Ideas from old angband.

[dhegler]

Well, there's been quite a lot of debate about the philosophy and direction of Angband development, and while we do often mention that old versions are available to people who prefer them, that's not because we don't want to improve anything. We do want to improve things, but without re-creating previous problems.

So, let's take an example from this thread: Derakon said "the game was balanced around the amulet slot sucking". He didn't, of course, mean that that was a conscious choice - it was simply how the game had evolved through a combination of changes. So JLE came along a decade or so ago and solved the problem of "the amulet slot sucks" with a load of interesting new amulets. Unfortunately this has created a new problem, that some of those amulets, in combination with other stuff, are a bit de trop. So we need to restore the balance but without making the amulet slot suck again.

This happens a lot, and sometimes we overcompensate: heavy armours sucked so we made AC more important, but that led to high AC being too uber so we nerfed it a bit, but that made high-end melee too hard so we've tried to fix that. Developing Angband is a constant cycle of tweaking and adjusting - there isn't a "right answer" and this week's improvement will mean that some previous improvements need looking at again.

Anyway, what I wanted to say about your post is that yes, we're aware that combat in Angband is very reliant on stats and weapons, and there are plans to overhaul it. We aren't going to end up with the full range of monster damage being 6 to 20, but it will conceivably move away from the current 2 to 1600. This is a long-term goal and will take many iterations and the introduction of fundamental changes one by one. We've already reduced missile multipliers and increase damage per unit mana, but there's lots more to do.

There are loads of other issues besides combat - one of the biggest is detection/LoS, and another is item generation. I'm prioritising the latter for 3.4, and combat for 3.5 - I hope one of the other devs will take on the whole detection issue. (Fizzix is already experimenting with variable-range ESP, I think.)

I think my overall opinion is that the game has become so linear... Hack and ToME have some interesting variations like stores in the dungeon for Hack as well as lack of item availability and ToME has a good storyline. Neither is quite as simple as dive, kill, collect, and repeat. And 100 levels of that tedium is quite a bit. That being said, I love the new variations in dungeon level creation with mazes and caverns. There are far too many items dropped that you need to look at. I can get to dlvl 7 with a Wizard on the original Hack and not see a melee weapon or any armor...

[d_m]

I think my overall opinion is that the game has become so linear... Hack and ToME have some interesting variations like stores in the dungeon for Hack as well as lack of item availability and ToME has a good storyline. Neither is quite as simple as dive, kill, collect, and repeat. And 100 levels of that tedium is quite a bit. That being said, I love the new variations in dungeon level creation with mazes and caverns. There are far too many items dropped that you need to look at. I can get to dlvl 7 with a Wizard on the original Hack and not see a melee weapon or any armor...

It's tough responding in the context of tome/hack/nethack/etc because people who like those games already play them, and people who like Angband may not want to see the game morph into another version of something else.

That said, there are some things you point out that I definitely agree with... I'd like to reduce/remove the importance of the town as a place you return to all the time. Dungeon shops are one way to do this, as are room types. I do think that the ease with which someone familiar with the game can deal with any opponent (Morgoth included) after a certain point caused developers in the past to ramp up crazy monsters who could kill most characters given one or two attacks. As Magnate said, there are definitely ways of trying improve this dynamic.

I've been really busy for the last month or so but hope to be able to put something pretty radical/exciting into the nightlies soon on this front. Stay tuned!

[Timo Pietilä]

I also don't agree that the spell range being the same as the visual range is a problem. IMO this is something that makes the game harder (it's more important to detect and avoid monsters which can one-shot you) - whereas for Timo it's just annoying. See my point above.

I don't find unavoidable death annoying, I find it infuriating. That's a bug in design IMO. I did detect, saw nothing dangerous, start running and out of nowhere a one-shot monster killed me. Monster that I could have avoided if the running would have stopped ASAP when monster appears in LoS and it would have been my turn and not monsters.

That was absolutely unavoidable death. No info about that monster whereabouts was possible to get unless I would have gone one step at the time unless I have moved around half the distance between LoS-range and detection range difference. Even less if the monster were faster than me.

