Ideas from old angband.

[Magnate]

In order for this to work you'd need to remove DROP_GOOD from deep monsters, or add consumables to those drops. Otherwise, you could only get the high level staves from the floor. I think this removal should be done anyway as DROP_GOOD should actually be interpreted as DROP_JUNK_THAT_YOU_NEED_TO_IDENTIFY.

Also, there is a more pernicious problem. Monsters like white wolves are very annoying in the late game. They pose no danger at all, but you still have to kill them. They give no XP and don't drop anything either. Now imagine what would happen if every monster had the same lack of reward. It's already annoying to have to wade through a group of orcs at dlevel 90, without even the possibility of a stat potion drop, it'd be almost unbearably boring.

(My solution of course, is to make orcs not appear deep in the dungeon at all, so you can instead deal with more interesting/dangerous monsters with better drops)

I think the occasional annoyance monster adds flavour to the game, but agree that they shouldn't be very common.

I strongly recommend keeping the DROP_GOOD and DROP_GREAT monster flags, but changing how they work. We need to add OF_GOOD to any non-wearables which should be available in DROP_GOOD, and OF_GREAT to any we want included in DROP_GREAT. So gain-one-lose-one potions should have OF_GOOD, and Augmentation/*Enlightenment* etc. should have OF_GREAT. Similarly high-end devices, scrolls, etc. Of course, we then need to balance the drop system so that they're not too common etc.

The alternative is to throw out the GOOD/GREAT concepts entirely and do the whole drop system using some other heuristic (object power, depth, price, whatever). I'm not convinced that the extra work would bring commensurate extra benefits.

[Magnate]

Many of the things I posted in original were not suggestions, just observations of how old angband did things.

Indeed, and it was useful and thought-provoking. Some of them are things we ought to do to make 3.4 a better game, and maybe we will.

I'm past "stop changing things"-phase, now I want things to be changed, but in other direction than I fear devteam is planning to steer the game. I don't like weakening the reward part of the result of what has already been done. If you make game "harder" that way, people just stop playing because then there is no satisfaction in playing the game.

I don't know how or why you come to characterise the direction of development in this way. I think I can confidently speak for most if not all contributors when I say it honestly isn't how we intend it to be, and in fact I don't think this is what's happening. Nobody has played much 3.3.0 yet, and 3.4 is barely started, so it seems very odd to have this view about where the game is going.

[fizzix]

I think the occasional annoyance monster adds flavour to the game, but agree that they shouldn't be very common.

There's a huge difference between annoyance monsters like water hounds or fire vortices that actually have some effect. I'm talking more about monsters that are not a danger, cannot damage equipment, have no status attacks (like stat draining) don't impede progress (even create darkness is ok). This group of monsters includes the wolves and orcs past about dlevel 30, and trolls past about dlevel 60. Because of large group sizes and low rarity, there are a lot of them in the dungeon. At least the orcs and trolls have some chance of dropping useful items currently.

I strongly recommend keeping the DROP_GOOD and DROP_GREAT monster flags, but changing how they work. We need to add OF_GOOD to any non-wearables which should be available in DROP_GOOD, and OF_GREAT to any we want included in DROP_GREAT. So gain-one-lose-one potions should have OF_GOOD, and Augmentation/*Enlightenment* etc. should have OF_GREAT. Similarly high-end devices, scrolls, etc. Of course, we then need to balance the drop system so that they're not too common etc.

The alternative is to throw out the GOOD/GREAT concepts entirely and do the whole drop system using some other heuristic (object power, depth, price, whatever). I'm not convinced that the extra work would bring commensurate extra benefits.

I added some emphasis, because I agree that this is important and difficult. One of my original suggestions was to expand the DROP_GOOD category. Although, i'm not entirely sure now that this is the best option. We already have an in-game mechanic for limiting what can be dropped based on maximum and minimum level. Right now every monster deeper than dlevel 60 has DROP_GOOD excepting the jabberwock and the dreadlord. Deep monsters are already going to drop items that are deeper than their level, so they're almost guaranteed to be "good" anyway. The DROP_GOOD flag limits the drops to be weapons and armor, which most of the time is useless. I'd strip the flags out entirely for all but UNIQUES, and maybe some select few monsters scattered around the dungeon.

[ChodTheWacko]

You can *always* detect monsters before they come into visual or spell range.

Not necessarily true.

I have a suggestion - If you spawn a monster, don't put it within 'monster detection range'. It's unfair to 'slide one in' after the player did detect monsters.

The fact that we need 'disturb when leaving trap detection range' implies to me we might need 'disturb when leaving monster detect range' but perhaps not.

- Frank

[Magnate]

I added some emphasis, because I agree that this is important and difficult. One of my original suggestions was to expand the DROP_GOOD category. Although, i'm not entirely sure now that this is the best option. We already have an in-game mechanic for limiting what can be dropped based on maximum and minimum level. Right now every monster deeper than dlevel 60 has DROP_GOOD excepting the jabberwock and the dreadlord. Deep monsters are already going to drop items that are deeper than their level, so they're almost guaranteed to be "good" anyway. The DROP_GOOD flag limits the drops to be weapons and armor, which most of the time is useless. I'd strip the flags out entirely for all but UNIQUES, and maybe some select few monsters scattered around the dungeon.

