[crawl] Starvation. AGAIN.
Tax
Only 1 died out of outright starvation; the other 3 died by running
out of food and trying to dive deeper in search of more.
Am I the only person who thinks that food adds nothing to the game and
should be removed entirely?
R Dan Henry
<ro...@hotmail.com> declared:
Are you playing centaurs? They can be tough to keep fed, but otherwise
it isn't that hard to stay fed. Why don't you post your current
strategy and maybe someone can help you improve it. You might try
playing kobolds: they can be several types of spell caster and are the
next easiest thing to avoid starving with (easiest is mummy, but there
you'd have to play necromancer).
--
R. Dan Henry, who is not a new AT&T Wireless customer
because they couldn't activate his phone in *4* days.
rdan...@earthlink.net
George Bush is my President, not my spokesman.
Graeme Dice
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 00:10:45 -0400, in a fit of madness Tax
<ro...@hotmail.com> declared:
>Just lost my 4th spellcaster in a row to starvation-induced death.
>Only 1 died out of outright starvation; the other 3 died by running
>out of food and trying to dive deeper in search of more.
I don't think I've ever lost a character to starvation in Crawl. Not
even a conjurer with two levels of rapid digestion and unusually fast
healing who cast crystal spear and fire storm as his major spells. All
that's necessary is to dissect every corpse that's not poisonous or
rotting, poisonous corpses if you are resistant, and carry the chunks
around with you. Whenever you get hungry eat the non-spoiled chunks.
Never eat your non-perishable rations unless you are starving or on the
run back up from the realm of Zot. Sure you get sick often, but that's
not a really serious problem.
>Am I the only person who thinks that food adds nothing to the game and
>should be removed entirely?
Food is an essential part of what makes Crawl, Crawl. Without it, you
would miss out on a lot of the flavour.
Graeme Dice
--
"I'd like to apologise for my previous comments. This constant
pedantry,
flaming, personal assaults and character assassination can get to
you sometimes. I can still hear the sound of the big egos as they
sound off across the battlefield, ringing in my ears."
-- The Ambivalent DMZ
Tax
<rdan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 00:10:45 -0400, in a fit of madness Tax
><ro...@hotmail.com> declared:
>
>>Just lost my 4th spellcaster in a row to starvation-induced death.
>>Only 1 died out of outright starvation; the other 3 died by running
>>out of food and trying to dive deeper in search of more.
>>
>>Am I the only person who thinks that food adds nothing to the game and
>>should be removed entirely?
>
>Are you playing centaurs? They can be tough to keep fed, but otherwise
>it isn't that hard to stay fed. Why don't you post your current
>strategy and maybe someone can help you improve it. You might try
>playing kobolds: they can be several types of spell caster and are the
>next easiest thing to avoid starving with (easiest is mummy, but there
>you'd have to play necromancer).
One was a mountain dwarf, one was a human, and 2 were demonspawn.
Tax
<grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Replying to the original poster, as I didn't see his message.
>
>On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 00:10:45 -0400, in a fit of madness Tax
><ro...@hotmail.com> declared:
>
>>Just lost my 4th spellcaster in a row to starvation-induced death.
>>Only 1 died out of outright starvation; the other 3 died by running
>>out of food and trying to dive deeper in search of more.
>
>I don't think I've ever lost a character to starvation in Crawl.
Every spellcaster and some fighter-types that I get to midgame are in
constant danger of starvation everywhere but the Lair and the Hive;
clearing the latter will see me through to the end of the game, but
only if I take no unnecessary side paths.
It is not often that I die of starvation directly; usually I end up
Hungry or Starving, with no food, having to fight (sans spells or
abilities) for corpsemeat, or dive too fast in search of something
edible.
This is almost always a problem in the Mines, and Elven Halls. If I
choose the Tomb over the Hive due to lack of posion resistance, it is
often an issue there too. The only time I ever visited Hell, I starved
to death there.
