Number of monsters at each depth

[CunningGabe]

I'm working on some changes to make the monster.txt file easier for people to change, and in the process, I've re-sorted the monster list by depth. And then, because I was curious, I did some counting of how many monsters are at each depth. Here is the approximate breakdown:

0-49: 520 (about 100 for each group of 10 levels)
50-59: 28 (10 are unique)
60-69: 30 (10 are unique)
70-79: 23 (7 are unique)
80-89: 9 (all unique)
90+: 6 (all unique)

Maybe we should add in more monsters or some other threats (with the trap revamp?) that would better differentiate the levels of the lower half of the dungeon.

[Derakon]

The difficulty comes in making the deeper monsters well-distinguished from each other. To prove an adequate threat to a prepared adventurer, a monster needs to be quick, durable, and capable either of significant bodily harm or of causing the character to be exposed to other monsters (via summoning, teleport-to, etc.). There's only so many ways you can arrange that kind of thing; I'd worry we'd end up with a natural balrog-equivalent, undead balrog-equivalent, etc., which doesn't really add to the variety any.

The deeper levels largely serve as a gauntlet the player must pass before being allowed to face Morgoth. Most of the added difficulty comes from higher monster density and higher monster level density (e.g. at shallower levels, the Great Hell Wyrm appears alone; in the depths, he comes with a Pit Fiend, an Archon, and Charcaroth).

That said, if you can think of well-distinguished monsters that would be appropriate for the deeps, by all means, add them!

[camlost]

That said, if you can think of well-distinguished monsters that would be appropriate for the deeps, by all means, add them!

If you want difficulty, S has plenty of monsters that are a pain and a half down that deep.

Storms of Unmagic, Unmakers, Shadow Breeders, Aetheroi, Balrogs that aren't pushovers, Wizard of the High Council, Tyrant of Hell, Elder Elementalist.

Does V have any capacity for scaling damage to level yet?

[Atarlost]

I'd mostly redistribute (and buff) the monsters we already have. Great high elemental wyrms and balrogs should be at 90+ with Ancalagon and Gothmog actually native to level 100 with stats that make them Sauron's peers.

[fizzix]

An alternative which has been pushed around often is to put a minimum level on monster generation. So at dlevel 60 you are not likely to see many monsters below dlevel 30.

There are two main problems with this:
1: you can still thin out the level with TO and destruction to only deal with the monsters you want to.
2: You need to find a way to get stat potions and other lowish level consumables to drop as plentifully in the depths as they do around dlevel 30. (Drop_good monsters will not drop them, and almost everything below dlevel 50 is drop_good)

[CunningGabe]

An alternative which has been pushed around often is to put a minimum level on monster generation. So at dlevel 60 you are not likely to see many monsters below dlevel 30.

There are two main problems with this:
1: you can still thin out the level with TO and destruction to only deal with the monsters you want to.
2: You need to find a way to get stat potions and other lowish level consumables to drop as plentifully in the depths as they do around dlevel 30. (Drop_good monsters will not drop them, and almost everything below dlevel 50 is drop_good)

To point 1, some people have talked about changing TO to weaken it -- maybe that will be necessary if we want to distinguish levels 50+. Or move it much deeper.

Point 2 is a good one. Maybe we could let monsters with DROP_GOOD drop consumables, but generate them in a stack that is larger than usual. Or we could skew the items left on the dungeon floor in favor of consumables.

As for making tougher monsters, one thing we could do that I don't think any monsters do currently is to have some of them use the popular player tactics. Why don't monsters ever use hack 'n' back or shoot 'n' scoot?

[Magnate]

To point 1, some people have talked about changing TO to weaken it -- maybe that will be necessary if we want to distinguish levels 50+. Or move it much deeper.

Point 2 is a good one. Maybe we could let monsters with DROP_GOOD drop consumables, but generate them in a stack that is larger than usual. Or we could skew the items left on the dungeon floor in favor of consumables.

As for making tougher monsters, one thing we could do that I don't think any monsters do currently is to have some of them use the popular player tactics. Why don't monsters ever use hack 'n' back or shoot 'n' scoot?

Ok, this is getting mixed up.

