Proposal: birth changes
Andi Sidwell
I thought I would take the time to outline some changes for the 3.1.1
beta, with regard to character birth.
First, autoroller is being removed in the next release. Point-based
mode now more than makes up for it. I'd be tempted to remove the roller
too, but I'm sure(?) it keeps some people happy.
Second (and I would like feedback on this), I am considering changing
game start such that you can either
1) have 500au and no gear
2) have 0au and full, useful gear
This would mean that starting characters got some healing potions, phase
door, etc. Suggestions for what each class should have would be much
appreciated. (Warriors probably should get a main gauche or a dagger).
Maybe I'm assuming that most people grab mostly the same gear when
they start a game, but I guess we'll find out soon enough.
Andi
Jonker
> Hello all,
>
> I thought I would take the time to outline some changes for the 3.1.1
> beta, with regard to character birth.
>
> First, autoroller is being removed in the next release. Point-based
> mode now more than makes up for it. I'd be tempted to remove the roller
> too, but I'm sure(?) it keeps some people happy.
>
> Second (and I would like feedback on this), I am considering changing
> game start such that you can either
> 1) have 500au and no gear
> 2) have 0au and full, useful gear
I'm not sure I'm crazy about 0AU. Some wiggle room is always nice.
> This would mean that starting characters got some healing potions, phase
> door, etc. Suggestions for what each class should have would be much
> appreciated. (Warriors probably should get a main gauche or a dagger).
> Maybe I'm assuming that most people grab mostly the same gear when
> they start a game, but I guess we'll find out soon enough.
>
> Andi
For the weapon, obviously you'd want to maximize blows in every case,
and
this will change within classes depending on race. Ideally the game
would
choose the highest dice maximum blow weapon for each character, but
maybe
that's too tall an order.
All classes should get ?WoR, 3?Phase, 5!CLW, torches, food.
Warriors
Weapon - I think main gauche would be a safe bet, all the usual
warrior races being strong and dextrous enough to get 3 or 4 blows
with
it.
Shooter - none.
Armor - Leather scale mail seems more in character than chainmail, and
basically as good.
Extra - 3!boldness
Rogues
Weapon - Being as they are more dexterous and less strong, they seem
(paradoxically) able to get fewer blows but with heavier weapons. I'd
recommend a rapier.
Shooter - A sling is in character, even if they don't get any bonuses
for them in V (which eventually, I think, they should).
Armor - Hard Leather Armor seems good. Maybe a cape for flavor.
Priests
Weapon - a whip or mace. Since only Half-Trolls can get 2 blows,
might as well let them sell the mace for the whip if they so desire.
I usually just buy a shovel...
Shooter - Priests need a good shooter more than any other class. I'm
Inclined towards light xbows - it just seems in character to me.
Armor - Robes, boots and helmets. These are pious, but hardcore
priests.
Books - PB1, and perhaps PB2 - I usually need the second before the
first dive is over.
Paladins
Weapon - It's hard to think of something both useful and in
character. In the end I think one might as well go with a dagger or
whip.
Shooter - none.
Armor - chainmail suits my mental image.
Books - PB1, maybe PB2. I don't play paladins enough to have a
strong opinion.
Rangers
Weapon - Dagger for blows and flavor.
Shooter - Longbow (clearly).
Armor - Cape, leather hat, soft leather boots.
Books - MB1, maybe MB2, for same reasons as Paladins.
Magi
Weapon - As with priests, I usually just buy a shovel, or nothing.
For flavor, give them a quarterstaff, I suppose - doesn't really
matter.
Shooter - Shortbow. I'd say longbow, but then we'd might as well
phase out shortbows. Besides, they get magic missile...
Armor - Robe.
Books - MB1, MB2. Throw them a bone.
Extra - lantern.
pete m
I always assumed that the starting gear was to (for example) make
Rogue harder and Mage easier. (Because he starts with ?Recall.)
500 GP is rather a lot for a starting Rogue; he'll be able to afford
his current starting gear, a bow, a couple ?Phase, CSW, and ?Damage.
It's a bit much for such a strong class.
Eddie Grove
What's the point? One trip down to clear half of dLvl 1 and sell what you
find, add at that to what you start with, more than 500. That hardly makes a
play balance difference.
I think everyone should start with identical equipment in the 0AU case, except
to give non-warriors additionally their first spellbook. I guess a mace for a
priest instead of main-gauche if you enforce the pointy penalty, though they
would prefer to use the longbow anyway. Some other classes need a longbow
*more* than a ranger, who can get 3 blows with a dagger.
If you want to balance classes with starting equipment, start the ranger with
a torch and nothing else. :) I believe I'd win faster with that start than any
likely proposed starting equipment with any other character.
Eddie
Timo Pietilä
> Hello all,
>
> I thought I would take the time to outline some changes for the 3.1.1
> beta, with regard to character birth.
>
> First, autoroller is being removed in the next release. Point-based
> mode now more than makes up for it. I'd be tempted to remove the roller
> too, but I'm sure(?) it keeps some people happy.
>
> Second (and I would like feedback on this), I am considering changing
> game start such that you can either
> 1) have 500au and no gear
> 2) have 0au and full, useful gear
>
> This would mean that starting characters got some healing potions, phase
> door, etc. Suggestions for what each class should have would be much
> appreciated. (Warriors probably should get a main gauche or a dagger).
"useful gear" means gear character wont sell unless shop has obvious
better item that he can afford. With starting char missile weapon of
some sort and ammunition is something you need (short bow and 10-15
arrows). Every warrior-type should start with light and cheap
melee-weapon, otherwise they just sell what they got and buy a dagger.
Priest should have mace, mage a dagger. Light armor, maybe leather armor
(except mage and priest who would have robe). Priest and mage should
start with first two spellbooks. Others need to buy second one, if they
want one.
Torches, food, 5 phase door and you are set. No healing unless CLW is
made better (is it?).
Now that we talk about shops, could you make enchant-scrolls less common
or more expensive? Now I would pretty much sell almost everything to buy
one or two enchant to dam scrolls to enchant my bow ASAP. After few
visits to dungeon I have (+8,+8) bow and killing early level monsters is
piece of cake.
Timo Pietilä
zai...@zaimoni.com
> Hello all,
>
> I thought I would take the time to outline some changes for the 3.1.1
> beta, with regard to character birth.
