recalling.
Agree with you here, although with the proviso that being very good in a
skill like necromancy without casting necromancy spells does not always
involve exactly the same thing. Still agreed however.

>> > 2. Do something to tone down Stormcrows: make them deeper or rarer,
>> > slower or evil. Or make them cast only 1_IN_3. Or take away the
> FRIENDS
>> > flag. Or something! (This is after lots of discussion here on rgra:
>> > http://tinyurl.com/a32wp and so on)
>
> [snip]
>
>> These are really important lessons. Once the player knows about
> the
>> general tactics of the correct fight/flight response they can deal
> with many
>> surprising OOD critters. It strikes me that the people whining about
>
>> stormcrows simply have the wrong attitude, wrong approach or wrong
> idea of
>> what the monsters in Sangband should be. They should be deadly...I
> would
>> personally be more in favour adding or altering monsters to make more
> of the
>> stormcrow-esque creatures.
>
> The point is not that all monsters should be easy, it's fine to have
> monsters which are particularly tough for their depths or (better)
> which have one especially nasty ability or something, providing they
> aren't too common and appear on their own. But Stormcrows come in
> groups, and failing to detect them is often fatal, because of the power
> and frequency of their spells. If you really want to leave them as a
> lesson, at least make them evil so that priests & necros without nature
> lore can detect them.
>

Very rarely will a group be on you in one turn, and just as rare is one
stormcrow making escape impossible. If you have learnt the lesson, you will
flee at the first sign of them (if you cannot handle them).
In my case, I first met stormcrows with a tough warrior. They almost
killed me, and the lesson was well learnt. Fled from them then on, even
with no detect_critter (lazy). Just avoided them. If I saw one, ?tele then
stairs/recall or ?telelvl. When I had the required resistances they fell
easily and I enjoyed killing every last one of them.
They really are like, say, a drolem. Don't fight it without poison
resistance. Yet the stigma associated with stormcrows has nothing on the
grudged respect for drolems. Drolems are, I would say, even more likely to
instakill a character. Sure you can detect them easier, but stormcrows
can't kill you in one move (or when alone).
It's of course my opinion, and it's not that I want S to be a challenge
variant. I just want it to be interesting.

>> > 3. Reduce either the hp or speed of gelatinous cubes (but not by
> much).
>> > After the recent debate (http://tinyurl.com/an4w3), I think
> reducing
>> > speed to -5 would be enough to make them safe in Sang's pits
> without
>> > taking away from their "character".
>
>> Gelatinous cubes are another learning curve monster. They really
> aren't
>> that dangerous. Ironman exaggerates the situation, don't judge based
> on
>> that. If the cube is faster than you then phase/teleport and leave
> the
>> level. They have no painful ranged attacks. If you *can* kill them
> easily,
>> are faster than them, or any number of other advantages then they are
> easy
>> kills! Argh.
>
> I guess I was smarting from the fact that it was an ironman game, but
> nonetheless it seems silly to me to have monsters in the same family so
> far out of kilter. The black pudding is simply nothing but a far weaker
> gcube which is worth a lot more xp. That's just a bit silly - it should
> be made faster or tougher or something.
>

I wouldn't agree that black puddings are far weaker than g-cubes except in
hp. The info text files tell all...I am always suspicious of adding speed
to a monster. They are already STUPID which helps them even more as a
``gimme'' monster. Perhaps give them a TOUCH:COLD attack?

