Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.misc (
More info?)
Seek wrote:
> User "Erik Piper" <efrniokr@sdky.cz> wrote
> > bork bork bork Seek bork 12:16:02 AM bork 1/7/2005 bork bork:
> >
> > > Not certain:
> > > Lava in swamp.Should it be like that?
> >
> > Yes; lava can be dang near anywhere.
> Yes, but it looks... weird. Come on, one square is lava, and next to it
> water?
Never thought of it that way. Still... it's, err, *magic* lava.
> > > I can wield bow and fire from it with shield on. Is it ok?
> >
> > As OK as the existence of elves, hippogriffs, and magic is... it was a
> game
> > design decision. Sure it would require you to have three hands, but
> "magical
> > extra, invisible arms" are a time-worn tradition in roguelikes. Think of
> it
> > as a counterbalance for the various disadvantages of bows (don't train
> > fighting and thus don't raise your HP, sap away your XP into two skills
> just
> > to do one new thing -- to fire bows, ammo is heavy, ammo is not unlimited,
> > less punch than melee weapons, etc.... not to say that bows are useless,
> > however... but making them two-handed would be the final blow).
> Ok, it would have had some sense if they were at least remotely playable,
> but because of all their disadvanteges nobody uses them. Allowing to wear a
> shield with them won't change it, giving them a more firepower, or lowering
> chances to loose amunition on the other hand...
I just played my first major game with a fighter type, and made TREMENDOUS use
of bows. (Their sheer efficacy may well have won me the game -- I reached D:27
-- if it weren't for all a horrible set of mutations.) Being a fighter-mage
made this somewhat easier, as I could "blink and plink," and could use
Swiftness to pretend to be a centaur, but I believe they would still be far
more than remotely playable even without that.
> Allowing to wear a shield with them won't change it
Shields are a very powerful thing, and besides the occasional artifact shield,
it's not uncommon to find shields of protection. Let's put it this way: my High
Elf Crusader, who otherwise could develop Conjurations and Bows/Throwing about
equally, mostly ignored Conjurations and strongly developed bows, just because
serious conjuration involves wielding staves, which means no shield. (Of
course, great swords also mean no shield, so conjuring/great swords would also
be an interesting combination, but bows/1-hands/shields worked just fine too.)
> giving them a more firepower
Their strength is, and should be in, the ability to hurt without getting hurt
back, not in raw firepower (though with some training,they're not bad in that
department either).
> lowering chances to lose ammo
With a character focused about 65/35 on melee/missiles, I played out nearly the
entire game, and never ran out. Just watch where you fire (not into deep water)
and what you fire at (not at corroding monsters, and maybe not even near them
-- not sure how that works yet). If you have an amulet of the gourmand and some
patience, you could probably even scum for arrows a little after the initial
supply in the Halls runs out.
Sorry for arguing one side, and then going on to argue the opposite side -- I'm
a Libra.
>
> > > Gaining glow from Torg's extention of rage by killing.
> >
> > Game design decision, this time perhaps for simplicity's sake. The basic
> > model is that having certain of the most powerful enchantments (I think
> it's
> > rage, invisibility, and haste) extended contaminates you. My hunch is that
> > the rationale was that adding one exception would lead to another and
> > another, until things got unnecessarily complicated. Crawl dislikes
> > unnecessary complications. That, and the fact that the extension of rage
> is a
> > powerful thing, and powerful things (like, say, ranged melee attacks
)
> > tend to have balancing disadvantages in Crawl.
> There is exception alredy, because Thorg warshipers don't loose
> consciousness after berserk.
Neither do PC's who wear an amulet of resist slowing. I've never played with
Trog; sounds like he gives you a free invisible neck and puts an "oRS on it,
but with a few prices attached.
But anyway -- so Trog worshippers get TWO advantages when beserking; all the
more reason to have a price attached to berserking.
> Besides we end up with berserkers who are afraid to go berserk.
Replace "go beserk" with "go beserk too often," and you're right. Contamination
decays over time; wait long enough after an extended beserking and you'll be
fine.
> It may sound funny, but where has gone the fealing of being
> ruthless bane of magic users when you end up wraped by extensive use of
> magic?
God-magic.
> > > In Elven Halls "1" summoned two deep elves.
> >
> > And?
> Well, is it normal for demons to summon mortals for help? I repeat it's '1'
> who summoned elves, not the other way around.
Aha. I misunderstood you.
Sounds like a bug. Or maybe they were even more evil than the "1" itself.
Erik
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram