Late-game

[Nick]

It should also be noted that Vanilla itself is its own variant: who approved the reduction of 9 Mage Books to 5 in going from 3.x to 4.x? Was that sent to a Committee for final vote and approval? Or did the Supreme Leader of Vanilla decide and code that on his own?

That change has an interesting history. I started a thread about how magic in Middle-Earth and in Angband (the game), where I basically suggested the expansion from two realms to four that has happened in 4.2. The idea of cutting down the number of spells (and hence books) came out of that thread, but not from me. So I marked that down as something that it looked like the community were fairly happy with, with of course the caveat that a diverse community like we have is rarely completely united on anything.

Later - as I had foreshadowed when I first started as maintainer - I coded up a possible new set of classes and posted about that. This kicked off a long discussion about the form these should take. People played the proposed new classes and gave their opinions. The original ideas changed a lot. The blackguard class, in particular, is almost completely not mine - Gwarl suggested the basic idea, the name was undecided for a long time, I did the first set of spells but David Medley than revamped them so they're almost completely different (and much better). And all of this was done in public, here, with everyone having a chance to participate.

So to answer your questions:

1. The community (at least as represented on these forums) both suggested and approved it.
2. There isn't a committee, unless you call the forums a committee. There was a lot of discussion. Not everyone was entirely happy, but decisions had to be made and for the most part they were group decisions.
3. As mentioned in answer 2 (your questions do overlap a bit...), they were mostly group decisions; I did write most of the code. I do like the title you're giving me though, much better than Butcher

You have proposed some changes in this thread, as have others. By all means (as others have suggested), code these up and submit them. Changes can either be made immediately, or released as an experimental branch as was done during a number of other big recent changes (monsters, classes, ID, etc).

[Selkie]

This entire thread feels like the great schism!

Firstly, I think NCountr makes some very sensible and considered points to which I'm inclined to agree.

Secondly, I don't think NCountr is a troll account, as has been suggested.

I do think their tone is slightly aggressive and their criticisms of Nick have gone too far. This is a shame because it undermines the sensible points they have raised.

Finally, I think being the vanilla maintainer must be one of the most soul destroying jobs in the world, but at least it pays well hey?

I hope Nick recognises that so many players appreciate his work and the improvements he's made to a game many of us have been playing for decades.

We sometimes moan about the end game, we gripe about broken spells, or OP mobs with irresistible time attacks... At the end of the day, we still keep playing otherwise we wouldn't be here. Let's just focus on what really matters in Angband, finding broken randarts at ridiculously low depths

[Hounded]

Thirded on the weird tone.

Completely agree on the point that a rebalancing process should be about more than nerfing. Also that unbridled escalation quickly becomes absurd. Glad I'm not the one balancing on that razor's edge in full view of the internet.

Personally I've no gripes with late game. Sometimes it's nice to enjoy the sedate rewards of omnipotence. Morgoth dead, new character, new class, new meta-story. So now mages aren't THE challenge class anymore, that's okay 'cause something else is.

My appreciation to all for the civil environment.

[NCountr]

Thirdly, maybe you don’t mean it, but you are definitely coming off as pretty abrasive.

Fair enough. I think Nick's handled it quite well; if anything it gets the Yes-Men stirred silly quickly, don't you think? But, no, Trolling the Yes-Men was not my intention.

Every major change made to Angband or Rogue -- or whatever it was called back in the 90s when ASCII was the actual reason we couldn't have nice things -- has been coded up by the vanilla administrator of the time. Sure, I could code things up, splinter off a variant. I did _do_ just that back in the late 90s when I wanted mage spells fixed properly. And, guess where it went? My hard drive. No one else ever saw it. Nor was I adroit enough of a coder to do reconciliations to maintain my changes with where the code went. I know just enough C to be dangerous; you don't want me anywhere near a Makefile if you know what's good for you. Which, in turn, means all my ideas fall on the deaf ears of YesMen shouting at me to run my own code base and let others judge it.

Meanwhile, it's the Vanilla Admin that determines where this story goes. Nick can poll for some issues to gauge acceptability of some things, but let's be honest --- it's Nick's boat now.

I like some of the things he's done with the UI. I appreciate the improvement in many of the mob pops and drops. But, we're not here to talk about those things; we're here to discuss the trite topic Mage OP-ness and how to make the End Game more interesting ... without rocking the boat (which is darn near impossible with so many YesMen putting up the blinders). Am I abrasive? Perhaps. But, I'm going to tell you exactly how I see it.