This is exactly the opposite of what I was trying to say. IMO the DROP_GOOD flag is a useful device for ensuring that deep monsters drop only useful items (for values of useful with a high variance). The problem is that DROP_GOOD is currently limited to weapons and armour. (There is a further problem that "good" weapons and armour are largely rubbish, but that's orthogonal.) So my suggestion is to make lots of useful non-wearables "good" so that they can be dropped with DROP_GOOD.

But your way may work better.

[Timo Pietilä]

First, we don't disagree that unavoidable deaths are bad. We do, however, disagree that your death was unavoidable. As fizzix pointed out, the key here is that the range of monster detection is greater than MAX_SIGHT, so that fact that MAX_SIGHT is the same as spell range is irrelevant. You can *always* detect monsters before they come into visual or spell range. Therefore your death was not unavoidable.

With unlimited mana and/or unlimited rod charges and without running maybe. Otherwise that is not true. I detected, run (didn't go past monster detection), got one-shot to death.

I always do trap and monster detection in the same grid. That way I never go to area I don't know. Problem was that when I get to the border, my visual range is way into undetected area, and monster was also probably moving towards me when that happened.

If you use running you definitely *can't* always detect monsters before they come into visual range. Everybody is using running, so in practice everyone is suspect to instant death by this change.

Also that change did more than just added insta-kill possibility: it removed tactical maneuver possibilities, namely lure monster to follow you in place where you want them to go.

That difference between visual range and spell range was there for a reason. Claiming that it has no effect in gameplay just shows that person claiming that has not played the game.

There is absolutely no reason *not* to revert that back to what it was. It was shortcut to fix tiny UI problem without fixing the underlining problem (that automatic targeting with '*' doesn't follow maximum sight range, but maximum spell range, which was two grids shorter than Umbar range). This tiny UI problem doesn't exist anymore. Umbar doesn't have range beyond original spell max range anymore.

[Timo Pietilä]

This is exactly the opposite of what I was trying to say. IMO the DROP_GOOD flag is a useful device for ensuring that deep monsters drop only useful items (for values of useful with a high variance). The problem is that DROP_GOOD is currently limited to weapons and armour. (There is a further problem that "good" weapons and armour are largely rubbish, but that's orthogonal.) So my suggestion is to make lots of useful non-wearables "good" so that they can be dropped with DROP_GOOD.

But your way may work better.

Actually DROP_GOOD doesn't exclude non-weapons / armour, but DROP_EXCELLENT does. DROP_GOOD also has speed-rings, dungeon books and several amulet types.

DROP_EXCELLENT forces item to be at least ego, and that should exclude several of the good-category items, OTOH I think that because of some quirk in the way game generates items that still does generate at least dungeon books, maybe also speed rings and amulets.

You are correct in saying that DROP_GOOD only includes wearables. Maybe at least augmentation, top healing potions, scrolls of acquirement and *acquirement* and some other consumables could be considered as "good" too.

[fizzix]

This is exactly the opposite of what I was trying to say. IMO the DROP_GOOD flag is a useful device for ensuring that deep monsters drop only useful items (for values of useful with a high variance). The problem is that DROP_GOOD is currently limited to weapons and armour. (There is a further problem that "good" weapons and armour are largely rubbish, but that's orthogonal.) So my suggestion is to make lots of useful non-wearables "good" so that they can be dropped with DROP_GOOD.

But your way may work better.

I understood what you were saying. I was responding that level maxima on item generation already serve the purpose of determining whether an item is good or not. Or at least, they should. Certainly, some items that are probably not good will be droppable (?phase, -disarming come to mind) but I think this is ok. If you want to do something else with DROP_GOOD, let the flag indicate that the drop should be 10-15 levels deeper than it would be otherwise.

What I'm trying to avoid is the huge arguments over what is GOOD and what is not. I think rods of light are good and I often carry them until I get ESP. But most other players probably don't think that they would deserve the GOOD flag. A "Wisdom +6 is good and so is a =Con +5 but =Con +2 is junk. That's not distinguishable with a OF_GOOD flag, but it is with level depth.

DROP_GREAT can act as it currently does. The main effect of DROP_GREAT should be an very large increase in artifact drop chance. Only about 10 uniques have this anyway, and most are deep.

[Magnate]

With unlimited mana and/or unlimited rod charges and without running maybe. Otherwise that is not true. I detected, run (didn't go past monster detection), got one-shot to death.

I always do trap and monster detection in the same grid. That way I never go to area I don't know. Problem was that when I get to the border, my visual range is way into undetected area, and monster was also probably moving towards me when that happened.

