POWDER: questions from a Crawl player
Cuboidz
that), I decided to try POWDER, since it's so freakin' popular these
days, stealing away space on r.g.r.m that belongs to Crawl (a.k.a. the
precious). POWDER seems to be advertised as a lightweight Nethack,
which is good, because Nethack could probably bear to lose a few
pounds. Heck, Nethack is the emacs of roguelikes - it is a bloated
cow, really (who ate all the pies?). Anyway, I was looking forward to
the experience.
One of the first things I've noticed, is that monsters don't storm
towards you like the suicidal maniacs they are in Crawl. Many of them
mind their own business until you gently alert them to your presence
in the room, by throwing something at their face. This was kind of
hard to get used to in the beginning, since it's not every day that
you walk into a creature's lair with noisy armour, only to watch it
frollicking about, seemingly enjoying the foul dungeon air. What is up
with this?
Another feature that would draw any Crawl players' attention, is the
ID-game - which is quite a departure from the "just try, can't die"
approach of Crawl to identifying items. I'm glad POWDER doesn't seem
to feature any shops, so I won't be subjected to Nethack-like price
ID'ing - which is the root of all evil, no doubt. Yet, I'm still
uncertain concerning some aspects of the ID-game, e.g. do randarts
automatically reveal their identity when tried on? Or: when I find out
a potion is a !poison by dipping my sword into it, and I'm left with
an empty bottle, do I have to write down that e.g. a yellow potion is
a !poison, or will the game remember that for me? *sigh* What is so
special about ID-games? I praise Crawl for it's lack of an intruding
ID-game :)
A final question: sometimes the game says something like "you know
your sword better". Where can I check my current skill level for my
sword? It doesn't seem to be listed in the character dump you get
using 'x' on yourself.
Anyway, I did enjoy POWDER, however, so congratulations, Jeff - you
have probably created the next major roguelike.
Meddyan
Cuboidz wrote:
> do randarts
> automatically reveal their identity when tried on?
Nope. You'll have to do a bit of testing to see what effects randarts
may give you. Or you can just ID them.
> Or: when I find out
> a potion is a !poison by dipping my sword into it, and I'm left with
> an empty bottle, do I have to write down that e.g. a yellow potion is
> a !poison, or will the game remember that for me?
The game will remember, things tend to auto-ID themselves if you saw
some noticable effect, so dipping a sword into a potion of posion will
auto-ID the potion of poison for future reference.
> A final question: sometimes the game says something like "you know
> your sword better". Where can I check my current skill level for my
> sword? It doesn't seem to be listed in the character dump you get
> using 'x' on yourself.
As far as I know, it just identifies the enchantment of the weapon, so
you'll know if that dagger you just threw into the face of that dragon
is -1 or +1, or just plain normal.
serg271
> One of the first things I've noticed, is that monsters don't storm
> towards you like the suicidal maniacs they are in Crawl.
It's even more than that. Monster would fight any other monster who
accidentally attacked it. Provoking fight between monster is fun. But
idle hostile monster would attack you as soon as they detect you
AFAIK. That is just their detection radius could be very small,
depending on your noise level. There are also neutral monsters wit
different types of behavior.
>
> A final question: sometimes the game says something like "you know
> your sword better". Where can I check my current skill level for my
> sword?
"you know your sword better" is *not* a skill level. It's just you
know bonus of this specific weapon - no bonus, +1, +2 etc.
Your skill level is the number of skills which this type of weapon
use. For example if you know medium, edged and parry your long sword
skill level is 3 for mlee. It shown by number of stars in the weapon
description.
Cuboidz
> Nope. You'll have to do a bit of testing to see what effects randarts
> may give you.
What exactly do you mean by "testing"? Does the game hint at the
effects, like Crawl (e.g. you feel clever)?
> The game will remember, things tend to auto-ID themselves if you saw
> some noticable effect, so dipping a sword into a potion of posion will
> auto-ID the potion of poison for future reference.
Nice, thanks.
> As far as I know, it just identifies the enchantment of the weapon, so
> you'll know if that dagger you just threw into the face of that dragon
> is -1 or +1, or just plain normal.
I guess I was way off on this one :)
Cuboidz
> It's even more than that. Monster would fight any other monster who
> accidentally attacked it. Provoking fight between monster is fun. But
> idle hostile monster would attack you as soon as they detect you
> AFAIK. That is just their detection radius could be very small,
> depending on your noise level. There are also neutral monsters wit
> different types of behavior.
Interesting ... a dungeon where the inhabitants are not all out to get
you :)
Meddyan
> On 24 mei, 10:47, Meddyan <Medd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Nope. You'll have to do a bit of testing to see what effects randarts
> > may give you.
>
> What exactly do you mean by "testing"? Does the game hint at the
> effects, like Crawl (e.g. you feel clever)?
What I meant was do something like equip it, and try to step on some
water. If you don't sink, it provides water walking. Or look to see if
it gives you warning of a monster behind a wall. Or walk onto a
teleport trap to see if it confers teleport control, etc. There are a
lot of intrinsics they may have, so you'd have to be determined to try
and examine every possibility, but unless you ID it, thats all you're
going to get.
Cuboidz
> What I meant was do something like equip it, and try to step on some
> water. If you don't sink, it provides water walking. Or look to see if
> it gives you warning of a monster behind a wall. Or walk onto a
> teleport trap to see if it confers teleport control, etc. There are a
> lot of intrinsics they may have, so you'd have to be determined to try
> and examine every possibility, but unless you ID it, thats all you're
> going to get.
Thanks, but how do you know whether an item is a randart? Do you have
to perform these experiments with every single item you find?
eilu
or you can look at yourself; it may say that you're fast or quick
(speed boots) or noisy (squeaky shoes) etc.
oeb
It will have a name.
A short sword, Whizbang
Malte Helmert
> Another feature that would draw any Crawl players' attention, is the
> ID-game - which is quite a departure from the "just try, can't die"
> approach of Crawl to identifying items. I'm glad POWDER doesn't seem
> to feature any shops, so I won't be subjected to Nethack-like price
> ID'ing - which is the root of all evil, no doubt. Yet, I'm still
> uncertain concerning some aspects of the ID-game, e.g. do randarts
> automatically reveal their identity when tried on? Or: when I find out
> a potion is a !poison by dipping my sword into it, and I'm left with
> an empty bottle, do I have to write down that e.g. a yellow potion is
> a !poison, or will the game remember that for me? *sigh* What is so
> special about ID-games? I praise Crawl for it's lack of an intruding
> ID-game :)
Once I got used to it, I found POWDER's ID mini-game actually much
*less* tedious than Crawl's. (That's mostly due to the fact that POWDER
has fewer different items, though.)
