Future of Angband development

[Timo Pietilä]

These are the OLNY threatening traps in the game. I don't consider a point of stat drain, an ounce of poisoning, or a minor scratch 'getting dicked over'. Falling through a trap door while clearing a vault of getting teleported into a room hounds is.

If you leave those two and remove reliable 100% fail proof detection I have to agree with Derakon.

[buzzkill]

I can think of two traps I want to remove from game in order to make 'Randomly dicked over' acceptable:

Teleport (because that can be instant death, and it is very annoying even without)
Trap door (just because that can ruin your day when you are clearing GV)

These are the OLNY threatening traps in the game. I don't consider a point of stat drain, an ounce of poisoning, or a minor scratch 'getting dicked over'. Falling through a trap door while clearing a vault of getting teleported into a room hounds is.

To me, it'd be a lot more frustrating for something very bad to happen from a trap that I saw one turn ago, but accidently moved into, than for something bad to happen from a trap that I was unable to detect.

There could always be a really step onto trap (y/n)? prompt.

[Timo Pietilä]

Traps are already very rarely deadly. 'Randomly dicked over' is what Angband often does to you anyway. As long as it isn't an unavoidable instadeath, then 'randomly dicked over' is a perfectly acceptable game mechanic.

I can think of two traps I want to remove from game in order to make 'Randomly dicked over' acceptable:

Teleport (because that can be instant death, and it is very annoying even without)
Trap door (just because that can ruin your day when you are clearing GV)

Summoning is OK if we apply "summoning sickness" IE. summoned monsters start with zero energy (they could still act before you do if they are faster than you, but that's not so likely).

Then rest of the traps are somewhat OK. I think that paralysis and slow are only two really dangerous after that, and both are safe with FA.

[Derakon]

If you detect traps 100% of the time when adjacent to them, there's no reason for them to be hidden in the first place (of course in the current system their being hidden doesn't have much point either). And if they aren't hidden, then you can't really call them traps -just obsticles.

There is a reason to hide traps until you're next to them -- if you'd planned on moving into the tile the trap is in, now you have to adjust your strategy.

As for the rest of your post, I think we'll simply have to agree to disagree, since I take the opposite stance on every single statement you made.

[will_asher]

Anything that doesn't give 100% trap detection is a failed concept, because it implies that it is acceptable for the player to be randomly attacked with no possibility of preventing it. That's why hidden traps are such a terrible idea. Sure it's realistic for them to be hard to discover. But it doesn't work gameplay-wise.

You think that making it impossible (or impossibly tedious) to reliably detect traps will somehow make them fun?

Passive 100% trap detection when adjacent to them works reasonably well -- that's what Dungeon of Dredmor does. You can be surprised by a trap while in the middle of a fight, but at least you're given a choice of how to deal with it, instead of just being randomly afflicted by the trap's effects.
tl;dr traps need to be more than a "play in a tedious fashion or accept being randomly dicked over" mechanic.

If you detect traps 100% of the time when adjacent to them, there's no reason for them to be hidden in the first place (of course in the current system their being hidden doesn't have much point either). And if they aren't hidden, then you can't really call them traps -just obsticles.

Yes, I think making it impossible to reliably detect traps will make them more fun (as long as the traps aren't instadeath). It's probably better for it to be completely impossible than just tedious and more trouble to prevent people from being tempted to play in a tedious way.
It's okay for traps to be not reliably detectable as long as they aren't deadly. I think the best solution is for traps to be significant, damaging, but not deadly. Traps are already very rarely deadly. 'Randomly dicked over' is what Angband often does to you anyway. As long as it isn't an unavoidable instadeath, then 'randomly dicked over' is a perfectly acceptable game mechanic.

To me, it'd be a lot more frustrating for something very bad to happen from a trap that I saw one turn ago, but accidently moved into, than for something bad to happen from a trap that I was unable to detect.

[Malak Darkhunter]

I think traps are fine the way they are, but on the other hand they are only dangerous to new characters, up the damage done by gas, dart, pit attacks, for deeper levels.

[Derakon]

Anything that doesn't give 100% trap detection is a failed concept, because it implies that it is acceptable for the player to be randomly attacked with no possibility of preventing it. That's why hidden traps are such a terrible idea. Sure it's realistic for them to be hard to discover. But it doesn't work gameplay-wise.

Even with the current traps, which are rarely deadly (the vast majority amounting to "take a trivial amount of damage"), players refuse to explore an area before making certain they know where all the traps are. Getting hit by traps you don't know are there isn't fun. You think that making it impossible (or impossibly tedious) to reliably detect traps will somehow make them fun?

Passive 100% trap detection when adjacent to them works reasonably well -- that's what Dungeon of Dredmor does. You can be surprised by a trap while in the middle of a fight, but at least you're given a choice of how to deal with it, instead of just being randomly afflicted by the trap's effects.

tl;dr traps need to be more than a "play in a tedious fashion or accept being randomly dicked over" mechanic.

[bio_hazard]

This is very good solution for game play (providing we then make most traps genuinely dangerous and/or deadly), but I don't care for it thematically. 100% passive trap detection should be an ability that only a select few race/class combos (stat/level dependent) can achieve.