If you use running you definitely *can't* always detect monsters before they come into visual range. Everybody is using running, so in practice everyone is suspect to instant death by this change.

Also that change did more than just added insta-kill possibility: it removed tactical maneuver possibilities, namely lure monster to follow you in place where you want them to go.

That difference between visual range and spell range was there for a reason. Claiming that it has no effect in gameplay just shows that person claiming that has not played the game.

I think what you mean is that I have not played the game so many thousands of times to have any sensitivity to the "instakill possibilities" opened up by this change. You're right, I haven't. We just don't see this the same way.

There is absolutely no reason *not* to revert that back to what it was. It was shortcut to fix tiny UI problem without fixing the underlining problem (that automatic targeting with '*' doesn't follow maximum sight range, but maximum spell range, which was two grids shorter than Umbar range). This tiny UI problem doesn't exist anymore. Umbar doesn't have range beyond original spell max range anymore.

Randart hxbows could still get +3 might though. And that's beside the point, really. We need to think of a better way of solving the problem you describe - reverting this change is a lazy solution which simply creates a different problem (albeit one vastly less important to you).

I think the whole concept of ranges needs to be re-thought in the light of two things: major changes to detection, and smaller main windows. The latter is both because of the increasing use of mobile devices and Shockbolt's 64x64 tiles - both will mean that MAX_SIGHT is offscreen at its current value. So we either need to get much better at dealing with offscreen stuff, or we rebalance all ranges to be less. ISTR Nick did something about this with the NDS port of FA.

Despite not agreeing with your claims of instadeath-by-running, I am not unsympathetic to the problem. I just don't like your proposed solution.

[Magnate]

I understood what you were saying. I was responding that level maxima on item generation already serve the purpose of determining whether an item is good or not. Or at least, they should. Certainly, some items that are probably not good will be droppable (?phase, -disarming come to mind) but I think this is ok. If you want to do something else with DROP_GOOD, let the flag indicate that the drop should be 10-15 levels deeper than it would be otherwise.

What I'm trying to avoid is the huge arguments over what is GOOD and what is not. I think rods of light are good and I often carry them until I get ESP. But most other players probably don't think that they would deserve the GOOD flag. A "Wisdom +6 is good and so is a =Con +5 but =Con +2 is junk. That's not distinguishable with a OF_GOOD flag, but it is with level depth.

DROP_GREAT can act as it currently does. The main effect of DROP_GREAT should be an very large increase in artifact drop chance. Only about 10 uniques have this anyway, and most are deep.

Ok. I'm tired and not really understanding you very well. I don't see how the native depth of a CON ring can help distinguish between +2 and +5, but never mind. It sounds like you have put more thought into this than I have, and are closer to designing a replacement for the current drop code, so by all means try out your plan.

[Timo Pietilä]

I think what you mean is that I have not played the game so many thousands of times to have any sensitivity to the "instakill possibilities" opened up by this change. You're right, I haven't. We just don't see this the same way.Randart hxbows could still get +3 might though. And that's beside the point, really. We need to think of a better way of solving the problem you describe - reverting this change is a lazy solution which simply creates a different problem (albeit one vastly less important to you).

Reverting that change is the right thing to do, lazy solution was to change it in the first place to fix minor problem with '*' targeting and too high hxbow modifier. What should have been done in first place should have been fixing the targeting, not the just lazy change in main spell range.

Despite not agreeing with your claims of instadeath-by-running, I am not unsympathetic to the problem. I just don't like your proposed solution.

Why? On both instances. Why not agreeing my "claim" of instant death by running? It happened, so it is not just a claim, it is a fact. Why don't you like the reverting the change? It didn't bring anything to the game. Seriously, it didn't do anything good to the game, just created new instant death scenario and took away one way to deal with monsters. Nothing else.

If +3 modifiers in hxbows in randarts is a problem and you don't know how to fix the targeting then FIX THE DAMN RANDARTS!

[Derakon]

Or just institute a maximum range on missile weapons of sight range - 2, regardless of their multiplier. I don't see why we can't just have a cap there. After all, wouldn't an x8 modifier be theoretically possible on a randart? Might require making Ringil into a randart heavy crossbow with nothing but the multiplier, but it'd still put us back at square 1.

I have to say that Timo's point is valid here: we had a problem that resulted in a solution which had negative side effects. Now that the problem has gone away, we have nothing from that solution except for the negative side effects. So why not remove the solution? What other benefit does it provide?

[Timo Pietilä]

I have to say that Timo's point is valid here:

Thanks, I was starting to think that I'm the only one to see the problem with that change.

[d_m]

For what it's worth, I don't see anything wrong with having the maximum range for spells/missiles be shorter than the maximum visible range.

[fizzix]

For what it's worth, I don't see anything wrong with having the maximum range for spells/missiles be shorter than the maximum visible range.

I don't either. But it really doesn't bother me at all as much as it bothers Timo. I think I'm more paranoid about running though. I also play with always center map, which I think makes a big difference in our perspectives.