Bow Slot
Emmanuel DEFANTI
But there is a fact that nobody has mentionned before :
In any role-playing game, spellcasters can't cast a spell if they got
an object in hand.
So, in angband, Non-spellcasters are penalized when they want to throw
a missile : Speelcasters don't lose one turn to swap from melee-weapon
to spellbook.
For that reason, I think that bow slot may be added in Angband.
An other solution could be to compell spellcaster to take speelbook in
hand when they want to cast a spell.
Ben Harrison
>Some people like the bow slot, others don't....
Some people like bows, others don't... :-)
>But there is a fact that nobody has mentionned before :
>In any role-playing game, spellcasters can't cast a spell if they got
>an object in hand.
>So, in angband, Non-spellcasters are penalized when they want to throw
>a missile : Speelcasters don't lose one turn to swap from melee-weapon
>to spellbook.
That is one of the reasons that made me consider a bow slot. Fighters
almost *require* a ranged weapon to compete with mages, and even low
level mages can benefit from such a thing. Rangers (it has been my
observation) tend to ignore there "defining" ability because it is too
annoying to have to wield the bow first.
>For that reason, I think that bow slot may be added in Angband.
>An other solution could be to compell spellcaster to take speelbook in
>hand when they want to cast a spell.
And everybody would scream bloody murder about that one... :-)
Perhaps one way to look at things is to say that the cost of casting a
spell (one turn) includes the cost of getting the spellbook, looking
up the spell, casting the spell, and putting the book away.
Likewise, for people who object to shooting an arrow with a sword in
your hand, perhaps the cost of shooting an arrow (also one turn,
though without the bow slot it can be up to three turns) includes the
cost of (temporarily) sheathing your sword, firing an arrow, and then
unsheathing your sword. One would hope that sheathing a sword would
be a *lot* faster than extracting a sword from your pack.
I am hoping that the 23'rd inventory slot will quell complaints about
"losing" a slot (taken up by the shovel). That should reduce the
current complaints about the bow slot (without reducing the praise),
and focus attention on the remaining "problem" -- the fact that, when
wielding Cubragol and a normal weapon, that you get the speed bonus of
Cubragol while bashing monsters on the head with the weapon, and that
when shooting arrows with a normal bow, you do not "lose" abilities
from your weapon like "see invisible". Personally, I think this is a
"good" thing, using arguments such as the fact the "Feanor" gives
constant bonuses, even if you are not walking around, etc. But I am
also open to suggestions about, for example, lowering the power of
Cubragol, since now it is possible for items to possess "fractional
speed bonuses", and there is no reason to make "speed" such a "all or
nothing" advantage any more. Perhaps it is time to put the (small)
speed bonus back into those artifact rings that lost them. These
issues come under the sphere of "re-establishing game balance" which
is something I feel confident will be eventually accomplished. The
current version of Angband (2.7.4) should be fast enough and stable
enough to encourage experimentation and suggestions about game
balance, while remaining unchanged for a week or more since I am
hoping that there are no major bugs in it...
Once game balance is established, and discussion has taken place about
"intelligent monster algorithms" (which appears to be one of the most
useful places to focus attention, since people think that Angband is
too easy), and such, one last major change that "needs" to occur is a
cleanup of the "monster code" in a way similar to that of the "object
code". This will be slightly more difficult since it will require
changes to the "monster recall code" as well, but it will allow the
addition of extra information to the "monster memory" if desired. For
example, I have received a patch that separates the "you have killed"
from the "your anscestors have killed" fields. And I have already put
a few patches in to clean up the hack that passes for an encoding of
the amount of treasure that a monster can drop. The monster list can
also be re-organized in a way similar to that of the object list,
allowing at least the option of adding new monsters, though personally
I do not think that is necessary.
I would also expect that something useful could be done with quests,
perhaps in such a way as to make 3000-4000 feet more interesting. One
simple extension is to allow quests to require the destruction of
multiple entities of a given race (ancient red dragon extermination)
or to allow one of the current monsters (Tiamat?) to "guard" a given
level in a way similar to Sauron at 4950 feet. It might even be
possible to install the "quest levels" that have been floating around
in the "files" folder for several years now.
--- Ben ---
Ben Harrison
This may be a long post, it is several replies deep...