POWDER will always, without exception, tell you when something is
special (by giving it a name), so you'll only have to learn to
distinguish the base item types. And this isn't all that bad, once you
know a few basic rules. Do you want to be spoiled?
Malte
Cuboidz
wrote:
> POWDER will always, without exception, tell you when something is
> special (by giving it a name), so you'll only have to learn to
> distinguish the base item types. And this isn't all that bad, once you
> know a few basic rules. Do you want to be spoiled?
Yes! I am ready, master :)
Lim-Dul
> Interesting ... a dungeon where the inhabitants are not all out to get
> you :)
Well - it makes a lot of sense since some gods encourage you to kill
neutral creatures and some don't like a behavior like this at all. I
find it quite awesome that Jeff thought of something like that because,
hands down, it makes no sense at all in most RL-s that e.g. rats or mice
or other smaller creatures go after you as if they had the rabies.
That and a lot of other small things make POWDER really stand out from
the crowd and even if it's much simpler and doesn't take itself too
seriously it still is very "genre conscious" and quite logical in its
approach to certain things (read the description of an empty bottle - I
love it :-D).
Best regards,
Lim-Dul
Cuboidz
> That and a lot of other small things make POWDER really stand out from
> the crowd and even if it's much simpler and doesn't take itself too
> seriously it still is very "genre conscious" and quite logical in its
> approach to certain things (read the description of an empty bottle - I
> love it :-D).
POWDER's simplicity just seems like good design to me, and no game
should take itself too seriously :)
Lim-Dul
> POWDER's simplicity just seems like good design to me, and no game
> should take itself too seriously :)
Precisely. ^^
The gameplay is simple but there's a lot of depth in the fine details. I
have always stressed (and I haven't played POWDER that long - maybe a
month or two) that POWDER is immensely appealing - even to hardcore
roguelike players and I was one of them once. =)
However, I think that the best thing about POWDER is that it has been
specifically designed for portable devices. On the PC I would say it
*only* is among the best RL-s there are but on consoles like NDS it
simply is the undisputed champion. :-D
Best regards,
Lim-Dul
Malte Helmert
Ok then. This has become a long post because I tried to make it somewhat
extensive, but it's really not as bad as it looks.
This is spoily.
Books: Read them. Always identifies them, no negative effects. If it's a
really good book and you want to learn lots of things from it, you may
want to keep off actually learning skills/spells from it until you've
found a scroll of identify to find out the number of charges. However,
each book will have at least two charges, so it will always survive the
first read.
Staves: Wield them, then press "z" to see which new spells you can now
cast. In the worst case, the staff is cursed and your off-hand will be
wasted until you've got rid of the curse, but that's not too tough. Most
gods will get rid of curses on worn equipment for you once you've got
them to like you (100+ points), which is quite easy.
Headgear: The only non-mundane helmets are gold crowns, silver circlets
and feathered helms. If you have one of these, just put it on, unless
you rely on magic and don't have a way to uncurse in the short or medium
term. (Helms of draining can be nasty then, and they're usually cursed.)
You'll notice helms of draining by your loss of MP and helms of warning
by the monsters that pop up in your view. If neither of this happens,
it's a helm of telepathy.
Footwear: Sandals and iron shoes are mundane; everything else is magic.
If you have magic boots, put them on. The only bad boots are squeaky
shoes, which produce noise, and I don't find that all that bad, so
there's little danger involved. To check if you've got jump boots, try
"J"umping in a room. If it works, your boots are jump boots. To check if
you have speed boots, check if you can run faster than most monsters. If
it's neither of the two, the boots are fur-lined, water-walking, or
squeaky. There are few situations where you can easily identify these,
but since none of these is terribly good or terribly bad, it doesn't
really matter. Unless you have to cross water -- but then water-walking
boots are easy to identify.
Scrolls: All safe to read, apart from scrolls of fire, which can deal
4d5 damage (more if you're vulnerable to fire). All other scrolls have
positive effects, except in some cases when they're cursed, but that's a
risk generally worth taking. So if you're not vulnerable and have 21+
HP, just read it. (Scrolls of enchant weapon/armour can destroy your
equipment if already heavily enchanted, but that won't be the case early
in the game. Scrolls of teleport can take you into trouble, but that's
unlikely if you're in good shape.) All scrolls auto-ID, always.
Advanced tips: I usually wait until I have a bunch of stuff before
reading un-IDed scrolls, so that I don't waste a scroll of identify. One
bad thing that can happen to you is that you waste a scroll of
omnipotence on a bad weapon; if you want to avoid that, free your weapon
head before reading. But that will waste a potential scroll of enchant
weapon, so I usually don't bother, except when there are only few
scrolls left to identify and I already know scrolls of enchant weapon.
(Scrolls of omnipotence are extremely rare -- actually, I've never seen
one.)
Potions: Many of these can be identified by dipping. The important point
here is that if you do a dip that has no particular effect, the potion
is not wasted, so feel free to experiment.
You first want to rule out the dangerous potions: poison, greek fire,
acid. Acid dissolves all non-artifact weapons and poison coats them with
poison, so start by dipping a weapon you don't need into the potion.
Don't dip a long sword, club or arrow, since these can accidentally use
up a valuable potion of greek fire. If nothing interesting happens, the
potion was neither acid nor poison. To test if it's greek fire, dip a
long sword (not silver sword!), club or arrow. Getting a flaming sword
is always nice, so if you have a long sword, try that first.
The remaining six potion types (smoke, blindness, mana, healing, cure,
enlightenment) are safe for drinking. The only ones that don't
auto-identify are cure potions (which auto-identify if drunk when
poisoned), so if you get "nothing happens", it was a cure potion. Two of
the remaining potion types have negative effects (smoke, blindess), but
they're not really dangerous unless you're in extremely bad shape.
Blindness wears off quickly.
Advanced tips: Once you've ruled out acid and fire, you may also dip a
wand or book you'd like to recharge in case it's a mana potion. Or dip
an un-IDed item in case it's a potion of enlightenment. Cure potions can
be identified by dipping poisoned weapons, but that uses them up and
gets rid of the poison, neither of which is very useful. If you drink an
un-IDed potion, do it at full HP and MP so that you don't lose the
possible permanent boost from healing and mana potions.
Wands: Zap them away from you, unless you're feeling very adventurous.
Many wands need to be zapped on a mob standing next to you to be
effective, so I generally find a weak creature to try them out on. Don't
use something too tough, since your wand might boost it, e.g. if it's a
wand of speed. Be sure not to be too close to a wall, to avoid getting
hit by a bouncing ray. I usually leave three spaces to the next wall,
which is generally sufficient.
