In the past months, in secret so as not to risk raising any ruckus that wouldn't be followed by actual results, Darshan and I have been cooperating on a project to bring the Crawl-playing public many new features, and especially our favorite features of 4.1 alpha, inside of a game that's actually fun to play.
The setup is simple: Darshan does the actual work, and I kibitz. :-) That is, I write analyses of various mechanisms that exist in 4.0, that exist in 4.1, that could exist in Stone Soup, and that I've had the chance to try out within Stone Soup, and I propose new ones as well. And I playtest. Darshan does all this as well, but he's distracted a lot by doing the actual work. This dichotomy is the inspiration for the mildly self-mocking name I picked for the project; see http://tinyurl.com/kctvr.
Darshan prefers other tasks to making release announcements, whereas for me this task is one big party; that's why I'm writing in the name of us both.
Our initial wave of efforts centered on hammering 4.1 into something fun to play, but there's so much going on there, and the balance of the existing public alphas makes the game so *difficult*, that we just kept running into a brick wall. Fortunately, Darshan took Martin Read's inadvertent advice -- much more useful advice than I'll bet he ever thought! -- and suggested scrapping the 4.1-based project and working on the basis of 4.0.0 b26. I agreed, and the Stone Soup of which you're about to drink is the result of that second approach.
We got the energy, drive, and inspiration for pulling through on this project from the fact that Brent's work includes a vast amount of cool features and desperately-needed rebalances, and that it will be a great feeling if the player base gets to actually profit from those much sooner than if we all wait for Brent to get back to working intensively on Crawl. The chance to put in a number of ideas of our own that we felt would improve balance excited us too.
Brent does not know of the Stone Soup project. Darshan has tried to contact him, but Brent's only publicly available e-mail address is one that he uses as a spam trap. Hopefully the hullabaloo raised by this release will be broad and loud enough that someone who knows a reliable way to contact him, will use it. If by any chance he disapproves of the project, Darshan and I would rather call it off than see factionalism arise in r.g.r.m. Hopefully such dramatic words will be irrelevant, however.
Stone Soup will be a *rapidly* evolving project for some time to come. Future releases will have whole swaths of new features and rebalances, both from 4.1 and our own. There's a lot to look forward to if things go well. Expect features to come in topical "waves"; we call these "feature webs" during our analyses and they're a basis of our work.
Stone Soup is hungry for *you*. Two people, both of them whose Crawling time and even whose Stone Soup time is also needed for other tasks, are not at all enough to do sufficient playtesting. In return, we offer a Crawl different from and, we hope, better than any you've played before. And wherever it's *not* better -- criticize, please. Remember, the end result may well not be some "Super Stone Soup," but impact on the shape of an eventual 4.1-final. That's just fine too.
Enough small talk... Darshan and I are proud to present Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup v0.1!
* * * * * * * *
Stone Soup would not have been possible without the aid of Nat Lanza and Peter Berger, who launched the Crawl-ref project, helped with several technicalities of the Stone Soup project, and enabled us to start issuing Mac OS binaries from Day 1.
I'd also like to thank Brent Ross for the many great ideas that can be mined out of version 4.1, as well as for the ideas that went into the several already-existing versions of Crawl where he did a plurality or majority of the work. And of course I'd like to thank Linley, and can only shed a tear that he'll likely never see these lines.
* * * * * * * *
The home of Stone Soup is not Darshan's usual patch page, which will continue to hold the last released version of the Travel Patch. (It follows from this that Patch development is frozen for them moment except for critical fixes.) It is instead the Dungeon Crawl Reference project.
Changelog, Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup v0.1 vs. Dungeon Crawl 4.0.0 b26:
Items introduced with a * are verbatim imports from 4.1. Items introduced with a + are modified imports from 4.1. Items introduced with a / are original work.
Items introduced with a ! have an especially strong impact on the game.
There are almost certainly items missing from this list. That's part of why this changelog isn't posted on Sourceforge yet. The other part is that I'd rather not delay the release for that. :-)
TRAVEL PATCH:
The latest version of the Travel Patch is pre-integrated into Stone Soup.
MAGIC
!* Enhancer staves boost spell power only, not success rates. !* Sif Muna appreciates spell skill training, not mere spellcasting. !/ Monster positions provided by Detect Creatures are inexact, with accuracy raisable through Divinations skill. / Casting Detect Creatures clears previous detected positions.
* New spell: Chain Lightning. Level 8. Book of Annihilations. * Orb of Electrocution is now but a ghost in the source.
* Borgnjor's Revivification is level 5, was 6. * Shadow Creatures is level 6, was 5. !+ Silence is level 5, was 3. * Simulacrum is level 6, was 7. !+ Controlled Blink is level 8, was 4.
RELIGION
* You no longer lose piety for the death of TSO-summoned Daevas. * TSO's lightning-bolt invocation has been replaced with Cleansing Flame (a ranged, targeted ball; unique in that it only hurts evil beings). !* Sif Muna: see Magic above. !* The 4.0.0 piety gain/loss functions have been replaced with those from 4.1. The intended behavior for piety gain/loss is as before except where otherwise noted, but such a drastic technical change means that, despite the testing we've done before this release, there may still be bugs. Keep an eye on piety behavior as you play this release, and try to use a variety of gods to maximize the testing ground we can cover.
COMBAT -- DEFENSE
+ Shields provide somewhat better protection (both melee and missile) than before. + Shield skill's effects are more powerful. + Shields have a wider (and cooler) selection of egos available.
COMBAT -- MISSILE OFFENSE
* "Hillbilly Sting" made useless. (If you don't know, you don't need to know.) !+ Missile weapon speeds much more variable, in missile experts' favor. !+ Missile skill bonuses now multipliers, not additives. + General (and painful, and probably still buggy) import of as much 4.1 missile mechanics as feasible
ITEMS -- MISSILE
!/ New needle type -- curare-tipped needles. Effect same as sticking victim in the cloud from a Corpse Rot. In short, curare-tipped needles kill things dead. Expect a nerf soon; enjoy the current mechanics while they last. :-) !* New bow type -- longbow. !* New missile weapon ego -- velocity. (Like slicing/chopping/piercing, but for missile weapons.) * Of Speed ego nerfed for missile weapons.
ITEMS -- DEFENSIVE MELEE
+ Armour properties brought over from itemprop.cc (except for studded leather armours -- they were less work to abandon for now than to import). Pay close attention, especially on the low end. + Shields -- see COMBAT -- DEFENSE
ITEMS -- OFFENSIVE MELEE
!+ The weapon properties in 4.1's itemprop.cc have been adopted in every feasible way. (It was easier to keep them verbatim than to twiddle them.) "Every feasible way" refers to our inability to handle that source file's Size and Handedness information as intended, as the 4.1 size and handedness systems aren't implemented. EXPECT POORER ACCURACY THAN YOU'D EXPECT. :-) + The new weapons introduced in 4.1's itemprop.cc are, uh, introduced.
