Sil: What are your least liked features of Sil?

[BlueFish]

I'd imagine that in Sil preserve off gives the player an incentive to clear levels completely? Wouldn't it be better for gameplay if they descended when they're ready?

Yes, and I think the time limit trumps all other considerations when thinking about whether to dive. The possible existence of an artifact over in the opposite corner from the down-stairs might be a downer to think about, but not enough of one to change whether you take the stairs.

It's just that it doesn't need to be a downer to think about, is all.

[Mikko Lehtinen]

It's just that it doesn't need to be a downer to think about, is all.

Yeah, it's good to align game mechanics so that they point to the same direction -> the most fun way to play.

Of course, as pointed out earlier in the thread, at the moment preserve off seems to have a real function in preventing stair scumming.

[debo]

Yeah, it's good to align game mechanics so that they point to the same direction -> the most fun way to play.

Of course, as pointed out earlier in the thread, at the moment preserve off seems to have a real function in preventing stair scumming.

The only difficulty with that is that I don't think the game telegraphs this as a consequence of stairscumming. I don't recall seeing a warning in the tutorial or the manual, at least.

[taptap]

The main incentive to diving for me is honestly not the minimal depth but the ladder I am driving my recent chars down (often to early death) in the hope to get <20k turn winners (hopefully also killing Morgoth in the process). Of course there are other mechanisms against scumming - reduced xp returns being the main one.

I noticed with my recent Arand how effective this is. He was stealthy singer at start and started killing things only with Tevildo and Oikeroi. He had impressive strength but no chance to gather the experience I hoped for despite killing lots of things in the deep dungeon. (I got more experience for orc soldiers in the throne room than for vampire lords.) So even with a char that was made for fast dive, loitering about 900 / 950 and then a quick finish - I lost patience with staying at 900/950ft. after doing it twice and went to the throne room.

[BlueFish]

Is it possible for thieves to steal artifacts from your inventory? That's never happened to me, but I often am carrying at least one around.

I checked the source and there's special code there to prevent thieves from stealing artifacts from inventory.

I think it would be better if they also couldn't pick up artifacts from the ground, though I realize this would necessarily apply to the uniques who can pick stuff up. (Orc thieves are the only non-uniques who can, from what I saw.)

[Patashu]

The only difficulty with that is that I don't think the game telegraphs this as a consequence of stairscumming. I don't recall seeing a warning in the tutorial or the manual, at least.

I agree that it would be good to telegraph, but what would be a good way to do it? It also needs to be considered that how bad it is depends upon the chance of an artifact being spawned at depth X as well as the number of artifacts that are in the game. e.g. stairscumming that has a 10% chance of losing an artifact is worse than if it was a 1% chance, and also worse than 10% chance in a world where less artifacts exist in general.

[BlueFish]

I agree that it would be good to telegraph, but what would be a good way to do it?

Probably merits a bullet point or two in the manual's section on changes from Vanilla.

* "Preserve Artefacts" mode is permanently off, which means any artifact, discovered or not, generated on a level, will never be generated again.
* Monsters can pick up artefacts.

It also needs to be considered that how bad it is depends upon the chance of an artifact being spawned at depth X as well as the number of artifacts that are in the game. e.g. stairscumming that has a 10% chance of losing an artifact is worse than if it was a 1% chance, and also worse than 10% chance in a world where less artifacts exist in general.

It also needs to be considered how good it is, and whether forcing Preserve mode to Off does add flavor to the practical experience of playing the game.

Stairscumming is so strongly discouraged by the game, but still for certain builds at certain depths I find myself needing to use them as an escape very often. At depths sufficiently low to generate large levels with decent chances of vaults, I get sickening feelings every time about which artifacts I'm losing. I don't know that a player who's already needing to run away constantly should be further penalized in that way.

But we should keep in mind that according to Scatha there's really only one reason for Preserve mode being off: realism regarding flavor. All the rest of this stuff we're talking about is rationalizations of a behavior that was never rationalized in that way by the creators.

[wobbly]

It also needs to be considered how good it is, and whether forcing Preserve mode to Off does add flavor to the practical experience of playing the game.

I like it off. It adds to the tension when you can see an item in a room that could be good & an enemy that could kill you.

[half]

But we should keep in mind that according to Scatha there's really only one reason for Preserve mode being off: realism regarding flavor. All the rest of this stuff we're talking about is rationalizations of a behavior that was never rationalized in that way by the creators.

