New nightly

[PowerDiver]

Presumably to make the description match the behavior, since the behavior was changed as an intended nerf to TO.

Which, I note, is still quite powerful. It's just not "okay, all of you scram" powerful any more.

Was a radius 0 ball considered, instead of a bolt? Now you can't get a summoner if it keeps summoning. My feeling is that summoning is so out of control that anything that summons should be teleportable, immediately.

[Derakon]

Presumably to make the description match the behavior, since the behavior was changed as an intended nerf to TO.

Which, I note, is still quite powerful. It's just not "okay, all of you scram" powerful any more.

[Chud]

Yeah, I already reported this, and IIRC it was acknowledged so I assume it'll be fixed (it's like a three-letter change...).

Out of curiosity (I'm fine with it either way, really) is the fix to make it beam again, or to make the description match the new behavior?

[Derakon]

Yeah, I already reported this, and IIRC it was acknowledged so I assume it'll be fixed (it's like a three-letter change...). Sorry for your loss, mate, but the nightlies aren't exactly expected to be free from bugs, possibly game-ending ones. If they were, they wouldn't be nightlies!

Just one of the risks you take, I'm afraid.

[Nick]

AIGGGHH!
**VERY** annoyed.

My current character just bit the dust and it was the program's fault dammit.

Welcome to the nightlies

[SSK]

AIGGGHH!
**VERY** annoyed.

My current character just bit the dust and it was the program's fault dammit.

I very carefully looked at the description of "teleport other" from priest book 5 and it EXPLICITLY states it is a beam (as it used to be). I know there was some discussion of changing this--yes the wand and the rod do not beam but the spell *SAYS* it beams. I had 3 Dracolisks in a corridor before I recognized their graphic (seriously trying to figure out how I can have wall graphics but ASCII monsters) but I was still alive--not after the teleport other did not beam!!!

Could we PLEASE change the description of that spell to say it is a BOLT not a BEAM?!!!

[bulian]

Thanks for the clarification - I indeed meant portal, not blink. Luckily I put that nifty question mark there

[SSK]

The other (easier?) solution is to reduce the range of teleport. Don't teleport and the priest version (blink?) have different ranges? I've never heard people complain about the priest version. Cut the mage range in half, throw it in the nightlies, and see if anyone complains.

My recent complaint of ping-pong teleport was with a paladin. I can't remember if I used portal or teleport (think teleport). Blink is not for this--it's like phase door and is hardly for escape, unless you want to escape life LOL.

[bulian]

I believe this effect would be much less with larger levels, particularly larger vertically. It has to do with the number of available locations at a particular range of distances.

The other (easier?) solution is to reduce the range of teleport. Don't teleport and the priest version (blink?) have different ranges? I've never heard people complain about the priest version. Cut the mage range in half, throw it in the nightlies, and see if anyone complains.

[buzzkill]

That has more to do with teleport's behavior. For whatever reason if you teleport from point A, you are likely to land at point B, and if you teleport from point B, then you are likely to land at point A. This has been a problem for ages and is one of the reasons why teleport isn't a very good escape.

... and it's something that should be addressed regardless of the new dungeon level types.

[PowerDiver]

That has more to do with teleport's behavior. For whatever reason if you teleport from point A, you are likely to land at point B, and if you teleport from point B, then you are likely to land at point A.

I believe this effect would be much less with larger levels, particularly larger vertically. It has to do with the number of available locations at a particular range of distances.

[Derakon]

That has more to do with teleport's behavior. For whatever reason if you teleport from point A, you are likely to land at point B, and if you teleport from point B, then you are likely to land at point A. This has been a problem for ages and is one of the reasons why teleport isn't a very good escape. So if teleporting lands you in hot water, use Teleport Level or Destruction instead, assuming you have them (and by this point, TL should be available).

[SSK]

There ought to be general rules about what a level is. E.g. a minimum number of staircases. If you believe, as I do, that the player should be allowed to plan on escapes, a minimum diameter [empty space to empty space] of twice the range of one of teleport self or teleport other or portal. I am not sure even the old levels are large enough! The problem with teleport self swapping you back and forth between two small areas would be lessened with larger levels.