"Double" handedness was converted to ordinary 2-handedness during the import.
ITEMS -- EVOCATIONS
!+ Rods have been completely reworked. Rods (except Striking) now have what are called "charges." Each use of a rod spell costs a number of charges equal to its spell level. Rods auto-recharge, both when wielded and when in your backpack, although the rate is dramatically faster when the rod is wielded. Charging costs 1 MP on any turn when it occurs. Charges are shown when a rod is wield-insta-ID'd. Max charges are 17; this may be too kind to the player, so try to take an honest look at this as you go about using rods. Max charges in the wild are 14. A scroll of recharging can raise a rod's max charges. !* Evocations skill no longer can be the determiner for your max MP. / Trying to use a rod of striking without any mana no longer confuses you.
MONSTERS
+ Deep Elf Annihilators and the 2 "red" Naga types can cast Poison Arrow -- poison resistance halves damage but doesn't make you immune.
* * * * * * *
KNOWN BUGS:
* Spell orders in spellbooks don't yet reflect new costs. * Monster orcs not reliably getting orcish weapons.
I'd also like to clarify the relation of Stone Soup to crawl-ref. crawl-ref trunk is official 4.0.0 beta 26 + code & makefile cleanup by Nat Lanza + the travel patch. Stone Soup is a branch of the crawl-ref project.
Stone Soup currently lacks the Inscriptions patch, but we're working on that (and Haran has agreed to join us in working on crawl-ref and Stone Soup, hurray!).
-- Darshan Shaligram <scinti...@gmail.com> Deus vult
erisdiscordia wrote: > Changelog, Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup v0.1 vs. Dungeon Crawl 4.0.0 b26:
v0.1 Changelog Errata 1
- means "change reversed." :-) * means 4.1 change imported verbatim.
MAGIC
- Darshan ultimately decided to leave the cost of Shadow Creatures unchanged (at 5).
RELIGION
* Once per game, TSO will convert a wielded demon blade into a Blessed Blade if you pray on an altar. * Once per game, Zin will convert a wielded mace or great mace into a [null | great] mace of disruption if you pray on an altar.
"erisdiscordia" <e...@sky.cz> writes: >In the past months, in secret so as not to risk raising any ruckus that >wouldn't be followed by actual results, Darshan and I have been >cooperating on a project to bring the Crawl-playing public many new >features, and especially our favorite features of 4.1 alpha, inside of >a game that's actually fun to play.
Awesome. I haven't tried it yet, as I'm currently working on another ADOM ultra ending, but this sounds great.
Yum, this soup looks extremely tasty! :-) Can't await killing off my current Centaur and get some fresh meal! Currently on Vault:8, I suppose either to die or escape tonight...
> In the past months, in secret so as not to risk raising any ruckus that > wouldn't be followed by actual results, Darshan and I have been > cooperating on a project to bring the Crawl-playing public many new > features, and especially our favorite features of 4.1 alpha, inside of > a game that's actually fun to play.
I'm the first to say thanks! Thank you Darshan, thank you Erik! [Minor snipe: 4.1 can be fun to play. I mean, also handcuffs can be fun :]
> We got the energy, drive, and inspiration for pulling through on this > project from the fact that Brent's work includes a vast amount of cool > features and desperately-needed rebalances, and that it will be a great > feeling if the player base gets to actually profit from those much > sooner than if we all wait for Brent to get back to working intensively > on Crawl. The chance to put in a number of ideas of our own that we > felt would improve balance excited us too.
Good ideas, I hope :)
> Stone Soup is hungry for *you*. Two people, both of them whose Crawling > time and even whose Stone Soup time is also needed for other tasks, are > not at all enough to do sufficient playtesting. In return, we offer a > Crawl different from and, we hope, better than any you've played > before. And wherever it's *not* better -- criticize, please. Remember, > the end result may well not be some "Super Stone Soup," but impact on > the shape of an eventual 4.1-final. That's just fine too.
In case I spot here glimpses of exchanging Brent's dictatorial approach with a more democratic one - my bias is somewhat on Brent's side. Let me explain: There will be many nifty, not-so-nifty, cool or important ideas to come, many of them incompatible to other (or your) ideas. So it is urgent that you value design choices higher than features. (IMO, the Nethack devteam failed precisely at this, perhaps because they are a _team_, so that lowest common denominator YANIs pass the check, but radical changes won't.) Of course, it would have helped if Brent had explain the overall design he had in mind.
> And of course I'd like to thank Linley, and can only shed a tear that he'll likely never see these
lines.
Why is this?
> Changelog, Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup v0.1 vs. Dungeon Crawl 4.0.0 b26:
> Items introduced with a * are verbatim imports from 4.1. > Items introduced with a + are modified imports from 4.1. > Items introduced with a / are original work.
> Items introduced with a ! have an especially strong impact on the game. > The latest version of the Travel Patch is pre-integrated into Stone > Soup.
Hurray! I honestly think that there might be need of an 'annotated crawl options file'. Maybe I'll make one.
> !* Enhancer staves boost spell power only, not success rates. > !* Sif Muna appreciates spell skill training, not mere spellcasting. > !/ Monster positions provided by Detect Creatures are inexact, > with accuracy raisable through Divinations skill.
Triple hurray!
> !+ Controlled Blink is level 8, was 4.
Very good. What was the 4.1 level? (Not that I could get a Warper going in 4.1 :)
> !* The 4.0.0 piety gain/loss functions have been replaced with those > from 4.1. The intended behavior for piety gain/loss is as before > except where otherwise noted, but such a drastic technical change > means that, despite the testing we've done before this release, > there may still be bugs. Keep an eye on piety behavior as you play > this release, and try to use a variety of gods to maximize the > testing ground we can cover.
Is this one of the places where complex code created it's own gameplay?
> + Shields provide somewhat better protection (both melee and missile) > than before. > + Shield skill's effects are more powerful. > + Shields have a wider (and cooler) selection of egos available.
This reflects what I've grown to love from 4.1. I presume you down-pitched the effects a bit?
> * "Hillbilly Sting" made useless. > (If you don't know, you don't need to know.)
Very good.
> !+ Missile weapon speeds much more variable, in missile experts' favor. > !+ Missile skill bonuses now multipliers, not additives. > + General (and painful, and probably still buggy) import of as > much 4.1 missile mechanics as feasible
Actually, in 4.1 I saw much more ammunition and it also came in many flavors (tons of runed arrows, glowing stones etc.) Do you keep this? It should make rangers a non-masochist option.
BTW, another thing I noticed was that quite a few 'glowing' items were actually cursed. Superstition or science put into code?