>
> First, autoroller is being removed in the next release. Point-based
> mode now more than makes up for it. I'd be tempted to remove the roller
> too, but I'm sure(?) it keeps some people happy.
>
> Second (and I would like feedback on this), I am considering changing
> game start such that you can either
> 1) have 500au and no gear
In V3.0.9 and lower, that would get rid of the temptation to autoroll
for social status (100 from a Dwarf generally gets 500-600 ish if
optimizing for CHA).
> 2) have 0au and full, useful gear
I'd prefer 50 or 100 au with full, useful gear. If full, useful gear
was not defined to include at least the worst armor for each armor
slot, (mages and rangers need not apply for gloves), 0au is a non-
starter (would never use as the game's definition of full, useful gear
is simply wrong).
Note that DL 1 monsters would need some rebalancing.
> This would mean that starting characters got some healing potions, phase
> door, etc. Suggestions for what each class should have would be much
> appreciated. (Warriors probably should get a main gauche or a dagger).
> Maybe I'm assuming that most people grab mostly the same gear when
> they start a game, but I guess we'll find out soon enough.
Hmm...considering Paladins specifically, that's the problem: there's
more than one reasonable build for dive #1. While my preference is
"ranged tank" (starting kit should include a short bow and arrows, ?
WoR, ?Detect Treasure, ?Magic Mapping, minimum standard armor (Soft
Leather armor, worst possible for other armor slots), Timo's proposal
is more thematic. Basically, it would be good to have some way to
configure multiple starting kits.
Paladins do not need to start with PB2 in my playstyle.
Billy Bissette
news:6uhkj0F...@mid.individual.net:
Useful gear can vary a bit by player. As well, as the game
currently is, some of the useful gear (like bows) just doesn't feel
"in character" for certain characters.
An alternate idea, though requiring more code work:
Create a general list of useful start items. Implement a pre-game
"shop" inside character creation, where the player can buy items as
desired from this general list. Any money not spent is carried into
the game.
Weapons and armor on the list will be base form, with no bonuses.
(If a player wants bonuses, then he'll have to gamble on finding
something in the shops after he starts the game proper.)
Make one list, shared across all classes/races. Mage and Priest
books may be hidden from view if the character is of a class that
cannot use them though.
Since any individual player will probably reuse the same kit
designs, give players the ability to save their kit designs as the
new defaults for classes. (For example: I play a mage. I go
through the effort of decking out a personal kit. I choose to save
this kit as default for my future mages, so with my next mage I don't
have to go through this again.)
The Wanderer
> On Jan 30, 7:33 pm, Andi Sidwell <a...@takkaria.org> wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I thought I would take the time to outline some changes for the
>> 3.1.1 beta, with regard to character birth.
>>
>> First, autoroller is being removed in the next release.
>> Point-based mode now more than makes up for it. I'd be tempted to
>> remove the roller too, but I'm sure(?) it keeps some people happy.
>>
>> Second (and I would like feedback on this), I am considering
>> changing game start such that you can either
>> 1) have 500au and no gear
>> 2) have 0au and full, useful gear
>
> I'm not sure I'm crazy about 0AU. Some wiggle room is always nice.
I think it's workable, but I agree, a little bit of flexibility is
almost never a bad thing.
>> This would mean that starting characters got some healing potions,
>> phase door, etc. Suggestions for what each class should have would
>> be much appreciated. (Warriors probably should get a main gauche
>> or a dagger).
No comment on most of the suggestions...
> Magi
> Weapon - As with priests, I usually just buy a shovel, or nothing.
> For flavor, give them a quarterstaff, I suppose - doesn't really
> matter.
It can matter more than you might think - not because of blows per
weapon, but because of weapon weight. I play mages exclusively for quite
some time now, and because of the very low Strength in the early game
and their ability to deal out damage by magic, I find it more valuable
to take as lightweight a weapon as seems reasonable and allocate the
weight for armor and carrying capacity. Shovel is both too heavy and too
expensive to be worth buying before the first dive, given the other
things available, and the weight still applies even in this case.
> Shooter - Shortbow. I'd say longbow, but then we'd might as well
> phase out shortbows. Besides, they get magic missile...
> Armor - Robe.
Fits thematically, but in practice I always prefer light leather
armor... robe is just too weak to be worth using if there's anything
better available.
Also, this neglects other armor slots entirely. A mage with only the 2
AC, ignoring any bonuses from Dexterity, is vastly less likely to
survive early encounters short of seeking out weak enemies to kill -
which is sort of counter to effective diving, even at the limited level
to which I do that - and is almost certainly dead if Grip or Fang shows
up.
> Books - MB1, MB2. Throw them a bone.
> Extra - lantern.
I thought that last would have been a given - and probably a flask or
two of oil to go along with it. You'd send the other classes down
without a light source?
--
The Wanderer
Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.
Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.
Jonker
My thinking was that if an early mage goes within melee range of a
monster, he's dead anyway. I think the 3?Phase should be enough to
let
him survive the Maggot dogs.
>
> > Books - MB1, MB2. Throw them a bone.
> > Extra - lantern.
>
> I thought that last would have been a given - and probably a flask or
> two of oil to go along with it. You'd send the other classes down
> without a light source?
>
Everyone else gets torches, as well as ?WoR and other sundries (see
the top of the list before the class breakdown).
The Wanderer
> On Jan 31, 6:22 am, The Wanderer <inversepara...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Jonker wrote:
>>> Magi
>>> Armor - Robe.
>>
>> Fits thematically, but in practice I always prefer light leather
>> armor... robe is just too weak to be worth using if there's
>> anything better available.
>>
>> Also, this neglects other armor slots entirely. A mage with only
>> the 2 AC, ignoring any bonuses from Dexterity, is vastly less
>> likely to survive early encounters short of seeking out weak
>> enemies to kill - which is sort of counter to effective diving,
>> even at the limited level to which I do that - and is almost
>> certainly dead if Grip or Fang shows up.
>
> My thinking was that if an early mage goes within melee range of a
> monster, he's dead anyway.
Not as much as you might think. I've defeated Grip and/or Fang as my
first kill, at melee the entire time, using Magic Missile and a couple
of thrown flasks of oil. That was with significantly higher AC than just
the two points from a robe, though - minimum of about 12 after Dex
bonus, more likely 14 to 18. (This is typical in my experience.)