Actually, there are several reasons for it:

1) realism

Scatha has already discussed this. We try not to go out of the way for realism (e.g. not adding much complexity or sacrificing much gameplay for the sake of realism), but we do think it counts for something. We should actually say 'fantasy realism' or 'true to theme' rather than realism. For example, in the books, artefacts are continuous with special items, and people would try extra hard not to lose the named items, rather than knowing they are always safe and being *less* concerned about them.

We are particularly annoyed by things that are so unrealistic that they seem nonsensical. This doesn't come up here, but is a major reason why we have connected stairs.

2) simplicity

It is more complex to have exceptions to the normal item rules for artefacts. Note that realism and simplicity combine to give a default position on artefact being impossible to lose: why should we complicate things to give this unrealistic/unthematic behaviour?

3) not wanting to encourage strange tactics

I think this is the main reason for allowing artefacts to be lost. I had been roughly sticking to the Angband tradition and Scatha (with a fresh perspective) kept pointing out strange things this led to and convinced me to simplify things. For example, if (as in Angband) they can't be lost until identified, then there are sometimes strong reasons to not identify things you suspect to be artefacts. The major one is that given Sil makes artefacts less common the more you find, so you might try to deliberately not find the weak ones. I could remove this balancing factor, but I think that would be a much much bigger game balance change. The diminishing artefact finds actually smooths out two key things with artefacts. It makes people find a more regular number of them, and it lets people find weaker ones earlier without finding too many later.

There are a number of other strange out-of-character tactics it creates, or which come up if you try to fix this one.

4) allowing interesting non-lethal challenges

If an orc thief picks up a suspected artefact (or other great item) it creates an interesting short term challenge: can you stop them escaping? This involves unusual tactical challenges, is often possible with clever play, and is not that bad if you fail. Indeed it is more of a carrot challenge than a stick challenge -- a bit like having a mini quest that would give you a great item if you succeed and no penalty if you fail.


Now that I see we still have the 'artefacts immune to theft' rule from Angband, I'm actually inclined to remove that and allow them to be stolen (if they are in your pack). There is only one (rare) type of monster that can do this. It appears quite early in the game when you probably only have a few artefacts. You can always just wear the artefact to prevent any loss, so I don't see a problem with this.

[Mikko Lehtinen]

Thanks for the explanation!

We are particularly annoyed by things that are so unrealistic that they seem nonsensical. This doesn't come up here, but is a major reason why we have connected stairs.

Connected stairs leading to a completely different level is equally nonsensical to me, and leads to completely nonsensical gameplay in Angband. That's why I favour non-connected stairs there. In Sil connected stairs don't lead to nonsensical gameplay, so it fits better.

The major one is that given Sil makes artefacts less common the more you find, so you might try to deliberately not find the weak ones.

Does finding an artifact mean picking it up, seeing it, or being on the same dungeon level?

If the last one, then this mechanic leads to bad feelings now and then when the player descends without clearing the whole dungeon level. I would think twice before descending, and then usually do it anyway because of the other mechanics. But probably the other considerations have more weight.

I may copy this mechanic, maybe slightly tweaked, to Halls of Mist.

[Scatha]

Now that I see we still have the 'artefacts immune to theft' rule from Angband, I'm actually inclined to remove that and allow them to be stolen (if they are in your pack). There is only one (rare) type of monster that can do this. It appears quite early in the game when you probably only have a few artefacts. You can always just wear the artefact to prevent any loss, so I don't see a problem with this.

That sounds pretty good to me. I might be an outlier in this regard, though; for example I'm not certain that artefacts should all be immune to acid damage.

[half]

That sounds pretty good to me. I might be an outlier in this regard, though; for example I'm not certain that artefacts should all be immune to acid damage.

Now we sound like teachers who, in response to someone's request to be regraded on question 3, have a closer look at question 2 and decide they had been overly generous rather than overly harsh...

I was thinking along the same lines though. I came to the conclusion that the acid damage in Sil is a bit random and hard to avoid. When it does happen, there is no going back (as opposed to when the thief starts running away and you need to drink the potion of quickness to beat him to the stairs!). Having worn artefacts get degraded and having them just disappear in the inventory are both pretty frustrating, so I'm OK with the liberal dose of IGNORE_ACID, IGNORE_FIRE that we hand out.

