revisiting Teleport Other

[Estie]

Diving is fun only when there is significant danger. The problem I was referring to seems to occur very often where I pick up some great gear and then start diving to the bottom, and on the way, I improve faster than the monsters around me. The kickoff for this exponential growth is TO because that allows me to access areas of the dungeon that I previously couldn't.

I think we need an intermediate ironman where you get something like a bag of holding. I like the limited dungeon of ironman but I like the limited inventory less. I'd like ironman more if I could store endgame stuff. This is another topic though, and I think I might make my limited ironman game.

Interesting that you bring that up, I had suggested the same not long ago in this thread:

http://angband.oook.cz/forum/showthread.php?t=4296&highlight=ironman&page=3

Nevertheless, I feel like TO is what makes diving profitable; weaken it and you reward the slow level-clearing play. I am not saying that this is bad idea, but given that we have ironman already, I dont see the need to remove the "powerful TO" birth-option.

[ChodTheWacko]

I don't think it solves the problem at all. All it requires is that you take the extra time to lure the monsters from the vaults, which you usually do anyway to fight them individually. It also doesn't help the situation at all when there's a monster "guarding" an object in the dungeon.

I think there are different aspects of TO abuse, and I think some of them need to be approached quite differently. The form of TO abuse I'd most like to resolve is the 'go into a vault, zap out the asleep OOD monsters, and loot'. That's just way too easy.

TO Rods definitely need to be buried deeper - finding a rod or two of TO is a complete game changer. I'm highly unlikely to waste a TO wand charge for a non-vault floor object - you get much more bang/buck using it on a vault or to save your life.

I don't recall if this happened or not, but wasn't there talk of making TO a bolt, not a beam?
That's also quite signifigant as you are going to burn through charges signifigantly quicker.
I don't find -that- many TO wands, even including Black market purchases.

- Frank

[Derakon]

TO is a bolt in the dev versions, and that works well.

If you want players to be able to explore dungeons that are filled with monsters they are not capable of fighting, then they need to have some ways to avoid those monsters. TO is, currently, one of a tiny handful of such ways -- other mechanisms include destruction, banishment, trying to wall the monster off with earthquakes, and simply finding the closest staircase to try the level again. Of those options, staircases are rather lame, earthquake is only really an option for holy casters and it doesn't work very well, and destruction/banishment are both unavailable until the problem they'd solve is largely moot.

Well. There's also stealth, but most of the monsters you'd want to teleport away (including the cited beholders) are highly alert to begin with.

Anyway, since I'm all for players getting in over their heads and having to play very carefully to survive (a.k.a. a "diving strategy"), I don't want to see TO go away until something better comes in to take its place. Where "better" doesn't necessarily mean "more powerful" but rather "more interesting".

As for vault abuse, I'd support blocking TO for monsters on icky tiles. I don't think anything more is needed. If you're going to rely solely on TO to deal with a vault, you're already taking a huge chance, since you're effectively populating the entire rest of the dungeon with monsters you can't handle. If you need to leave the vault area for any reason, you're in serious trouble. If you like, you could give TO a more variable range so monsters wouldn't necessarily be teleported across the entire dungeon. A minimum of 20 tiles, maybe?

[jens]

What are 'icky' tiles? I've also seen 'icky' corners mentioned, something else?

[fizzix]

TO is a bolt in the dev versions, and that works well.

If you want players to be able to explore dungeons that are filled with monsters they are not capable of fighting, then they need to have some ways to avoid those monsters. TO is, currently, one of a tiny handful of such ways -- other mechanisms include destruction, banishment, trying to wall the monster off with earthquakes, and simply finding the closest staircase to try the level again. Of those options, staircases are rather lame, earthquake is only really an option for holy casters and it doesn't work very well, and destruction/banishment are both unavailable until the problem they'd solve is largely moot.

I think this is a good analysis, but I can generalize it. There are 2 types of options.

Player leaves: (run away, teleport, stairs, teleport level, deep descent)
Monster leaves: (teleport other, banishment, mass banishment, banish evil, destruction)

Earthquake doesn't really fit in either approach, but I would much like to see tactical use of earthquake be more appealing. Destruction is also a little bit of an oddball here, because it requires that the player to first lure the monster away from an area in order not to destroy the desired items.