Above, Roger Christman <D...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <BENH.95Ma...@linc.cis.upenn.edu>, be...@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Ben
>Harrison) says:
>>
>>>For that reason, I think that bow slot may be added in Angband.
>>>An other solution could be to compell spellcaster to take speelbook in
>>>hand when they want to cast a spell.
>>
>>And everybody would scream bloody murder about that one... :-)
>>
>>Perhaps one way to look at things is to say that the cost of casting a
>>spell (one turn) includes the cost of getting the spellbook, looking
>>up the spell, casting the spell, and putting the book away.
>>
>>Likewise, for people who object to shooting an arrow with a sword in
>>your hand, perhaps the cost of shooting an arrow (also one turn,
>>though without the bow slot it can be up to three turns) includes the
>>cost of (temporarily) sheathing your sword, firing an arrow, and then
>>unsheathing your sword. One would hope that sheathing a sword would
>>be a *lot* faster than extracting a sword from your pack.
>Umm.. make that vs
> Sheathing your sword Sheath one sword
> * Wielding your Bow *
> Firing an arrow
> * Putting thw bow back *
> Unsheathing your sword Unsheath a second sword
No, the bow is always in your left hand. The *arrow* goes in your
right hand. That is another reason to treat the "bow" in a special
way. Though as I have said before, "reality" is a weird issue.
>One of my original complaints with the bow slot was the automatic
>deletion of the Aux slot -- i.e. the implicit statement that the
>only "valid" use for the Aux slot was for a ranged weapon. Any
>other strategic use (like a second weapon or a digger) was relegated
>to the pack. Now you can use your bow for free (i.e. no time),
>but you still have to pay to use (both in time and inventory slots)
>for the alternative. I don't like the implication that my choice
>of strategies was somehow inferior.
Yes, the "bow" (but not shovels) has been made easier to use.
Likewise, it has been made easier to stack daggers (but not dragon
scale). Neither of these makes other strategies "inferior", it simply
makes alternative strategies "easier".
>As far as the making the inventory 23 slots instead of 22,
>that sounds at least a much like a hack as anything else.
>Especially considering that the choice of 22 was based on the
>sizes of people's screens. I can only guess how much "hacking"
>would have gone into accommodating these smaller screens.
No, actually, the 22 slots was based on both the screen size (24
lines), the reserving of the top line for messages/prompts, and a
(badly planned) use of line 24 for listing "available commands" in
inventory/equipment mode. Having removed this "silly line" (after
all, the normal "?" command is still available), there was room for a
23rd item. And extending the pack to 24 items (to better match with
the 24 items in stores and 12 items in the equipment) allowed the use
of a "about to be dropped" item in the pack. This means that nobody
is "losing" the advantage of the "aux slot" for a shovel, as long as
they inscribe the shovel and primary weapon with "@0" or some such and
use "w0" instead of "x" or "X". The maijor change is thus the
*addition* of a bow slot, not so much the "removal" of the aux slot.
>>and focus attention on the remaining "problem" -- the fact that, when
>>wielding Cubragol and a normal weapon, that you get the speed bonus of
>>Cubragol while bashing monsters on the head with the weapon, and that
>>when shooting arrows with a normal bow, you do not "lose" abilities
>>from your weapon like "see invisible". Personally, I think this is a
>>"good" thing, using arguments such as the fact the "Feanor" gives
>>constant bonuses, even if you are not walking around, etc.
>1) You are STILL using Feanor, even if you are not walking around.
> When you are engaged in melee, you do not plant your feet firmly
> on the ground. You will be dodging blows, lunging, who-knows-
> what-else, so you will still be Actively using your boots of Feanor.
> To say that Feanor is unused while in melee would be to say that
> Dex should never factor into your AC.
Likewise, when you are resting, you are still "using" Ringil. And I
am proposing that you are also "using" the current bow. Note that in
most cases this only matters for "Cubragol", so the simplest solution
may be to reduce the power of Cubragol.
>2) Cubragol was probably originally intended to be just a very
> fast shooter. Indeed, it allowed spellcasters to cast spells
> more frequently, but in the past, it never gave you speed while
> your were in melee, which is when the plaeyr wants it most.
