[v3.3] creeping coins bug

[bulian]

I'm all for mimics, but the changes to creeping coins needs to be reverted to 3.2 behavior. In ironman games, or past a certain depth in the game, I typically squelch money, which results in strange behavior. I doubt I'm the only player who squelches money.

Mimics don't show up on monster lists because they are mimics; instead they show up on item lists. Creeping coins dont show up on either list, and if squelched, don't show up on the ground when in sight, with SI, or with ESP. Instead you just run into them and get messages like:

The 37 gold pieces worth of silver (squelch) was really a monster!

I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing were true for potion and scroll mimics if the corresponding items are squelched. My suggested solution is to revert creeping coins to the 3.2 behavior, where they just showed up even if money was squelched, or remove them from the monster list. I'd also check that the other mimic items are on the "short list" of items that never get squelched.

[fizzix]

To me this seems like its working as designed. If you're worried about creeping adamantite coins, don't squelch adamantite. There's some inconsistancy with monsters being allowed to coexist with coins but not mimics, but I'm ok with this.

[Magnate]

To me this seems like its working as designed. If you're worried about creeping adamantite coins, don't squelch adamantite. There's some inconsistancy with monsters being allowed to coexist with coins but not mimics, but I'm ok with this.

+1. I'm pretty sure the common sense view was let's get this working without worrying about squelch, since squelch needs a lot of love anyway.

[CunningGabe]

This is in fact working as intended. From a flavor point of view it makes perfect sense; if your character completely ignores piles of coins on the ground, of course he'll be surprised when one of them reaches up and bites him! At any rate, the other way of doing things is equally silly. Creeping coins wouldn't be very convincing mimics if they showed up even when you had money squelched.

It's true that the same thing can happen for squelched potions, scrolls, etc, so I purposely made it so that potion mimics only look like potions you would almost certainly not squelch. (You can see the possible potions they mimic in monster.txt.)

Lurkers, by the way, are now also completely invisible and undetectable until you run into them.

[fizzix]

I've noticed detection of mimics when I've magically lit up a square, either with -light or -illumination. Is this what's supposed to happen? (I'm pretty sure the mimic needs to be in the immediate radius, so not just in the room when you light it, but within 3 squares of you)

[kaypy]

Light at that range is a magical attack of sorts isn't it? It just doesn't inflict damage on most critters. Maybe the flash is still enough to induce a flinch reflex?

[Derakon]

The problem I have with "squelched = working as intended" is that it means that if you want to optimize your play you have to never squelch money so you know when you might be in danger of attack by coins. Of course, the flipside isn't good either (being able to use squelch as free creeping coin detection), but I don't think we can call this as "not a bug" quite so easily.

[d_m]

The problem I have with "squelched = working as intended" is that it means that if you want to optimize your play you have to never squelch money so you know when you might be in danger of attack by coins. Of course, the flipside isn't good either (being able to use squelch as free creeping coin detection), but I don't think we can call this as "not a bug" quite so easily.

I will admit it's a bug when someone comes up with a better plan.

I agree that I want to avoid situations where optimal play is annoying, but I don't want to remove this work in order to get there. Squelching is nice but I don't think it should obviate other interesting game features.

A different way to say this is that squelching money (or an item flavor which mimics may copy) should take into account the fact that mimcs of that type essentially become Lurkers.

[fizzix]

The problem I have with "squelched = working as intended" is that it means that if you want to optimize your play you have to never squelch money so you know when you might be in danger of attack by coins. Of course, the flipside isn't good either (being able to use squelch as free creeping coin detection), but I don't think we can call this as "not a bug" quite so easily.

There comes a point where you don't care if you run into mimic coins. You're too strong for them. It doesn't matter that you stumble across them.

[bulian]

This is in fact working as intended. From a flavor point of view it makes perfect sense; if your character completely ignores piles of coins on the ground, of course he'll be surprised when one of them reaches up and bites him! At any rate, the other way of doing things is equally silly. Creeping coins wouldn't be very convincing mimics if they showed up even when you had money squelched.

I appreciate the logic behind the approach, but in this case I stand by my original statement that the change to creeping coins is a mistake. Screen clutter due to extra symbols is not desirable.

Lurkers, by the way, are now also completely invisible and undetectable until you run into them.

Why is this? I can appreciate lurkers not being detectable either by ESP or the low level spells, but currently detection is infallible for everything else. I'm against this change as well.

The reason I'm against these changes are that both can lead to YASDs without the S. Fleeing from orcs and running into an undetectable, invisible pile of coins doesn't seem to add fun or excitement to the game to me.

[d_m]

The reason I'm against these changes are that both can lead to YASDs without the S. Fleeing from orcs and running into an undetectable, invisible pile of coins doesn't seem to add fun or excitement to the game to me.