100% point-blank detection with active searching is another story. Assuming the character is taking fully 50% of his time and devoting it to not falling into a pit or stepping on a rune, then I think that most any character would notice a trap, unless they're blind or otherwise impaired. Then, as you said, disarmament is the tricky bit.

I like this suggestion better. Make active searching effective but trade-off heavily against other things (speed, to hit, AC, blows/round, spell failure).

Either that, or make some traps unavoidable, but DON'T make them deadly (except for low level characters). More nuisance traps that destroy backpack items, curse equipment, stun, trapdoors, teleport, summon, alarm, confuse, poison, prevent ESP, ...)

I guess a question would be: would you be more upset because you died by accidentally stepping on a deadly trap that you know is there by hitting the wrong key, or because you forgot to turn searching on/off and didn't detect a deadly trap?

[buzzkill]

Here's my spur-of-the-moment solution... Passive searching should reveal traps 100% of the time in adjacent squares. Disarmament should be tricky. Certain status effects (e.g. Fear) prevent 100% adjacent detection, so that when the player encounters monsters in conjunction with traps then the situation becomes more dangerous. Traps might need to be more deadly on average in order to stay interesting.

This is very good solution for game play (providing we then make most traps genuinely dangerous and/or deadly), but I don't care for it thematically. 100% passive trap detection should be an ability that only a select few race/class combos (stat/level dependent) can achieve.

100% point-blank detection with active searching is another story. Assuming the character is taking fully 50% of his time and devoting it to not falling into a pit or stepping on a rune, then I think that most any character would notice a trap, unless they're blind or otherwise impaired. Then, as you said, disarmament is the tricky bit.

[RogerN]

Re: searching/traps
I've played several RPGs in which traps made a positive contribution to my enjoyment of the game. The thing these games had in common is that they didn't have permadeath

The viability of traps as a gameplay mechanic comes down to this question:
Is it OK to permanently kill a character who is otherwise healthy for walking into an invisible trap? The current system says yes, and therefore all characters without perfect searching skill must zap or cast Detect Traps every 100 turns or risk instant death.

The searching mechanic feels broken because anything less than 100% detection is too risky for long term survival. LOS searching might help, but I think characters would still feel obligated to use magical detection for safety.

Here's my spur-of-the-moment solution... Passive searching should reveal traps 100% of the time in adjacent squares. Disarmament should be tricky. Certain status effects (e.g. Fear) prevent 100% adjacent detection, so that when the player encounters monsters in conjunction with traps then the situation becomes more dangerous. Traps might need to be more deadly on average in order to stay interesting.

[myshkin]

Then we have opposite opinions of what an artifact is or should be. To me it's a special (one of a kind) item that in most cases come with an unique name and/or has a legend tied to it. A mighty crossbow of might of the bear (3d8) (+10,+10) is no artifact in my eyes, simply "just" a powerful item.

How would you feel about a randart regime in which the most powerful swords are named Ringil and Anduril, the most powerful axes Eonwe and Durin, and so forth? Generating flavor text to match both the name and the random attributes would be challenging and possibly infeasible, I'll grant.

[Timo Pietilä]

At the cost of losing the use of those slots for other things. Ring slots are way too valuable IMO to dedicate to preventing stat drain

Use swaps. It becomes easy when you have space in inventory for swap rings.

[Derakon]

Rings of bodykeeping, soulkeeping, and amulets of sustenance make it 2 easy to ignore stat draining.

At the cost of losing the use of those slots for other things. Ring slots are way too valuable IMO to dedicate to preventing stat drain, and Sustenance starts showing up well after the amulet slot is doing similarly valuable things for you.

[Malak Darkhunter]

How about if leveling up restored each stat by 1 point? I'd rather not have chance-based things happen when you level up, because it creates the potential for leveling to be disappointing (because you didn't get what you wanted).

I can't remember the last time I saw a rod of restoration. It's one of the most rare rods in the game -- most games you won't find it unless you spend a long, long time in the dungeon (e.g. because you're trying to find and kill every unique).

Maybe sustains should be harder to get?

Rings of bodykeeping, soulkeeping, and amulets of sustenance make it 2 easy to ignore stat draining.

[Derakon]

I'd support a return to the stat-restoration potions, but in lieu of that, how about tweaking the current system so that is doesn't guarantee restoration. Maybe a % chance based on CL, or just restore 1 point of one drained stat upon level-up? Just throwing it out there.

How about if leveling up restored each stat by 1 point? I'd rather not have chance-based things happen when you level up, because it creates the potential for leveling to be disappointing (because you didn't get what you wanted).

At deeper levels, restoring is not much of an issue, rods of restoration start to drop and the fear is overwith, along with items that hold life, and weapons and artifacts with sustains.

I can't remember the last time I saw a rod of restoration. It's one of the most rare rods in the game -- most games you won't find it unless you spend a long, long time in the dungeon (e.g. because you're trying to find and kill every unique).

Maybe sustains should be harder to get?