...Now, are we going to continue to discuss my attitude, or are we going to finally move on to talking about ideas to make things better?

[ewert]

Again, you keep just trying to piss people off. YesMen? Lol. All things are done by the maintainer, did you even read the previous description of what went around with the changes? Obviously not, since it went fully against what you are saying.

It is you who is keeping this off-topic ...

Others have in the past contributed or are contributing now, and that has included me, to the coding. You have said your peace (making mage spells a newb trap), it hasn't received much in the way of support, so you want to try it, code it. Looking at one class however does not do anything about the end-game itself.

PS. What is wrong with ASCII? Graphics, eww, disgusting, keep those out of my Angband ...

[wobbly]

But, no, Trolling the Yes-Men was not my intention.

Was your intention to refer to everyone who disagrees with you as a Yes-Man? Or perhaps to blow of steam? Because that's the way you come across to me.

Every major change made to Angband or Rogue -- or whatever it was called back in the 90s when ASCII was the actual reason we couldn't have nice things -- has been coded up by the vanilla administrator of the time.

Commit log says otherwise.

...Now, are we going to continue to discuss my attitude, or are we going to finally move on to talking about ideas to make things better?

Depends, are you going to remove your head from your ...? The current discussion is a mix of ideas and flaming, because your posts are a mix of ideas and flaming. I feel sorry for Voovus who probably opened the thread to discuss ideas to improve the endgame. If you want discussion then discuss. If you want flaming flame. Don't do both, then complain people are concentrating on 1 and not the other.

[Cuboideb]

For me, the problem with late-game is the high chance of insta-death, which means that monster damage is too high or player hp is too low. Speed and ranged attacks are in the mix too.

Before dlvl 45-50, the character has a higher chance to live with multiple enemies in LOS. Some days ago my warg necro was fighting a Osyluth in a corridor (dlvl 74). My HP were half-full (most of my deaths occur because I take this kind of risks). The O was almost dead and it summoned a Gelugon. It breathed...

If I had the time I would try to reduce the damage/hp ratio or tone down monster ranged attacks to see what happens (not for all monsters).

[Nick]

For me, the problem with late-game is the high chance of insta-death, which means that monster damage is too high or player hp is too low. Speed and ranged attacks are in the mix too.

It's rare in the late game to have a character which you are fairly sure is going to die but can't save, because that you will have several methods of escape and be resistant to things like confusion and paralysis. So (over-simplifying a bit) for a monster to be a threat, it typically has to be able to dish out serious damage quickly.

[Cuboideb]

You are right, I had all the escape methods available and speed. I was comparing the differences between both halfs of the game. In the late game a single monster has the power of many (compared against player HP). I was wondering how the game could be with more HP after clvl 36. If it could be more fun (for sloppy players like me) without making it too easy for the better players.

[ewert]

Abusing anti-LoS anti-summon burrowed dead ends or burrowed diamonds (for pillar dancing) with current summoner heavy end game is pretty much mandatory or you will eventually get the bad summon+breath combo. A lot of end-game high mobs have a chance of instakill for no matter how well equipped char if there are 2 in LoS.

Any time you fight a summon who can summon either high end breathers, or things that can cast the biggest storms/balls, dig a hole. There are still summons that can passwall walk, which are the worst as you can't tele other them in the wall... The high end undeads are super annoying, and if one were to optimize fighting, one would always avoid those ...

But I like killing tough stuff too much, undead pits at 90+ here I come! XD

[Cuboideb]

Any time you fight a summon who can summon either high end breathers, or things that can cast the biggest storms/balls, dig a hole.

I keep forgetting that stone to mud is a must...

[archolewa]

For me, the problem with late-game is the high chance of insta-death, which means that monster damage is too high or player hp is too low. Speed and ranged attacks are in the mix too.

I can understand this kind of frustration, but to me it's *precisely* these kinds of incredibly dangerous monsters that gives Angband its depth (at least in its current iteration). Let's face it, combat in Angband is pretty shallow, even without using anti-summoning corridors, pillar dancing or anything else, it basically boils down to:

1. Buff
2. Stab, stabbity stab.
3. Heal.
4. Stab some more.

Angband's depth comes from what happens *before* the battle. It comes from the player using their many detection tools to scope out the level and decide which enemies are worth fighting, which are worth teleporting, and which are worth staying FAR away from. It comes from struggling with risk-reward. Do I try looting that vault? The monsters don't look too bad, but what if wiruin is in there, hidden from my ESP and I haven't found a Rod of Detection yet? I only have 3 charges of TO. Is it worth teleporting that Beholder away to get the stuff behind it?