>> > 5. Put some of the neat but not unbalancing items from JLE/NPP into
>> > object.txt or ego_item.txt:
>> > Rings & amulets of (stat) also sustain that stat (hmmm, actually
> that
>> > could reduce the value of Sustain Body|Mind ...)
>> > Amulets of Trickery/Devotion/Weaponmastery
>> > Potions of racid/relec/resistance
>> > Rod/staff of *ID* and Mass ID
>> > Elvenkind shields & boots (S already has elven cloaks)
>> > Weapons of Gondolin
>> > Headgear/light sources of Serenity/Night & Day
>> > Cloaks of the Magi
>> > Boots of Stability
>> > Buckland/Lothlorien/Haradrim launchers
>> > Gloves of Thievery (with bonus to burglary skill!)
>> > More ego light sources (not quite so rare)
>
>> I think Leon would do well to look over our discussion of the
> ``useless''
>> artifacts vs. overpowered egos. Really, do we need more egos? There
> are so
>> many base types, wouldn't it be better to (as S and O have already
> started)
>> differentiate those weapons a little more first, have a small number
> of very
>> interesting egos, then the artifacts suddenly become all that more
> special.
>
> This is a fair point, as was Scott's reminder about forging - it is
> indeed possible to forge stuff at least as good as elvenkind shields,
> boots of stability etc. I guess it's quite tricky to get exactly the
> right balance of ego types so that the game is equally well balanced
> for chars with and without forging skill.
>
> On useless artifacts, I've almost never found one in S. I don't know
> whether artifacts are rarer, or their depths have been sorted out so
> that they're found when they're useful, or something.
>
> I guess the amulets and the light sources are the only ones on the
> above list that you can't forge (and cloaks, of course).
>

There might even be an argument for making it possible to forge these
items with a high alchemy skill, or something. Actually isn't that possible
already? My memory is failing again...

> [snip bug for maintainer]

Good find .

--
Glen
Lyt E+++ T-- R+ P+++ D+ G+ F:*band !RL RLA-
W:AF Q+++ AI++ GFX++ SFX-- RN++++ PO--- !Hp Re-- S+

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

On 2005-05-23 21:53:37, Atriel <atriel666@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > create a much more rounded playing style than Vanilla, which is normally as
> > follows:
> >
> > 1) Recall down
> > 2) Clear Level
> > 3) Up/Down Staircase
> > 4) Clear Another Level
> > 5) Recall Up
> > 6) Goto 1
> >
> > Or something similar. I actually (as mentioned in my signature), want free
> > roaming intelligent monsters just generally running around, and attacking
>
> Clear level hahahahahhah is something almost impossible in O and S
> my algorythm is more or less like this
>

Thank you, this is precisely my point - which is why I don't want to see the
elimination of Stormcrows and suchlike and why I enjoy S more than V.

> Score is very broken too.... and one more reason to max everything,
> but I wouldnt care to score if there was a limit to skill points.
> If limiting is implemented, i think max skill points should take into
> account race modifiers... that would be perfect.
>

I just simply don't get / like the S score system, and would much prefer it to
be simply a point for every Unique killed, and then like 5 and 10 for Sauron /
Morgoth respectively.

--
Take Care,
Graham

Pos(0.3.0a2) Alpha "Natar" XX L:1 DL:50' !A R--- !Sp w:Short Sword +0,+0
Pos(V/T//NPP) W H- D+ c-- f PV+ s- TT? d P++ M+
C-- S+ I- So B ac GHB- SQ+ RQ+ V+ F:Better monster AI (Acting like decent
players without automatically knowing where the player is - randomly roaming
the dungeon etc...)

 

[magnate]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

Glen Wheeler wrote:
> "magnate" <chrisc@dbass.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

> > The point is not that all monsters should be easy, it's fine to have
> > monsters which are particularly tough for their depths or (better)
> > which have one especially nasty ability or something, providing they
> > aren't too common and appear on their own. But Stormcrows come in
> > groups, and failing to detect them is often fatal, because of the power
> > and frequency of their spells. If you really want to leave them as a
> > lesson, at least make them evil so that priests & necros without nature
> > lore can detect them.

> Very rarely will a group be on you in one turn, and just as rare is one
> stormcrow making escape impossible. If you have learnt the lesson, you will
> flee at the first sign of them (if you cannot handle them).