Admittedly I haven't done that more than once or twice, out of dozens of
opportunities - but it has happened, and less directly spectacular first
or early kills have happened more often.
With only 8-10 AC, though (I almost never wind up with less than that),
and on occasion even with 12, I can have a hard time surviving against
even early kobolds some times; it isn't always possible to spot them at
a distance and keep away. I wouldn't want to even consider trying with
only 2 AC unless I had no choice in the matter.
> I think the 3?Phase should be enough to let him survive the Maggot
> dogs.
Quite possibly so. I never bother with them, since there are more
reusable things to spend the money on for the first trip, and after that
the spell is available.
>>> Books - MB1, MB2. Throw them a bone.
>>> Extra - lantern.
>>
>> I thought that last would have been a given - and probably a flask
>> or two of oil to go along with it. You'd send the other classes
>> down without a light source?
>
> Everyone else gets torches, as well as ?WoR and other sundries (see
> the top of the list before the class breakdown).
Right. By the time I got to the point of writing this, I'd forgotten
that list of sundries.
Klaus Kruse
Does it really make a difference in your experience? If I understand the
source correctly, Level 1 Monsters that hit to hurt still have a 80% to
90% chance to hit you if you have 10 to 12 AC. Only their chance to hit
to blind, confuse etc. should drop significantly with the first few
points of AC.
The Wanderer
I've never looked at the numbers, but yes, I have seen it appear to make
a noticeable difference. This was back in a version from before
maintenance/development was resumed, though, so I can't guarantee that
present source hasn't changed anything; I haven't played enough games in
newer versions to say much about it. There is of course also the chance
that whatever effect I saw was a simple statistical anomaly.
I do note, though, that I take 12 AC as being the minimum typical value
for the first trip down - and 16 isn't terribly unusual. I don't know
what that does to the numbers, but it may make some difference.
zai...@zaimoni.com
> The Wanderer wrote:
> > With only 8-10 AC, though (I almost never wind up with less than that),
> > and on occasion even with 12, I can have a hard time surviving against
> > even early kobolds some times; it isn't always possible to spot them at
> > a distance and keep away. I wouldn't want to even consider trying with
> > only 2 AC unless I had no choice in the matter.
>
> Does it really make a difference in your experience? If I understand the
> source correctly, Level 1 Monsters that hit to hurt still have a 80% to
> 90% chance to hit you if you have 10 to 12 AC. Only their chance to hit
> to blind, confuse etc. should drop significantly with the first few
> points of AC.
It should increase the fluky survival rate considerably. Going from
88.8% (AC 10) to 79.4% (AC 18) for a single hit drops the chance for
two consecutive hits far more dramatically (79.0% to 62.9%).
The change in AC should not make a material difference in damage
reduction at that depth, however -- AC 18 requires 14 hp of damage to
reduce damage by 1.
Wally the Grey
> Does it really make a difference in your experience? If I understand the
> source correctly, Level 1 Monsters that hit to hurt still have a 80% to
> 90% chance to hit you if you have 10 to 12 AC. Only their chance to hit
> to blind, confuse etc. should drop significantly with the first few
> points of AC.
Blindness and confusion, of course, being among the top five killers of
early-game mages.
The Wanderer
Neither is usually an issue quite *that* early, though - clevel 1,
dlevel probably no greater than 150' (or at least I don't remember ever
making it past that point without killing anything).
Martin Bazley
spouted the following:
> On Jan 30, 7:33 pm, Andi Sidwell <a...@takkaria.org> wrote:
> > This would mean that starting characters got some healing potions, phase
> > door, etc. Suggestions for what each class should have would be much
> > appreciated. (Warriors probably should get a main gauche or a dagger).
> > Maybe I'm assuming that most people grab mostly the same gear when
> > they start a game, but I guess we'll find out soon enough.
> >
> Warriors
> Weapon - I think main gauche would be a safe bet, all the usual
> warrior races being strong and dextrous enough to get 3 or 4 blows
> with it.
What's wrong with a good old-fashioned broadsword? By far the best
starting weapon of the classes, and if you can't lift it, you can
sell it and buy a rapier or spear with a comfortable amount of cash left
over - 'wiggle room', as you put it.
Also, if racial strength is an issue, perhaps we ought to make starting
equipment dependant on race as well as class? Should hobbits start with
shovels?
--
__<^>__ === RISC OS is a work of art. Some people adore it, ===
/ _ _ \ === others can't see the point of it, and it's really ===
( ( |_| ) ) === expensive. ===
\_> <_/ ======================= Martin Bazley ===================
Wally the Grey
> Wally the Grey wrote:
>
>> Klaus Kruse wrote:
>>
>>> Does it really make a difference in your experience? If I
>>> understand the source correctly, Level 1 Monsters that hit to hurt
>>> still have a 80% to 90% chance to hit you if you have 10 to 12 AC.
>>> Only their chance to hit to blind, confuse etc. should drop
>>> significantly with the first few points of AC.
>>
>> Blindness and confusion, of course, being among the top five killers
>> of early-game mages.
>
> Neither is usually an issue quite *that* early, though - clevel 1,
> dlevel probably no greater than 150' (or at least I don't remember ever
> making it past that point without killing anything).
Who said anything about "without killing anything"?
The Wanderer
Technically nobody, but I had it in mind since I do like to try to make
my first kill be something with enough of an experience reward to take
me over at least the first-level hump.
In any case, I also don't usually make it past 150' without gaining a
level, which *would* be relevant for the discussion at hand for a number
of different reasons.
Jonker
> The date being 31 Jan, Jonker
> spouted the following:
>
> > On Jan 30, 7:33 pm, Andi Sidwell <a...@takkaria.org> wrote:
> > > This would mean that starting characters got some healing potions, phase
> > > door, etc. Suggestions for what each class should have would be much
> > > appreciated. (Warriors probably should get a main gauche or a dagger).
> > > Maybe I'm assuming that most people grab mostly the same gear when
> > > they start a game, but I guess we'll find out soon enough.
>
> > Warriors
> > Weapon - I think main gauche would be a safe bet, all the usual
> > warrior races being strong and dextrous enough to get 3 or 4 blows
> > with it.