First, TO definitely needs weakening, and I think for 3.3 it will end up as a bolt rather than a beam - possibly with a higher activation difficulty / casting level. So we can look at monsters with that assumption in mind.

Second, it has *long* been proposed that DROP_GOOD/GREAT should include certain specific consumables, including stat potions. Again, I think we should assume that too (no more farming death quasits).

I think we should avoid creating more monsters for the sake of it. As Derakon said, the extra challenge comes from density - let's focus on getting more sophisticated level generation so that deeper levels are noticeably harder. d_m is well on the way to this.

But having said all that, Sangband shows you can do deep distinct monsters well. Just don't scale damage!

[Tiburon Silverflame]

Are people trying to assert that, just because a monster's native depth is DL 60, that by DL 80 it's No Big Deal?

I pose it in that manner, because perhaps one solution would be to shift some of the tougher critters down...maybe with some mild augmentation, but do skull druj, archlich, or black reaver *need* augmentation to be a credible threat on DL 90?

I think there's also something to be said for leaving the last 20 levels as the home grounds of those particular uber-nasty uniques. To a great degree, they *are* the level differentiation.

[Nick]

Another possibility (and I know DaJ has done this with at least one unique) is to have monsters with a native level of deeper than 100. This would make greater vaults in the 80s and 90s more interesting

[bulian]

I pose it in that manner, because perhaps one solution would be to shift some of the tougher critters down...maybe with some mild augmentation, but do skull druj, archlich, or black reaver *need* augmentation to be a credible threat on DL 90?

I disagree on Archlichs being that scary since they don't have manastorm or disenchant. Sus_dex isn't too hard to come by since "trickery is a prevailing end game piece. IMO there isn't too much of a difference between a master lich, demilich, and archlich, except for the passwall on the archlich. The latter 2 could use a buff. If drain charges affected rods they would be a lot scarier or if they were faster than speed 10.

Drujs would be scary if you actually had to fight them, but since they are visible via ESP and don't move... Make the worst druj undetectable by ESP.

I agree completely that Reavers are scary SOBs.

In general, undead scaling could use some attention. With dragons, there is a sense of accomplishment when being able to suddenly kill the next tier up with ease. With undead, they are either avoid completely or completely trivial.

[Derakon]

Ehh, the Night* undead monsters go from scary-scary to reasonable challenges. They just don't show up that often. I agree that Archliches aren't too bad, so long as you don't let them summon and you have nothing in inventory to drain. There just don't seem to be that many other top-tier undead, though. Discounting uniques, the deepest monsters for each undead letter are:

s: Skull druj, 59
z: Mummified troll, 37
V: Elder Vampire, 54
W: Nightwalker, 73
L: Black Reaver, 74
G: Dreadlord, 62

Most of these guys are pretty rare, too. Outside of graveyards anyway.

[Pete Mack]

If you want to make druj's worse, it makes more sense that a Hand druj is not detectable by ESP rather than a skull druj. But I think it's a bad idea in any case: just one more beat-down on Warriors and their lousy detection.

As for monster genera (aka letters) without tough high-level monsters, how about w, i, and c? Those guys are seriously under-represented after dl 25 or so!

[CunningGabe]

There are quite a few letters that are scantly represented in the lower depths. To a large extent, I think this is okay -- it gives the player a sense of accomplishment to move on to fighting dragons and wraiths instead of icky things and centipedes. But I think there is room to expand some of the letters, particularly for monsters that have a fairly unique feel to them.

For example, cats ('f') tend to be fast for their depth, and decently hard-hitting, but fragile. The last non-unique cat is the Displacer Beast at DL26 (and that doesn't really fit this mold anyway). I think we could build some more monsters around this template and still have them be dangerous at their depths.

[Tiburon Silverflame]

I agree that Archliches aren't too bad, so long as you don't let them summon and you have nothing in inventory to drain.

But doesn't that suggest they're just about spot-on in difficulty? I draw from my tabletop DMing days...my goal with standard encounters is to provide reasonable challenges. Beat up the characters, yes; make them think they earn the victory, yes. But unlikely anyone will get killed. It's the boss monsters, AKA the uniques, whose job is to do that.

I see the point that maybe we could use some more deep-ish non-uniques, but I don't necessarily agree that we need a swath of tough new monsters.