If we made more enemies fightable, then you would lose a lot of that depth, and I think Angband risks becoming fairly shallow. When you can fight everything, the game's depth should come from the combat itself, and I don't think Angband's combat is interesting enough to shoulder that load. You could totally change Angband to make combat more interesting of course. But that would be a pretty massive undertaking.

I think part of the reason the endgame is so problematic is that this formula starts to break down. Everyone, even warriors typically have plenty of renewable TO. Your power increases are generally going to be marginal, as opposed to the big leaps and bounds you can get in the early and midgame. Furthermore, even the worst enemies transition from "Oh God this thing will straight up *murder* me" to "I could kill this thing, but is it worth the consumables I'd need to use to do it?"

[Ed_47569]

This entire thread feels like the great schism!

Firstly, I think NCountr makes some very sensible and considered points to which I'm inclined to agree.

Secondly, I don't think NCountr is a troll account, as has been suggested.

I do think their tone is slightly aggressive and their criticisms of Nick have gone too far. This is a shame because it undermines the sensible points they have raised.

Finally, I think being the vanilla maintainer must be one of the most soul destroying jobs in the world, but at least it pays well hey?

I hope Nick recognises that so many players appreciate his work and the improvements he's made to a game many of us have been playing for decades.

We sometimes moan about the end game, we gripe about broken spells, or OP mobs with irresistible time attacks... At the end of the day, we still keep playing otherwise we wouldn't be here. Let's just focus on what really matters in Angband, finding broken randarts at ridiculously low depths

I agree with this. Does anyone else here remember the days of RGRA and characters like "Neo" that used to persistently troll? These forums have been fairly polite in comparison to those days.

As for my thoughts, I've been playing since 2.7.x having discovered the game after playing Moria on the old Acorn computers at high school. I think the game got a fair bit easier from 3.0.x onwards, with considerable beefing-up of artifacts and additional ego items added around that time. Round about version 3.1.x / 3.2.x it got ridiculously unbalanced and too easy in my opinion.

The work done from then onwards leading up to 4.2.x has been excellent and the game now feels better balanced than at any time since the 1990s. Version 4.2 especially beefed up the monster difficulty significantly without making the game more of a grind or slowing things down. I haven't really tried the new classes much (play 90% warriors / 10% mages - but that's just me!) but they do look well balanced and some of them clearly present a challenge for more seasoned players. I also alternate between randarts and standarts to mix things up.

Anyway, those are my thoughts and a job well done to Nick.

[NCountr]

What's in a Newb Trap

Others have in the past contributed or are contributing now, and that has included me, to the coding. You have said your peace (making mage spells a newb trap), it hasn't received much in the way of support, so you want to try it, code it. Looking at one class however does not do anything about the end-game itself.

PS. What is wrong with ASCII? Graphics, eww, disgusting, keep those out of my Angband ...

P.P.S. My attempt at humor seems to have escaped those with heated fingers whapping away at the keyboard.

Okay---let's tackle this topic because it is too important for it to be mis-labeled as a "newb trap". Newb Traps are hardly a thing. That's a weak-minded useless catch-all phrase to simply avoid anything one does not like. ---> typical YesMen straw man tactic. Not working this time, Flask of Oil right back at ya, bud.

Why are Spell Scrolls (or even Spell Points, an idea I hadn't thought of, but would love exploring more, credit to @Sky for bringing it up) a better way forward and a method to fix many issues at once ... including the current End Game doldrums that some have issue with?

1. It adds another layer of structured thought and tactics to the game. One must work out a set of trade-offs. Which spells are critical to my mage (or priest, or rogue or warrior (for agilities and skills mastery), which are not. Some attack, defense, utility spells can be covered by equipment. Is it worth a slot or am I just better off learning the utility and foregoing something down the line? Am I even guaranteed to find those MAGA scrolls (Make Angband Great Again, for those wondering)?