> Allowing it to influence melee speed is a very Significant
> change in its power, which is IMO unbalancing. Before you know it,
> someone will "compensate" by making monsters faster, which would
> make it impossible to win without it.
Well, I agree. Personally, I feel that perhaps Cubragol would be
better off as a "extra shots" + "extra might" missile launcher,
instead of a "speed booster". Or that the "speed boost" should be
lower.
>3) I've seen the counter-claim that Ringil should therefore not
> give you a speed bonus when one is NOT in melee. (i.e. when
> walking between rooms). In most of those cases, the extra
> speed really isn't a bonus, since the hallway would be just
> as empty either way. Any benefits you Do get from speed
> are offset by your increased food consumption.
Wrong. When you are running away from monsters or resting, the speed
bonus is incredible. And "fast food consumption" is a trivial
penalty. At least when the bonus pf speed is concerned.
>4) As far as using Speed benefits (of Ringil or Cubragol) while
> casting spells, I'll table that until more people want to discuss
> the spellbook thing. For now, I'm content with the precedent.
And the wand thing. And the potion thing. And the throwing oil
thing. The only "distance" effect that takes more than one turn is in
fact the use of a "bow" in the pre-bow-slot versions. Does that seem
right? Mages may not care, but fighters sure do...
>>These issues come under the sphere of "re-establishing game balance"
>>which is something I feel confident will be eventually accomplished.
>As far as the two biggest "balance" results that concern me:
> 1) The stacking of benefits from melee and bow weapon. I'd like
> to have the stacking removed. Elsewhere I indicated a way this
> might be possible, while still preserving the bow slot.
> 2) The diminution of the other Aux slots in favor of the bow --
> more as a concern for the lower level characters. Most low-level
> success depends on the ability to swap between different weapons,
> and/or a digger. Only high level characters have the attributes
> and equipment to do nearly everything they want with a single
> melee weapon.
Well, I also agree that it should be "easier" to switch weapons. My
current theory is that putting a weapon away should take 10 energy,
wielding a new one should take 10 energy, and "switching" weapons
should take 20 energy. This would also tend to "reduce" the advantage
of the bow slot. If this is done, then the only big advantages of the
"bow slot" over a normal weapon are that the bow affects the player
stats (for artifact bows) and the player does not lose the advantages
of the main weapon while shooting and the bow is always protected from
inventory damage (but not disenchantment).
>I haven't played Angband enough to experience the high level mages
>(I'm still working on my Priest.) However, it is also my experience
>with a Gnome Mage in 2.7.3 (with an Int of "only" 18), that it is
>still not an easy game at the low level. Having to "spend time" to
>swap between a digger and a weapon (i.e. before you get STone-to-Mud)
>makes digging not worth considering. Wasn't development supposed to
>make it Harder for HIGH level characters, and NOT the low ones?
A gnome mage with an intelligence of 18 is a travesty. Would you play
a fighter with a strength of 15? I would say that 18/50 is "required".
Digging is not supposed to be something attempted when speed is an
issue. You are standing there for like 100 turns hacking through
granite. Is it any wonder that when the hole finally appears that it
takes an additional turn to "recover" from tunneling?
>Roger Christman
--- Ben ---
Brian Collett
be...@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Ben Harrison) wrote:
<deleted>
> I would also expect that something useful could be done with quests,
> perhaps in such a way as to make 3000-4000 feet more interesting. One
> simple extension is to allow quests to require the destruction of
> multiple entities of a given race (ancient red dragon extermination)
> or to allow one of the current monsters (Tiamat?) to "guard" a given
> level in a way similar to Sauron at 4950 feet. It might even be
> possible to install the "quest levels" that have been floating around
> in the "files" folder for several years now.
>
I strongly support this idea.
Roger Christman
>Roger Christman <D...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>1) You are STILL using Feanor, even if you are not walking around.
>> When you are engaged in melee, you do not plant your feet firmly
>> on the ground. You will be dodging blows, lunging, who-knows-
>> what-else, so you will still be Actively using your boots of Feanor.
>> To say that Feanor is unused while in melee would be to say that
>> Dex should never factor into your AC.
>Likewise, when you are resting, you are still "using" Ringil. And I
>am proposing that you are also "using" the current bow. Note that in
>most cases this only matters for "Cubragol", so the simplest solution
>may be to reduce the power of Cubragol.