>
> What's wrong with a good old-fashioned broadsword? By far the best
> starting weapon of the classes, and if you can't lift it, you can
> sell it and buy a rapier or spear with a comfortable amount of cash left
> over - 'wiggle room', as you put it.
>
"Best" by what standard? For starting characters it's universally
useless, except for its sell value, since no one can get 3 blows with
it. I was assuming the exercise here was to outfit characters with
gear such that they could head straight for the down-stairs without
putzing about in town.
> Also, if racial strength is an issue, perhaps we ought to make starting
> equipment dependant on race as well as class? Should hobbits start with
> shovels?
Maybe not by race, but certainly by strength & dexterity. At the risk
of
repeating myself, if our Maintainer wants to make a function that
would
outfit each character with a weapon that would first maximize blows
and
then damage dice, that would be ideal.
But I'm guessing not... And I don't get why a hobbit would
particularly
want a shovel.
Billy Bissette
news:lsudnYiWXr1_LBnU...@giganews.com:
> Wally the Grey wrote:
>
>> Klaus Kruse wrote:
>>
>>> Does it really make a difference in your experience? If I
>>> understand the source correctly, Level 1 Monsters that hit to hurt
>>> still have a 80% to 90% chance to hit you if you have 10 to 12 AC.
>>> Only their chance to hit to blind, confuse etc. should drop
>>> significantly with the first few points of AC.
>>
>> Blindness and confusion, of course, being among the top five killers
>> of early-game mages.
>
> Neither is usually an issue quite *that* early, though - clevel 1,
> dlevel probably no greater than 150' (or at least I don't remember
> ever making it past that point without killing anything).
Getting hit for damage is the top killer of earliest-game mages,
with or with blindness or confusion. In comparison, blindness and
confusion from monster hits have long been relatively far down the
danger list for my starting mages.
If you can avoid getting hit in general, then blindness and
confusion are dealt with automatically. If you really want to go
around touching critters, then at least avoid touching the ones that
blind or confuse so that you can escape when things go bad.
And once you've got some levels under your belt, you aren't
really a starting mage anymore. You've got some more money, maybe
found some more items, and have more ability to kill at a distance
and to stay at a distance.
I still like starting with some extra points of armor, though.
Even a 5% or 10% difference can give you the time to get you those
first couple of important kills. (Mind, others might just be
willing to write off such early extra deaths. Depending on your
mortality rate, it can even be hard to argue against the practice.)
Klaus Kruse
> The Wanderer <inverse...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:lsudnYiWXr1_LBnU...@giganews.com:
>
>> Wally the Grey wrote:
>>
>>> Klaus Kruse wrote:
>>>
>>>> Does it really make a difference in your experience? If I
>>>> understand the source correctly, Level 1 Monsters that hit to hurt
>>>> still have a 80% to 90% chance to hit you if you have 10 to 12 AC.
>>>> Only their chance to hit to blind, confuse etc. should drop
>>>> significantly with the first few points of AC.
>>> Blindness and confusion, of course, being among the top five killers
>>> of early-game mages.
>> Neither is usually an issue quite *that* early, though - clevel 1,
>> dlevel probably no greater than 150' (or at least I don't remember
>> ever making it past that point without killing anything).
>
> Getting hit for damage is the top killer of earliest-game mages,
> with or with blindness or confusion. In comparison, blindness and
> confusion from monster hits have long been relatively far down the
> danger list for my starting mages.
>
> If you can avoid getting hit in general, then blindness and
> confusion are dealt with automatically. If you really want to go
> around touching critters, then at least avoid touching the ones that
> blind or confuse so that you can escape when things go bad.
The point here is, that Hurt-Attacks have a higher chance to hit than
other attacks. With 7 AC, you're already almost safe against paralyze
and blindness attacks from L1 Critters. (There's always a 5% chance,
independant of AC). 12 AC does the same for poison attacks and 18 AC for
confusion and fear, but you'd need 84 AC to get the same protection
against normal physical attacks. (Add 4 AC for each creature level beyond 1)
Thats why I would not expect that AC will make much difference when you
melee Maggots dogs. Of course it also means that mages should go and
pick fights with mushroom patches and worm masses and floating eyes
instead of anything that hits to hurt.
Jilles Tjoelker
I haven't played angband for quite a while, but I will say something
here (influenced by nethack and crawl).
Those poor DL1 monsters have no fair chance against starting characters
with the best common +0,+0 weapon possible, some armour, ?phase and
!clw. The only way to keep the game interesting would be to "dive"
through the first few levels, or remove them entirely.
I think it is quite interesting to play a roguelike with only what you
find (mages obviously get *phase spell quickly, but it's unreliable and
costs mana). In some games you will find some ?phase or other useful
consumable soon, in other games you won't. A weak character may have to
leave the level if he hears Fang breaking a door open.
Seeing it this way, the current starting gear seems fairly sensible. All
characters start with a weapon (average for fighters, crappy for
spellcasters; this includes a launcher with ammo for rangers), a body
armour (average for warriors, crappy for anyone else), food, light, a
spellbook (if applicable) and one or two consumables. Things like giving
priests healing potions can balance their poor start (compared to other
classes) a bit. Note that starting off a class with a consumable gives
them both the item and the knowledge of the type; !clw + !csw may be
better than !heal for a priest (also fixes sell problem).
With the shops, people get in this "I only want to play with all these
items" mentality, and if that's staying that way, doing the same buy
dance every game is boring and the proposed change makes sense.
--
Jilles Tjoelker
Billy Bissette
news:gm2h03$vsg$00$1...@news.t-online.com:
A starting mage shouldn't pick fights with anything that won't
give it a few levels. Anything less is just choosing to die
slowly. The longer you remain low level, the longer you are
vulnerable to basic dungeon deaths like traps or dangerous critters
coming around a corner. Same goes for burning resources such as
magic, health, or whatever else. (A little extra AC can help
survive some of those incidental dungeon dangers, though. Or more
immediate dangers, such as when something doesn't die quite as
fast as you had hoped, or something does get the jump on you.)
As for Maggot's dogs, you don't melee them unless you can win.
That doesn't mean that you don't fight them, just that you don't
walk up to them with a bare throat and a bottle of barbacue sauce.