The YesMen are seething. They cannot comprehend that is is precisely a 1:1 correlation with equipment and gear finds going down the levels. You are not guaranteed to find another Scroll of Remove Hunger for some time. Do you keep Rations as well as Dried Fruit or do you sacrifice your slots for a few more scrolls of Phase Door? These are choices the newb player is already dealing with, @ewert. But, you seem to not want to call that a newb trap---inconvenient, I know.

2. By expanding the number of options given to players of spell casters, via finding scrolls to add into a set of carried binders or by allocating spell points per @Sky's suggestion, you are in effect creating a different scenario for the End Game. One where the player's earlier choices come to fruition, or detriment. You've added another layer of excitement as you may come to regret not having learned Electric Arc when you had the chance earlier on. Now you have to grapple with not having an effective attack against certain mobs that have but one critical weakness (aside from the pure melee or ranged missile attack).

3. By expanding the number of options given to players, the Game Designer does not need to penalize certain classes, nor inflate mob attacks to ever more insane levels ("Newb Trap", anyone? ... yes, I'm going to keep pounding that ridiculous argument into the proverbial ground. I have no patience for idiotic, low-level, trite refuse like that.)

4. Expanding options for players doesn't have to be purely equate to much change other than the mechanics of how spells are acquired early on.

---Mechanics of Spell Scrolls---

Store 4 has 3-4 basic scrolls for sale. Maybe 1-3 scroll spells normally found in Books 2 and 3 now. Store 7 could have a couple of more sensational scrolls for an additional price.

Store 6 will have Bindings for sale. A couple of variety -- trade-offs include bulkier, cheap bindings:

• An Ethereal Binding which is light weight, impervious to fire and acid, but only holds 3-4 scrolls. So the trade-off becoming, do I want to sacrifice more precious slot space for security of my spell books?
• a Wooden Binder which could hold 5-6 spell scrolls, yet be susceptible to Fire or Acid. (Never understood why plasma was a thing, but that's another worthless attempt at making mobs more difficult to counter earlier expansion of player power.)
• A Scroll-Sheath of the Elves which would be something found primarily deep in the dungeon where Elvish Shields and Dwarven Armor can be located. Holds 5-8 scrolls, impervious to elements. Medium weight.
• A Gnomish Textbook which only holds a few 3-4 scrolls but resists (not immune) Fire and Acid. Or maybe its not as sturdy and has a potential for pages (scrolls) to fall out? Maybe that could be a curse placed on some binders.

Scrolls should be moveable from binder to binder, should the player come across a more optimal book. Players should have the option to have as many books as they deem necessary, not limited to 5 or 9.

Simpler spells will be easy to find, and numerous. So, you can rather easily come-across and acquire a new one every level or so.

Spell scrolls could operate like normal scrolls, except the player has the option to commit to memory or just read and consume once on-the-spot. So, you find a Scroll of Light, say. You can study and commit that spell to Memory (and place in a binder if one has it), OR, you can read it verbatim and light up the immediate area, destroying the scroll in the process.

The UI will know the difference when a player 'r'eads a scroll for 1-time consumption, or 'm'agically casting / 'p'raying from them. (Perhaps the UI could warn players of such a choice the first few times before not asking further... have to avoid those Newb Traps. Insert_eye_roll) 'G'aining a spell/prayer will tell the UI the player intends to commit the scroll-spell to memory.

Priests coming across mage scrolls or Necro scrolls -- maybe they can read them, for immediate, one-time consumption, but maybe they cannot (depending on how much cross-contamination you want)... certainly they could not comprehend them to commit to memory.

Deeper down, past level 30, is where one begins to find the really interesting stuff. I would not code any spell-scroll to be deeper than the current level 60. The point is not to make them AS difficult to find as Rings of Power or other such Artifact items, though, they should not be commonplace, easy-to-find. Set the rarity to 8 to 10..?

The whole point is to slowly build up a large list of spells and prayers to make those choices more interesting as the game progresses.

My favorite spell I've never coded: Ventriloquism (a spell that comes from the oldest of Dungeon and Dragons books as a level 1 mage spell). A mage casts this to alert mobs to a Player being somewhere else in the dungeon. The higher the level the mage, the more effective the spell becomes (better range, mobs are more likely to respond to it). I.e., I can get those annoying Hounds to go bark off in a different hallway for a while. Ventriloquism should be found from level 0 onward. (And/or be a consumable, 1-time scroll.) Scrolls consumed will be consumed at the level of the caster. Level 1 for warriors or non-class casters. Level whatever otherwise for the same-class.