Anyway, since I'm all for players getting in over their heads and having to play very carefully to survive (a.k.a. a "diving strategy"), I don't want to see TO go away until something better comes in to take its place. Where "better" doesn't necessarily mean "more powerful" but rather "more interesting".

I think where I'm going is that I want the Player Leaves options to be the default until somewhere around dlevel 50. Then there can be a transition to the Monster Leaves options.

As for vault abuse, I'd support blocking TO for monsters on icky tiles. I don't think anything more is needed. If you're going to rely solely on TO to deal with a vault, you're already taking a huge chance, since you're effectively populating the entire rest of the dungeon with monsters you can't handle. If you need to leave the vault area for any reason, you're in serious trouble. If you like, you could give TO a more variable range so monsters wouldn't necessarily be teleported across the entire dungeon. A minimum of 20 tiles, maybe?

These changes don't satisfy me, but they're not too difficult to implement, so I'm not opposed to trying them out. (If you need to leave the vault you ?phase not ?teleport since ?phase automatically brings you outside the vault.

What are 'icky' tiles? I've also seen 'icky' corners mentioned, something else?

"Icky tiles" is a hidden tile designation. Right now it applies to all vault tiles. Players cannot teleport onto icky tiles. I have no idea what icky corners are.

[Angelus]

I actually have a huge issue with the notion of teleport other going away. It currently provides what I consider a unique option-the monster goes away, but still remains in the dungeon. This makes vault-clearing *possible*, but still dangerous-which is the general idea of vaults. I think if you take teleport other away, or even nerf it too far (though some nerfing could be ok-i.e., make it so there's always a chance for failure, even for mages), then the game will become much more boring.

Vaults are there for enjoyment, they have high risks, but equally high rewards. Without teleport other though, any GV higher than level 60 or so will be basically useless-which I think is stupid. I'd be ok with possibly making those early vaults not contain quite such good items (and that's actually true of vaults in general-I think they're both too good and there's too many of them), but vaults are one of the things that make the game fun. Take away teleport other, and the game will become significantly less fun.

Also, having played the nightlies with the bolt TO instead of beam, I have to say it's quite an improvement-makes it much more surgical, and less overpowered.

[Max Stats]

Mages are delicate enough that I don't worry too much about them getting teleport-other. I would worry even less if LOS was symmetrical.

I do think that asymmetrical LOS is a major exploit. I would probably have to say that I support making it symmetrical, even though I am one of the worst exploiters of it the way it is now.

If we make LOS symmetrical, I would like to balance it by disallowing passwall monsters from casting or using other ranged attacks while inside a wall. If you don't have StoM, you have no way to attack them from a distance, while they have their full arsenal available to them. If the wall blocks your spell from entering, it only makes sense that it would stop the monster's spell from exiting. Think of it as symmetrical spellcasting.

[jens]

I do think that asymmetrical LOS is a major exploit. I would probably have to say that I support making it symmetrical, even though I am one of the worst exploiters of it the way it is now.

Agreed, I have never understood why it is not symmetrical?

If we make LOS symmetrical, I would like to balance it by disallowing passwall monsters from casting or using other ranged attacks while inside a wall. If you don't have StoM, you have no way to attack them from a distance, while they have their full arsenal available to them. If the wall blocks your spell from entering, it only makes sense that it would stop the monster's spell from exiting. Think of it as symmetrical spellcasting.

Agreed, except I think it should be done in any case...

[Nick]

@fizzix: You're starting to sound like a future variant maintainer

[EpicMan]

It was not made symmetrical because it was easier not to, probably. One way to fix that would be to always measure LOS from the player to the monster, even when checking if the monster can see the player. Aside from that you would have to make two checks or make your algorithm behave the exact same way in both directions, which would be very difficult.

I wouldn't mind seeing a few monsters that resist teleport, but IMHO it should be all-or-nothing (teleport works or never will). There's already a fail rate on the devices and spells.

[the Invisible Stalker]

Line of sight is symmetric, it's just that the symmetry is not necessarily the one you are expecting. If we ignore monsters in walls then a monster can target you if and only if you could target him if your positions were reversed.