Soften them up (or even kill them) from a distance first with magic,
arrows, flasks of oil, phase door (to stay at a distance longer)...
Use potions and/or scrolls to boost your fighting so that you *can*
take them in a brawl (even if you might have to escape to heal if
things go south fast.)
The Wanderer
> Klaus Kruse <k.k...@gmx.de> wrote in
> news:gm2h03$vsg$00$1...@news.t-online.com:
>
>> Billy Bissette wrote:
>> Thats why I would not expect that AC will make much difference when
>> you melee Maggots dogs. Of course it also means that mages should
>> go and pick fights with mushroom patches and worm masses and
>> floating eyes instead of anything that hits to hurt.
>
> A starting mage shouldn't pick fights with anything that won't give
> it a few levels. Anything less is just choosing to die slowly. The
> longer you remain low level, the longer you are vulnerable to basic
> dungeon deaths like traps or dangerous critters coming around a
> corner. Same goes for burning resources such as magic, health, or
> whatever else. (A little extra AC can help survive some of those
> incidental dungeon dangers, though. Or more immediate dangers, such
> as when something doesn't die quite as fast as you had hoped, or
> something does get the jump on you.)
Yep. I used to start out looking for semi-weak things to kill, but that
just slows things down and gives you more time to have something
dangerous run across you; you're better off killing only what you need
to and looking for things with good reward-for-the-difficulty factors,
and it doesn't take very many of those to get the first couple of levels
and begin to have more options.
> As for Maggot's dogs, you don't melee them unless you can win. That
> doesn't mean that you don't fight them, just that you don't walk up
> to them with a bare throat and a bottle of barbacue sauce. Soften
> them up (or even kill them) from a distance first with magic, arrows,
> flasks of oil, phase door (to stay at a distance longer)... Use
> potions and/or scrolls to boost your fighting so that you *can* take
> them in a brawl (even if you might have to escape to heal if things
> go south fast.)
Exactly. I don't try to fight them in melee, but it takes some very
lucky Magic Missile damage rolls to frighten them off long enough to
regenerate mana and be able to kill them before they get to melee; the
difference in damage taken once they get close, small though it may be,
is enough to make the difference.
Jonker
> I think everyone should start with identical equipment in the 0AU case, except
> to give non-warriors additionally their first spellbook. I guess a mace for a
> priest instead of main-gauche if you enforce the pointy penalty, though they
> would prefer to use the longbow anyway. Some other classes need a longbow
> *more* than a ranger, who can get 3 blows with a dagger.
This is a problem. Everyone wants a longbow. Everyone wants ?to_dam.
Everyone wants light but decent armor.
2 things to consider: how much of an advantage should the first dive
receive, and how much should flavor factor into class differentiation.
Everyone prefers !CSW to !CLW, but I think unless we want to get rid
of !CLW
entirely, it should be included in the standard kit. Besides, a ?phase
and
a stack of !CLW can save your life better than a !CSW alone can.
Everyone prefers a longbow to all other shooters (save maybe a heavy
xbow
late in the game), but unless we want to get rid of the other
shooters,
shortbows, slings and light xbows should be standard kit as well.
If every class gets the same kit, you'll be staring blandness in the
face. True, ultimately every class wants essentially the same items,
and
the game mechanics perhaps be adjusted to change this. As it is, I
think
flavor has to be considered in tandem with utility.
> If you want to balance classes with starting equipment, start the ranger with
> a torch and nothing else. :) I believe I'd win faster with that start than any
> likely proposed starting equipment with any other character.
Don't know about this :P. I think it's the sort of thing that would be
argued eternally. Make the choices interesting and in character and I
think that's enough. What we really want to look out for are kit
choices
that people will go out of their way to change every time. I don't
think
a sling or shortbow fall under that category.
Other than that, if folks want to fund raise on level 50' for that
little
something they desire, so be it. Can't please everyone.
Sherm Pendley
> As for Maggot's dogs, you don't melee them unless you can win.
> That doesn't mean that you don't fight them, just that you don't
> walk up to them with a bare throat and a bottle of barbacue sauce.
> Soften them up (or even kill them) from a distance first with magic,
> arrows, flasks of oil, phase door (to stay at a distance longer)...
I can still recall my first encounter with the dogs, long ago. I happened
to have a broken stick in my backpack, and thought "oh, so *that's* what
that is for" and threw the stick. Naturally, they didn't chase it.
But to this day, I *still* think they should have. The ability to distract
monsters with thrown objects - sticks, food, potions, etc. - would be
an interesting tactical option.
sherm--
--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Raymond Martineau
wrote:
>Hello all,
>
>I thought I would take the time to outline some changes for the 3.1.1
>beta, with regard to character birth.
>
>First, autoroller is being removed in the next release. Point-based
>mode now more than makes up for it. I'd be tempted to remove the roller
>too, but I'm sure(?) it keeps some people happy.
Keep the roller. While auto-rolling can easily be replaced with
points, the random rolling of characters feel as if it's a core part
of the game, all the way back to Moria. It's also a faster method of
building characters.
>
>Second (and I would like feedback on this), I am considering changing
>game start such that you can either
> 1) have 500au and no gear
> 2) have 0au and full, useful gear
I think a better idea is half-way: characters have basic gear but have
enough money to buy some useful equipment. If you do
>This would mean that starting characters got some healing potions, phase
>door, etc. Suggestions for what each class should have would be much
>appreciated. (Warriors probably should get a main gauche or a dagger).
> Maybe I'm assuming that most people grab mostly the same gear when
>they start a game, but I guess we'll find out soon enough.
I'd be careful switching the Warrior's starting weapon - that class
strength is being able to soak damage early in the game where other
classes had to rely more on spells. If you feel the broad sword/chain
mail is too strong, I'd recommend stepping down only slightly, such as
a Short Sword(1d7)/Hard Studded Leather.
As for gear, I generally try go for filling slots with light armour
(or heaviest armor for warriors). Once I go deep enough, I then look
for healing potions, scrolls of recall, and other semi-useful items.
This may be suboptimal, but it's my preference within Angband.