> Not
>even a conjurer with two levels of rapid digestion and unusually fast
>healing who cast crystal spear and fire storm as his major spells. All
>that's necessary is to dissect every corpse that's not poisonous or
>rotting, poisonous corpses if you are resistant, and carry the chunks
>around with you. Whenever you get hungry eat the non-spoiled chunks.
>Never eat your non-perishable rations unless you are starving or on the
>run back up from the realm of Zot. Sure you get sick often, but that's
>not a really serious problem.
I do this, and it is still not enough. I also seem to have an amazing
knack for getting hungry again right after my chunks rot.
>>Am I the only person who thinks that food adds nothing to the game and
>>should be removed entirely?
>
>Food is an essential part of what makes Crawl, Crawl. Without it, you
>would miss out on a lot of the flavour.
Hehe, flavour indeed. But, "desperately searching for food" is the
stuff of the working family, and dumpster-diving bums...hardly
RPG-quality ideas. It's really sad to see all these noble heroes dying
because they reached a point where they suddenly had to abandon their
best skills and slog forward as quickly as possible, minus any real
ability to fight back. Even finding a corpse or piece of food usually
leaves them Hungry and having to press on into the next area too
quickly. Sometimes the "starvation train" lasts 3 or 4 levels before I
find enough food to go back to normal strategy. Usually it is fatal.
How badly would it really upset things to remove food? Zin, Elyvilon,
and The Shining One would have to be rewritten to include meaningful
ways of gaining piety; berserk would have to maybe have an extended
Slow period afterwards...perhaps Power regen would have to be slowed a
touch.
Short of removing food, there could be other solutions...like
re-evaluating some of which monsters make you sick, or allowing
carrion to be eaten up until Full (gourmand would still be useful for
rotten stuff, and getting up to Engorged), toning down food
consumption for spellcasting/abilities/haste/berserk, toning down
basic food consumption (which IMO is WAY too high, based on the
spoilers at Lauri Vallo's site), or increasing the nutrition offered
by the various food items.
Food consumption has become this sort of 'catch-all' for penalizing
the player for all sorts of actions, and I find it unbalancing.
It has, however, inspired me to go to work on my own game.
Tax
centaur spellcaster (air elementalist). Starved to death on dungeon
level 2. :-P
R Dan Henry
<ro...@hotmail.com> declared:
>I decided to fly in the face of the advice given to me, and play a
>centaur spellcaster (air elementalist). Starved to death on dungeon
>level 2. :-P
Centaurs aren't the worst where eating habits are concerned. Try a
damned ghoul.
Tax
carrying my post, due to spammers using the nntp server I was using.
Graeme Dice
>
> Sorry to repost my own post, but apparently many news servers were not
> carrying my post, due to spammers using the nntp server I was using.
I'll reply directly to that then.
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 00:10:45 -0400, in a fit of madness Tax
> >><ro...@hotmail.com> declared:
> >>
> >>>Just lost my 4th spellcaster in a row to starvation-induced death.
> >>>Only 1 died out of outright starvation; the other 3 died by running
> >>>out of food and trying to dive deeper in search of more.
> >>
> >>I don't think I've ever lost a character to starvation in Crawl.
> >
> >Every spellcaster and some fighter-types that I get to midgame are in
> >constant danger of starvation everywhere but the Lair and the Hive;
> >clearing the latter will see me through to the end of the game, but
> >only if I take no unnecessary side paths.
> >
> >It is not often that I die of starvation directly; usually I end up
> >Hungry or Starving, with no food, having to fight (sans spells or
> >abilities) for corpsemeat, or dive too fast in search of something
> >edible.
> >
> >This is almost always a problem in the Mines, and Elven Halls. If I
> >choose the Tomb over the Hive due to lack of posion resistance, it is
> >often an issue there too. The only time I ever visited Hell, I starved
> >to death there.