I guess I'd think tiny levels are OK if those escapes teleported you or the monster to an entirely new level akin to alter reality or banishment.

There is a rule that you are not even *allowed* to descend stairs into a vault. IMO the maze turns that rule upside down.

Who knows, maybe they improve the game, but so far they just feel wrong to me. It is going to take some time to unlearn assumptions that have been reinforced for years.

Actually this is how my last character bit the dust shortly after installing a nightly from 3.2.0. It was about DLevel 60 and char had about 800 HP. He had pretty lackluster speed at about +12, but had all resistances covered thanks to Law DSM of permanence, and also had Dor-lomin and Dal-I-thalion, but ran into a pack of inertia hounds in a long corridor on a small level. After nearly dying (like 12 HP) I healed and teleported myself to Smaug but I was still slow. Teleported again back near the hounds, teleported again back to Smaug. Still slowed from the inertia. Then teleported to what I thought was a basically empty area. Tried to "sleep it off" but a single damned master mystic came by, and being stupid I didn't immediately teleport-other him and he summoned some large amount of creatures including some Time hounds. RIP.

I mostly attributed this outcome to my own stupidity (and inexperience dealing with the new Hound pack behaviour), but small levels didn't help.

[Magnate]

If this is true then I agree that these new level types I have created are a disaster. I'm not convinced that these are invariants to be maintained, but I'm open to being convinced.

I guess your argument comes down to a belief that the player should be able to reliably teleport between more than a few sufficiently distant locations? Are there other considerations? When you say minimum number of down staircases, do you mean a minimum >1 or >0?

I am very interested in the idea of dungeon invariants and am interested in ideas about what they should be (if anything). EDIT: That said, having 100 dungeon levels with very similar feel, shape and size seems uninteresting.

Well, for what it's worth (and I have no expertise in this area, nor particularly strong or well-thought-out views), I think more variety is better, and I object on principle to the need to preserve some kind of minimum safety setup for @. IMO this is the same logic that says we must never allow monsters more than x levels OOD, and we deliberately changed that recently to increase the challenge factor. Levels with few stairs or limited teleport destinations are in the same category: they should be rare, but the possibility of their generation enhances the game.

That said, Eddie has a point about needing to avoid reversion to the old style of "get X before passing Y", and it all needs lots of balancing and testing on people happy to play nightlies. I don't have a magic bullet for that.

P.S. Could we *please* let this thread die? My browser can barely render the post layout, let alone the text. Can't the software be configured to split threads automatically at the 51st post?

[PowerDiver]

If this is true then I agree that these new level types I have created are a disaster. I'm not convinced that these are invariants to be maintained, but I'm open to being convinced.

I guess your argument comes down to a belief that the player should be able to reliably teleport between more than a few sufficiently distant locations? Are there other considerations? When you say minimum number of down staircases, do you mean a minimum >1 or >0?

I am very interested in the idea of dungeon invariants and am interested in ideas about what they should be (if anything). EDIT: That said, having 100 dungeon levels with very similar feel, shape and size seems uninteresting.

I'm not convinced of anything. It's hard to figure out the difference between what one thinks should be done for good reason vs just what one is accustomed to.

If you change things so that occasionally there are no escapes, then probably that necessitates a major change in playstyle. It's a long game where the difference between the winners and the losers is who better plans for worst case. That sort of change heads towards the NPP approach where you need to be ready for old DL80 V when you hit the changed DL40. That leads back to the old stat-gain-by-DL40 mentality. Perhaps I exaggerate, but perhaps not.

I think a minimum of 6 staircases, at least 2 up and at least 3 down, is what I want from a level, and I don't want them all near to each other. If one is guarded by someone too tough, I want the option to try for another. Unfortunately, I can't tell if that is good design, or just what I am accustomed to, or just what suits my particular playstyle.