This way, you'll reliably identify wands of fire, ice, digging, sleep,
light, polymorph, teleport, invisibility (unless the monster is already
invisible), speed (unless the monster is already quick -- so avoid
bats), and slowness (unless already slow -- avoid slugs). You'll also
identify wands of trapping, unless the square you zap on is already
trapped or an otherwise special dungeon feature (e.g. stairs). That
leaves only two wand types: create monster, and nothing. So if nothing
happened, try again on an empty square. If a monster appears, it was a
wand of create monster, otherwise a wand of nothing. Wands of nothing
are the only ones that don't auto-id on "successful" use, so use the
"name" command to name their type once identified.
Rings: Equip them. There are only three rings that have bad or partially
bad effects: missing finger, polymorph, teleport. These are all easy to
spot once they activate, at which point you can unequip them. (Which may
require getting rid of a curse, but see above.) The worst thing that can
happen is polymorphing into something unpleasant, but you can usually
wait that out. (I'm not even sure if the food you will waste while
waiting will carry over to your base frame.)
Rings are generally hardest to identify; watch out for cases where you
ignore damage to spot rings of fire, cold, acid or shock resistance. (If
you have an elemental spell and aren't short on hit points, zap it on
yourself.) Rings of light, regeneration or invisibility are easy to
identify by their effect. Use the "name" command to name them once you
recognize them. The other rings are generally tougher to identify, but
usually you should have a scroll of identify by the time you have more
than two rings and thus need to make a choice which ones to equip. Until
then, just equip the rings you have.
Amulets: Also hard to identify, but they are rare and there are only a
few types. If you don't have a way to uncurse immediately, don't put it
on -- amulets of strangulation will kill you quickly. On the other hand,
if you *do* have a way to uncurse, do put them on, since all other
amulets are very useful. (Be sure to take off your un-IDed amulet if you
want to polymorph yourself, though, in case it's an amulet of
unchanging.) Amulets are generally worth spending a potion of
enlightenment on, and if you have two un-IDed amulets and a scroll of
identify to spare (or one un-IDed amulet and are afraid that it might be
strangulation), go ahead and read that scroll.
Malte
Cuboidz
wrote:
> Ok then. This has become a long post because I tried to make it somewhat
> extensive, but it's really not as bad as it looks.
>
> This is spoily.
<snip>
Fascinating. I wouldn't have thought that it's just a matter of a few
logical deductions, like you described. Nethacks' ID-game - back when
I was playing it a year ago - felt like it would always keep the
player guessing. But if you can just identify your items through
reasoning, the ID-game doesn't sound so bad at all - and POWDER's ID-
game, apparently, is perfectly rational. Yes, I might even come to ...
like its ID-game. *looks into the mirror and doesn't recognize former
self*
Anyway, thanks a lot! If POWDER had a wiki, this should be it's first
article :)
Lim-Dul
> POWDER's ID-
> game, apparently, is perfectly rational.
True dat. =)
> Anyway, thanks a lot! If POWDER had a wiki, this should be it's first
> article :)
*Dun dun dun*
http://roguebasin.roguelikedevelopment.org/index.php?title=POWDER_Gameplay
My comments:
On 2008-05-25 04:27, Malte Helmert wrote:
> Staves: Wield them, then press "z" to see which new spells you can now
> cast.
I'd like to note here that staves in POWDER work a bit differently from
other RL-s - at least the ones I was used to. They simply grant you the
ability to cast the spells contained in them using your own MP and
stuff. They don't have charges like e.g. staves in Angband and have
unlimited "uses".
I don't know if that's relevant or not since I'm not a NetHack/Crawl
player - I'm more of the Angband(+variants)/ADOM variety. =)
> Unless you have to cross water -- but then water-walking
> boots are easy to identify.
Or die a horrible drowning death while failing to climb out of the
water. ;-)
> To test if it's greek fire, dip a
> long sword (not silver sword!), club or arrow. Getting a flaming sword
> is always nice, so if you have a long sword, try that first.
I'd always go with the Long Sword or Arrows if you're a ranged
character. Clubs transform into torches and they are pretty easy to come
around anyway.
> Wands: <snip>
I have a somewhat different procedure compared to yours. I start with
zapping them around a large room just like you said BUT then I don't use
them on monsters, EVER, not even the weak ones.
I place an item I don't need on the ground to test if the wand is a wand
of teleport or polymorph (in the latter case the useless item might
morph into something useful) and then I start experimenting on myself
since the only types that are left are wands of speed/slowness/nothing
and invisibility. Slowness I can handle. =)
> Rings: Equip them. [...]
> Rings are generally hardest to identify;
I think Jeff should add an auto-identify feature to the ring of
invisibility. I mean, *doh*, one second you are visible, the next you're
gone. Hmmm... I wonder what this ring might do. *sigh*
> (Be sure to take off your un-IDed amulet if you
> want to polymorph yourself,
Alternatively DON'T take it off if you have an identified wand of
polymorph. If the wand fails then you can be sure of the type of amulet
you're wearing. Amulets of unchanging are really useful and important to
keep around in the early stages of the game because with unchanging you
can't turn to stone and can flip-off those cockatrices - later they die
as soon as they look around the corner with their nasty heads so don't
bother. =)
Best regards,
Lim-Dul
Cuboidz
>
> *Dun dun dun*
>
> http://roguebasin.roguelikedevelopment.org/index.php?title=POWDER_Gam...
Nice! How I enjoy spoiling myself :)
Oh, and your additional comments were very educational, thank you.
Jeff Lait
freiburg.de> wrote:
> Cuboidz wrote:
> > Another feature that would draw any Crawl players' attention, is the
> > ID-game - which is quite a departure from the "just try, can't die"
> > approach of Crawl to identifying items. I'm glad POWDER doesn't seem
> > to feature any shops, so I won't be subjected to Nethack-like price
> > ID'ing - which is the root of all evil, no doubt. Yet, I'm still
> > uncertain concerning some aspects of the ID-game, e.g. do randarts
> > automatically reveal their identity when tried on? Or: when I find out
> > a potion is a !poison by dipping my sword into it, and I'm left with
> > an empty bottle, do I have to write down that e.g. a yellow potion is
> > a !poison, or will the game remember that for me? *sigh* What is so
> > special about ID-games? I praise Crawl for it's lack of an intruding
> > ID-game :)
>
> Once I got used to it, I found POWDER's ID mini-game actually much
> *less* tedious than Crawl's. (That's mostly due to the fact that POWDER
> has fewer different items, though.)
Glad to hear! I like ID mini-games, but I don't like tedious ID mini-
games. My theory with POWDER is that if an effect would cause a
spoiled player to ID the item, the item should auto-id. There are a
exceptions, but this holds pretty much for wands, potions, and
scrolls.
> POWDER will always, without exception, tell you when something is
> special (by giving it a name)
I am not a fan of "One of the 500 plain swords you encountered is
really the Sword of Uberness." Diablo got it right with blue/gold
colours, IMHO. POWDER does the same by appending an artifact name
even if it isn't identified.