I can see starving in hell, because there are no corpses there. I can't
see starving in the elven halls and the mines because almost every
single monster leaves a corpse. You can overburden yourself on food
chunks in those places.
> >> Not
> >>even a conjurer with two levels of rapid digestion and unusually fast
> >>healing who cast crystal spear and fire storm as his major spells. All
> >>that's necessary is to dissect every corpse that's not poisonous or
> >>rotting, poisonous corpses if you are resistant, and carry the chunks
> >>around with you. Whenever you get hungry eat the non-spoiled chunks.
> >>Never eat your non-perishable rations unless you are starving or on the
> >>run back up from the realm of Zot. Sure you get sick often, but that's
> >>not a really serious problem.
> >
> >I do this, and it is still not enough. I also seem to have an amazing
> >knack for getting hungry again right after my chunks rot.
Then you really must be almost spending too much time on a level, as I
can't see running out of food as a problem over the long run. It's far
better now than it was in 3.30, as food rations seem to be much more
common now.
--
"If any of you notice if something like that happened, a Wizard did it."
"But what abou-"
"Wizard"
-- Lucy Lawless as "Xena", on the Simpsons.
Arien Malec
news:3EF1F09D...@sk.sympatico.ca:
> I can see starving in hell, because there are no corpses there. I
> can't see starving in the elven halls and the mines because almost
> every single monster leaves a corpse. You can overburden yourself on
> food chunks in those places.
That wasn't the case for my deceased Demigod Fire Elementalist. He was
eating every corpse he could find, and still starved.
However, my NH instincts make me a bit nervous about eating while full and
moving while burdened. What's the effect in Crawl again?
Arien
Graeme Dice
Eating while full takes you to engorged status where you can't eat
anymore. Moving while burdened slows you down and makes you hungry
faster.
Graeme Dice
--
"Finally, the Magi performed sacrifices and set about soothing the
wind with spells, and also sacrificed to Thetis and Nereids, until
the storm died - or maybe it did so of its own accord."
-- Herodotus, The Histories
Tax
<grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Arien Malec wrote:
>>
>> Graeme Dice <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in
>> news:3EF1F09D...@sk.sympatico.ca:
>>
>> > I can see starving in hell, because there are no corpses there. I
>> > can't see starving in the elven halls and the mines because almost
>> > every single monster leaves a corpse. You can overburden yourself on
>> > food chunks in those places.
>>
>> That wasn't the case for my deceased Demigod Fire Elementalist. He was
>> eating every corpse he could find, and still starved.
>>
>> However, my NH instincts make me a bit nervous about eating while full and
>> moving while burdened. What's the effect in Crawl again?
>
>Eating while full takes you to engorged status where you can't eat
>anymore. Moving while burdened slows you down and makes you hungry
>faster.
Beign Engorged has no harmful effects, that I have seen or heard of.
Mark Mackey
Tax <ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Beign Engorged has no harmful effects, that I have seen or heard of.
It makes you slower, I believe.
--
Mark Mackey
The Association for the Advancement of Dungeon Crawling
Hints, tips and spoilers
http://www.swallowtail.org/crawl/
Lauri Vallo
> >Beign Engorged has no harmful effects, that I have seen or heard of.
>
> It makes you slower, I believe.
I couldn't find anything pointing to this. Thus, I do not believe in it. :)
Tax
wrote:
>Tax <ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 20:46:56 -0400, Tax <ro...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 01:32:43 -0600, Graeme Dice
>> ><grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>[replying to re-post, original didn't get here either]
>
>> >>I don't think I've ever lost a character to starvation in
>> >>Crawl.
>> >
>> >It is not often that I die of starvation directly; usually I
>> >end up Hungry or Starving, with no food, having to fight
>> >(sans spells or abilities) for corpsemeat, or dive too fast
>> >in search of something edible.
>
>What do you mean you dive too fast? Once a level is cleared, what
>else is there to do than go on to the next? If you don't clear
>the entire level, you might miss all those bread and meat rations
>my characters find. If you linger on a level until your food runs
>out, despite it being cleared, then that's what you do wrong.