> !/ New needle type -- curare-tipped needles. > Effect same as sticking victim in the cloud from a Corpse Rot. > In short, curare-tipped needles kill things dead. > Expect a nerf soon; enjoy the current mechanics while they last. :-)
This is the new 'poison needle'?
> !+ The weapon properties in 4.1's itemprop.cc have been adopted > in every feasible way. > (It was easier to keep them verbatim than to twiddle them.) > "Every feasible way" refers to our inability to handle that > source file's Size and Handedness information as intended, > as the 4.1 size and handedness systems aren't implemented. > EXPECT POORER ACCURACY THAN YOU'D EXPECT. :-)
Cool! I really like the handedness system. Also the strenth requirement do add to the game, I think. Even more important, the poor accuracy keeps you on track (so no switching to the very first great sword). Another useful change.
> + Deep Elf Annihilators and the 2 "red" Naga types can cast > Poison Arrow -- poison resistance halves damage > but doesn't make you immune.
Absolutely necessary. I take it that you remove the triple resistance from 4.1?
Did you keep the interface additions of 4.1?
Tons of thanks again. Every one of you gets an Orb for free! David
On 19 Sep 2006 04:02:32 -0700, "erisdiscordia" <e...@sky.cz> tried to confuse everyone with this message:
>In the past months, in secret so as not to risk raising any ruckus that >wouldn't be followed by actual results, Darshan and I have been >cooperating on a project to bring the Crawl-playing public many new >features, and especially our favorite features of 4.1 alpha, inside of >a game that's actually fun to play.
>The setup is simple: Darshan does the actual work, and I kibitz. :-) >That is, I write analyses of various mechanisms that exist in 4.0, that >exist in 4.1, that could exist in Stone Soup, and that I've had the >chance to try out within Stone Soup, and I propose new ones as well. >And I playtest. Darshan does all this as well, but he's distracted a >lot by doing the actual work. This dichotomy is the inspiration for the >mildly self-mocking name I picked for the project; see >http://tinyurl.com/kctvr.
In Russia this tale is called Axe Porridge. Interesting that Crawl features both axes and porridge!
As for the game, in the first attempt I found Gold Dragon Armor at D:1, but then died on D:2, stuck between jackal pack and giant cockroach (PC was an Elf Summoner). I hope that such drops are much rarer than I think they are :)
-- |Don't believe this - you're not worthless ,gr---------.ru |It's us against millions and we can't take them all... | ue il | |But we can take them on! | @ma | | (A Wilhelm Scream - The Rip) |______________|
> Actually, in 4.1 I saw much more ammunition and it also came in many > flavors (tons of runed arrows, glowing stones etc.) Do you keep this? > It should make rangers a non-masochist option.
That's one of the very few things I don't like at all in 4.0.1. Flavoured ammo would be great if it wouldn't include the possibility of e.g. cursed ammo with negative enchantments (in case you didn't notice). High enchanted ammo (except stones) are already available in b26 and pretty easy to detect without using a ?oID. With "detection" I mean you can determine whether the ammo is enchanted or not (but not how much it is enchanted). In 4.0.1, since negative enchantments are possible now, there's suddenly a need for IDing your ammo. In my eyes that feels like one step into the right direction (flavoured ammo in general) and then 2 steps back again. Negative enchantments for ammo I could only accept if ?oID really would grow on trees or if there would be some sort of bandish pseudo-ID mechanism (e.g. dependent on Throwing skill).
pl...@zio.mathematik.hu-berlin.de writes: > erisdiscordia schrieb: >> In the past months, in secret so as not to risk raising any ruckus >> that wouldn't be followed by actual results, Darshan and I have >> been cooperating on a project to bring the Crawl-playing public >> many new features, and especially our favorite features of 4.1 >> alpha, inside of a game that's actually fun to play. > I'm the first to say thanks! > Thank you Darshan, thank you Erik!
This release is mostly a case of "Thank you, Brent". We've ripped off his ideas and shamelessly bastardised them as we saw fit. :-)
(Oh, and the use of "we" in the paragraphs below is not the royal We. Except in some cases. Only one or two, honest. :-))
> [Minor snipe: 4.1 can be fun to play. I mean, also handcuffs can be fun > :]
Yes, if you've done a lot of 4.1, stone soup won't feel quite so new and exciting, because it's genetically much closer to Crawl 4.0 than 4.1. The closeness to 4.0 should make it more fun, though.
>> The chance to put in a number of ideas of our own that we felt >> would improve balance excited us too. > Good ideas, I hope :)
All our ideas are good, even if we have to redefine "good" in the process. :-)
> In case I spot here glimpses of exchanging Brent's dictatorial > approach with a more democratic one - my bias is somewhat on Brent's > side. Let me explain: There will be many nifty, not-so-nifty, cool > or important ideas to come, many of them incompatible to other (or > your) ideas.
Oh, definitely. This isn't a free-for-all. We choose ideas we think make sense, but we're ready to be convinced into liking new ideas, and Erik is always ready to justify existing ideas. :-)
> Of course, it would have helped if Brent had explain the overall > design he had in mind.
I think the 4.1 code explains his overall design pretty well... The only reason we didn't base Stone Soup directly on 4.1 is that getting a balanced, playable game out of 4.1 would require a lot of effort. A Brent-Rossesque effort, even. I've tried, and I don't have the time or energy to do that.
Using 4.0 as the baseline means it's relatively easy to quantify the changes we're making to the game balance as we go, and prevent the balance from going utterly kablooey, AND we can do it without spending more than 6-8 hours of effort a week on Crawl.
>> And of course I'd like to thank Linley, and can only shed a tear >> that he'll likely never see these lines. > Why is this?
Linley no longer follows Crawl development. Maybe he still reads rgrmisc, though; who knows?
>> !+ Controlled Blink is level 8, was 4. > Very good. What was the 4.1 level? (Not that I could get a Warper > going in 4.1 :)
6. But 4.1's Controlled Blink is a weakened version of 4.0's. Stone Soup's controlled blink is 4.0's controlled blink priced more (un)reasonably.
>> !* The 4.0.0 piety gain/loss functions have been replaced with those >> from 4.1. The intended behavior for piety gain/loss is as before >> except where otherwise noted, but such a drastic technical change >> means that, despite the testing we've done before this release, >> there may still be bugs. > Is this one of the places where complex code created it's own > gameplay?
Not in this case, but the 4.1 religion code is so much cleaner (and not damaging to balance) that it seemed like a good import.
>> + Shields provide somewhat better protection (both melee and missile) >> than before. >> + Shield skill's effects are more powerful. >> + Shields have a wider (and cooler) selection of egos available. > This reflects what I've grown to love from 4.1. I presume you > down-pitched the effects a bit?
