What is "balance" anyway

[Magnate]

Magnate and/or d_m - could you elabourate on this more (perhaps by starting another thread discussing it)? I've not seen any discussion to date, and I would be intrigued to see what you had in mind.

Andrew

All I know is that d_m was looking a while ago at http://trac.rephial.org/ticket/156 - Leon had sent Takkaria a complete replacement for generate.c, which hasn't yet made it into the V codebase. The more development elapsed, the more work was required to incorporate Leon's changes. I don't know how far it's got, but there were some excited noises from d_m about caves and other room types, so I'm looking forward to seeing it.

[Marble Dice]

It is, trust me. You die a bit more often, but who cares? Added danger makes game feel more intense and you play more carefully. You might actually even look at what you are fighting, and not automatically safely suppose that it isn't anything that can kill you.

No, it is not fun. Maybe to you it is, to me it is not. You obviously don't know me or what is fun to me, but that's fine, I wouldn't expect you to. That's why I tried to make it clear that it was my opinion when I stated it.

Spoilers? You use spoilers? Use monster memory. It is an in-game feature. Sounds to me that you are relatively new to this game.

Spoilers == Monster memory. Monster memory is a useful in-game feature, although average hp is somewhat awkward to learn in-game, but unfortunately save files do tend to get left behind, and with them, their memories. My personal memory is suitable for many enemies, but I admit I don't have the maximum hp of every dl40+ breather memorized, and occasionally I need to be reminded of what the damage cap or divisor is for one high breath or another. According to you, anyone younger than dinosaurs of the Triassic are new to Angband, so yes, I am quite new.

I don't quite understand your reasoning behind this. It worked just fine in old versions, so it could work just fine in new versions. In new versions there is info-screen that gives you all known monsters in single look. Of course ESP doesn't only tell you that there is an monster, it tells you what that monster is, so this really doesn't change gameplay that much. It does however make ESP more valuable.

Again, if you're referring to obscure detection magic, no, I don't think it worked. Many other people don't think it worked which is why it isn't that way now. Just because you or some people you know didn't complain about it doesn't mean most people think it's a good idea - and maybe what you played was a better game for you, or even for most people, but I am simply saying it is definitely not a better game for me.

My point was this: If I cast a detection spell and I see just a red "d", that's bad if I think have to ask myself, or the memory, or the spoilers, what a red "d" could be. If I cast a detection spell and for example on the visible monsters list or when I look at that symbol, I see that it could be a baby red dragon, a young red dragon, OR a mature red dragon, that's good. The interface has prevented me from doing the mindless and unnecessary busy work of looking up or simply knowing all possible red "d" symbols.

I agree with UnAndrew and d_m that "sterile statistics-based gameplay" could be readily addressed by better design of dungeon levels and the risk and reward of the enemies and objects placed therein.

[andrewdoull]

When he's not doing awesome things like the quiver and the 256-colour patch, d_m is working on a big level generation patch too.

Magnate and/or d_m - could you elabourate on this more (perhaps by starting another thread discussing it)? I've not seen any discussion to date, and I would be intrigued to see what you had in mind.

Andrew

[andrewdoull]

It is, trust me. You die a bit more often, but who cares? Added danger makes game feel more intense and you play more carefully. You might actually even look at what you are fighting, and not automatically safely suppose that it isn't anything that can kill you.

Timo - could you talk about your experiences with variants (in particular Oangband and Sangband)? My experience with those is that the monster design ensures that there are in level monsters which are always going to be a challenge - which monsters those are depending on which class you play. That's something I've tried to emphasize with Unangband.

I'm suggesting that this could be addressed in a large part by more careful design, not just increasing the range of monster types.

Andrew

[Timo Pietilä]

I disagree with this paragraph. The difference between an ancient red and a great hell wyrm, or even a baby red (100 hp, 33 breath, 7 dam/t) and a mature red (500 hp, 166 breath, 44 dam/t) is large, and this does not sound interesting or fun to me

It is, trust me. You die a bit more often, but who cares? Added danger makes game feel more intense and you play more carefully. You might actually even look at what you are fighting, and not automatically safely suppose that it isn't anything that can kill you.