--
Jeff Lait
(POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)
dpeg
> On May 24, 12:14 pm, Malte Helmert <helm...@informatik.uni-
> freiburg.de> wrote:
>> Cuboidz wrote:
> Glad to hear! I like ID mini-games, but I don't like tedious ID mini-
> games. My theory with POWDER is that if an effect would cause a
> spoiled player to ID the item, the item should auto-id.
This is a nice design principle. I hope that Crawl does not violate it too
bluntly (doesn't seem to me).
>> POWDER will always, without exception, tell you when something is
>> special (by giving it a name)
>
> I am not a fan of "One of the 500 plain swords you encountered is
> really the Sword of Uberness." Diablo got it right with blue/gold
> colours, IMHO. POWDER does the same by appending an artifact name
> even if it isn't identified.
Because this is a POWDER & Crawl thread, I feel piqued to point out that
Crawl does the same: random artefacts have unique descriptors (steaming,
smoking etc.) Ego items (boots of running etc.) always get descriptors like
glowing/runed, so that you don't have to try all robes in the Snake Pit to
find one of resistance (the latter behaviour is not that old, to be
honest).
David
Lim-Dul
> Glad to hear! I like ID mini-games, but I don't like tedious ID mini-
> games. My theory with POWDER is that if an effect would cause a
> spoiled player to ID the item, the item should auto-id. There are a
> exceptions, but this holds pretty much for wands, potions, and
> scrolls.
And Rings of Invisibility, perhaps? :-P
>> POWDER will always, without exception, tell you when something is
>> special (by giving it a name)
>
> I am not a fan of "One of the 500 plain swords you encountered is
> really the Sword of Uberness." Diablo got it right with blue/gold
> colours, IMHO. POWDER does the same by appending an artifact name
> even if it isn't identified.
I don't want to appear too big an ass-kisser but you sound like quoting
from the "How to design good games" guidebook - sadly not many
developers seem to have read it...
POWDER basically IS the Diablo of RL-s, the first one, before the much
worse (at least in my opinion) Diablo 2, which went too far in the
cRPG/RL direction to be as hack-and-slash-y enjoyable as its predecessor
(says Lim-Dul, the level 48 Sorcerer - that's when I first used my
nickname - in 1997 ^^).
Best regards,
Lim-Dul
R. Dan Henry
wrote:
>I think Jeff should add an auto-identify feature to the ring of
>invisibility. I mean, *doh*, one second you are visible, the next you're
>gone. Hmmm... I wonder what this ring might do. *sigh*
Unless, of course, you already have see invisible.
--
R. Dan Henry
danh...@inreach.com
R. Dan Henry
wrote:
>POWDER basically IS the Diablo of RL-s, the first one, before the much
>worse (at least in my opinion) Diablo 2, which went too far in the
>cRPG/RL direction to be as hack-and-slash-y enjoyable as its predecessor
>(says Lim-Dul, the level 48 Sorcerer - that's when I first used my
>nickname - in 1997 ^^).
No, POWDER isn't Diablo. I've not quit playing POWDER without finishing
the game because my interest was exhausted.
Meddyan
>
> I have a somewhat different procedure compared to yours. I start with
> zapping them around a large room just like you said BUT then I don't use
> them on monsters, EVER, not even the weak ones.
>
> I place an item I don't need on the ground to test if the wand is a wand
> of teleport or polymorph (in the latter case the useless item might
> morph into something useful) and then I start experimenting on myself
> since the only types that are left are wands of speed/slowness/nothing
> and invisibility. Slowness I can handle. =)
I take your method one step further, and zap the item while standing
on some downstairs. If its create monster and its a nasty monster in
the early game, than I can immediately flee down the stairs.
Although, I don't know how well this works out in practice, I have the
sneaking suspicion that most if not all of the monsters that'd kill
you just by looking at you are *also* the kind that will chase you
down stairs.
Point is, you have to be a bit careful with zapping wands, because a
wand of create monster can *really* ruin your day if its spawns
something far too powerful to tackle at that point in the game.
Cuboidz
> Glad to hear! I like ID mini-games, but I don't like tedious ID mini-
> games. My theory with POWDER is that if an effect would cause a
> spoiled player to ID the item, the item should auto-id. There are a
> exceptions, but this holds pretty much for wands, potions, and
> scrolls.
Aren't wands, potions and scrolls the only items in POWDER for which
this theory holds? I mean, otherwise you could just remove the
"naming" command, and I'd wager you're not about to do that. Granted,
Crawl still has an "inscription" command, but it functions mostly as a
mnemonic device for the intrinsics of items, not as a means of
identification. In Crawl, you'd only use inscriptions AFTER you've
identified an item - in most cases, anyway. In other words, because it
would be less of a hassle to do without "naming" or "inscription" in
Crawl, than in POWDER, this principle is better implemented in Crawl.
> I am not a fan of "One of the 500 plain swords you encountered is
> really the Sword of Uberness." Diablo got it right with blue/gold
> colours, IMHO. POWDER does the same by appending an artifact name
> even if it isn't identified.
Say you'd find a gold item in Diablo? You'd be pretty exited, right?
But would that exitement last if you realised you can't just talk to
Deckard Cain and have it identified - no, you have to guess at what it
does. So there you have the Sword of Uberness, you're wielding it
proudly, yet you don't even know what is so special about it. How is
this a good design principle for a game?
Cuboidz
Ironically, Pax has just punished me for feeding on my fallen foes, by
turning me into a troll. I guess Pax also hates trolls - and feeding
them, for that matter :)
On a more serious note, I've come to realize dealing with uncertainty
is an acquired taste. If you don't "get" the appeal of keeping a small
subset of items under a veil of mystery, you won't be able to
understand by arguments alone. From a certain perspective, even well-
designed ID-games can seem annoying and unnecessary. But if you just
cope with it, you'll learn that identification adds a new dimension to
the game. Not the ID-game itself is important - it is basically a
necessary evil - but rather why it was implemented in the first place,
i.e. as a way to counterbalance the utter mystery of otherwise
unidentified items.
David Ploog
> Considering the lack of reply, I reckon people think I'm a troll.
No, that's probably not the case. (Definitely not by me, and lack of
replies does not mean people think you are a troll; it does not even think
that people disagree.)
> On a more serious note, I've come to realize dealing with uncertainty
> is an acquired taste.
Definitely taste, not sure if acquired. There are players who absolutely
love Nethack's id game, whereas I could never be bothered with the finer
details. (Buying the cheapest scroll (identify) and blessing it for
mass-id was always enough for me.)
> Not the ID-game itself is important - it is basically a necessary evil
> - but rather why it was implemented in the first place, i.e. as a way
> to counterbalance the utter mystery of otherwise unidentified items.