Stone Soup shields are only analogous to 4.1's. We've tried to achieve a similar effect, but there's no common code. We've been VERY wary of importing 4.1 combat code directly because Brent rewrote/reworked pretty much every combat mechanic in 4.1 - spellcasting, shields, melee combat, unarmed combat, auxiliary unarmed, ranged combat, armour calculations.
It's really difficult to maintain game balance when the underlying code is all-new. (Mind you, the 4.1 code is very clean and modular, but it's still nigh impossible to rebalance the whole works.)
Back on shields - note also that monsters cannot use shields (yet) in Stone Soup.
>> !+ Missile weapon speeds much more variable, in missile experts' favor. >> !+ Missile skill bonuses now multipliers, not additives. >> + General (and painful, and probably still buggy) import of as >> much 4.1 missile mechanics as feasible > Actually, in 4.1 I saw much more ammunition and it also came in many > flavors (tons of runed arrows, glowing stones etc.) Do you keep > this? It should make rangers a non-masochist option.
Part of the flavour was from 4.1 being very happy to apply the runed/glowing description to stuff that isn't very special. :-) But no, no runed/glowing ammo in Stone Soup yet. Cosmetics weren't a priority...
Missile combat is strengthened quite a bit in Stone Soup, but again, there's little common code with 4.1 here.
> BTW, another thing I noticed was that quite a few 'glowing' items > were actually cursed. Superstition or science put into code?
That's always been the case. The glowing/runed description is to clue you into the fact that an item is unusual in some way. It may be unusually nasty. :-)
>> !+ The weapon properties in 4.1's itemprop.cc have been adopted >> in every feasible way. >> (It was easier to keep them verbatim than to twiddle them.) >> "Every feasible way" refers to our inability to handle that >> source file's Size and Handedness information as intended, >> as the 4.1 size and handedness systems aren't implemented. >> EXPECT POORER ACCURACY THAN YOU'D EXPECT. :-) > Cool! I really like the handedness system. Also the strenth > requirement do add to the game, I think. Even more important, the > poor accuracy keeps you on track (so no switching to the very first > great sword). Another useful change.
The handedness/strength systems have not been imported. The visible numbers of weapons have changed to match 4.1 (most of the changes seemed very reasonable), in that some of them have different base accuracy and damage numbers, but it's still 4.0's combat code under the hood.
>> + Deep Elf Annihilators and the 2 "red" Naga types can cast >> Poison Arrow -- poison resistance halves damage >> but doesn't make you immune. > Absolutely necessary. I take it that you remove the triple resistance > from 4.1?
Right, we've not imported multilevel poison resistance into SS.
> Did you keep the interface additions of 4.1?
Which ones are these? We've not imported anything in the way of 4.1 interface, although the Inscriptions patch has some 4.1-isms, and we're going to include it in SS...
> Tons of thanks again. Every one of you gets an Orb for free!
Thank you!
-- Darshan Shaligram <scinti...@gmail.com> Deus vult
Rubinstein <pib...@gmail.com> writes: > Darshan Shaligram wrote: >> "erisdiscordia" <e...@sky.cz> writes: >> [...] >>> The home page for Stone Soup development is: >>> http://www.sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=143991 >> And the project page (stock Sourceforge at the moment) is >> http://sourceforge.net/projects/crawl-ref/ > Yum, this soup looks extremely tasty! :-) > Can't await killing off my current Centaur and get some fresh meal! > Currently on Vault:8, I suppose either to die or escape tonight...
Centaur VPs are still too rare, go ahead and win. :-)
-- Darshan Shaligram <scinti...@gmail.com> Deus vult
Timofei Shatrov wrote: > On 19 Sep 2006 04:02:32 -0700, "erisdiscordia" <e...@sky.cz> tried to > confuse everyone with this message:
:-)
> >[I foo...] > >[...]And I playtest. Darshan does all this as well, but he's distracted a > >lot by doing the actual work. This dichotomy is the inspiration for the > >mildly self-mocking name I picked for the project; see > >http://tinyurl.com/kctvr.
> In Russia this tale is called Axe Porridge. Interesting that Crawl > features both axes and porridge!
But no potions of axe porridge! Nor bowls of soup. Yet? (Erm... CINNH.)
I actually didn't look up the example link for the Stone Soup story that I used today, until today. (I had a different one in an old "alpha" of the release announcement, but it was more work to look up that old alpha than to re-Google Stone Soup.) I'd thought that the story *was* Russian, and was surprised to learn that it's Swedish.
> As for the game, in the first attempt I found Gold Dragon Armor at D:1, > but then died on D:2, stuck between jackal pack and giant cockroach (PC > was an Elf Summoner). I hope that such drops are much rarer than I think > they are :)
Unless Darshan pulled something that he didn't tell me about (highly doubtful), that's just traditional, "beetwuntysix" item-generation rearing its wacky head on you -- the only change to item generation that really strikes me is the dividing of poisoned-needle drops into poison needles and curare-tipped needles.
Brent warned emphatically against toying lightly with the broad lines of item generation (the dividing up of an existing category like the above is a different matter), as it can get things very out of whack and make it very hard to put them back in order. So if such toying ever happens during Stone Soup development, it'll be a "web" of its own and a major project all its own.
> pl...@zio.mathematik.hu-berlin.de writes: > > erisdiscordia schrieb: > >> + Shields provide somewhat better protection (both melee and missile) > >> than before. > >> + Shield skill's effects are more powerful. > >> + Shields have a wider (and cooler) selection of egos available.
> > This reflects what I've grown to love from 4.1. I presume you > > down-pitched the effects a bit?
> Stone Soup shields are only analogous to 4.1's. We've tried to achieve > a similar effect, but there's no common code. We've been VERY wary of > importing 4.1 combat code directly because Brent rewrote/reworked > pretty much every combat mechanic in 4.1 - spellcasting, shields, > melee combat, unarmed combat, auxiliary unarmed, ranged combat, armour > calculations.
Dear Jesus! All this work to (probably) to finish. What a pity. If it's well written as you say one can probably learn from it, still?
> >> !+ Missile weapon speeds much more variable, in missile experts' favor. > >> !+ Missile skill bonuses now multipliers, not additives. > >> + General (and painful, and probably still buggy) import of as > >> much 4.1 missile mechanics as feasible
> > Actually, in 4.1 I saw much more ammunition and it also came in many > > flavors (tons of runed arrows, glowing stones etc.) Do you keep > > this? It should make rangers a non-masochist option.
> Part of the flavour was from 4.1 being very happy to apply the > runed/glowing description to stuff that isn't very special. :-) But > no, no runed/glowing ammo in Stone Soup yet. Cosmetics weren't a > priority...