, and it places an even greater strain on the player to memorize the monster spoilers.

Spoilers? You use spoilers? Use monster memory. It is an in-game feature. Sounds to me that you are relatively new to this game.

IMO the only way something like this could even work is if your interface not only allowed you to look at any monster, but provided a list of all known possible enemies for ambiguous "non-LOS" symbols.

I don't quite understand your reasoning behind this. It worked just fine in old versions, so it could work just fine in new versions. In new versions there is info-screen that gives you all known monsters in single look. Of course ESP doesn't only tell you that there is an monster, it tells you what that monster is, so this really doesn't change gameplay that much. It does however make ESP more valuable.

[Derakon]

I don't know about completely uncapped - it'd have to be well-balanced, as I'd get really annoyed if the vast majority of decent characters died at CL15 to an OOD Black Reaver or some such nonsense. If the rarity of very OOD bad guys was parallel to the rarity of very OOD artifacts, I could be sold.

Presumably in practice some kind of front-loaded bell curve would be used, so while it'd be possible to get a Black Reaver at DL15, you wouldn't see it (or its equivalent) more often than once every 50 games, if that. I'd see it working out something like this:

Monster level relative to dungeon level / odds of being generated:
-10 / 5%
-5 / 30%
0 / 55%
5 / 8%
10 / 1.5%
15 / .3%
20 / .2%

This is probably still too heavily tweaked towards deep monsters, but it gives you some idea of what I'm talking about.

[Hariolor]

1) Uncapped OOD limitations.

I don't know about completely uncapped - it'd have to be well-balanced, as I'd get really annoyed if the vast majority of decent characters died at CL15 to an OOD Black Reaver or some such nonsense. If the rarity of very OOD bad guys was parallel to the rarity of very OOD artifacts, I could be sold.

2) Ambiguity in detection.

I'll stick my neck out and say I actually agree very much with this point. There's a fine line between being blindsided by an unfair death, and walking into something you should have avoided. Being given the opportunity to gamble regarding which is which is, to me, exciting.

Part of the recent trend in V seems to be driven by a sentiment that the game should be statistically sterile (this goes back to the question of what is 'balance', in fact). That is to say, an adequately cautious player should expect to virtually always win by knowing ahead of time the layout, availability, and attributes of every enemy and item. While the RNG-driven level creation means you still have to actually *play* the game to win; there is a personality type that likes to "solve" a game like Angband. For those people, intentionally adding opacity to information is probably a bitter pill.

I, however, would not mind at all if ESP and detection were severely limited. Doubly so if aggravation/stealth and vision/illumination were tweaked to compensate. My favorite moments are still when you realize you're suddenly too close to something very scary and have to devise a way to survive with what you've got with you.

[Marble Dice]

1) Uncapped OOD limitations.

Everything in this paragraph sounds good or neutral to me. Angband has a lot of fringe possibilities (PDSM, RoS +30, etc), and they usually add to or at least do not detract from the game.

2) Ambiguity in detection.

I disagree with this paragraph. The difference between an ancient red and a great hell wyrm, or even a baby red (100 hp, 33 breath, 7 dam/t) and a mature red (500 hp, 166 breath, 44 dam/t) is large, and this does not sound interesting or fun to me, and it places an even greater strain on the player to memorize the monster spoilers. IMO the only way something like this could even work is if your interface not only allowed you to look at any monster, but provided a list of all known possible enemies for ambiguous "non-LOS" symbols.