Billy Bissette
> Billy Bissette wrote:
>> As for Maggot's dogs, you don't melee them unless you can win. That
>> doesn't mean that you don't fight them, just that you don't walk up
>> to them with a bare throat and a bottle of barbacue sauce. Soften
>> them up (or even kill them) from a distance first with magic, arrows,
>> flasks of oil, phase door (to stay at a distance longer)... Use
>> potions and/or scrolls to boost your fighting so that you *can* take
>> them in a brawl (even if you might have to escape to heal if things
>> go south fast.)
>
> Exactly. I don't try to fight them in melee, but it takes some very
> lucky Magic Missile damage rolls to frighten them off long enough to
> regenerate mana and be able to kill them before they get to melee; the
> difference in damage taken once they get close, small though it may
> be, is enough to make the difference.
Use more than magic missile.
Though I admit that I'm not exactly fond of how mages can often be
more successfully played as wannabe rangers with more spells than as
primarily spell-slingers.
Billy Bissette
news:daee96d0-4524-4c8a...@17g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
> This is a problem. Everyone wants a longbow. Everyone wants ?to_dam.
> Everyone wants light but decent armor.
> If every class gets the same kit, you'll be staring blandness in the
> face. True, ultimately every class wants essentially the same items,
> and the game mechanics perhaps be adjusted to change this. As it is,
> I think flavor has to be considered in tandem with utility.
That is the problem. Every class *is* going to want essentially the
same items. This is true at the start, and only becomes more true as
the game progresses. And playing a class by its implied "flavor" is
too often playing that class inefficiently. (Note that this also
extends into a balance issue, as classes presumably get balanced more
on optimal play than some nebulous "played in flavor".)
Giving some classes less-than-optimal starting kits is not going to
change this fact. It is just going to penalize those classes. New
players will be starting with the "wrong" ideas in mind. Skilled
players will get better equipment as fast as possible.
> Everyone prefers a longbow to all other shooters (save maybe a
> heavy xbow late in the game), but unless we want to get rid of
> the other shooters, shortbows, slings and light xbows should be
> standard kit as well.
If most of those items were so inferior that you needed to fool with
the starting kit to justify them, then either changing those items or
culling some of them should seriously be considered.
Outside of Ironman or playing for really low turn count, the starting
kit is going to affect only the very beginning of the game. When
better items are available from the start, people are going to upgrade
essentials as soon as is practical. Because of how important turns at
the start are, people playing for speed may very well suicide
characters until they can buy a kit that they like. Even Ironman
players might suicide if they decide a start is just too crippled to
bother with.
Torches and lanterns are an even better example. Outside of Ironman,
torches become pointless almost immediately.
The various food types available in town are even more pointless.
The Wanderer
> The Wanderer <inverse...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:sfKdnc22J5D1QRnU...@giganews.com:
>
>> Billy Bissette wrote:
>
>>> As for Maggot's dogs, you don't melee them unless you can win.
>>> That doesn't mean that you don't fight them, just that you don't
>>> walk up to them with a bare throat and a bottle of barbacue
>>> sauce. Soften them up (or even kill them) from a distance first
>>> with magic, arrows, flasks of oil, phase door (to stay at a
>>> distance longer)... Use potions and/or scrolls to boost your
>>> fighting so that you *can* take them in a brawl (even if you
>>> might have to escape to heal if things go south fast.)
>>
>> Exactly. I don't try to fight them in melee, but it takes some very
>> lucky Magic Missile damage rolls to frighten them off long enough
>> to regenerate mana and be able to kill them before they get to
>> melee; the difference in damage taken once they get close, small
>> though it may be, is enough to make the difference.
>
> Use more than magic missile.
I do. But at level 1, the only real alternative is to throw a few flasks
of oil and hope to get lucky. (Even with 500AU to start out with, and
luck with what's in the shops, getting a bow and some quantity of ammo
A: probably requires dropping something else from the list and B: is
unlikely to make a difference given the odds of hitting with no magical
assistance at that point. Potions and scrolls as you suggest aren't
reusable and so aren't worthwhile investments when under that tight a
budget.)
> Though I admit that I'm not exactly fond of how mages can often be
> more successfully played as wannabe rangers with more spells than as
> primarily spell-slingers.
I've never seen that actually happen, probably in no small part because
I've never been able to successfully carry enough ammo to make it
practical to fight that way very much - the Strength levels are just too
low.
The Wanderer
> Jonker <thej...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:daee96d0-4524-4c8a...@17g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Everyone prefers a longbow to all other shooters (save maybe a
>> heavy xbow late in the game), but unless we want to get rid of the
>> other shooters, shortbows, slings and light xbows should be
>> standard kit as well.
>
> If most of those items were so inferior that you needed to fool with
> the starting kit to justify them, then either changing those items or
> culling some of them should seriously be considered.
The only counterargument I have to this is that, for the sense of
"realism" - or, using the term I've tended to, for thematic accuracy
(not to be confused with faithfulness to Tolkien) - these items need to
exist, even if they are useless - and there doesn't seem to be too much
room to change them without breaking the same principle in a different
way.
> Torches and lanterns are an even better example. Outside of Ironman,
> torches become pointless almost immediately.
In the version I'm playing (Eddie's variant on 3.0.8), torches provide a
light radius of 2 unless their fuel is quite low, and can be a very
practical alternative to a lantern. I don't remember this being one of
Eddie's changes...
I do prefer a lantern to torches, largely because of the greater maximum
fuel capacity, but they aren't nearly as useless as they used to be.
> The various food types available in town are even more pointless.
There's a simple fix for this, at least: significantly increase the
satiation provided by the various food types - double or triple at
minimum - and significantly increase the cost in proportion, or even
above it. I like the other food items, they're just too weak to be
seriously considered an option. (It's always seemed likely to me that
originally the non-ration food items were all that was available, and
then people didn't like the low satiation values so the generic and
unidentified ration was created to compensate, and the old items never
removed.)
For the record, I pretty much agree with everything I snipped out.
Klaus Kruse
That depends a bit on your race. Elves, High Elves and Hobbits can
already have a 50% or higher chance to hit the dogs without magical
to-hit, especially if they start with a dex over 18. For those three, as
well as gnomes and Kobolds, shooting has a (slightly) better hit chance
than melee. For Hobbits, the -10 to melee and the +20 to shooting means,
you might as well leave the melee weapon at home and carry some more
ammo for it.