Let me write down (what I think are) the basic features of two id games:
Nethack:
* fairly detailed information obtained in shops (buying and selling)
* special techniques (engraving with wands, confused reading etc.)
* plain using unknown stuff is usually a bad idea
* full id via scroll is possible mid-term
* there's the id spell (after which the id game is moot)
Crawl:
* not enough scrolls to identify all items (in particular with randarts)
* id by usage is possible, with pros and cons
* id game is basically a question of management (?id resource)
* special items (ego items/randarts) come pseudo-identified
* there's the id spell (dito)
What I would like to know is where POWDER fits in here? What are the
basics? (I did not allude to tedium here -- I don't find Crawl's id game
to be tedious at all, but opinions obviously differ.)
David
Derek Ray
> Let me write down (what I think are) the basic features of two id games:
> Nethack:
> * fairly detailed information obtained in shops (buying and selling)
> * special techniques (engraving with wands, confused reading etc.)
> * plain using unknown stuff is usually a bad idea
> * full id via scroll is possible mid-term
> * there's the id spell (after which the id game is moot)
>
> Crawl:
> * not enough scrolls to identify all items (in particular with randarts)
> * id by usage is possible, with pros and cons
> * id game is basically a question of management (?id resource)
> * special items (ego items/randarts) come pseudo-identified
> * there's the id spell (dito)
>
> What I would like to know is where POWDER fits in here? What are the
> basics? (I did not allude to tedium here -- I don't find Crawl's id game
> to be tedious at all, but opinions obviously differ.)
* No information avaialble from shops
* Identify scrolls fairly rare, but will always ID all inventory
* Some special techniques (#dipping for potions, applying spells to
objects, etc.)
* Special items always come named (Barbazorcorcorc)
* Identify spell handles single items, no way to guarantee finding early
* ID by usage is possible if you are careful and clever
POWDER leans more towards the Crawl style of ID than Nethack's. I will
say that unlike Nethack, I pretty much consistently put everything on
except for unknown amulets, since those are the only thing that can kill
me -- there really aren't enough 'very bad' effects among the other
items, and your god randomly uncursing stuff occasionally is a huge
benefit from the use-ID perspective.
With regards to _why_ ID games are necessary? It's replayability.
Nethack makes it possible to ID almost everything without having to use
any of it; POWDER and Crawl, not so much. Nethack is less replayable
than both others, as a result; once you've solved the puzzle, there is
some minor variety available by solving it with the other 12 roles, but
there really isn't much else to do. Having a certain amount of
discovery and low guarantee of what you'll have in any given game makes
the game (roguelikes in particular) far more replayable; having that
discovery be tilted more towards "use-ID" tends to make it more fun for
the player.
--
Derek
Game info and change log: http://sporkhack.com
Beta Server: telnet://sporkhack.com
IRC: irc.freenode.net, #sporkhack
David Ploog
> On 2008-05-27, David Ploog <pl...@mi.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
POWDER id game:
> * No information avaialble from shops
> * Identify scrolls fairly rare, but will always ID all inventory
> * Some special techniques (#dipping for potions, applying spells to
> objects, etc.)
> * Special items always come named (Barbazorcorcorc)
> * Identify spell handles single items, no way to guarantee finding early
> * ID by usage is possible if you are careful and clever
Thanks! Looks good, especially with the question of when to use the
scrolls.
> ... and your god randomly uncursing stuff occasionally is a huge
> benefit from the use-ID perspective.
Oh, need to steal that! (For the Crawl players: Xom and the good gods?)
> With regards to _why_ ID games are necessary? It's replayability.
> Nethack makes it possible to ID almost everything without having to use
> any of it; POWDER and Crawl, not so much. Nethack is less replayable
> than both others, as a result; once you've solved the puzzle, there is
> some minor variety available by solving it with the other 12 roles, but
> there really isn't much else to do. Having a certain amount of
> discovery and low guarantee of what you'll have in any given game makes
> the game (roguelikes in particular) far more replayable; having that
> discovery be tilted more towards "use-ID" tends to make it more fun for
> the player.
Interesting reasoning; I think I follow suit. The extreme example would be
a game where all items come already identified (in my view, Nethack comes
close, since only labour and patience are needed for the veteran to get
their). And while the extreme case has virtues, there does seem to be part
of the fun lost. Also, there's different kinds of fun, and the question of
when/how to use (unknown) items can make the beginning more interesting.
David
David Damerell
>One of the first things I've noticed, is that monsters don't storm
>towards you like the suicidal maniacs they are in Crawl. Many of them
>mind their own business until you gently alert them to your presence
>in the room, by throwing something at their face.
Many POWDER beasties are peaceful, especially the unintelligent animals,
and the odd-looking shitomi is friendly. Bear in mind that one of the gods
disapproves of the slaughter of peaceful creatures.
>Another feature that would draw any Crawl players' attention, is the
>ID-game - which is quite a departure from the "just try, can't die"
>approach of Crawl to identifying items.
Lait is a big fan of use-ID, actually; once you have sufficient HP to
withstand the most unpleasant potions and scrolls, use-ID is the way to
go.
>to feature any shops, so I won't be subjected to Nethack-like price
>ID'ing - which is the root of all evil, no doubt.
Now I wrote the book on price-ID, and I've got to say, in most games it's
no more than a shortcut to the scroll of identify.
>A final question: sometimes the game says something like "you know
>your sword better". Where can I check my current skill level for my
>sword?
By examining the sword, but this message indicates use-ID of the sword,
not a skill gain. Skills are not gained by doing but as skill slots on
levelling up.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is Epithumia, June - a weekend.
David Damerell
Well, you don't know what's so special about it just from wielding it, but
you get some information the minute you smack a monster with it, and some
more the minute a harmful attack bounces off your resistance. I quite like
it that way.
Derek Ray
> does. So there you have the Sword of Uberness, you're wielding it
> proudly, yet you don't even know what is so special about it. How is
> this a good design principle for a game?
It's an extremely good design principle. Games which provide full
information to the player at all times become puzzles, not games; see my
response to David Ploog about "replayability". For a roguelike, this is
even more hazardous, because you begin taking more and more decisions
out of the hand of the player and putting them in the realm of
statistical calculations; the extreme example ends up with the player
making no decisions at all during the game, instead taking the highest
probability choice at every turn, and the RNG determines whether he
lives or dies.
That isn't fun, really. See also backgammon, checkers, and soon chess;
where their popularity has waned as computers have developed the ability
to predict the "correct" move in all circumstances far better than a
human ever could. (Chess already has a partial equivalent in its opening
books; when a game is about memorizing 20 moves and multiple variants of
each, it becomes about who picks the right variant rather than about any
actual tactical thought in the opening. I quit playing chess for
exactly that reason; I wanted to play, not memorize endless opening
lines just to make sure I wouldn't lose before the actual game started.)