In old angband unavoidable deaths were unacceptable. If you find those acceptable, then you and I are in serious disagreement.

[fizzix]

I don't find unavoidable death annoying, I find it infuriating. That's a bug in design IMO. I did detect, saw nothing dangerous, start running and out of nowhere a one-shot monster killed me. Monster that I could have avoided if the running would have stopped ASAP when monster appears in LoS and it would have been my turn and not monsters.

Your death was avoidable, by detecting more often and running less. The fact that you took the shortcut of running was the problem. You relied on ESP for monster knowledge and were burned because of it. Detect monsters goes beyond MAX_SIGHT. You *could* have known it was there. You didn't detect, you ran too far, you died. Running is dangerous. If you want to propose a fix to this problem its with running, not with MAX_SIGHT.

What about a priest/paladin/warrior who gets one shot by a drolem that was unseen because they haven't found any rods of detection yet? Technically avoidable by scumming for gear, but otherwise, instadeath. Or, how about a character that lands in a darkened room and detects on its first turn only to be breathed on by time hounds and killed? You can avoid this by getting ESP but otherwise, instadeath. +28 speed and get double moved by Morgoth who manastorms you twice. Low probability instadeath, avoidable by scumming for that extra speed.

Low probability deaths are a part of the game. We all deal with them. We know that teleporting is dangerous after a certain level. So is running. Adjust your play according to the level of risk you're willing to take.

[Netbrian]

Low probability deaths are a part of the game. We all deal with them. We know that teleporting is dangerous after a certain level. So is running. Adjust your play according to the level of risk you're willing to take.

This is true, but does this mechanic actually make the game more fun?

[Timo Pietilä]

Your death was avoidable, by detecting more often and running less. The fact that you took the shortcut of running was the problem. You relied on ESP for monster knowledge and were burned because of it. Detect monsters goes beyond MAX_SIGHT. You *could* have known it was there. You didn't detect, you ran too far, you died. Running is dangerous. If you want to propose a fix to this problem its with running, not with MAX_SIGHT.

Bullshit.

You mean that we have disturbance options for nothing, because nobody is supposed to be running?

I DID detect, I ran, I died.

EVERYONE uses running (if they know how to). And no, I couldn't know where it was unless I wasn't running and detecting pretty much every other second. To me that counts as unavoidable death, because that is caused by game mechanics, not by my mistake.

This MAX_SIGHT change was a "correction" to difference between max target range and Umbar (a single item) having multiplier that allowed it to have range beyond automatic targeting. Note that it was automatic targeting using '*', manually you could still target things beyond that. There was a reason why that was two grids shorter than your LoS range, not only to prevent unavoidable deaths, but also to allow few interesting tactical maneuvers.

Now we have unavoidable death and less interesting game. With Umbar that doesn't have excess multiplier anymore. There is absolutely no reason for that to still exist in the game. It doesn't make game any harder, it just makes it more dependent on luck. You could as well add in the game a random chance to get killed every turn. It doesn't make game harder, just annoying to play at all.

[bio_hazard]

Angband has always been a "purists" game- to be honest it is pretty amazing that it has been developed for so long and stayed so true to the 'Step 1: by lantern, Step 2: Kill Morgroth' idea...

Haven't we had a bunch of threads "Making the game harder, take N"?... Seems like a lot of those ideas would help in small ways to make the game more difficult. I don't personally find the game that easy but I can see a few ways to up the difficulty while hopefully making the game more interesting and/or encouraging a broader range of play styles.

1) Class/Race-specific constraints (not a complete list, but you get the idea).

*Smaller races (hobbits, dwarves, gnomes) can have higher stealth and saving throws, but be penalized or prevented from using big equipment (long bows, large shields, the big two-handed weapons).

*Paladins should have a chance to aggravate, and/or get penalties when wearing stealth gear.

*Priests and mages should be prevented/be bad at bows.

2) Changes to stealth- I like many of the suggestions in a recent thread where stealth would replace the "searching" mode. Stealth would increase with character level, and stealth mode would slow you somewhat. Heavy equipment would harm your stealth.