>>3) I've seen the counter-claim that Ringil should therefore not
>> give you a speed bonus when one is NOT in melee. (i.e. when
>> walking between rooms). In most of those cases, the extra
>> speed really isn't a bonus, since the hallway would be just
>> as empty either way. Any benefits you Do get from speed
>> are offset by your increased food consumption.
>
>Wrong. When you are running away from monsters or resting, the speed
>bonus is incredible. And "fast food consumption" is a trivial
>penalty. At least when the bonus pf speed is concerned.
I guess there's a difference in which circumstances we are
imagining. When I talk about Resting in an Empty Hallway,
I'm talking about a situation where you could sit there for
10000 turns, and nothing would happen. Sure, you heal faster.
But if nothing is going to happen either way, the speed doesn't
gain you anything.
Even if there is a monster on the "other side of the wall"
that isn't using "intelligent movement", there isn't Much of
a difference. Perhaps healing while sped up will give the
monster less time to Regenerate. However, I wasn't trying to
describe that particular instance.
I was just saying that R for 500 turns is going to do the
same thing, whether Ringil hastes you or not. Similarly
speed makes no difference while running an empty hallway,
until you get within a monster's AAF, at which point you
are "almost" in melee again.
Roger Christman
PS: as far as "fast food consumption is a trivial penalty",
I have a vague recollection of your making a change to make
it less of a penalty. Perhaps my memory is faulty... :)
Roger Christman
>>An other solution could be to compell spellcaster to take speelbook in
>>hand when they want to cast a spell.
>
>And everybody would scream bloody murder about that one... :-)
>
>Perhaps one way to look at things is to say that the cost of casting a
>spell (one turn) includes the cost of getting the spellbook, looking
>up the spell, casting the spell, and putting the book away.
>
>Likewise, for people who object to shooting an arrow with a sword in
>your hand, perhaps the cost of shooting an arrow (also one turn,
>though without the bow slot it can be up to three turns) includes the
>cost of (temporarily) sheathing your sword, firing an arrow, and then
>unsheathing your sword. One would hope that sheathing a sword would
>be a *lot* faster than extracting a sword from your pack.
Umm.. make that vs
Sheathing your sword Sheath one sword
* Wielding your Bow *
Firing an arrow
* Putting thw bow back *
Unsheathing your sword Unsheath a second sword
Indeed a sheath would be fast. I would therefore claim that having
two sheaths (one on each side) would be faster than the whole bow
rigmarole. Indeed a player might wouldn't have 10 sheaths for
10 weapons, but two is far from unreasonable. Why can't my
"Aux" slot be a second sheath instead of a bow over my arm?
One of my original complaints with the bow slot was the automatic
deletion of the Aux slot -- i.e. the implicit statement that the
only "valid" use for the Aux slot was for a ranged weapon. Any
other strategic use (like a second weapon or a digger) was relegated
to the pack. Now you can use your bow for free (i.e. no time),
but you still have to pay to use (both in time and inventory slots)
for the alternative. I don't like the implication that my choice
of strategies was somehow inferior.
As far as the making the inventory 23 slots instead of 22,
that sounds at least a much like a hack as anything else.
Especially considering that the choice of 22 was based on the
sizes of people's screens. I can only guess how much "hacking"
would have gone into accommodating these smaller screens.
>I am hoping that the 23'rd inventory slot will quell complaints about
>"losing" a slot (taken up by the shovel). That should reduce the
>current complaints about the bow slot (without reducing the praise),
I've already dealt with this can of worms. :)
>and focus attention on the remaining "problem" -- the fact that, when
>wielding Cubragol and a normal weapon, that you get the speed bonus of
>Cubragol while bashing monsters on the head with the weapon, and that
>when shooting arrows with a normal bow, you do not "lose" abilities
>from your weapon like "see invisible". Personally, I think this is a
>"good" thing, using arguments such as the fact the "Feanor" gives
>constant bonuses, even if you are not walking around, etc.
1) You are STILL using Feanor, even if you are not walking around.
When you are engaged in melee, you do not plant your feet firmly
on the ground. You will be dodging blows, lunging, who-knows-
what-else, so you will still be Actively using your boots of Feanor.