Wally the Grey
> Billy Bissette wrote:
>
>> Jonker <thej...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:daee96d0-4524-4c8a...@17g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> Everyone prefers a longbow to all other shooters (save maybe a
>>> heavy xbow late in the game), but unless we want to get rid of the
>>> other shooters, shortbows, slings and light xbows should be
>>> standard kit as well.
>>
>> If most of those items were so inferior that you needed to fool with
>> the starting kit to justify them, then either changing those items or
>> culling some of them should seriously be considered.
>
> The only counterargument I have to this is that, for the sense of
> "realism" - or, using the term I've tended to, for thematic accuracy
> (not to be confused with faithfulness to Tolkien) - these items need to
> exist, even if they are useless - and there doesn't seem to be too much
> room to change them without breaking the same principle in a different
> way.
The usual way to stop a more powerful item from rendering a lesser one
completely worthless is to make it rarer and deeper.
In this case, you might move long bows and heavy xbows fairly deep, with
light xbows occurring shallower, short bows shallower, and slings
(still) at dl1. Keep the xbows and long bows out of the shops (save the
black market). Only rangers, if any, get a long bow in their starting
equipment.
Remember also, in the wider context of this debate, that there are two
ways to reduce shopping tedium at the start of the game:
1. Add to starting equipment an item people frequently buy before
descending (already proposed lots here), and
2. Remove it from the shops or make it rarer, or at least, rare early in
the game.
Of course, 2 only really applies if it's something characters can live
without. If it significantly weakens early-game characters to do this,
but without being truly essential, the early dungeon levels can be
rebalanced in tandem with applying 2.
thunder8
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 02:31:41 -0500
> The usual way to stop a more powerful item from rendering a lesser one
> completely worthless is to make it rarer and deeper.
>
> In this case, you might move long bows and heavy xbows fairly deep, with
> light xbows occurring shallower, short bows shallower, and slings
> (still) at dl1. Keep the xbows and long bows out of the shops (save the
> black market). Only rangers, if any, get a long bow in their starting
> equipment.
>
> Remember also, in the wider context of this debate, that there are two
> ways to reduce shopping tedium at the start of the game:
> 1. Add to starting equipment an item people frequently buy before
> descending (already proposed lots here), and
> 2. Remove it from the shops or make it rarer, or at least, rare early in
> the game.
> Of course, 2 only really applies if it's something characters can live
> without. If it significantly weakens early-game characters to do this,
> but without being truly essential, the early dungeon levels can be
> rebalanced in tandem with applying 2.
If longbows don't appear in shops, rangers will be very afraid of
anything that can damage their one longbow. Wouldn't it make more sense
to make using a longbow more difficult for any save rangers or advanced
characters? Say using it required 180/100 str and 180/100 dex or the
secret ranger lore that rangers know from birth?
That way, longbows could still appear in shops or on the floor.
Jurriaan
--
prachtige geschenken, exclusieve cadeaus: handgemaakte houten schalen
The Wanderer
> The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> Billy Bissette wrote:
>>> If most of those items were so inferior that you needed to fool
>>> with the starting kit to justify them, then either changing those
>>> items or culling some of them should seriously be considered.
>>
>> The only counterargument I have to this is that, for the sense of
>> "realism" - or, using the term I've tended to, for thematic
>> accuracy (not to be confused with faithfulness to Tolkien) - these
>> items need to exist, even if they are useless - and there doesn't
>> seem to be too much room to change them without breaking the same
>> principle in a different way.
>
> The usual way to stop a more powerful item from rendering a lesser
> one completely worthless is to make it rarer and deeper.
But longbows are common enough - and easy enough to make - in the World
Outside the Dungeon that it seems implausible that they wouldn't be
purchasable in stores, without having to go deep within...
thunder8's suggestion of making them more difficult to use, while
perhaps taken a bit too far, does have some merit to it. For longbows
and short bows, Strength should influence both how far the missile will
fly and how much damage it will do (the farther it goes before hitting,
the less damage), and arguably Dexterity should have more of an effect
on hitting than it presently does - but then actual weapon skill would
need to come into play, and adding a weapon-skill system to the game
would go into definite variant territory.
Wally the Grey
> Wally the Grey wrote:
>
>> The Wanderer wrote:
>>
>>> Billy Bissette wrote:
>
>>>> If most of those items were so inferior that you needed to fool
>>>> with the starting kit to justify them, then either changing those
>>>> items or culling some of them should seriously be considered.
>>>
>>> The only counterargument I have to this is that, for the sense of
>>> "realism" - or, using the term I've tended to, for thematic
>>> accuracy (not to be confused with faithfulness to Tolkien) - these
>>> items need to exist, even if they are useless - and there doesn't
>>> seem to be too much room to change them without breaking the same
>>> principle in a different way.
>>
>> The usual way to stop a more powerful item from rendering a lesser
>> one completely worthless is to make it rarer and deeper.
>
> But longbows are common enough - and easy enough to make - in the World
> Outside the Dungeon that it seems implausible that they wouldn't be
> purchasable in stores, without having to go deep within...
Make them expensive then.
Wally the Grey
> From: Wally the Grey <hpar...@usa.net.nospam.invalid>
> Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 02:31:41 -0500
>> The usual way to stop a more powerful item from rendering a lesser one
>> completely worthless is to make it rarer and deeper.
>>
>> In this case, you might move long bows and heavy xbows fairly deep, with
>> light xbows occurring shallower, short bows shallower, and slings
>> (still) at dl1. Keep the xbows and long bows out of the shops (save the
>> black market). Only rangers, if any, get a long bow in their starting
>> equipment.
>>
>> Remember also, in the wider context of this debate, that there are two
>> ways to reduce shopping tedium at the start of the game:
>> 1. Add to starting equipment an item people frequently buy before
>> descending (already proposed lots here), and
>> 2. Remove it from the shops or make it rarer, or at least, rare early in
>> the game.
>> Of course, 2 only really applies if it's something characters can live
>> without. If it significantly weakens early-game characters to do this,
>> but without being truly essential, the early dungeon levels can be
>> rebalanced in tandem with applying 2.
>
> If longbows don't appear in shops, rangers will be very afraid of
> anything that can damage their one longbow.