[d_m]

What I'm seeing in current Angband is basically that a well-played character has no reason to ever put himself in harm's way. The risk-reward tradeoffs for every encounter can be determined before the encounter even starts, and the player simply avoids encounters that aren't worthwhile -- either because the items aren't good enough, or because the danger is too great. Players find the depth where they know they can handle the monsters that will be generated, and play there until they feel like they're ready for a few levels deeper in. Even the aggressive divers still regulate their levels relative to those of the monsters they encounter so that they have reasonable odds of being able to run away! That feeling of danger seems to have been lost, and IMO it's the danger that makes the fun.

I think I agree with the general idea behind the first point, but disagree with the second point. The problem you mention (that there's no reason to take risks) would probably go away if:

1. fewer quality items were found on the floor
2. drops were better
3. levels varied more widely in risk and reward

Making detection weaker simply changes taking a risk from "I'm not sure if this item is good and/or this monster is hard, should I go for it?" into "This item is definitely good and this monster is definitely hard, should I go for it?"

[Derakon]

Timo's definitely right about not being able to look at the monsters you'd just detected (and, in general, not being able to look at anything that wasn't in LOS). Made things much more interesting when you knew there was a black W in that vault, but had no idea what it could be beyond that (or couldn't differentiate between an ancient red dragon and a great hell wyrm).

2.4 frog-knows was definitely flawed, and I'd say that the current Angband is a better game, but not universally so. I'm going to call out two things as examples of what the old game did differently that I think was good, or at least made the game interesting.

1) Uncapped OOD limitations. IIRC it was theoretically possible to find any item or monster at any depth. Certainly you found odd items much more commonly; I had a few characters find PDSM back in the day, for example, while I don't think any character of mine from the post-2.7.x days has ever found a set. On the flipside, I also had characters running like hell from a young dragon at 600', and that was also fun! Unfair, yes, but fun. It wasn't impossible that I could have beaten the thing if I'd had the right items (!speed, !rfire, etc.), which would have gotten me a couple of levels right there. In general, this kind of placement algorithm means that you can't be certain at any time that you're ready for what the dungeon has to throw against you. This uncertainty adds danger, which in turn adds fun.

And don't even get me started on the fun times had polymorphing townsfolk into completely random monsters. Ahh, duelling AMHDs in the town...

2) Ambiguity in detection. This is basically what we're describing above (not being able to 'l'ook at monsters you've detected). You know roughly what you're going to be facing -- a fire-based dragon, or a druj, etc. But not knowing the specifics can get you in over your head, which, again, makes the game more interesting. "Oh shit", you think, "that monster has about five times more health than I thought it would and could kill me if it breathed twice in a row. How am I going to deal with this?" Similarly, you couldn't see that that ring was a Carnelian Ring of Acid; you could just see that it was yellow. Maybe it was an Amber Ring of Speed, or even a Plain Gold Ring! Seems like it should be worth going into the vault to check it out, don't you think?

What I'm seeing in current Angband is basically that a well-played character has no reason to ever put himself in harm's way. The risk-reward tradeoffs for every encounter can be determined before the encounter even starts, and the player simply avoids encounters that aren't worthwhile -- either because the items aren't good enough, or because the danger is too great. Players find the depth where they know they can handle the monsters that will be generated, and play there until they feel like they're ready for a few levels deeper in. Even the aggressive divers still regulate their levels relative to those of the monsters they encounter so that they have reasonable odds of being able to run away! That feeling of danger seems to have been lost, and IMO it's the danger that makes the fun.

[Marble Dice]

Later, yes, but not in old days. Quite a lot was different back then, and those were no problem to anyone (in fact non-monster skeletons and monster skeletons used same letter which made things a bit interesting and also phial used same letter as shards of pottery. I don't recall anymore if broken sticks were same as torches. So you needed to at least look what those items were. There also were no "preserve mode". If you missed artifact into level you lost it, there was no getting it back.

Sounds a lot worse for sure. I didn't know about skeleton enemies acting as mimics though - that's interesting to think about when combined with all the other mimic-like features that could get someone in trouble if they didn't know to always look in all the mimic-possible situations. I'm glad Angband has been been moving away from that sort of thing, but it used to be a major feature of the game design.

