So what else should we revert?

[d_m]

Having said all that, there isn't any kind of hidden agenda about what's being committed.

At least not one *you* know about! Mwa-hahahaha!

[Derakon]

At least not one *you* know about! Mwa-hahahaha!

In fact, before granting commit access, Takkaria ensures that each developer has a secret agenda that is at cross-purposes to every other developer's secret agenda.

[Pete Mack]

In fact, before granting commit access, Takkaria ensures that each developer has a secret agenda that is at cross-purposes to every other developer's secret agenda.

The one rule of svn commit access: never talk about svn commit access.
All you rule-breakers are in trouble now.

[ekolis]

And now, by shuffling 500 influence points from the Gnomes of Zurich to the National Rifle Association... I hereby declare victory!

[myshkin]

Mornington Crescent!

[Nick]

Mornington Crescent!

Well, that's poor form.

[takkaria]

Takk has also always been keen that we listen and respond to feedback here, so I presume he'll be happy about the large amount of recent debate. The last time he expressed views on the significant proposals he said he wanted to look at archery, curses and shopping ... but I have no idea what he thinks of the proposals for new monsters, or changed spell lists, or fewer dungeon levels.

the volume of traffic here is now too high for me to pay attention to all of it-- but generally, i trust the people who actively develop the game and respond to people on this 'ere forum, and that's about as far as it goes for me.

it's been so long since i played the game properly a lot of my opinions have been lost in the midsts of memory... but i've always been a fan of reducing the number of dungeon levels, maybe down to 60 or 70.

i'm looking forward to playing the game with the recent armour and object distribution changes-- thanks to everyone involved

[Timo Pietilä]

it's been so long since i played the game properly a lot of my opinions have been lost in the midsts of memory... but i've always been a fan of reducing the number of dungeon levels, maybe down to 60 or 70.

I find your comment very worrisome. While I'm "less is more" -person for many things dlvls is not one of them. Diversification, not reduction is IMO solution to dlvls between 2000-5000 (the "boring" part of the game).

IMO If you reduce levels to 60 you should also remove about 50% of uniques. There are too many already, and reduction of levels just creates levels swamped with boring/annoying uniques.

I don't think I would play angband with only 60 levels. I could as well play Quickband instead. It was fun for couple of games, and that's it. Not enough challenge for me. Not enough exploration.

[ewert]

Well if you don't play ironman, that "exploration" and "challenge" is merely player-choice made stuff.

Go up/down stairs to explore "new" levels...

Anyways, I definitely think you are just overreacting in the "in the old times were harder" way and having a backlash at the idea. Nothing wrong with that, just thought to point it out though that 2000-5000 is already purely player choice style game for veterans anyways ...

[d_m]

I agree with Timo that I think 100 levels could be fun if level and monster variety were improved. The problem I experience is that about 40 of the levels have basically the same feel and (more or less) similar monsters.

That said I am not sure I am *against* the removal of some of the levels... I just don't think it will necessarily fix what I'm concerned about.

[ekolis]

Well, the themed level idea would break up some of the monotony... just like Nethack or Crawl

[Timo Pietilä]

Well if you don't play ironman, that "exploration" and "challenge" is merely player-choice made stuff.

Go up/down stairs to explore "new" levels...

Based on that comment you could as well reduce game to three levels: town, 99 and 100. You can always go up and down to explore new levels and have billion level game. Problem is that all those billion levels are basically the same level over and over and over again.

Reducing levels is not a solution to fix boredom that is based on lack of diversity. Early game (0-2000) is also pretty much same level over and over again, but you have way less stuff, your char is still strongly developing and you have lot of things to find and even minor changes can be interesting to see. Later when you have multiple items that all are enough or nearly enough for endgame finding yet another item is not important anymore, and your char hardly changes anymore there is no fun to get from that either.

[ewert]

I'm trying to figure if you are agreeing that lvls should be made less, or not. Just kidding ...

I'm all ears on how to improve 40-98 to be more diverse. As said, 0-40 is a strong curve. 40 on it starts to dilute, and at some point you are better off being at dlvl98, because the rewards are slightly better whereas similar risk exists. But you are kinda fighting the whole concept of roguelikes, the games are ALWAYS million zillion lvls that are kinda similar to each other... Anyways, sure something for 40-98 would be nice, but what? =(

PS. On the other hand, I have lately played games non-crash-diving, because of some minimal +speed found early enough so that 40-75 is not too risky to do stuff in, as well as taking down uniques as I go. I don't know why ... I actually think it might be because of the minimal +speed and stat gain being easier, that it is a result of not "HAVING" to stop for stat gain much. So "stat gain" is instead of 30-40 it is 30-60, and wham then you are tackling stuff and taking names and running away, so for some reason not diving still.