Feature idea: turn order indicator

[Derakon]

This is an idea for an alternate view of the monster list. Basically it'd show who goes in what order for the next, oh, 30 game turns (3 normal-speed turns). So if you're in a duel with Sauron and you're slightly faster than him, it might look something like this:

Player
Sauron, the Sorceror
Player
Player
Sauron, the Sorceror
Player
Sauron, the Sorceror
...

The display is assuming that everyone uses 100 energy for their turns. If you (or a monster) use less then it'd have to get updated again. I'm not certain how well it'd interact with fractional blows.

The goal here is to allow the player to know how turn order is going to fall out when there's non-integer speed factors at play, thereby inproving the potential for tactical play. Technically this is information that the player could keep track of themselves, but in practice it's pretty cumbersome. I suppose this would make combat a bit easier once speed becomes available; you could easily counteract that by giving more monsters partial speed boosts though.

The only major problem I see with it, aside from the fractional blows bit, is that it'd get pretty cumbersome when there's lots of monsters in LOS. Maybe you could add the ability to filter out monsters whose turn orders you don't care about; a level 30 character has little interest in when any kobolds take their turns, for example.

[camlost]

Doesn't this make pillar dancing easier? I thought that was a disliked tactic.

You could restrict the list to the closest 9 monsters or something, which might help. Also note that the requested view doesn't help with identical monsters.

[zaimoni]

Yes, interesting -- but a good display is painful to design. (E.g., with Extra Shots it actually matters what the turns are.)

[Tiburon Silverflame]

I don't like this; I think it's giving @ too much, and too precise, information, and it sounds like it would access monster info that @ has no right to have...specifically, "guess what, this guy's got +2 speed over the usual, so he'll double move you in 3 turns."

I can see a spell or item (like rod of probing) giving you this, but it should NOT be given for free.

[Derakon]

Doesn't this make pillar dancing easier? I thought that was a disliked tactic.

There are AI ways to fix pillardancing that I'd rather see implemented. That tactic relies on very stupid monsters; if the monster simply doesn't chase you in situations where you are faster than it and would immediately get a free blow, then pillardancing (and hack&back) would be impossible.

You could restrict the list to the closest 9 monsters or something, which might help. Also note that the requested view doesn't help with identical monsters.

Good points, both of them.

Tiburon: I'm not at all surprised that you took that stance. My counter-argument is that it is obvious to the character how fast a given monster is. Monster speed is one of the only things that you need merely be aware of a monster to know. There's currently no facility for displaying "this specific monster is +1 faster than its kin", but that's just an information breakdown. The character can tell, and anything the character knows the player should be able to know easily.

[Hariolor]

I like the idea alot in theory - many turn-based rpgs explicitly indicate turn order in order to improve decision-making

Would it be difficult to make the list update based on when @ becomes aware of a monster's speed, similar to how speed becomes known in the monster info (after probing or firsthand observation)

While there's a certain "gotcha" factor that will be lost when fighting really fast creatures for the first time (eg, Phoenix, Pazuzu), I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to give the player this info. It is still up to the player to make a smart decision based on it.

I rarely pillar dance or back-and-hack because I don't usually find it useful, though frankly if @ were real and could always double-move a foe, it makes no sense that he wouldn't do so. It's really not much of an exploit beyond the fact that the AI will always predictably pursue.

The one place I do see this information becoming hugely important is in deciding when to heal or escape in big fights. Right now those decisions are big question marks, especially when fail rates are involved. Players would not need to be quite so conservative in when they bail or heal if they know precisely when they'll get their next turn.

Finally, I think this info should only appear for enemies in direct LOS to the @. Even still, pits and summons will make the list a bit crazy. Soon I'll need a 2nd monitor just for term windows.

Oh, and as an aside - I think virtually every melee-only unique should be able to haste-self with maybe a 1/10 chance. It makes sense that even orc leaders would carry around potions or staves of haste, and it makes hack-and-back strategies a little less reliable without making those early fights unplayable.

[buzzkill]

I'm opposed to this, but not sure quite why yet. It just seems wrong.

Melee hack-n-back/pillar dancing can be easily solved by giving the enemy a free swing every time the player moves (normal movement only) out of melee range.

If it sounds too harsh, you could always special-case it to situations where the player is faster than said enemy.

[Nick]

I see the attraction, but I think on the whole I'm opposed. While I guess it would be possible in principle for the player to work out the turn order, I doubt many players would actually do it. So presenting it becomes an effective increase in knowledge for the player in an area where I think experience/guesswork is 'better'.

Having said all that, if it gets implemented I would be able to live with it.

I guess the thing to do is to make a fork that has it, and see how it plays.

[zaimoni]

I don't like this; I think it's giving @ too much, and too precise, information, and it sounds like it would access monster info that @ has no right to have...specifically, "guess what, this guy's got +2 speed over the usual, so he'll double move you in 3 turns."

Does the AI have no right to that information either?

After all, a passwall monster with competent AI, that has reliable triple moves on the @, should be able to safely melee @ to death if @ is next to a wall.

[will_asher]

TMI

That's all I have to say.

[Magnate]

TMI

That's all I have to say.

I'm afraid I share Buzzkill's misgivings about this too. I don't think @ should know precisely what's going to happen next (and it if isn't precise, people will scream in frustration when it gets them killed).