I didn't primarirly that ammunition is enchanted. There seems to be much more of it around.
> > BTW, another thing I noticed was that quite a few 'glowing' items > > were actually cursed. Superstition or science put into code?
> That's always been the case. The glowing/runed description is to clue > you into the fact that an item is unusual in some way. It may be > unusually nasty. :-)
While I know this, I could swear it happened more often in 4.1 :)
> >> !+ The weapon properties in 4.1's itemprop.cc have been adopted > >> in every feasible way. > >> (It was easier to keep them verbatim than to twiddle them.) > >> "Every feasible way" refers to our inability to handle that > >> source file's Size and Handedness information as intended, > >> as the 4.1 size and handedness systems aren't implemented. > >> EXPECT POORER ACCURACY THAN YOU'D EXPECT. :-)
> > Cool! I really like the handedness system. Also the strenth > > requirement do add to the game, I think. Even more important, the > > poor accuracy keeps you on track (so no switching to the very first > > great sword). Another useful change.
> The handedness/strength systems have not been imported.
Do you think they spoil the fun?
> The visible > numbers of weapons have changed to match 4.1 (most of the changes > seemed very reasonable), in that some of them have different base > accuracy and damage numbers, but it's still 4.0's combat code under > the hood. > >> + Deep Elf Annihilators and the 2 "red" Naga types can cast > >> Poison Arrow -- poison resistance halves damage > >> but doesn't make you immune.
> > Absolutely necessary. I take it that you remove the triple resistance > > from 4.1?
> Right, we've not imported multilevel poison resistance into SS.
It seemed to me that a ring of poison resistance gives triple resistance anyway.
> > Did you keep the interface additions of 4.1?
> Which ones are these? We've not imported anything in the way of 4.1 > interface, although the Inscriptions patch has some 4.1-isms, and > we're going to include it in SS...
I mean the following: 1. The really cool messages upon self-inspection ("You feel very comfortable.." etc.) 2. The m-screen. 3. Dissection/changing armor takes turns and is displayed as such. 4. Gaining a skill level shows the level number.
These seem trivial but I think all of them make the interface more intuitive.
pl...@zio.mathematik.hu-berlin.de writes: > Darshan Shaligram schrieb: >> Stone Soup shields are only analogous to 4.1's. We've tried to >> achieve a similar effect, but there's no common code. We've been >> VERY wary of importing 4.1 combat code directly because Brent >> rewrote/reworked pretty much every combat mechanic in 4.1 - >> spellcasting, shields, melee combat, unarmed combat, auxiliary >> unarmed, ranged combat, armour calculations. > Dear Jesus! All this work to (probably) to finish. What a pity. If > it's well written as you say one can probably learn from it, still?
Ah, but it's not our intention that Stone Soup be everything that 4.1 is. 4.1 is just a convenient larder of ideas that we raided. Stone Soup is its own beast (although it looks a lot like the offspring of 4.0 and 4.1 at the moment). In particular, I've no plans of doing *all* the combat refactoring that 4.1 did. We're cherry-picking from 4.1, not reinventing it.
This is also why we changed the version. Stone Soup is at 0.1, not 4.XX (and does not attempt to be save-compatible with 4.0 or 4.1, although the save format is - at the moment - the same).
[runed/glowing ammo]
> I didn't primarirly that ammunition is enchanted. There seems to be > much more of it around.
SS has better ammo-preservation rates than 4.0, which should greatly mitigate the ran-out-of-ammo problem. In addition (this is another idea from 4.1) Okawaru gives gifts of ammunition to missile-users, which will also help. If you're not an Okawarite you might still have to scrounge around a bit, but the scene is a lot better than 4.0.
[4.1 weapon properties imported into SS]
>> The handedness/strength systems have not been imported. > Do you think they spoil the fun?
No, we just haven't gotten the needed tuits yet. I'm not a great fan of the minimum-strength concept, but the handedness and body size systems in 4.1 are good. It'll come in gradually, that's all.
>> Right, we've not imported multilevel poison resistance into SS. > It seemed to me that a ring of poison resistance gives triple > resistance anyway.
Yes, it does (in 4.1).
Multilevel poison resistance will help to make poison more relevant; we've just not yet analysed and decided where we're going in that regard.
[4.1 interface changes]
> I mean the following: > 1. The really cool messages upon self-inspection ("You feel very > comfortable.." etc.) > 2. The m-screen. > 3. Dissection/changing armor takes turns and is displayed as such. > 4. Gaining a skill level shows the level number. > These seem trivial but I think all of them make the interface more > intuitive.
Ah, I see. They'll get in. :-)
-- Darshan Shaligram <scinti...@gmail.com> Deus vult
> > >> + Shields provide somewhat better protection (both melee and missile) > > >> than before. > > >> + Shield skill's effects are more powerful. > > >> + Shields have a wider (and cooler) selection of egos available.
> > > This reflects what I've grown to love from 4.1. I presume you > > > down-pitched the effects a bit?
> > Stone Soup shields are only analogous to 4.1's. We've tried to achieve > > a similar effect, but there's no common code. We've been VERY wary of > > importing 4.1 combat code directly because Brent rewrote/reworked > > pretty much every combat mechanic in 4.1 - spellcasting, shields, > > melee combat, unarmed combat, auxiliary unarmed, ranged combat, armour > > calculations.
> Dear Jesus! All this work to (probably) to finish.
We'll be picking and choosing. For example, it's still unsure that analogs of the heavy-armour buffs will be imported at all. (Despite my recent arguing with Denis, we (Our Royal Highness, y'know) actually think that b26 heavy armour is quite good already... we just don't see the point of those particular changes.) And there are plenty of other things like that.
Still a hell of a lot to do, though.
> What a pity. If it's > well written as you say one can probably learn from it, still?
I can't learn much from it without learning slightly more fundamental things like "how to program at all in the first place" first. And Darshan -- Darshan can speak for himself on this one.
Still, 4.1's increase in cleanliness and modularity is certainly beautiful -- so beautiful that even I as a near-layman can honestly say that I perceive and appreciate it.
> > >> !+ Missile weapon speeds much more variable, in missile experts' favor. > > >> !+ Missile skill bonuses now multipliers, not additives. > > >> + General (and painful, and probably still buggy) import of as > > >> much 4.1 missile mechanics as feasible
> > > Actually, in 4.1 I saw much more ammunition and it also came in many > > > flavors (tons of runed arrows, glowing stones etc.) Do you keep > > > this? It should make rangers a non-masochist option.
> > Part of the flavour was from 4.1 being very happy to apply the > > runed/glowing description to stuff that isn't very special. :-) But > > no, no runed/glowing ammo in Stone Soup yet. Cosmetics weren't a > > priority...
> I didn't primarirly that ammunition is enchanted. There seems to be > much more of it around.