[Derakon]

What's generally meant by "symmetrical LOS" is "if I can target a monster, then he can see and target me". Which is not always the case currently. Variants that fix this generally do so by allowing setups where you can see but not target a monster -- thus, line of sight still isn't symmetrical, but you can only derive information from it, not get free damage.

[dos350]

hi, please no changing teleport other, i understand that its really powerful ,but i think it doesnt matter,~ i only use tele other when its critical, and if it wasnt a beam, id be wasting alot of turns and probably dead,

let me draw example , freestyle angband ascii illustration:

[TT][BC=black][COLOR=white]
                                                                                               
[COLOR="#00FFFF"]ProElf                                                                                            
Pro-leet                                                                                         
ARCHMAGE                                                                                           
[/COLOR]LEVEL      [COLOR="#00FF00"]32                                                                                  
[/COLOR]NXT       [COLOR="#00FF00"]2321                                                                                   
[/COLOR]AU       [COLOR="#00FF00"]37333                                                                                 
[/COLOR][COLOR="#C0C0C0"]|    [/COLOR][COLOR="#804000"]~                                                                                         
[/COLOR]STR:      [COLOR="#00FF00"]11                                                                                   
[/COLOR]INT:   [COLOR="#00FF00"]18/40                                                                                   
[/COLOR]WIS:       [COLOR="#00FF00"]9                                                                                   
[/COLOR]DEX:      [COLOR="#00FF00"]16                                                                                   
[/COLOR]CON:      [COLOR="#00FF00"]10                                                                                   
[/COLOR]CHR:      [COLOR="#00FF00"]12                                                                                   
                                                                                               
[/COLOR]Cur AC     [COLOR="#00FF00"]121                                                                                   
[/COLOR]HP    [COLOR="#00FF00"]98[/COLOR]/   [COLOR="#00FF00"]98                                                                                   
[/COLOR]SP    [COLOR="#00FF00"]2[/COLOR]/   [COLOR="#00FF00"]256                                                                                   
                                                                                               
                                                                                               
                                                                                               
                                                                                               
                                                                                               
[/COLOR]5000' (L100)                                                                                     
                                                                                               
                                                                                               
                                                                                               
                                                                                               
                     ##############                                    [COLOR="#808080"]#[/COLOR][COLOR="#606060"].[/COLOR][COLOR="#808080"]# ################    
                     [/COLOR]#............#[COLOR="#808080"]###########################%#%%######[/COLOR][COLOR="#606060"].[/COLOR][COLOR="#808080"]###..............[/COLOR][COLOR="#C08040"]'    
                     [/COLOR]#.............[COLOR="#606060"]........................................[/COLOR][COLOR="#C08040"]'[/COLOR],[COLOR="#808080"].............#    
                     [/COLOR]#.....[COLOR="#FF8000"]Z[/COLOR]......#[COLOR="#808080"]###########################%%##%#####[/COLOR][COLOR="#606060"]..[/COLOR][COLOR="#808080"]##..............#    
                     [/COLOR]#....[COLOR="#FFFF00"]D[/COLOR][COLOR="#808080"]D[/COLOR].....@#                                    [COLOR="#808080"]#[/COLOR][COLOR="#606060"]..[/COLOR][COLOR="#808080"]###############.#    
                     [/COLOR]##############                                                     [COLOR="#808080"]#[/COLOR][COLOR="#606060"].[/COLOR][COLOR="#808080"]#### 
                                                                                        #[/COLOR][COLOR="#606060"]..[/COLOR][COLOR="#808080"]<[/COLOR][COLOR="#606060"].. 
                                                                                        [/COLOR][COLOR="#804000"]###### 
             [/COLOR]Study (1)                                                                         
[/COLOR][/BC][/TT]

imagine no escapings but TO,
if dos cant tele both dragons at once he ded,

thats not good imo~ please no raging

[ChodTheWacko]

imagine no escapings but TO,
if dos cant tele both dragons at once he ded,

thats not good imo~ please no raging

I think a fundimental Angband strategy is never putting yourself in that position in the first place. -maybe- if they are both asleep and you have really high stealth.

- Frank

[dos350]

excuse me, say i just teled there and have no charges left,

sometimes such dangerous situations cant be avoided