I'm not aware of anything in vanilla that can damage a wielded item,
except acid (which doesn't affect the missile-weapon slot) and
disenchantment (which doesn't affect a +0,+0 item). Both types of damage
can be fixed with an enchant scroll, too (so if the ranger enchants the
bow, then gets hit by a disenchanter eye or something, the ranger can
re-enchant the bow).
I'm not aware of anything at all in vanilla that can completely destroy
a wielded item (so you'd have to replace it); even curse weapon and
curse armor scrolls trash the special properties but leave you with the
base item type. If curse weapon scrolls can zap your missile weapon at
all, then a plain longbow that got blasted could be uncursed and
enchanted back up, though it might be quite expensive to fix this. Curse
weapon is planned to be nerfed anyway and is avoidable with id or by
unwielding the longbow before trying any unidentified scrolls.
Theft also doesn't work on equipped items.
About the only way for the ranger to lose that longbow if he keeps it
equipped is if the ranger dies, and then rerolling gets him a new one.
Last but not least, if somehow he did lose his early-game longbow it
might be most expedient to just shift-Q and reroll. Later in the game
when it's really undesired to have to start over because much time has
been invested, longbows should be readily available.
Matthew Vernon
> > Magi
> > Weapon - As with priests, I usually just buy a shovel, or nothing.
> > For flavor, give them a quarterstaff, I suppose - doesn't really
> > matter.
>
> It can matter more than you might think - not because of blows per
> weapon, but because of weapon weight. I play mages exclusively for quite
> some time now, and because of the very low Strength in the early game
> and their ability to deal out damage by magic, I find it more valuable
> to take as lightweight a weapon as seems reasonable and allocate the
> weight for armor and carrying capacity. Shovel is both too heavy and too
> expensive to be worth buying before the first dive, given the other
> things available, and the weight still applies even in this case.
I'm inclined to agree - I only very rarely bother buying a shovel -
stone to mud shows up fairly early on.
Matthew
--
Rapun.sel - outermost outpost of the Pick Empire
http://www.pick.ucam.org
tussock
> Since any individual player will probably reuse the same kit
> designs, give players the ability to save their kit designs as the new
> defaults for classes. (For example: I play a mage. I go through the
> effort of decking out a personal kit. I choose to save this kit as
> default for my future mages, so with my next mage I don't have to go
> through this again.)
That's the sort of thing edit files are for. Which makes me think,
why not have the game pay for whatever items are in the local edit file
out of your 500gp (skipping anything overpriced), and leave the player to
buy the rest in game?
Even, auto-buy the gear with costs modified by your Charisma.
--
tussock
U'm iuel p jyx yn chycyipwlaf kyd blvlr ebyg ghpw kyd'rl sdbbp slw.
Hallvard B Furuseth
> Keep the roller. While auto-rolling can easily be replaced with
> points, the random rolling of characters feel as if it's a core part
> of the game, all the way back to Moria. It's also a faster method of
> building characters.
Also point-based startup is beginner-unfriendly. It asks for a lot of
numbers a real beginner does not yet know how to fill in. Unless he
spends a lot of time reading before even starting a game.
If anything, I'd suggest to add semi-random choices - attempt to make a
random selection from reasonable values. E.g. semi-random choices don't
land you with a half-troll mage, or a mage with no extra INT points.
And an extra line of explanation could be useful in the "point-based is
recommended" text during birth, with or without semi-random selection.
--
Hallvard
Paul J Gans
I agree with this. Half the fun of the game was learning it.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Billy Bissette
news:gm98vl$3pb$1...@news.motzarella.org:
> Billy Bissette wrote:
>
>> Since any individual player will probably reuse the same kit
>> designs, give players the ability to save their kit designs as the
>> new defaults for classes. (For example: I play a mage. I go
>> through the effort of decking out a personal kit. I choose to save
>> this kit as default for my future mages, so with my next mage I don't
>> have to go through this again.)
>
> That's the sort of thing edit files are for. Which makes me think,
> why not have the game pay for whatever items are in the local edit
> file out of your 500gp (skipping anything overpriced), and leave the
> player to buy the rest in game?
The idea was for something new user friendly, which would be an
in-game menu. But one that could be saved to a config file, when
a player wished to make it their new default.
Magnate
> Hello all,
>
> I thought I would take the time to outline some changes for the 3.1.1
> beta, with regard to character birth.
>
> First, autoroller is being removed in the next release. Point-based mode
> now more than makes up for it. I'd be tempted to remove the roller too,
> but I'm sure(?) it keeps some people happy.
>
> start such that you can either
> 1) have 500au and no gear
> 2) have 0au and full, useful gear
>
> door, etc. Suggestions for what each class should have would be much
> appreciated. (Warriors probably should get a main gauche or a dagger).
> Maybe I'm assuming that most people grab mostly the same gear when they
> start a game, but I guess we'll find out soon enough.
I have another suggestion, inspired by the new option to bypass the stat
selection using "quick start based on previous char": extend this
functionality to the moment you descend to DL1. That is, allow a quick start
to be based on the previous char's initial kit, as well as stats.
I suggest this because I think it's dangerous to attempt to provide a single
set of "useful gear", even per-class. One of the game's great strengths is
its ability to be enjoyed by many different play styles. If you do implement
per-class starting kit, I think a very significant proportion of players
will still change it before going down, thus more or less defeating its
purpose.
So give everyone 500gp and no kit, and allow them to 'save' their setup
before descending. By 'save' I mean only their stats and kit, obviously not
the flavours, randarts and other stuff generated at birth.
That way everyone can tweak their character's kit exactly how they like it,
and not have to do it every game. It also makes it easier to town-scum for a
longbow, if people want to do that.
Just my 2p.
CC
Afterthought: if this idea is designed to make the game newbie-friendly, I
heartily support it - but it could be implemented in a way which has less
impact on non-newbies: allow the '*' (random selection of race/class) to go
the whole hog and start the selected race/class with its standard stats and
kit, bypassing stat choices and shopping. A sort of "newbie quick-start"
option, if you will.
Wally the Grey
> "Andi Sidwell" <an...@takkaria.org> wrote
>> I am considering changing game start such that you can either
>> 1) have 500au and no gear
>> 2) have 0au and full, useful gear
>
> selection using "quick start based on previous char": extend this
> functionality to the moment you descend to DL1.
Or recall.