3) Changes to free action and paralysis (again, partially based on a recent thread). Make paralysis attacks cause slowing that can stack, and free action resists, decrease, but not completely prevent these attacks). Let speed/heroism/berserk give additional temporary resist. At high enough level or with certain equipment can be immune, but not at 1000'.

4) changes to encumbrance
* Generally decrease weight allowance
* Increase to-hit/Dam, spell, stealth malus due to equip weight. Allow thresholds to change somewhat with char level as well as strength/dex or other relevant stats

5) Monster/Dungeon behavior & layout
* Force some kind of guard monster near "good" items.
* Tunneling aggrevates
*chance of undetectable "alarm" traps that wake all monsters on level
* Force chance of guarded stairs
* More "interesting" layouts
* Smarter summons/tactics to make ASC more challenging
* At higher levels give lower-level monsters chance of better attacks (e.g. branded weapons, better spells on casters)

6) Escapes
- not sure how to do this, but try to emphasize Polymorph as an alternative to TO, at least in early game.
- When teleporting, wakes monsters w/in line of sight
- Earthquake/Destruction chance to shatter potions in inventory, also increases spawn rate on level?

7) probably variant territory, but "prison" levels where monsters guard one NPC, if you save the NPC, level map is revealed and a hidden room is created or revealed.

[Antoine]

I see a looot of changes being proposed by different people in this post and I am not sure that any of them are required.

Where did this "hey, I like Angband and I have a bit of spare time, I'll try to revamp some of V's main mechanics" attitude spring from?

In my view the main priorities should be:
- bugfixes
- interface and accessibility work
- drip-feeding new content (monsters, objects, vaults etc) to keep people interested
- occasionally rejigging a mechanic, where there is general agreement that the status quo is unsatisfactory
- at all times maintaining balance.

And in the short term I really can't see how anyone can take a view that the game is or is not balanced, until (a) people have spent some time playing 3.3.0, (b) people have spent some time playing 3.4.0, and (c) Magnate's object simulator is operational.

A.

(No offence meant to anyone)

[Nick]

Where did this "hey, I like Angband and I have a bit of spare time, I'll try to revamp some of V's main mechanics" attitude spring from?

Personally, I blame Generation Y. That's the thing to do now, right?

[Timo Pietilä]

Where did this "hey, I like Angband and I have a bit of spare time, I'll try to revamp some of V's main mechanics" attitude spring from?

You are asking that question a bit late. Many many things have been already altered, and not always in a good direction. I would like to go back a few steps to see how things were done in early days without losing the good stuff we have made.

I tend to agree with Eddie that last balanced version was 3.0.9 (actually I find 2.8.3 even more balanced), but since so many things were changed since then stripping all that out and going back there is no longer an option. Note that I don't think that all of that were bad, but the "big picture" apparently has been lost during current teamwork, each team member doing some tiny "this is cool" -thing not noticing how it affects everything else. In the process game has been changed easier, and also more boring (not necessary in related ways).

Reason why I made this thread was that I have got an feeling that the ways devteam is trying to make things harder is a wrong one. They are removing all the tactical advantages player has over monsters, and developing a great char practical impossibility. Both things are bad. Game should be harder, but only to certain point, you should be able to get magnificent character, you should get a lucky break every now and then, you should be able to kill anything and everything with ease using top items, you should be able to mitigate summons using dungeon layout and so on.

Is it wrong that player is able to get easy loot using *destruction* to CGV if that vault appears maybe once in 20 games where you get to dlvl 4000'+? Is it wrong to be able to teleport away more than one monster at the time? Is it wrong to be able to melee an Greater Titan without extreme gear? Is it wrong to be able to wipe out white dragon pit with ease wielding Eonwe? If I can't get the loot, I avoid that vault. If I can't survive without teleporting away multiple monsters, I avoid that situation. If I can't melee a titan I avoid it. Can't handle dragon pit? Avoid.

It makes the game a game of avoidance. Too many things avoided because reward is no longer there does not make game harder, it makes it just more boring.

[fizzix]

I see a looot of changes being proposed by different people in this post and I am not sure that any of them are required.

Where did this "hey, I like Angband and I have a bit of spare time, I'll try to revamp some of V's main mechanics" attitude spring from?