4.1 *does* have more ammo. However, Brent's warned against toying with item generation convinced us *not* to open that can of worms in the course of preparing version 0.1 just for the sake of greater ammo generation. And in any case meanwhile, since the time of my whinings that ammo was in too short supply -- the inspiration for Brent's change -- I've come to the conclusion that that's an early-game problem only.
However (yep, more changelog errata -- crap), Okie now gifts you ammo if your highest skill if a missile skill. So if you're *really* worried you'll run out of ammo, Okie's the way to go.
> > > BTW, another thing I noticed was that quite a few 'glowing' items > > > were actually cursed. Superstition or science put into code?
> > That's always been the case. The glowing/runed description is to clue > > you into the fact that an item is unusual in some way. It may be > > unusually nasty. :-)
> While I know this, I could swear it happened more often in 4.1 :)
It does: in 4.1, it happens not only for weapons and armor, but also for ammo, which can also have minuses instead of just pluses. We don't see that change as something that enriches Crawl, and we won't be importing it.
> > >> !+ The weapon properties in 4.1's itemprop.cc have been adopted > > >> in every feasible way. > > >> (It was easier to keep them verbatim than to twiddle them.) > > >> "Every feasible way" refers to our inability to handle that > > >> source file's Size and Handedness information as intended, > > >> as the 4.1 size and handedness systems aren't implemented. > > >> EXPECT POORER ACCURACY THAN YOU'D EXPECT. :-)
> > > Cool! I really like the handedness system. Also the strenth > > > requirement do add to the game, I think. Even more important, the > > > poor accuracy keeps you on track (so no switching to the very first > > > great sword). Another useful change.
> > The handedness/strength systems have not been imported.
> Do you think they spoil the fun?
No. We [1] don't have an opinion (or more precisely, a set of opinion on the set of them) yet. We had to find a balance between having enough changes to justify a first public release, and granting ourselves the pleasure of making said release. Forming our opinions takes time and energy, :-) and the handedness/strength systems haven't received that investment yet, although I do have plenty of "proto-opinions" swimming in my head, and doubtlessly Darshan does too.
[1] (Darshan and I actually can speak somewhat as a hivemind, as we've been in pretty intense communication regarding what features/ideas we do/don't like, and each of us has convinced the other of quite a few things with which we didn't originally agree; in fact, none of the changes or lacks of changes have occurred, as far as I recall, without us having reached a consensus.)
> > The visible > > numbers of weapons have changed to match 4.1 (most of the changes > > seemed very reasonable),
I concur, by the way.
> > in that some of them have different base > > accuracy and damage numbers, but it's still 4.0's combat code under > > the hood.
Incremental implementation is very important, as if we make a mistake, it makes it much easier to narrow down where it was. The sheer vastness of the changes to the combat, spellcasting, and hurt-the-PC code and the tokens (weapons, etc.) that got plugged into them were what made it such a brick wall to figure why it was so broken.
> > >> + Deep Elf Annihilators and the 2 "red" Naga types can cast > > >> Poison Arrow -- poison resistance halves damage > > >> but doesn't make you immune.
> > > Absolutely necessary. I take it that you remove the triple resistance > > > from 4.1?
> > Right, we've not imported multilevel poison resistance into SS.
There are no plans to do so for the moment, either -- at least not to the degree seen in 4.1. Although the basic idea of making resistance more important and ideally making the number of levels more important is nice, the conception there is in our opinion so uselessly player-hostile as to be almost unrecyclable, and in order to build something from the ground up, we'd have to be more passionate about it than we are about creating relevance for multilevel poison resistance and increasing relevance for poison resistance, beneficial though those things would be.
> > > Did you keep the interface additions of 4.1?
> > Which ones are these? We've not imported anything in the way of 4.1 > > interface, although the Inscriptions patch has some 4.1-isms, and > > we're going to include it in SS...
> I mean the following: > 1. The really cool messages upon self-inspection ("You feel very > comfortable.." etc.)
Not in, as you'll immediately notice. I *adore* the 4.1 messages for @, but I don't know Darshan's opinion; we haven't discussed them yet. And remember, we both adore a lot of stuff, and the time of both of us is finite. :-)
> 2. The m-screen.
I mildly like it; I don't know Darshan's opinion. It does follow a principle (out of a whole set of principles) that we've come to consensus on -- avoid artificial advantages for old hands over newbies. Phrased differently and from a different angle: promote unspoiled discoverability.
> 3. Dissection/changing armor takes turns and is displayed as such.
Yuck. Darshan?
> 4. Gaining a skill level shows the level number.
I mildly like it, but it doesn't help any Big Principles or fix any balance problem, just a bell and whistle.
> These seem trivial but I think all of them make the interface more > intuitive.
Strangely, I find it hard to decide whether an interface feature is "intuitive" or not. Again, I *am* big on the "unspoiled discoverability" thing, though. (I'll probably prod Darshan on better exposing armour's membership in Heavy or Light again soon. Separately from these lines here, as I can't expect him to pore over my every word in rgrm.)
erisdiscordia wrote: > In the past months, in secret so as not to risk raising any ruckus that > wouldn't be followed by actual results, Darshan and I have been > cooperating on a project to bring the Crawl-playing public many new > features, and especially our favorite features of 4.1 alpha, inside of > a game that's actually fun to play.
> The setup is simple: Darshan does the actual work, and I kibitz. :-) > That is, I write analyses of various mechanisms that exist in 4.0, that > exist in 4.1, that could exist in Stone Soup, and that I've had the > chance to try out within Stone Soup, and I propose new ones as well. > And I playtest. Darshan does all this as well, but he's distracted a > lot by doing the actual work. This dichotomy is the inspiration for the > mildly self-mocking name I picked for the project; see > http://tinyurl.com/kctvr.
> Darshan prefers other tasks to making release announcements, whereas > for me this task is one big party; that's why I'm writing in the name > of us both.
> Our initial wave of efforts centered on hammering 4.1 into something > fun to play, but there's so much going on there, and the balance of the > existing public alphas makes the game so *difficult*, that we just kept > running into a brick wall. Fortunately, Darshan took Martin Read's > inadvertent advice -- much more useful advice than I'll bet he ever > thought! -- and suggested scrapping the 4.1-based project and working > on the basis of 4.0.0 b26. I agreed, and the Stone Soup of which you're > about to drink is the result of that second approach.
> We got the energy, drive, and inspiration for pulling through on this > project from the fact that Brent's work includes a vast amount of cool > features and desperately-needed rebalances, and that it will be a great > feeling if the player base gets to actually profit from those much > sooner than if we all wait for Brent to get back to working intensively > on Crawl. The chance to put in a number of ideas of our own that we > felt would improve balance excited us too.
That's great, thanks guys.
