Mage OP

[Huqhox]

I like this idea. What do others think?

That's a thumbs up from me. Still keeps the spell powerful but prevents it being a cheesy spam at the start of every level

[Cuboideb]

Just the mage spell? I'm ok with that. I wouldn't change the scroll or staff though, let them be usable as they are now.

I agree with this.

[Saru]

Re: Banishment ideas

Both suggestions for banishment seem very nice to me, although I'm of the mind that it should be universally applied not just to the cast spells but consumables as well. Sure it affects other classes but that seems sort of the point... banishment still is problematic gameplay interaction wise even when limited.

Don't know what Nick thinks of the mass banishment idea though since it seems he was only referencing the first?

[archolewa]

Want to banish all L's on a floor? You need to put the work in to find one and safely get in LoS so you can target it to banish it and its brethren!

Does this really change anything though? An endgame mage has 0% chance of failure with Banishment, and will almost definitely be at speed parity with 99% of every non-unique mob in the game (or at least the truly dangerous ones). So sitting around a corner, waiting for the first Z to enter LOS and then banishing Z doesn't really seem to do anything but add extra steps without adding any additional risk.

I guess it makes Druug's slightly more dangerous, but still doesn't seem like a big enough jump in danger to make endgame mages interesting.

That being said, I don't play mages, and Banishment is so rare for everyone else that it never figures into my strategies, so I don't particularly care what we do with it. If the people who do play mages thinks this will add something, then sure go right ahead.

[Nick]

Don't know what Nick thinks of the mass banishment idea though since it seems he was only referencing the first?

I like the general idea of making mass banishment more interesting, but this specific idea seems like probably too big a nerf.

[Saru]

Fair enough, it would definitely be a rather major reduction.

[m0stlym0nk]

I like the general idea of making mass banishment more interesting, but this specific idea seems like probably too big a nerf.

Understood. I spent more timing chewing on the topic with that in mind. Here's some thoughts that arose:

• Interactivity is good, standing out in the darkness mass-deleting enemies is not.

• Cast-at-target seems like a good way to make that happen, getting the player in the action more, and moving around more.

• More variable risk that the player has to strategize through is good.

So, how about this idea that keeps engagement, planning, and interactivity up, but isn't as nerf-ey as the "enemy is a flashbang grenade" LOS style mass banishment:

Description text: "Center an arcane blast on a targeted enemy that will banish that enemy and all enemies near them. Blast radius is the distance from player to target."


Here, the player will target an enemy that acts as the middle of the blast, with the size of the blast defined by distance from @ to target.

A player will strategize to figure out the optimal position to be in and what enemy to target. They may quaff a speed pot and bust around a corner to get the jump on awake enemies and target a baddie deep in the crowd for maximal effect. Or, a sneaky mage may STM through walls to create the perfect spot to haste and pop the wall to get a big ol' banish blast fired off, carefully judging what's in the room and where they can safely be exposed for a turn to hit the perfectly chosen distant target for a big ol arcane hit of banishment.

Sneaky players will of course always look for opportunities for creative use of the spell, trying to find a single louse at the end of a room or hall that has a huge number of nasties beyond it. Bold players may even, in a pinch, tunnel to the perfect spot and risk reading a summon scroll to get the ideal max-radius that will tear up a nearby room.

(If desired, perhaps a max-range could be implemented to cover any concern of extreme-range edge cases).

[Nick]

• Interactivity is good, standing out in the darkness mass-deleting enemies is not.

• Cast-at-target seems like a good way to make that happen, getting the player in the action more, and moving around more.

• More variable risk that the player has to strategize through is good.

This is an excellent set of principles.

So, how about this idea that keeps engagement, planning, and interactivity up, but isn't as nerf-ey as the "enemy is a flashbang grenade" LOS style mass banishment:

Description text: "Center an arcane blast on a targeted enemy that will banish that enemy and all enemies near them. Blast radius is the distance from player to target."


Here, the player will target an enemy that acts as the middle of the blast, with the size of the blast defined by distance from @ to target.

I like the idea, but I think setting the radius to reward increased distance from the is the wrong way round. Current radius of effect is 20; I would suggest making the new radius of effect 20 - (player to monster distance).

[m0stlym0nk]

I like the idea, but I think setting the radius to reward increased distance from the is the wrong way round. Current radius of effect is 20; I would suggest making the new radius of effect 20 - (player to monster distance).

O dang, you're all in on getting the player up in the baddy's grill, eh? The closer you are, the burlier the ban hammer.

What would be a max cast radius, in this idea? Presumably we wouldn't want the player to have a crappy experience by being so far away they banish teeny little patch of a couple tiles. A reasonable max-distance could ensure that when you can cast it, you'll always be certain of a reasonable min-size patch o' carnage.