Also IIRC "detect items" and "detect monsters" etc. didn't allow you to look items/monsters that are not in your LoS like it allows now. In fact you didn't get any other info than their symbol appearing in the map. I actually liked that. Now it is "clairvoiance" - "known items" - "alter reality/use stairs" if there is nothing interesting into level.

Being able to look at detected items/monster that aren't in your LoS and clairvoyance/alter reality being over powered are two separate issues. I like !Enlightenment, but the spell feels a little broken.

[Timo Pietilä]

I certainly knew people who complained, and the squelch patch was written by someone who couldn't stand them.

Later, yes, but not in old days. Quite a lot was different back then, and those were no problem to anyone (in fact non-monster skeletons and monster skeletons used same letter which made things a bit interesting and also phial used same letter as shards of pottery. I don't recall anymore if broken sticks were same as torches. So you needed to at least look what those items were. There also were no "preserve mode". If you missed artifact into level you lost it, there was no getting it back.

Also IIRC "detect items" and "detect monsters" etc. didn't allow you to look items/monsters that are not in your LoS like it allows now. In fact you didn't get any other info than their symbol appearing in the map. I actually liked that. Now it is "clairvoiance" - "known items" - "alter reality/use stairs" if there is nothing interesting into level.

[PowerDiver]

there were deliberate junk items (shards of pottery, non-monster skeletons) without anybody complaining about them

I certainly knew people who complained, and the squelch patch was written by someone who couldn't stand them.

[Timo Pietilä]

This is interesting. I started playing at 2.9.0, and there were about 125 artifacts then (all the ones except what JLE added). I had assumed that they had all been there since frog-knows, but perhaps not. Can you remember how many artifacts are in frog-knows, and who added the others?

I can't remember how many of them were in Frog-knows, because I never found all of them, and they were not in external edit-files. Less than 125, I suppose. At least most of them were quite a bit more rare. Also powers of the items were different. There was no acid or poison brands, elec-brand was x5 brand, chaos resist gave resistance to confusion effect (making BalanceDSM and ChaosDSM endgame quality items) and chaos had 600 damage cap. Items were less...how to say this..."cluttered" with powers. This included both ego-items and artifacts.

Some of the "flatness" is caused by added ego-items. Those combined with changed artifacts causes overall flatness in selection.

Now there is 136 artifacts IE 11 more than 2.9.0 and very many of them were given more powers flattening the selection.

Whole gaming philosophy was a bit different too: there were deliberate junk items (shards of pottery, non-monster skeletons) without anybody complaining about them and you were not expected to win the game. No item stacking also made things quite a bit different. Much less items were found in drops, especially in summoning explosions and high-reward pits and there was in contrast more floor-items and vaults played bigger role in gaming. You usually saw at least one GV in one game, so you saw approx one CGV in four games. Now it can take a lot of games before you see a good GV. You also usually now have better gear *when* you find one.

Also region between 2500 and 4000 (or something like that) was more difficult because there were no low-speed boost items like Amulets of Trickery. If you found an GV you were very tempted to clear it up in hope to find RoS or BoS or one of the speed-booting artifacts.

[Magnate]

Not change around 3.1.1 -> but change from Frog-knows to 3.1.2.

Much flatter. Much.

Remember that I have been playing this game almost as long as it has existed. My memory has old versions in it too.

Timo Pietilä

This is interesting. I started playing at 2.9.0, and there were about 125 artifacts then (all the ones except what JLE added). I had assumed that they had all been there since frog-knows, but perhaps not. Can you remember how many artifacts are in frog-knows, and who added the others?

Much as I have declined to delete artifacts until now, I am a fan of the "less is more" principle of gaming. (I prefer the 17 races of Dominions II to the 60-plus of Dominions III, for example.) When Takkaria has made the changes he intends to make to ego-item generation for 3.1.2, I'll have another look at the artifact set. (Now that randarts have their depths and rarity calculated, they seem to be less common than standard artifacts.)