To say that Feanor is unused while in melee would be to say that
Dex should never factor into your AC.
2) Cubragol was probably originally intended to be just a very
fast shooter. Indeed, it allowed spellcasters to cast spells
more frequently, but in the past, it never gave you speed while
your were in melee, which is when the plaeyr wants it most.
Allowing it to influence melee speed is a very Significant
change in its power, which is IMO unbalancing. Before you know it,
someone will "compensate" by making monsters faster, which would
make it impossible to win without it.
3) I've seen the counter-claim that Ringil should therefore not
give you a speed bonus when one is NOT in melee. (i.e. when
walking between rooms). In most of those cases, the extra
speed really isn't a bonus, since the hallway would be just
as empty either way. Any benefits you Do get from speed
are offset by your increased food consumption.
4) As far as using Speed benefits (of Ringil or Cubragol) while
casting spells, I'll table that until more people want to discuss
the spellbook thing. For now, I'm content with the precedent.
>But I am
>also open to suggestions about, for example, lowering the power of
>Cubragol, since now it is possible for items to possess "fractional
>speed bonuses", and there is no reason to make "speed" such a "all or
>nothing" advantage any more.
For those cases where Cubragol is your Only Speed item, (a situation
which I have been in), I would prefer to keep it at its current speed.
Its previous power (i.e. not effective in melee) was perfectly fine,
for reasons described above.
I have also stated elsewhere that I think speed items should only
give "significant" contributions (+10, maybe +5 and +15, but no smaller).
I see no particular problem in allowing two Speed +10 rings to stack,
since you'd have to wait an age and a day for a Speed +20.
(Assuming the current probabilities are Anything Close to 2.5.8)
>Perhaps it is time to put the (small)
>speed bonus back into those artifact rings that lost them.
I never knew any speed bonuses were added. Was this something from
one of the 2.7.x's? After all, you automatically get small speed
bonuses from Narya, et al. simply from the encumbrance recalculation.
Those small benefits ought to be sufficient.
>These issues come under the sphere of "re-establishing game balance"
>which is something I feel confident will be eventually accomplished.
As far as the two biggest "balance" results that concern me:
1) The stacking of benefits from melee and bow weapon. I'd like
to have the stacking removed. Elsewhere I indicated a way this
might be possible, while still preserving the bow slot.
2) The diminution of the other Aux slots in favor of the bow --
more as a concern for the lower level characters. Most low-level
success depends on the ability to swap between different weapons,
and/or a digger. Only high level characters have the attributes
and equipment to do nearly everything they want with a single
melee weapon.
I haven't played Angband enough to experience the high level mages
(I'm still working on my Priest.) However, it is also my experience
with a Gnome Mage in 2.7.3 (with an Int of "only" 18), that it is
still not an easy game at the low level. Having to "spend time" to
swap between a digger and a weapon (i.e. before you get STone-to-Mud)
makes digging not worth considering. Wasn't development supposed to
make it Harder for HIGH level characters, and NOT the low ones?
>I would also expect that something useful could be done with quests,
>perhaps in such a way as to make 3000-4000 feet more interesting. One
>simple extension is to allow quests to require the destruction of
>multiple entities of a given race (ancient red dragon extermination)
>or to allow one of the current monsters (Tiamat?) to "guard" a given
>level in a way similar to Sauron at 4950 feet. It might even be
>possible to install the "quest levels" that have been floating around
>in the "files" folder for several years now.
Well, my first trips below 3000' are somewhat more interesting.
I still have trouble getting used to the fact that Chaos Hounds
are Supposed to come in packs, that GWoL are NOT out of depth. etc/
It is certainly keeping me just a little on my toes.
I'd like to throw in a Caveat about the idea of "Dragon Extermination"
levels. It shouldn't just be an extension of the dragon pits,
spread out over the entire level. After all, it doesn't matter
how much resistance you have -- you can't do much when 20 dragons
breath on you for 1000 HP each. Colluin might be able to cut that
down to a total damage 2000 or so, but if I'm not mistaken, that will
still kill a Half-Troll.
As far as Quest Levels, I hope you realize that going very far
in that direction just Might make this game look more like Nethack.....
Roger Christman