[half]

I also wonder if people would complain if we changed their names from 'artefacts' to 'very special items' if people would complain so much. I think people are just used to the behaviour of 'artifacts' in Angband, or think of them like 'artifacts' in D&D (which are much more powerful).

"Oh, you're thinking of 'artifacts'! Sil just has 'artefacts'. They're much less powerful and like special items can get destroyed..."


PS

One of the things that Scatha was particularly unimpressed by when I told him about it, was that people could identify artifacts in Angband by trying to destroy them... He also convinced me to get rid of Angband's tradition of saying that orcs can't pick up weapons of orc-slaying etc.: these are precisely the things that orcs would want to take away from you. c.f. the Troll's treasure containing Orcrist and Glamdring.

[fph]

I also wonder if people would complain if we changed their names from 'artefacts' to 'very special items' if people would complain so much. I think people are just used to the behaviour of 'artifacts' in Angband, or think of them like 'artifacts' in D&D (which are much more powerful).

Many ARPG &#224; la Diablo have "unique items"; the name would fit well here, too.

He also convinced me to get rid of Angband's tradition of saying that orcs can't pick up weapons of orc-slaying etc.: these are precisely the things that orcs would want to take away from you. c.f. the Troll's treasure containing Orcrist and Glamdring.

Change this behavior? Aaargh! Heretic! Don't you dare! It's always been like that, I love it, it's the best way to play and no one should question it!

Just kidding... I never noticed that orcs can't pick up weapons of slay orc; if it goes away it seems a good thing. It looks very nethack-ish.

[BlueFish]

3) not wanting to encourage strange tactics

I think this is the main reason for allowing artefacts to be lost. I had been roughly sticking to the Angband tradition and Scatha (with a fresh perspective) kept pointing out strange things this led to and convinced me to simplify things. For example, if (as in Angband) they can't be lost until identified, then there are sometimes strong reasons to not identify things you suspect to be artefacts. The major one is that given Sil makes artefacts less common the more you find, so you might try to deliberately not find the weak ones. I could remove this balancing factor, but I think that would be a much much bigger game balance change. The diminishing artefact finds actually smooths out two key things with artefacts. It makes people find a more regular number of them, and it lets people find weaker ones earlier without finding too many later.

Thanks for the explanation, half.

It's not obvious to me that "number of artifcats generated" maps so cleanly to "number of artifacts found". But it seems that that's the assumption of this mechanic. The propensity of a player to leave parts of levels unexplored (maybe they dive quickly, maybe they have to flee often, etc) would have a big influence on that. I'm fairly sure most of my deep-surviving characters leave more dungeon area unexplored than explored, due to a combination of wanting to dive quickly, and needing to flee levels. When you flee a level, it is often at the start, when monsters from every side converge. Which means the whole level remains unexplored and all artifacts on it are lost.

It seems that the odd tactics, which I agree would happen, aren't really a product of Preserve=off as much as they're a product of the RNG fudging based on number of artifacts already generated. Removing that and keeping preserve=on seems to me to be the simplest solution. Artifact generation chance could be tweaked then as necessary for balance.

4) allowing interesting non-lethal challenges

If an orc thief picks up a suspected artefact (or other great item) it creates an interesting short term challenge: can you stop them escaping? This involves unusual tactical challenges, is often possible with clever play, and is not that bad if you fail. Indeed it is more of a carrot challenge than a stick challenge -- a bit like having a mini quest that would give you a great item if you succeed and no penalty if you fail.

I agree that is an interesting challenge, but in practice most items orc thieves pick up are out of the players LOS. It's always a good idea to try to kill orc thieves, but this scenario where you're motivated to get that particular item is rare, from my experience. Though whenever I kill a thief, he tends to drop a backpackfull of stuff, so I know he's been sweeping the level.

Now that I see we still have the 'artefacts immune to theft' rule from Angband, I'm actually inclined to remove that and allow them to be stolen (if they are in your pack). There is only one (rare) type of monster that can do this. It appears quite early in the game when you probably only have a few artefacts. You can always just wear the artefact to prevent any loss, so I don't see a problem with this.

I'm a bit dubious about these "fun" sorts of attacks which are relegated to single monsters (mewlip maprot being the other). If they are truly fun and truly present interesting challenges, why make the mechanic disappear after the first 30 minutes of playtime?