Minor 3.3.0 feedback

[fizzix]

It's more than that. DSM shows up pretty early pretty often. A 200 point breath beats any spell in the town mage books. It's just wrong for a warrior to have a more damaging ball attack than a mage on a regular basis. IMO DSM cumulatively should be rare enough that at least 1/2 the time you find MB6 before you find any DSM. Maybe that should be 90%. Or drop the breaths to 50 points or so.

The difference is that the recharge times are long enough that you can only use it once per battle. You can obviously use spells multiple times. I don't find the breaths unbalancing at all, they're actually fine the way they are, and it's the one time that I find myself using offensive activations.

[bron]

Do CCW cure poison? I always thought that CSW and CCW were identical except for the amount cured

CCW cures quite a long list of ailments: blindness, confusion, cuts, poison, stun, and amnesia. CSW only cures the first three of those (blindness, confusion, cuts). CCW cures all the same status elements as Healing and *Healing*, the only difference between those 3 potions being the amount of HP recovered. I used to think that CCW didn't cure amnesia, but ewan set me straight on that score during the 107 comp, so I read the source to be sure I understood it.

[CunningGabe]

It's more than that. DSM shows up pretty early pretty often. A 200 point breath beats any spell in the town mage books. It's just wrong for a warrior to have a more damaging ball attack than a mage on a regular basis. IMO DSM cumulatively should be rare enough that at least 1/2 the time you find MB6 before you find any DSM. Maybe that should be 90%. Or drop the breaths to 50 points or so.

What if the breaths, like monster breaths, depended on your HP somehow?

[Derakon]

What if the breaths, like monster breaths, depended on your HP somehow?

Then warriors would get even better attacks out of their DSM.

What if the activation could be used frequently but drained your HP each time? E.g. deals 100 damage and drains 33% of your HP.

[fizzix]

Then warriors would get even better attacks out of their DSM.

What if the activation could be used frequently but drained your HP each time? E.g. deals 100 damage and drains 33% of your HP.

Do people really find the DSM breaths to be too powerful that they need to be nerfed? If you look earlier in the thread, the first two posters said that they were useless!

[CunningGabe]

Then warriors would get even better attacks out of their DSM.

Not necessarily -- depends on how it scales.

I don't have particularly strong opinions about whether DSM is too good or shows up too regularly, but I did recently find a suit of red DSM really early (level 5 or so, I think), and it does make uniques and orc packs absurdly easy. So maybe having it activate for 50 points of damage would be more reasonable for a low-level character.

[Timo Pietilä]

Do people really find the DSM breaths to be too powerful that they need to be nerfed? If you look earlier in the thread, the first two posters said that they were useless!

For one I don't find them too powerful, quite opposite in fact. Only case where DSM breath is really useful is very early non-basic four DSM. Those are rare, and they are spice to the game. There are people that find Ringil very early, this is same class thing. If you found one, fine, you got lucky. Next game you don't find anything particularly useful until 1500'+. It's balanced and right IMO.

(OTOH there is some odd behavior in current vanilla that has not been properly investigated: ego-DSM are more common than normal DSM, and their appearance is practically doubled by introduction of ego-DSM:s)

[Magnate]

(OTOH there is some odd behavior in current vanilla that has not been properly investigated: ego-DSM are more common than normal DSM, and their appearance is practically doubled by introduction of ego-DSM:s)

You are quite right about this - fizzix and I are investigating this now. We think it has to do with failed attempts to create artifacts - these create more ego items, some of which are DSMs which would not have been generated as normal DSMs.

In most cases, the base item is made first, and only if it passes a "greatness" check does it get turned into an ego item. So a normal DSM may or may not turn into ego DSM.

But when the "special artifact" creation roll fails, the system demands an ego item as compensation. This then could be anything - any weapon or armour. We suspect that this small change (which was made to prevent people getting upset by Wormtongue dropping nothing at all if the artifact creation roll failed) has actually had a unexpectedly large impact on the number of ego items.

[EpicMan]

So maybe the fix for this is to simply not require an ego item - just roll normally (but don't generate a special artifact, of course). Or even better - roll for a comparable type of item (light source, ring, amulet, etc).

[Magnate]

So maybe the fix for this is to simply not require an ego item - just roll normally (but don't generate a special artifact, of course). Or even better - roll for a comparable type of item (light source, ring, amulet, etc).

We're actually looking at a more fundamental overhaul of item generation - better balance of consumables vs. wearables, weapons vs. armour, etc.

[fizzix]

You are quite right about this - fizzix and I are investigating this now. We think it has to do with failed attempts to create artifacts - these create more ego items, some of which are DSMs which would not have been generated as normal DSMs.

In most cases, the base item is made first, and only if it passes a "greatness" check does it get turned into an ego item. So a normal DSM may or may not turn into ego DSM.

But when the "special artifact" creation roll fails, the system demands an ego item as compensation. This then could be anything - any weapon or armour. We suspect that this small change (which was made to prevent people getting upset by Wormtongue dropping nothing at all if the artifact creation roll failed) has actually had a unexpectedly large impact on the number of ego items.

There's more to it than this. If you look in apply_magic you see the level dependent properties of good and great.

int good_chance = (lev + 2) * 3;
int great_chance = MIN(lev / 4 + lev, 50);

All objects deeper than level 33 are good.
half of all objects deeper than level 50 are great.

On this check alone, roughly half of DSM are made into egos.

[Nomad]

All objects deeper than level 33 are good.
half of all objects deeper than level 50 are great.

On this check alone, roughly half of DSM are made into egos.

In that case, maybe implementing the idea of OF_GOOD flags for high-end wearables could be part of the solution? If unenchanted low-end DSMs are already considered good and the ones with multiple resists considered great, then there wouldn't be so many promoted to ego items.

[Magnate]

In that case, maybe implementing the idea of OF_GOOD flags for high-end wearables could be part of the solution? If unenchanted low-end DSMs are already considered good and the ones with multiple resists considered great, then there wouldn't be so many promoted to ego items.

Yes, that's quite a good idea, if we stick with the current good/great/artifact system. But I think the current definition of "good" needs some thought, because most {good} items are obsolete by about 10% into the game.

[buzzkill]

Yes, that's quite a good idea, if we stick with the current good/great/artifact system. But I think the current definition of "good" needs some thought, because most {good} items are obsolete by about 10% into the game.

2 cents. The problem is not with the definition of {good}. Changing the vocabulary won't solve the fundamental problem which is that "most {good} items are obsolete by about 10% into the game."

[Magnate]

2 cents. The problem is not with the definition of {good}. Changing the vocabulary won't solve the fundamental problem which is that "most {good} items are obsolete by about 10% into the game."

? I wasn't suggesting to change the vocabulary - quite the opposite - keep the word but change the definition, so that "good" actually means useful. If you don't think that definition is the problem, then what is the problem? Do you think a weapon (+5, +6) being obsolete by about dl10-15 (when you find an ego) is the problem? Or that "good" is only applied to weapons and armour? Or something else?

Sorry if I am being dim - I didn't understand your post.