R. Dan Henry
<dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>Quoting Cuboidz <Dieter...@gmail.com>:
>>One of the first things I've noticed, is that monsters don't storm
>>towards you like the suicidal maniacs they are in Crawl. Many of them
>>mind their own business until you gently alert them to your presence
>>in the room, by throwing something at their face.
>
>Many POWDER beasties are peaceful, especially the unintelligent animals,
>and the odd-looking shitomi is friendly. Bear in mind that one of the gods
>disapproves of the slaughter of peaceful creatures.
But since that god also wants you to starve to death, ignore him! Look
at yourself and read your description, then live up to it.
Cuboidz
wrote:
> On 2008-05-26, Cuboidz <Dieter.Be...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's an extremely good design principle. <explanation>
If I understand correctly, you're saying that we should design
roguelikes in such a manner, that humans have an edge over computers
when playing them, right?
This is actually a pretty interesting idea. For starters, it would
help to explain why scumming is bad. I've argued against scumming in
the past, but I hadn't considered that, because computers are better
at scumming than humans, scumming is bad for this reason, too.
Also, regarding the issue at hand, an ID-game should be bot-proof,
that is to say, if you can write a bot that can play it for you, it
becomes questionable. This does seem like a harsh requirement,
however, practically disqualifying all roguelikes - POWDER probably
comes the closest.
David Ploog
> Also, regarding the issue at hand, an ID-game should be bot-proof,
> that is to say, if you can write a bot that can play it for you, it
> becomes questionable. This does seem like a harsh requirement,
> however, practically disqualifying all roguelikes - POWDER probably
> comes the closest.
From what I've gathered, POWDER would make it hard for the id-bot by
posing the question of when to read the id scroll (and you still have to
find that one somehow, right?). Of course, you could write an expert
system for this. It wouldn't be as good as a human but it would probably
get the work done in many cases.
I don't see how Crawl really differs in this regard. In my opinion, using
resources immediately when you find them is bad. That again leaves the
question of when to start the read/quaff-id'ing. (Too late is bad again,
for you will run in nasty situations with 12 unidentified potions and 8
unidentified scrolls.) Thus, the question of when (and what!) is not
trivial, hence only to be approximated by the bot.
David
Derek Ray
>> It's an extremely good design principle. <explanation>
> If I understand correctly, you're saying that we should design
> roguelikes in such a manner, that humans have an edge over computers
> when playing them, right?
That wasn't really what I was getting at, but it's a good way to think
of it. I'd suggest more thinking in terms of "It should require and/or
encourage using creativity to win, not simply following a pre-established,
scripted path on rails."
This is part of the reason games like Fallout did so well, and why
people rail against so many modern games; Fallout dumped you in the
middle of a world with only a tiny amount of "the adventure is ---> this
way" sort of direction, and said "Go at it!", while many modern games
have sacrificed gameplay in favor of cinematic effects.
> This is actually a pretty interesting idea. For starters, it would
> help to explain why scumming is bad. I've argued against scumming in
> the past, but I hadn't considered that, because computers are better
> at scumming than humans, scumming is bad for this reason, too.
In many games, startscumming is completely meaningless; if you aren't
good enough to win with _any_ set of starting equipment, you aren't good
enough to win with the ideal set.
This is also a good self-check for design; your starting equipment
should not be _anything_ you'd want to be carrying at the end of the
game, generally. This presents the player the abstract challenge of
(using POWDER as an example): "How do I turn this club, acid potion, and
leather tunic into something good enough to fetch the Heart?"
These sort of challenges are exactly the sort of good thing players
like; an open-ended scenario with a variety of paths available.
> Also, regarding the issue at hand, an ID-game should be bot-proof,
> that is to say, if you can write a bot that can play it for you, it
> becomes questionable. This does seem like a harsh requirement,
> however, practically disqualifying all roguelikes - POWDER probably
> comes the closest.
Nethack's failure is that the ID-game makes it possible to never have to
select 'when' to use items unidentified, and the penalty for trying to
do so too early can be extremely harsh.
It's not just finding out _what_ something is that's the ID game; if
finding out what things are also consumes resources, it becomes a
question of selecting the appropriate time to use those resources. It
is certainly possible to create a scenario where situationally-sensitive
use of resources (ie. something humans are good at and computers aren't)
gives a significant advantage.
Jeff Lait
> On 25 mei, 21:37, Jeff Lait <torespondisfut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Glad to hear! I like ID mini-games, but I don't like tedious ID mini-
> > games. My theory with POWDER is that if an effect would cause a
> > spoiled player to ID the item, the item should auto-id. There are a
> > exceptions, but this holds pretty much for wands, potions, and
> > scrolls.
>
> Aren't wands, potions and scrolls the only items in POWDER for which
> this theory holds?
Most other things have no immediate effect that would cause a spoiled
player to ID the item. Picking up that a ring is a ring of cold
resistance by noting your reaction to a cold attack only works if you
have everything else IDed, so really isn't that auto-idable.
> Granted,
> Crawl still has an "inscription" command, but it functions mostly as a
> mnemonic device for the intrinsics of items, not as a means of
> identification. In Crawl, you'd only use inscriptions AFTER you've
> identified an item - in most cases, anyway. In other words, because it
> would be less of a hassle to do without "naming" or "inscription" in
> Crawl, than in POWDER, this principle is better implemented in Crawl.
This could be, I've not managed to get very far in Crawl. I do recall
it doing a good job of iding potions rather than giving me cryptic
comments and asking me what I want to #name the thing I just drank.
> > I am not a fan of "One of the 500 plain swords you encountered is
> > really the Sword of Uberness." Diablo got it right with blue/gold
> > colours, IMHO. POWDER does the same by appending an artifact name
> > even if it isn't identified.
>
> Say you'd find a gold item in Diablo? You'd be pretty exited, right?
> But would that exitement last if you realised you can't just talk to
> Deckard Cain and have it identified - no, you have to guess at what it
> does. So there you have the Sword of Uberness, you're wielding it
> proudly, yet you don't even know what is so special about it. How is
> this a good design principle for a game?
Diablo is a *Band so is from a different branch of the roguelike tree
than POWDER. This really is the heart of the difference.
In Diablo, you find that gold item, you can't even wield it until
you've ided it! And screw Deckard Cain. I keep a tome of identify on
hand so I don't have to wait that long :>
The good design principle that both POWDER and Diablo aim to is
delayed gratification. Putting a window between "OMG GOLD ITEM!" and
revealing what it is. Zelda games did this with big chests where
they'd pause 5 seconds before revealing the contents. The purpose is
the same in all cases. You can't keep getting uber loot. When you
have an uber sword, any sword less than your current one is crap. So,
if you had insta-id, you wouldn't see a Gold Sword drop, you'd see a
sword less uber than your current one drop. Because *most* of the
loot you get ends up being "1 rupee!" - something less worthy than
your current setup so a let down.