By "dive too fast" I mean, if you are starving or almost starving with
no food, and you have to go into unexplored areas without healing up.
>>> Even finding a corpse or piece of food usually leaves them
>>> Hungry and having to press on into the next area too quickly.
>>> Sometimes the "starvation train" lasts 3 or 4 levels before I
>>> find enough food to go back to normal strategy. Usually it is
>>> fatal.
>
>I still don't understand this. What's 'go back to normal'?
If you have no food, one chunk of meat does not solve your crisis. It
puts you from starving to hungry and almost starving. You will be
starving again within 100 turns or less, so you have to keep running
for your life.
Maybe corpses should just have more chunks?
>> >How badly would it really upset things to remove food?
>
>Isn't food traditionally part of roguelikes, or even all RPGs?
>I'd find it rather odd if it weren't part of the game.
I don't think the 'futuristic' roguelikes bother with food. I can't
name a single non-roguelike RPG that deals with food. When I get
together with friends to play D&D, we certainly don't keep minutely
accurate tallies of nutrition and foodstores, nor do we contemplate
getting low-paying jobs in town so we can prevent starving until we
have enough gold and rations saved up to fill a cart, have a horse
pull it, and go adventuring again.
I think all first-person shooters should have food and starvation
coded into them, that would be fun! *Bob was fragged while standing in
line at McDonald's*
>>> ...perhaps Power regen would have to be slowed a touch.
>
>I certainly wouldn't like that.
Me either.
>>> toning down food consumption for spellcasting/abilities/haste
>>> /berserk, toning down basic food consumption (which IMO is WAY
>>> too high, based on the spoilers at Lauri Vallo's site), or
>>> increasing the nutrition offered by the various food items.
>
>Why should the game be made easier when it's you who does
>something wrong? Others don't seem to have your problem, after
>all.
heh, someone just complained, out of the blue, to the Yahoo group
about it. I don't think I'm doing anything wrong. I do not hang around
levels after exploring them completely, but I do wish to explore them
completely, and there is not enough food for spellcasters to do that.
R Dan Henry
<ro...@hotmail.com> declared:
>On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 10:07:00, Tina...@railroad.robin.de (Tina Hall)
>wrote:
>>What do you mean you dive too fast? Once a level is cleared, what
>>else is there to do than go on to the next? If you don't clear
>>the entire level, you might miss all those bread and meat rations
>>my characters find. If you linger on a level until your food runs
>>out, despite it being cleared, then that's what you do wrong.
>
>By "dive too fast" I mean, if you are starving or almost starving with
>no food, and you have to go into unexplored areas without healing up.
So eat. You ought to have food. If you don't, maybe you've been
unlucky, but if you don't as a regular thing, you're doing something
wrong.
Next time you run into trouble, post a character dump. That might help
analyze your playing style more exactly, allowing suggestions for
improvement.
>If you have no food, one chunk of meat does not solve your crisis. It
>puts you from starving to hungry and almost starving. You will be
>starving again within 100 turns or less, so you have to keep running
>for your life.
>
>Maybe corpses should just have more chunks?
Cut up more corpses. And several types of corpses *do* typically
generate multiple chunks (hobgoblins, ogres, centaurs, probably giants
although I haven't killed that many).
>I don't think the 'futuristic' roguelikes bother with food.
Alphaman does and it's the only "finished" futuristic roguelike I
know. It also requires sleep.
>heh, someone just complained, out of the blue, to the Yahoo group
>about it. I don't think I'm doing anything wrong. I do not hang around
>levels after exploring them completely, but I do wish to explore them
>completely, and there is not enough food for spellcasters to do that.
Others manage it. People complain about all sorts of things from
permadeath to "Nethack doesn't do it that way". I'm not a very good
Crawl player, but I don't have food problems often (centaur
spellcasters excepted).