I don't think I understand this - you *want* stormcrows to come in
groups precisely so that escape is impossible? You want almost everyone
who tries S to be killed by one so they "learn the lesson". That's not
nice.

> In my case, I first met stormcrows with a tough warrior. They almost
> killed me, and the lesson was well learnt. Fled from them then on, even

This is a telling fact. Those of us who didn't meet them with a tough
warrior didn't survive, and would like them toned down a bit!

Also, there is a difference between toning them down so that they
aren't so dangerous (slower, no friends, fewer spells etc.) and making
them more detectable (evil). The latter still requires people to learn
the lesson, so maybe you'd be ok with that? I'd still like them toned
down, but I'm looking for a compromise ...

> They really are like, say, a drolem. Don't fight it without poison
> resistance. Yet the stigma associated with stormcrows has nothing on the
> grudged respect for drolems. Drolems are, I would say, even more likely to
> instakill a character. Sure you can detect them easier, but stormcrows
> can't kill you in one move (or when alone).

Drolems don't appear at 1300'!! Also, the solution to drolems is very
simple & obvious: get rpois. The solution to stormcrows is not nearly
so simple: get much more hp, more speed, very very high save, rblind,
relec, rlight, etc. etc. etc.

> It's of course my opinion, and it's not that I want S to be a challenge
> variant. I just want it to be interesting.

I'm 99% certain that everybody who ever would find S interesting would
still do so if stormcrows were made evil (or had one other minor change
made as discussed).

> >> Gelatinous cubes are another learning curve monster. They really

> > I guess I was smarting from the fact that it was an ironman game, but
> > nonetheless it seems silly to me to have monsters in the same family so
> > far out of kilter. The black pudding is simply nothing but a far weaker
> > gcube which is worth a lot more xp. That's just a bit silly - it should
> > be made faster or tougher or something.

> I wouldn't agree that black puddings are far weaker than g-cubes except in
> hp. The info text files tell all...I am always suspicious of adding speed
> to a monster. They are already STUPID which helps them even more as a
> ``gimme'' monster. Perhaps give them a TOUCH:COLD attack?

Sorry, I'm missing something here. I don't see any difference in the
flags for these two monsters (they are both stupid, cold blooded,
immune to fear & conf and all the elements etc.). The pudding has one
extra attack, but at almost a quarter of the hp it's still far weaker.

CC

 

[magnate]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

On limiting skills - no no NO. No. The game is designed to be played
however you desire, from the easy (max every skill) to the hard (use a
minimal number/level of skills). The scoring algorithm is designed to
reward your level of difficulty in precisely this way. Ok so it's
broken, but it's there to reward using fewer skills. Please don't
introduce anything which reduces a player's freedom to choose how s/he
plays. Let's fix the scoring algorithm instead and make it really
impressive!

On forging - not using forging is merely one of the ways in which you
can increase the challenge level. I suggested some of the neat items
from NPP for the benefit of those characters who don't use forging - it
is true that a careful eye would need to be kept on whether they
rendered forging less desirable, but I doubt this would be a serious
problem. If anything the balance currently seems the other way, in
favour of forging over many found items (even low level artifacts). I
wouldn't want to see forging toned down, I love it, but I'd like to see
found items (which are already great in S) made even better, just a
little bit.

On squelching - I am a huge huge fan of squelch. I upgrade David's
patch every time a new V is released because I can't bear V without it.
I think Jeff has implemented it superbly in NPP and I wish he would
send Robert a patch for his implementation (including auto-inscribe)
for the next V. I would like to use squelching in S, indeed in every
variant, because I personally feel that however much you tweak drops I,
as a lazy player, will always want to squelch some things. However, I
have a great deal of respect for Bahman, and Leon, and all the others
with the vision to create a variant which eliminates the need for
squelch. If they don't want squelching in their variants, that's fine.
If they get close enough to their vision that I can play without being
driven mad by the absence of squelching, that's great. If I can't,
there are loads of other variants I can play.