So, yes, POWDER artifacts sit there with unknowable powers. The
advantage of that is that, like a lottery ticket before the draw date,
they *could* be really cool powers. Enjoy this window of anticipation
before you scrunch them up and throw them in the garbage can.
Jeff Lait
>
> Also, regarding the issue at hand, an ID-game should be bot-proof,
> that is to say, if you can write a bot that can play it for you, it
> becomes questionable. This does seem like a harsh requirement,
> however, practically disqualifying all roguelikes - POWDER probably
> comes the closest.
This should be true of any game that is based on tactics or strategy.
With some proviso for "bot", of course. The idea of a "bot" is a
simple, deterministic, machine that can play optimally. In a
roguelike, this translates into there always being a "right" way to do
things. For example, in Nethack, you should engrave-id wands.
There's no risk, you'll keep your wish, and the rewards of early wand
id are worth it. This is why POWDER doesn't have engrave id - I want
there to be a risk to any action. There's still a more optimal wand-
dance that you can perform as detailed earlier, but it isn't as
straightforward as Nethack's.
Cuboidz
> So, yes, POWDER artifacts sit there with unknowable powers. The
> advantage of that is that, like a lottery ticket before the draw date,
> they *could* be really cool powers. Enjoy this window of anticipation
> before you scrunch them up and throw them in the garbage can.
Anticipation? Sometimes, I secretly long for death in POWDER, so I can
find out what the intrinsics are of that mysterious artifact I just
picked up :)
> This should be true of any game that is based on tactics or strategy.
I've read on your website that POWDER is oriented towards tactical
play, rather than strategic planning:
"Tactical play. The unit of action is based on the individual
adventurer. The game is not twitch oriented (like Quake, rewarding
reflexes & well trained actions) nor is it strategy oriented (like
Civilizations or Warcraft, requiring working on the large picture)".
What exactly do you mean by this? Can you maybe give an example of
tactics versus strategy in roguelikes? Thanks.
> The idea of a "bot" is a
> simple, deterministic, machine that can play optimally. In a
> roguelike, this translates into there always being a "right" way to do
> things.
Indeed, without a "right" way to do things, you have to rely on hard-
gained practical wisdom - something bots generally lack. This also
means spoilers become less useful, because they can't make up for your
lack of experience. A real man learns the hard way, by dying a lot :)
Derek Ray
> What exactly do you mean by this? Can you maybe give an example of
> tactics versus strategy in roguelikes? Thanks.
From my current game:
Tactics is being surrounded by monsters due to H'ruth saying "prove your
worth", noting which monsters are not fire-resistant and which ones
can't hurt me, and casting Fire Ball in the general direction of the
weakest monsters to open a hole in the mob so that I can get unsurrounded
and into a corridor where I'm not in such danger.
Strategy is stopping in the middle of descent to carefully swap out to
wizard dress code, and spending some time zapping myself with Fire Ball
and testing all my rings so I can find which one is fire resistance and
which one is light. I had been wearing the FR ring unIDed, so it was
one of the two I had on -- but I needed light so that I could maneuver
effectively to make use of my damage spells *and* to see when it was a
good time to trigger Chain Lightning or another ugly-area-effect spell
or another ugly-area-effect spell. Without the ring of light, I have to
give up the mirror shield Bazfrost (no idea what it does, but I'm not
puttin' it down) for a torch, or give up wizard dress code for a flaming
sword, neither of which is optimal in my current state.
Jeff Lait
> On 29 mei, 04:40, Jeff Lait <torespondisfut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So, yes, POWDER artifacts sit there with unknowable powers. The
> > advantage of that is that, like a lottery ticket before the draw date,
> > they *could* be really cool powers. Enjoy this window of anticipation
> > before you scrunch them up and throw them in the garbage can.
>
> Anticipation? Sometimes, I secretly long for death in POWDER, so I can
> find out what the intrinsics are of that mysterious artifact I just
> picked up :)
Yep, same here :> I consider that a sign of an appropriate amount of
anticipation :>
> > This should be true of any game that is based on tactics or strategy.
>
> I've read on your website that POWDER is oriented towards tactical
> play, rather than strategic planning:
>
> "Tactical play. The unit of action is based on the individual
> adventurer. The game is not twitch oriented (like Quake, rewarding
> reflexes & well trained actions) nor is it strategy oriented (like
> Civilizations or Warcraft, requiring working on the large picture)".
>
> What exactly do you mean by this? Can you maybe give an example of
> tactics versus strategy in roguelikes? Thanks.
I see strategy as more high level resource management. Choosing when
and where to fight. Tactics is more how to fight. The twitch
component is the actual execution of the fight. Obviously most games
have all three levels, but to varying degrees. Turn based games have
very little on the twitch component. Successfully pressing the
correct key isn't really considered part of the game :>
My theory with roguelikes is that the real tactical fighting comes
into play because your @ is at the same scale when exploring and
fighting. Not only does this open up the whole question of correct
positioning for the fight-itself, but it also doesn't restrict the
fight-itself to the chosen combatants. Other monsters can and will
wander in and cause problems. Couple this with the mechanics of
combat being very stripped down - usually just bumping into your
chosen foe each turn - and you have a combat game all about
positioning. The result is a lot more like chess than most RPGs where
the "combat" is game divorced from the rest of the game.
sparr...@gmail.com
> polymorph. If the wand fails then you can be sure of the type of amulet
> you're wearing. Amulets of unchanging are really useful and important to
> keep around in the early stages of the game because with unchanging you
> can't turn to stone and can flip-off those cockatrices - later they die
> as soon as they look around the corner with their nasty heads so don't
> bother. =)
You say that, but my most heart-wrenching YASD happened on the LAST
level of the dungeon when a cockatrice surprised me around a corner.
Inuga...@gmail.com
> You say that, but my most heart-wrenching YASD happened on the LAST
> level of the dungeon when a cockatrice surprised me around a corner.
Acid potions are fairly valuable because of how useful they are both
in early and late game, depending on how popular you are with the
gods. You can use them to remove equipped cursed items in a jiffy or
use it to unharden yourself.
--------
My general rule on item identification is to identify potions as early
as possible, scrolls as late as possible, and wands whenever
convenient. Create monster wands are generally rare, so I tend to just
go into large rooms and figure out what wands are which, most
importantly Polymorph wands. When you have a polymorph wand, you're
generally safe from wands of create monster.
Artifacts are always safe, from my experience. If I have an artifact
weapon, I always equip it (they are usually one and a half to two
times better in most situations). If it's an artifact neck-piece, I
equip it as well. Other artifacts (armour, shoes, rings) don't have
outstanding intrensics to warrant equipping (they're safe, but some
have negative intrensics).