Martin Read
Tax <ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snippage throughout]
>If you have no food, one chunk of meat does not solve your crisis. It
>puts you from starving to hungry and almost starving. You will be
>starving again within 100 turns or less, so you have to keep running
>for your life.
100 turns? You're doing something wrong. A chunk is worth 1000
nutrition, which is one-twelfth of the absolute maximum nutrition state
you can be at (and approximately 1/4 of a bread ration or 1/5 of a meat
ration). For a character with a sane metabolism, that's 333 turns of
food - which should be plenty of time (usually) to find something edible
to kill.
>I don't think the 'futuristic' roguelikes bother with food. I can't
>name a single non-roguelike RPG that deals with food.
I can name - because I've *played* them - over a dozen off the top of my
head. Some of them are even famous.
Food is an important part of roguelikes. It puts a clock on your
activities - you can't just wait around the dungeon forever.
>heh, someone just complained, out of the blue, to the Yahoo group
>about it. I don't think I'm doing anything wrong. I do not hang around
>levels after exploring them completely, but I do wish to explore them
>completely, and there is not enough food for spellcasters to do that.
I explore levels fully all the time with my Deep Elf Conjurers, in
search of spellbooks and potions. I rarely have any serious problem
with food - I'm rarely full, but I hit Starving maybe once in a dozen
games. Games where I find an amulet of the gourmand are wonderful, of
course :)
m.
--
\_\/_/| Martin Read - my opinions are my own. share them if you wish.
\ / | eine answeringmachine fuer letzte frage als selbstschussanlage
\/ | stuhl. letztendlich letztmalig ein hecke brennender buesche
------+ -- Einstuerzende Neubauten, "Sie"
Tina Hall
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 10:07:00, Tina...@railroad.robin.de
> (Tina Hall) wrote:
> >What do you mean you dive too fast? Once a level is cleared,
> >what else is there to do than go on to the next? If you don't
> >clear the entire level, you might miss all those bread and
> >meat rations my characters find. If you linger on a level
> >until your food runs out, despite it being cleared, then
> >that's what you do wrong.
>
> By "dive too fast" I mean, if you are starving or almost
> starving with no food, and you have to go into unexplored
> areas without healing up.
Somehow, that doesn't happen often enough that I can actually
recall doing that. Your food has to go somewhere, I can't believe
you're not meeting any edible monsters at all, as long as you can
reach unexplored areas. If you're low on Hp, you usually just
fought something, too.
> I can't name a single non-roguelike RPG that deals with food.
DSA (German RPG, computer as well as P&P), Ultima 7 (the other
Ultimas too, I guess). I can't think of one RPG where you don't
need food.
> When I get together with friends to play D&D, we certainly
> don't keep minutely accurate tallies of nutrition and
> foodstores, nor do we contemplate getting low-paying jobs in
> town so we can prevent starving until we have enough gold and
> rations saved up to fill a cart, have a horse pull it, and go
> adventuring again.
We did that in the first RPG I ever played (minus the horse), but
then had it all stolen before the adventure started. I guess the
GM must have thought us insane (but probably does so anyway).
> I think all first-person shooters should have food and
> starvation coded into them, that would be fun!
I'm not interested in that kind of game.
> >Why should the game be made easier when it's you who does
> >something wrong? Others don't seem to have your problem,
> >after all.
>
> heh, someone just complained, out of the blue, to the Yahoo
> group about it. I don't think I'm doing anything wrong. I do
> not hang around levels after exploring them completely, but I
> do wish to explore them completely, and there is not enough
> food for spellcasters to do that.
I'm playing mostly spellcasters, and as mentioned I rarely
encounter your problems, despite exploring all accessible areas,
and even running back and forth a lot (usually back to the Temple
to dump junk). I even drop off food there after a while, because
it weighs me down, and just keep some emergency rations; there
are plenty of monsters to eat.
Tina