In my view the main priorities should be:
- bugfixes
- interface and accessibility work
- drip-feeding new content (monsters, objects, vaults etc) to keep people interested
- occasionally rejigging a mechanic, where there is general agreement that the status quo is unsatisfactory
- at all times maintaining balance.

I would say that the majority of code that I actually write addresses bugfixes and other under the hood things. The majority of stuff that I *talk* about on this forum are changes to gameplay. I think that's true for almost every other code contributor here as well.

[flammableBen]

I see a looot of changes being proposed by different people in this post and I am not sure that any of them are required.

Where did this "hey, I like Angband and I have a bit of spare time, I'll try to revamp some of V's main mechanics" attitude spring from?

In my view the main priorities should be:
- bugfixes
- interface and accessibility work
- drip-feeding new content (monsters, objects, vaults etc) to keep people interested
- occasionally rejigging a mechanic, where there is general agreement that the status quo is unsatisfactory
- at all times maintaining balance.

And in the short term I really can't see how anyone can take a view that the game is or is not balanced, until (a) people have spent some time playing 3.3.0, (b) people have spent some time playing 3.4.0, and (c) Magnate's object simulator is operational.

A.

(No offence meant to anyone)

Hey don't stifle it. Just look at them as suggestions for discussion rather than demands.

I find all the discussions about the mechanics fascinating; both in terms of Angband itself, and in terms of "what is fun?" game design in general.

Although I first played angband back in the late 90's ish. I've never been a very good player, and never really got that close to winning. I've never been a particularly consistent player either, I dip in and out. Although I have played enough versions to notice differences, at least in the first half of the game.

I do still hope that any questions/comments/suggestions I have on Angband are listened to though. I know there's a backlash at the moment about the game becoming easier, but I think the worst thing at the moment would be if it became inaccessible for new players.

Saying that, it's often said that the early game is the hardest, shouldn't one of the main aims to be to reverse that? I guess that the permadeath thing makes it a bit complicated - it's worth letting people know that they can be fucked over without x before they've invested too much time in a character; suddenly dying with no clue after 30mins is less of a kick in the teeth than the same thing happening 10hrs later.

Personally I think that needing FA, and RPoison, could be pushed back into the dungeon if it was somehow warned that "if you don't get this resistant then you are going to be fucked soon". At the moment if you attempt to play without spoilers then you've got a good chance of wandering down, having fun and then eaten to death by a carrion crawler or than yellow demon thing.

With permadeath comes great responsibility. Yes new players are going to die and start again lots of times before they win, but everytime it happens it should have been avoidable from the information within the game. This isn't the same as saying a new player should win on their first attempt, but difficulty shouldn't be hidden behind things they couldn't know.

The current approach can't be much fun for experienced players either, once you know what you can and can't kill at any point, then you just don't bother. I read stuff about diving early to make things a bit more exciting, but surely that just temporarily changes the number of things you can/can't kill, whilst increasing the number of things you can kill pretty quickly.

Sorry this has turned into a bit of a longer essay of ideas, I'll leave it there, just realised I've been typing for ages

I'm not saying that these are definite truths or anything, just how I see the game at the moment. As I said, more discussion points instead of demands.

[Max Stats]

Angband has always been a "purists" game- to be honest it is pretty amazing that it has been developed for so long and stayed so true to the 'Step 1: by lantern, Step 2: Kill Morgroth' idea...

But it hasn't, because lanterns were removed from the General Store. That's a whole 50% of the old way gone right there.

[Antoine]

I would say that the majority of code that I actually write addresses bugfixes and other under the hood things.

Yes I think you do great stuff

A.

[Antoine]

Reason why I made this thread was that I have got an feeling that the ways devteam is trying to make things harder is a wrong one. They are removing all the tactical advantages player has over monsters, and developing a great char practical impossibility.

I agree those things would be bad to do, but are they what the Devteam are actually doing?

I see changes like rejigging object frequencies, nerfing branded ammo, nerfing combat bonuses on off-weapon artifacts, nerfing elemental rings, removing percentile healing, fixing too-many-shoes, making stat loss harder to cure... these don't seem to diminish tactical play.

A.