Scrolls not put in binders are susceptible to standard Fire / Acid attacks and also take up a critical slot space. So, unless you intend to stack up Scrolls of Holy Chant, you're better off placing one of those prayers in memory and into a binder with the rest of one's prayers.

Scrolls may be ripped from the binders. If a scroll is removed from player inventory, the spell will only be cast-able as a spell if the scroll is returned to player inventory (or he/she happens to be standing on it).

The number of spells a player may memorize depends on class, class-level, and Wisdom/Intelligence characteristics. Like now, a player may not unlearn something in favor of another spell later on. These are choices we all learn and adapt to as we play the game. Not a Newb Trap. More eye rolling.

Ideally, I think we're still talking spell-casters having 30-40 spells maximum in the game, with an expanded option set of 60-80 spells knowable (of assorted levels). Your current YesMen group will be happy to know they can still go and learn the current stock of vanilla spells _as_is_. Nothing will change if they want to pursue the same set of spells currently furnished by the 5 Mage books in the game. They'll just be spread out more. Those looking for creativity, though, will relish the new expanded horizons for spell casters (and eventually warrior/rogue classes where new abilities and skills could be learned in the same way ... albeit without binders).

Angband will be great again.

[Julian]

Fair enough. I think Nick's handled it quite well; if anything it gets the Yes-Men stirred silly quickly, don't you think? But, no, Trolling the Yes-Men was not my intention.

And this is exactly what people mean --€” calling people who disagree with you "€śyes-men" is needlessly abrasive.

Every major change made to Angband or Rogue -- or whatever it was called back in the 90s when ASCII was the actual reason we couldn't have nice things -- has been coded up by the vanilla administrator of the time.

Nope. They are ultimately the gatekeeper, but pulling in patches from other people has always been part of the role. The monster learning/pack behavior code? Written by Leon Marrick, modified slightly for efficiency, and accepted by Ben. Randarts? I don't know where they came from, but I'm pretty sure they came from a variant first. And so on, and so forth.

Sure, I could code things up, splinter off a variant. I did _do_ just that back in the late 90s when I wanted mage spells fixed properly. And, guess where it went? My hard drive. No one else ever saw it.

And that's on you. People can'€™t decide they like a thing if they don't see it.

BTW, if you feel embarrassed by the idea of letting other people see your code, I'm sure there was worse out there.

Nor was I adroit enough of a coder to do reconciliations to maintain my changes with where the code went.

Modern tools for this are really quite good.

I know just enough C to be dangerous;

The sum total of people in the world I trust to write C well is Ben.

Which, in turn, means all my ideas fall on the deaf ears of YesMen shouting at me to run my own code base and let others judge it.

It is the way of the world. "€śI have a really cool general idea, and you should write and develop it."€ť is always a harder sell than "€śHere's a tested implementation." People like novelty. If you made a variant with your desired spell mechanics, you’d get people playing it. And they'€™d have opinions.

Meanwhile, it's the Vanilla Admin that determines where this story goes. Nick can poll for some issues to gauge acceptability of some things, but let's be honest --- it's Nick's boat now.

Yep.

But, we're not here to talk about those things; we're here to discuss the trite topic Mage OP-ness and how to make the End Game more interesting ... without rocking the boat (which is darn near impossible with so many YesMen putting up the blinders).

I'€™m not entirely sure why you think that the maintainer who (I believe) added four new classes, two new magic schools, and upended identify is so opposed to rocking the boat.

Am I abrasive? Perhaps. But, I'm going to tell you exactly how I see it.

Here'€™s the thing. One can express one's opinions forthrightly without being abrasive about it, but there'€™s an awful lot of people out there who are big on "€śsaying it like it is" where being a jerk seems to be part of the point for them. These people are tiresome, and generally come out of their interactions having persuaded nobody, but sure that they are in the right because they upset people.

Does that describe you? No idea; there is inadequate evidence.

People have raised criticisms of the roll-your-own-spellbook idea, and how it could work poorly for less experienced players. My personal first thought is that it'd lead to either a lot of extra items being generated, throwing off item distribution, especially if it's being applied to all the spell casting classes (which it doesn'€™t have to; different paradigms of spell acquisition for the various classes could be interesting); or difficulty finding even basic spells.

These are more interesting thing to engage with, and don'€™t require calling people "yes-men"€ť.

Edit: Since your latest post happened while I was composing this, some of the things I said are obviously no longer accurate