<EDIT:> And, this still leaves open creative "use all the tools in every way imaginable" Angband-style play such as the examples I tossed in above (corner an orc up against a wall and let loose with point-blank mass-banish to torch the room of nasties on the other side of the wall, etc etc).

Hah! And I just realized the "closer is better" concept truly does give a risky read of a summon scroll some sketchy potential value, given that the summoned enemies are placed right on you. They are right in place for you to use as a ground-zero for a big ol' multi-room slaughter-fest!

[Pete Mack]

The old banish evil spell had huge problems: LOS in a destroyed area means a lot of monsters stick arounx, *i cluding some in reverse LOS.

Nerfing a scroll that you might have only 5 copies of seems ... pretty harsh.

[m0stlym0nk]

The old banish evil spell had huge problems: LOS in a destroyed area means a lot of monsters stick around, *including some in reverse LOS.

Ah, interesting point - good reminder, Pete. All the more reason to back away from that and head toward an unhindered los radius.

[archolewa]

The old banish evil spell had huge problems: LOS in a destroyed area means a lot of monsters stick arounx, *i cluding some in reverse LOS.

Nerfing a scroll that you might have only 5 copies of seems ... pretty harsh.

I agree. I think the problem isn't (Mass) Banishment itself, but rather its spammability. A problem that only applies to Mages. In fact, Banishment and Mass Banishment are *awesome* scrolls/staves. They're very powerful and very rare, meaning you have to always think carefully about whether now is a good time to use them.

One option that might get tomatoes thrown at me would be to just remove Banishment from the mage's spellbook entirely. Let them have Mass Banishment (they don't have the HP to deal with summons otherwise). But it seems that if our concern is that players are banishing the alphabet and then getting bored, and we really don't want them to banish the alphabet, then we should just stop them from banishing the alphabet. The only way to do that with the way Angband spells work would be to remove the spell from their spellbook.

[m0stlym0nk]

I agree. I think the problem isn't (Mass) Banishment itself, but rather its spammability. A problem that only applies to Mages. In fact, Banishment and Mass Banishment are *awesome* scrolls/staves. They're very powerful and very rare, meaning you have to always think carefully about whether now is a good time to use them.

One option that might get tomatoes thrown at me would be to just remove Banishment from the mage's spellbook entirely. Let them have Mass Banishment (they don't have the HP to deal with summons otherwise). But it seems that if our concern is that players are banishing the alphabet and then getting bored, and we really don't want them to banish the alphabet, then we should just stop them from banishing the alphabet. The only way to do that with the way Angband spells work would be to remove the spell from their spellbook.

That's a really good point, archolewa. It seems like the matrix of options includes:

1. The ducking-tomatoes concept of removing abusable-as-they-currently-stand spells from the mage books, but leaving the (rare) scrolls/etc that can be found.
2. Leave the scrolls/etc version OG, but update mage books version to operate differently/newschool (ie, essentially make the two be different spells)
3. Switch scrolls/etc AND mage spells to newschool, but tweak drop rates of scrolls/etc such that non-book users come out about even in terms of effectiveness over time. (Is this degree of control over drop rates something we actually have realistically/effectively?)

Am I forgetting any other permutations?

Broadly, what I'm kind of alluding to is that if we run with the idea that ban/ban-hammer are in need of a come-to-haysoos so that they aren't so "deleting enemies in the darkness", the whole thing does kinda scream for consistency across the experience: that the scrolls/etc reflect the mage spells in the same way the rest of the related game content interreflects.

In a lesser sense, this is kind of harkening back to what the JLE/2.7.x-to-2.8.x era would have gone through had GoI had a scroll/staff equivalent. If it's bad, it goes. But if it shouldn't for all, it should probably be consistent across the different presentations of the feature to stay Angband-ey (bit of a crappy hypothetical example, but I'm sure you know what I mean.)

[ewert]

Banishment:
Targetable banish-all-of-type sounds like a great idea to me. I see no problem with leaving scroll as is, there is a history of consumables being better than spells. Heck, I wouldn't even complain if you make scrolls be the same, but change staves to the new one, to make it even more varied.

Mass Banish:
Ground target radius effect with radius being 20-distance/2 (otherwise targeting it instead of using point blank makes no sense, unless you want to leave some behind behind you, which you still could with this formula). This way if you chuck it out far, you still get a blob instead of just making your circle smaller with the edge being at the same point. Or just keep it as is.

TBH, none of these mass banish changes make that much of a difference... the targetable with non-severe radius penalty would make clearing a vault with a single cast a little easier, since well, if you have the spell and want to, that vault will still be empty no matter what when you go there. So the only change would be less of a hassle for the same benefit.

[Voovus]

What if, instead of dealing damage to @, Banishment and Mass Banishment were to drain @'s Int?

(Personally, I would prefer it not to be nerfed at all. I can decide on the amount of cheese I want in my games myself, and this can vary from @ to @.)