I think I understand your argument, but I'm not persuaded by it (yet). Here are some random questions that may (or may not) get to the heart of the issue:

1. Is infallibility something that makes the game more or less interesting?

2. Would the game be better with (A) no more traps (B) as it is (C) traps which are less dangerous but not infallibly detectable with a spell?

3. Would it be OK for lurkers to remain as they are if they could only show up on a certain (non-standard) color of floor (assuming we had different terrain types for floors)?

4. Is it worse to have monsters which easily cause instadeath but which can be infallibly avoided by experts, or to have monsters which can occasionally caues instadeaths (possibly only by working in tandem) but which are not infallibly avoided by experts? For beginners? Experts? Average players?

5. Is the game's detection paradigm (repeatedly doing 3 different kinds of detection to obtain "total level coverage") an asset? A problem? Both? Neither?

I'm not sure there are right answers to these questions, but I suspect our disagreement about this feature may be related to differing opinions on one or more of these points.

[kaypy]

Fleeing from orcs and running into an undetectable, invisible pile of coins doesn't seem to add fun or excitement to the game to me.

How would you behave differently if you hadn't squelched money? Would you have actually walked around the money piles 'just in case'? If not, in what way have you been penalized?

One thing I want to be sure of- the coins do show up after they have attacked you, right? They aren't permanently invisible?

[d_m]

How would you behave differently if you hadn't squelched money? Would you have actually walked around the money piles 'just in case'? If not, in what way have you been penalized?

One thing I want to be sure of- the coins do show up after they have attacked you, right? They aren't permanently invisible?

That's correct--as soon as you attack (or are attacked by) a mimc monster it shows up in the monster list, dungeon, etc.

[bulian]

I'll bite. Apologies for the length and spelling mistakes. It would be interesting to get the dev's answers to these questions as well.

In general my personality type is a refiner/optimizer and I find Angband intellectually attractive as a large problem that can be solved, but I don't count steps or any of that nonsense when I play.

1. Is infallibility something that makes the game more or less interesting?

To this point, angband has been a game of potential perfect information, random damage rolls withstanding. Deviation from that is more than a slight change to the core game.

2. Would the game be better with (A) no more traps (B) as it is (C) traps which are less dangerous but not infallibly detectable with a spell

Currently traps do not play an important role in the game. I would find (A) and (B) to be acceptable and (C) to be likely annoying, similar to mindlessly killing orcs with an endgame geared @. More dangerous traps that are easily detected or obvious would not be a bad thing.

3. Would it be OK for lurkers to remain as they are if they could only show up on a certain (non-standard) color of floor (assuming we had different terrain types for floors)?

I'm assuming you mean 3.3 behavior. I don't have a strong feeling about this. If Angband becomes a game of imperfect detection, this would be fine.

One exception in hundreds of monsters seems wrong. Lurkers are already unique in that they don't have a symbol even when detected. Once they are detected, you still don't know where are unless significant use of the look command is used.

4. Is it worse to have monsters which easily cause instadeath but which can be infallibly avoided by experts, or to have monsters which can occasionally caues instadeaths (possibly only by working in tandem) but which are not infallibly avoided by experts? For beginners? Experts? Average players?

Some level of danger needs to exist in the game regardless of skill level. I have stated several times I generally find the early part of the game to be boring and actually would suggest small levels are implemented for DL 1-20. In this portion of the game, the potential for instadeath is essentially zero. Occasional instadeahs at all levels of play are OK - my last character on the ladder died to walking into a room full of plasma hounds.

5. Is the game's detection paradigm (repeatedly doing 3 different kinds of detection to obtain "total level coverage") an asset? A problem? Both? Neither?

Repeatedly doing anything isn't really that much fun for anyone, is it? 3 types of detection is too much, but given how powerful single detection is later in the game, which is preferable, it is necessary.


To throw on Kaypy's question:

How would you behave differently if you hadn't squelched money? Would you have actually walked around the money piles 'just in case'? If not, in what way have you been penalized?

No I wouldn't do anything differently. Its more of a "Nyah, nyah" feeling, like the rules of the game have been broken, like playing monopoly with a very young cousin who all of a sudden makes a rule that he can also collect $200 when you pass go.

[kaypy]

Well, in this case you kinda made that "nyah nyah" rule yourself, when you told the game to hide all coins from you...

Possibly what we need is a 'not quite squelched' mode.

Say the squelched objects:
Are shown, but in a custom attr (so are obviously squelched)
Do not appear in any lists or menus.
Do not convert objects into piles- they only appear if on blank floor.
Are not interacted with in any way.
(I haven't played with squelch much, so I'm not sure to what extent this differs from what we have now)

So while the mimic would be mimicking whatever symbol squelched coins use, it would still not come out of nowhere.