Mirror Shields are always safe to equip, and it's best to equip them
immediately, unless you have an Amulet of Reflection or are using a
dress code. They also let you know when there's a blue dragon room on
the earlier levels, because one or two spawn on the same level
(usually just one). I had a rare chance of hearing blue dragons on the
other side of the door, but not finding the mirror shield until I
opened the door to take my chances (the mirror shield was in the
corner of the blue dragon room).
--------
Strategy and tactics are pretty much the same thing. The big
difference is how long they last.
Strategy - Planning on the long term until a primary/important goal is
reached. Non-circumstancial.
Tactics - Planning on the short term until a temporary/trivial goal is
reached. Cicumstancial.
Roguelikes in general are primarily tactical games because it's fairly
tough to form a long-term plan due to alot of uncertain elements
during gameplay. There are some strategies that one can employ to
ensure survival, and there are tactics are temporary measures
(swapping equipment) when certain situations come up.
One strategy I found for necromancers: Build up some zombies/skeletons
and plant them at doorways/hallways/corners. Monsters don't bother
with them and you quickly swap with them.
--------
I'm still wondering what purpose aiming at the ceiling serves other
than killing yourself accidentally. And I don't get the point of
familiars, undead in general, shitomi monsters (they seem pretty
useless, aside from the fact that if you kill one, you're pretty much
hated by all gods automatically), and bottles (aside from acumulating
or being artifacts). I'm still guessing at hidden purposes for some of
them.
--------
Oh... And I encountered Kralzam the Shitomi in my current game o_O;
The Rani
>
> I'm still wondering what purpose aiming at the ceiling serves other
> than killing yourself accidentally. And I don't get the point of
> familiars, undead in general, shitomi monsters (they seem pretty
> useless, aside from the fact that if you kill one, you're pretty much
> hated by all gods automatically), and bottles (aside from acumulating
> or being artifacts). I'm still guessing at hidden purposes for some of
> them.
>
Suppose you find yourself turning to stone. You have a potion of acid
in your inventory. And you're full. You throw it at the ceiling, it
smashes and splatters on your head, delivering its effects in a way
that requires no ingestion.
There are a fair few potions that go well with ceilings.
Empty bottles can be refilled in at least three ways that I know of.
They are also fun to throw, in a pinch.
Zombie and skeleton minions never impressed me that much, but I
imagine they're meant to distract your enemies while you kill them
with magic, or to be fodder for some of your other spells.
I like familiars for my occasional Pax worshiper, so that they have
somebody who can kill the neutral and sleeping enemies, and someone
else to heal for the brownie points.
Shitomi are basically handy for switching with in a hallway to buy you
some time escaping from your foes, in my experience.
Derek Ray
> On Jun 10, 2:18 pm, sparroh...@gmail.com wrote:
>> You say that, but my most heart-wrenching YASD happened on the LAST
>> level of the dungeon when a cockatrice surprised me around a corner.
> Acid potions are fairly valuable because of how useful they are both
> in early and late game, depending on how popular you are with the
> gods. You can use them to remove equipped cursed items in a jiffy or
Note: Not all items will dissolve in acid.
> importantly Polymorph wands. When you have a polymorph wand, you're
> generally safe from wands of create monster.
...But you'd rather use the polymorph wand for many other things, and
turning a green dragon into a kobold assassin is not a significant
improvement.
> Artifacts are always safe, from my experience.
Also not necessarily true; there are some pretty wicked side effects,
and artifacts can in fact be generated evil.
> times better in most situations). If it's an artifact neck-piece, I
And you've identified strangulation already...
> I'm still wondering what purpose aiming at the ceiling serves other
> than killing yourself accidentally. And I don't get the point of
> familiars,
The original bat gets better, but he's still basically just a bat.
There are other ways to tame monsters; stone golems, in particular, are
remarkably useful as pets. The iron golem in H'ruth's combat arena is
the most useful I've found so far.
> hated by all gods automatically), and bottles (aside from acumulating
> or being artifacts). I'm still guessing at hidden purposes for some of
You can always Q)uiver your empties.
David Damerell
>hated by all gods automatically), and bottles (aside from acumulating
>or being artifacts).
Bottles can be dropped in water and recovered full.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is Gorgonzoladay, June - a weekend.
Inuga...@gmail.com
below, the others were just intrensics with weaknesses), they seem
pretty rare to me. On neck pieces, they're so rare and have nice
effects that I risk wearing them, and I usually encounter them early,
so wearing one isn't much of a loss as opposed to wearing one once
you've made alot of progress.
I was strangled by a pair of boots once (it was a couple months ago).
I put on the boots, got strangled, took off my unID-ed necklace hoping
for the best until I had figured out the situation, got strangled
again, put my necklace back on, got strangled, ran around in circles,
died once (my necklace was a life saving necklace, the irony), ran
around again, and died a second time for good. I was left in utter
confusion as to what the hell happened until I read the dump and my
artifact boots had strangulation. I have loathed shoelaces since.
Malte Helmert
> I'm still wondering what purpose aiming at the ceiling serves other
> than killing yourself accidentally.
Others have mentioned potions of acid. Potions of water are also useful
to hurl at yourself that way in certain situations.
> And I don't get the point of familiars, undead in general, shitomi
> monsters (they seem pretty useless, aside from the fact that if you
> kill one, you're pretty much hated by all gods automatically), and bottles
> (aside from acumulating or being artifacts). I'm still guessing at
> hidden purposes for some of them.
I don't think killing a shitomi produces any special reaction with the
gods. Pax will be annoyed if you attack a friendly creature of course,
but otherwise I don't think they care.
Malte
Meddyan
Artifacts can be generated with bad intrinsics too. Just wait untill
you put on a cursed artifact that confers vulnerable to fire and
aflame =p
> shitomi monsters (they seem pretty
> useless, aside from the fact that if you kill one, you're pretty much
> hated by all gods automatically),
Only Pax would hate you for attacking peaceful montsers. No one else
cares, Klaskov and H'ruth would actually encourage it most likely.
> and bottles (aside from acumulating
> or being artifacts).
Empty bottles can be filled with water, greek fire, acid and poison.
Its an exercise for the reader to figure out how.
sparr...@gmail.com
> I was strangled by a pair of boots once (it was a couple months ago).
> I put on the boots, got strangled, took off my unID-ed necklace hoping
> for the best until I had figured out the situation, got strangled
> again, put my necklace back on, got strangled, ran around in circles,
> died once (my necklace was a life saving necklace, the irony), ran
> around again, and died a second time for good. I was left in utter
> confusion as to what the hell happened until I read the dump and my
> artifact boots had strangulation. I have loathed shoelaces since.
That last sentence makes this post utter win.