> not at all enough to do sufficient playtesting. In return, we offer a > Crawl different from and, we hope, better than any you've played > before. And wherever it's *not* better -- criticize, please. Remember, > the end result may well not be some "Super Stone Soup," but impact on > the shape of an eventual 4.1-final. That's just fine too.
Have you thought about improving Zin's angels somehow? Maybe make them heal the player sometimes?
Darshan Shaligram wrote: > pl...@zio.mathematik.hu-berlin.de writes: > > Darshan Shaligram schrieb: > [4.1 weapon properties imported into SS] > >> The handedness/strength systems have not been imported.
> > Do you think they spoil the fun?
> No, we just haven't gotten the needed tuits yet. I'm not a great fan > of the minimum-strength concept, [...]
I'm a minor fan, by the way. But the whole situation is ironic. I *personally* feel that strength is not important enough in b26. AFAICS, Brent *personally* felt the same way, thus the minimum strength concept. Meanwhile, the player community has, errr, strongly encouraged newbies to stress strength over dexterity all the while, despite my occasional whining that they're wrong, wrong, wrong! :-) So... who's right, the dynasty of benevolent dictators, or the masses? :-D
> Multilevel poison resistance will help to make poison more relevant; > we've just not yet analysed and decided where we're going in that > regard.
Hmm, split personality disorder in the hivemind! :-D
At this rate, we're gonna have to start ICQing or something. (Yuck, though -- *kidding* on that one. I love ICQ, but it's not the way to go for our discussions; they need the superior average quality of archiving provided by e-mail clients.)
Denis wrote: > > not at all enough to do sufficient playtesting. In return, we offer a > > Crawl different from and, we hope, better than any you've played > > before. And wherever it's *not* better -- criticize, please. Remember, > > the end result may well not be some "Super Stone Soup," but impact on > > the shape of an eventual 4.1-final. That's just fine too.
> Have you thought about improving Zin's angels somehow? Maybe make them > heal the player sometimes?
We haven't. Historically, the level of complaints regarding the Good Gods has been:
Ely -- none, or if anything he's been called overpowered; Zin -- very few; TSO -- countless.
Brent's changes reflected that history, and since we essentially agreed with his decisions, we stole them almost feature for feature.
So, what *is* in for Zin? I think he's unbothered by the death of creatures summoned by his invocations -- I'll have to check, and that'll be more errata :-/. He disruptifies maces. And that's it. Do you think he'll be left in the lurch in the current state?
Would you like to volunteer to play a few Stone Soup priests? :-)
> > Stone Soup is hungry for *you*. Two people, both of them whose Crawling > > time and even whose Stone Soup time is also needed for other tasks, are > > not at all enough to do sufficient playtesting. In return, we offer a > > Crawl different from and, we hope, better than any you've played > > before. And wherever it's *not* better -- criticize, please. Remember, > > the end result may well not be some "Super Stone Soup," but impact on > > the shape of an eventual 4.1-final. That's just fine too.
> In case I spot here glimpses of exchanging Brent's dictatorial approach > with a more democratic one - my bias is somewhat on Brent's side. Let > me explain: There will be many nifty, not-so-nifty, cool or important > ideas to come, many of them incompatible to other (or your) ideas. So > it is urgent that you value design choices higher than features. (IMO, > the Nethack devteam failed precisely at this, perhaps because they are > a _team_, so that lowest common denominator YANIs pass the check, but > radical changes won't.) Of course, it would have helped if Brent had > explain the overall design he had in mind.
Darshan and I have discussed the same issue in depth, and (hope you don't mind my noting this, Darshan) Darshan strongly pushed for us to go the benevolent-dictator route. I was originally very against it and still am somewhat against it, but I saw and see his point, one which you expressed very well in the above paragraph, and we basically settled on it. I do however still refuse to completely ignore the need to solicit input and the need to listen to all inputs. The main meaning of the benevolent-dictator principle for me is that in the end, Darshan, Haran, and I, like and implement what we like and implement, even if they conflict with zee masses, *provided* that there's been enough opportunity for zee masses to present their arguments.
> > The latest version of the Travel Patch is pre-integrated into Stone > > Soup.
> Hurray! I honestly think that there might be need of an 'annotated > crawl options file'. Maybe I'll make one.
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I'm liking it already. :-)
> Very good. What was the 4.1 level? (Not that I could get a Warper going > in 4.1 :)
Warpers may well become quite popular in Stone Soup -- so far, SS's archers are at a risk of, if anything, being overpowered, and non-Spriggan warpers have always essentially been an archery class (but were crippled in b26 by comprising nothing but skills that were nigh-useless for Killing Things, unlike hunters, who at least had some melee skill to fall back on.)
> > !/ New needle type -- curare-tipped needles. > > Effect same as sticking victim in the cloud from a Corpse Rot. > > In short, curare-tipped needles kill things dead. > > Expect a nerf soon; enjoy the current mechanics while they last. :-)
> This is the new 'poison needle'?
Nope, they exist alongside poison needles. Note that, as a natural result of starting from the "miasma" (Corpse Rot) mechanic, they're much more broadly usable than poisoned needles.
The principle behind introducing them is to keep Darts skill relevant until later in the game -- Darts skill in Stone Soup should peter out around the same time as Venom Magic Skill at the *earliest*.
> > !+ The weapon properties in 4.1's itemprop.cc have been adopted > > in every feasible way. > > (It was easier to keep them verbatim than to twiddle them.) > > "Every feasible way" refers to our inability to handle that > > source file's Size and Handedness information as intended, > > as the 4.1 size and handedness systems aren't implemented. > > EXPECT POORER ACCURACY THAN YOU'D EXPECT. :-)
> Cool! I really like the handedness system. Also the strenth requirement > do add to the game, I think. Even more important, the poor accuracy > keeps you on track (so no switching to the very first great sword). > Another useful change.
That's precisely why I like them. I should have noted them in the first place, but I wasn't sure that was a hivemind opinion and I didn't feel like expressing anything less. :-)
> Tons of thanks again. Every one of you gets an Orb for free!
Free orbs are no fun. Wish me instead an earned one in the next few days -- I have an ersatz Paladin who'll need all the best wishes he can get. Not for any special reason, mind you; the mere fact that this is Crawl we're talking about it enough. (Keep in mind that all my incredible wins are vastly more a product of dying and retrying than they are of some Marvin-like skill. :-D)
> > > not at all enough to do sufficient playtesting. In return, we offer a > > > Crawl different from and, we hope, better than any you've played > > > before. And wherever it's *not* better -- criticize, please. Remember, > > > the end result may well not be some "Super Stone Soup," but impact on > > > the shape of an eventual 4.1-final. That's just fine too.