CC

 

[magnate]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

Twisted One wrote:
> magnate wrote:
> > Sorry, I'm missing something here. I don't see any difference in the
> > flags for these two monsters (they are both stupid, cold blooded,
> > immune to fear & conf and all the elements etc.). The pudding has one
> > extra attack, but at almost a quarter of the hp it's still far weaker.

> Puddings, in my recollection, come in groups, unlike cubes. Group
> monsters with a singular equivalent often have lower HP, AC, and/or XP
> value. If puddings in S don't come in groups, it looks like they are
> still balanced, HP-wise &c, for being a group monster like their vanilla
> ancestors.

Ah, that's right. Puddings have friends in S too; cubes don't. Thing
is, friends isn't actually a problem because you can just back out into
a corridor and kill them one at a time. Unlike certain flying creatures
I could mention, which blind and move you before you can get back out
into the corridor!

> Gelatinous cubes, meanwhile, can be dealt with very easily and safely if
> you know the big secret: they can be slowed. Fairly easily as a matter
> of fact. If they've been hasted this gets them back to normal speed, so
> they can more easily be phase-shot or just avoided. If they haven't been
> hasted, slowing them enables hack-and-back, and enables possibly slowing
> the advance of a whole column of advancing enemies in a corridor.

> I don't know whether they can be slept, though.

They can't, but there's a high chance that you have no way of slowing
one when you meet it.

Oh never mind, I know when I'm outvoted!

CC

 

[magnate]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

Leon Marrick wrote:

> - Maxxing out most skills and score:
> The score math wil be fixed (didn't know it was broken -- oops).
> The idea (as noted in the docs) is to allow players to adjust their own
> difficulty throughout the game, but to give higher scores, for a given
> kill, to people who specialize. More information on how the scoring is
> broken would be appreciated.

Hi Leon - thanks for the responses, they sound good. It's going to be
difficult to explain what's wrong with the score system, but I'll have
a go.

First, it doesn't distinguish sufficiently at low levels. You may think
that it's not important to make any distinction between those who kill
Lagduf at power level 17 and those who do so at power level 25, but I'd
like to see one! So maybe the numbers need inflating a bit.

Second, while the power level (or aggregate xp spent or whatever)
serves well as a denominator, I think something is amiss with the
monster rating. Sorry I can't recall any examples but some monsters
seem to fail to reward being killed early, where others don't. For
example, I frequently see the "slayer of" thing being updated (ie. my
deepest kill) without any change in score. While sometimes this is fair
enough (if I'm building a character very slowly with lots of skills),
on many occasions I've been fairly specialised and expecting to see
some score increment.

Could I make yet another pointer towards NPP? Jeff took the code that
Chris Robertson and I used in our randarts patch and greatly improved
the "monster rating" function (which was used in turn to rate the
usefulness of brands and slays on artifacts). You might find that code
at least slightly useful or inspiring when looking at the scoring
algorithm.

All the best,

CC

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

magnate wrote:
> Sorry, I'm missing something here. I don't see any difference in the
> flags for these two monsters (they are both stupid, cold blooded,
> immune to fear & conf and all the elements etc.). The pudding has one
> extra attack, but at almost a quarter of the hp it's still far weaker.

Puddings, in my recollection, come in groups, unlike cubes. Group
monsters with a singular equivalent often have lower HP, AC, and/or XP
value. If puddings in S don't come in groups, it looks like they are
still balanced, HP-wise &c, for being a group monster like their vanilla
ancestors.

Gelatinous cubes, meanwhile, can be dealt with very easily and safely if
you know the big secret: they can be slowed. Fairly easily as a matter
of fact. If they've been hasted this gets them back to normal speed, so
they can more easily be phase-shot or just avoided. If they haven't been
hasted, slowing them enables hack-and-back, and enables possibly slowing
the advance of a whole column of advancing enemies in a corridor.

I don't know whether they can be slept, though.

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."