> > Have you thought about improving Zin's angels somehow? Maybe make them > > heal the player sometimes?
> We haven't. Historically, the level of complaints regarding the Good > Gods has been:
> Ely -- none, or if anything he's been called overpowered; > Zin -- very few; > TSO -- countless.
:) I have no complaints about TSO, but Zin is uneven, holy word is great, angels are poor. Maybe its fine that way though.
> Would you like to volunteer to play a few Stone Soup priests? :-)
Was looking forward to trying the cleansing flame, but I'll see what I can do :)
*WOW!* You're the best. ('You' being you and Darshan, and, I 'spose, Haran and Brent. And, well, Linley.)
Too bad I don't have any time to playtest SS - heck, I don't have time to deal one way or another with my Hu Mo, who's been twiddling his thumbs on Vault:7 for a week or two now.
Anyway, all of that sounds great, BUT. (You saw that but, right? If there wasn't a but, I'd probably just crawl under my bed to die in peace there instead of whining about Things Gone Wrong With Stone Soup. :-)
> !* Sif Muna appreciates spell skill training, not mere > spellcasting.
This sounds like an *awfully* bad idea to me. As I said, I haven't played SS yet, but given my - admittedly limited - experience with Sif in b26 I don't like this one at all, at all. I mean, I've always had problems with Sif piety, unless I was either casting half a dozen lvl 1 spells every now and then just to keep her happy (and that goes against the grain) OR I was playing straight Conjurer (and we already have a Conjurer deity). Now, with these latest changes, it would seem to me that Sif went even further down the 'part-time spellcasters need not apply' path. And, let's face it, that sucks.
Moreover, if I got that right, even full-time time Conjurers would start having piety problems, simply because there are only so many spell skills to train, and as they near the cap, maintaining piety would get progressively harder and harder.
And I don't even mention races with poor spellcasting aptitudes, who would suddenly find Sif a much less attractive proposition.
Seriously, what were you thinking? (Scratch that - seriously, what am I missing? :-)
roy axenov wrote: > erisdiscordia wrote: > > !* Sif Muna appreciates spell skill training, not mere > > spellcasting.
> This sounds like an *awfully* bad idea to me. As I said, I > haven't played SS yet, but given my - admittedly limited - > experience with Sif in b26 I don't like this one at all, > at all. I mean, I've always had problems with Sif piety, > unless I was either casting half a dozen lvl 1 spells > every now and then just to keep her happy (and that goes > against the grain) OR I was playing straight Conjurer (and > we already have a Conjurer deity). Now, with these latest > changes, it would seem to me that Sif went even further > down the 'part-time spellcasters need not apply' path. > And, let's face it, that sucks.
It *will* suck if it's mistuned.
The second-to-last "major" character I playtested before DCSS 0.1 was Moonie, who was a "Firehunter," or "Warver," or "Conjunter," or whatever you want to call it -- his two means of destruction were Fire Magic (he left his Earth spells unlearned) and Crossbows, which he started training ASAP. He took up SM, as she obviously needed testing after the change. The test was cut short by a single-turn kill of Moonie via a 86-damage poison arrow, which is part of the reason why poison arrows in DCSS 0.1 do 4-d-19 damage instead of the original 4-d-ungodly damage. :-)
But anyway. Moonie become a mild version of a part-time spellcaster, and he did indeed have some trouble maintaining book-gift piety. So piety leak may get slowed down by another 20-30 percent in addition to the slowing Darshan already applied somewhat before the release. (However, see below -- the things hinted at below may "replace" slowed piety leak.) Uncle Sam needs *you* to give your opinion on the prudence of such a more!
Note that we may have some surprises in store for you with Sif -- just like with Stone Soup as a whole, we'd rather not say too much until we can back our words with nuclear weapons, but... we might have some surprises in store. :-)
> Moreover, if I got that right, even full-time time > Conjurers would start having piety problems, simply > because there are only so many spell skills to train, and > as they near the cap, maintaining piety would get > progressively harder and harder.
Nah, you'll always be training *something* spellish with a full-time conjurer. They'll be fine. But the part-time conjurer issue you mention is one that needs real consideration.
> And I don't even mention races with poor spellcasting > aptitudes, who would suddenly find Sif a much less > attractive proposition.
I think the design avoids distortion from that by judging based on input into spell skills, not output. But diving to know for sure would really slow down this response. Darshan?
Denis wrote: > erisdiscordia wrote: > > Denis wrote: > > > Have you thought about improving Zin's angels somehow? Maybe make them > > > heal the player sometimes?
> > We haven't. Historically, the level of complaints regarding the Good > > Gods has been:
> > Ely -- none, or if anything he's been called overpowered; > > Zin -- very few; > > TSO -- countless.
> :) I have no complaints about TSO, but Zin is uneven, holy word is > great, angels are poor. Maybe its fine that way though.
Well, Zin at least doesn't care if they die anymore.
> Was looking forward to trying the cleansing flame, but I'll see what I > can do :)
Crap, that reminds me -- Cleansing Flame isn't the only thing that hits undead/demonic only; Holy Word does too. I missed it because Cleansing Flame (rightly IMO) resolves it using the special-purpose damage type called beam_holy (OK, it's a ball not a beam, but knowing the context I can squint at that), whereas Holy Word manually handles the same issue that beam_holy handles.
When people say that, from the technical standpoint, Crawl code is crap, this is the kind of thing they're talking about. :-D
"erisdiscordia" <e...@sky.cz> writes: >> And I don't even mention races with poor spellcasting >> aptitudes, who would suddenly find Sif a much less >> attractive proposition.
> I think the design avoids distortion from that by judging based on > input into spell skills, not output. But diving to know for sure would > really slow down this response. Darshan?
I just checked - I think it currently judges based on how many points were actually trained, i.e., output.
This is trivial to change, though, if we (this is my first posting as part of 'we'...) decide to.
erisdiscordia wrote: > Enough small talk... Darshan and I are proud to present Dungeon Crawl > Stone Soup v0.1!
WOW! Weehee!!! That's hilariously awesome! A huge thank you to all who made this possible. You know, I had a feeling that you were up to something, since I thought you (Erik) were unusually quiet for quite some time :D. I'll test this right away. I could almost quote on the famous nethack quote (errr..) that said something like "Thanks for the new version! My thesis just crawled to corner and shot himself" but NO I'M NOT, I'll just play a bit this evening and work again tomorrow :D
> !/ New needle type -- curare-tipped needles. > Effect same as sticking victim in the cloud from a Corpse Rot. > In short, curare-tipped needles kill things dead. > Expect a nerf soon; enjoy the current mechanics while they last. :-)
Could you explain this a bit more, I'm all for making poison needles more effective in midgame, but I don't know what this Corpse Rot things do. So how does this differ from poisoned needles?
|
