GOOD and GREAT

[Magnate]

Nice ideas here...
I'd also like to see more intelligent, class-based drops: for example, it's always frustrating when you play a warrior to kill a high level unique and see him drop a bunch of high level books. High level books are "good" to spellcasters... but they're useless to warriors. To push the concept of good/great objects, it would be nice to attach it to player class too. Using the same example, a high level mage book would be "great" for mages/rogues/rangers, and "good" for all other classes.

This is a nice-to-have, but it's a slightly different project from changing the fundamentals of good/great. UnAngband does this in spades, and it works well.

@Nomad: yes, this would mean making all artifacts generate by passing through good/great/artifact checks first, then rolling for exactly which artifact is created. This will mean that artifact rarities will become totally independent of base item rarities - so they'll need recalibrating to ensure that standarts have the same relative rarities as they do now (i.e. 'thancs more findable than Deathwreaker etc.). Overall we want to reduce artifact drops back to pre-3.1 levels.

[Derakon]

Nice ideas here...
I'd also like to see more intelligent, class-based drops: for example, it's always frustrating when you play a warrior to kill a high level unique and see him drop a bunch of high level books. High level books are "good" to spellcasters... but they're useless to warriors. To push the concept of good/great objects, it would be nice to attach it to player class too. Using the same example, a high level mage book would be "great" for mages/rogues/rangers, and "good" for all other classes.

Drops should not depend on the player class. They can depend on the monster, sure -- liches could be more likely to drop spellbooks, and dragons more likely to drop jewelry, or whatever. But they shouldn't depend on the player's class.

[Nomad]

@Nomad: yes, this would mean making all artifacts generate by passing through good/great/artifact checks first, then rolling for exactly which artifact is created. This will mean that artifact rarities will become totally independent of base item rarities - so they'll need recalibrating to ensure that standarts have the same relative rarities as they do now (i.e. 'thancs more findable than Deathwreaker etc.). Overall we want to reduce artifact drops back to pre-3.1 levels.

Presumably it would also mean an end to the awkward subdivision between 'special' and 'ordinary' artefacts, since if you make an artefact, choose one from the list and then generate the appropriate object, it doesn't matter if that artefact has a special base. And you could even create artefact versions of things other than wearables, such as converting the dungeon books to artefacts so they wouldn't drop more than once per game.

[fizzix]

@timo: the only difference in standart games, is that with standarts, if you see a short sword, you know that the best you can get is Sting, with randarts, it could be an amazing weapon. There's more of an incentive to seek out items there. It's a subtle difference, but it's actually the main reason I play randarts.

@magnate: The decision of whether an item is good or not is kind of a clusterfuck. There are currently 3 separate places.

1: item is declared good or great based on carrying monster or floor space
2: item is delcared great because it failed to become a special artifact
3: item successfully rolls for good/great.

Only the third one comes after the decision on what type of base item it is.

If you're really worried about good/great consumables being overrun by ?phase and the like, I'd prefer a level based approach to determination, rather than hard-coding certain consumables as good or great (like what's done currently with jewelry). Some sort of dependence on min-level could probably work, as this would eliminate the consumables that appear throughout the dungeon.

I don't have a problem with junk getting created, I think junk is fine. I actually think the problem is more on the other side. Too many high level egos get created in the mid-levels.

[Magnate]

Presumably it would also mean an end to the awkward subdivision between 'special' and 'ordinary' artefacts, since if you make an artefact, choose one from the list and then generate the appropriate object, it doesn't matter if that artefact has a special base. And you could even create artefact versions of things other than wearables, such as converting the dungeon books to artefacts so they wouldn't drop more than once per game.

Precisely. You see where we're going with this (you just mentioned tickets #1014 and #353, which are the two artifact-related tickets slated for 3.4.0 ...).

[Magnate]

@magnate: The decision of whether an item is good or not is kind of a clusterfuck. There are currently 3 separate places.

1: item is declared good or great based on carrying monster or floor space
2: item is delcared great because it failed to become a special artifact
3: item successfully rolls for good/great.

Only the third one comes after the decision on what type of base item it is.

Indeed. I think we have a consensus that all three of these should be combined in one place, with the roll being skipped if the result is predetermined by drop type or vault space.

If you're really worried about good/great consumables being overrun by ?phase and the like, I'd prefer a level based approach to determination, rather than hard-coding certain consumables as good or great (like what's done currently with jewelry). Some sort of dependence on min-level could probably work, as this would eliminate the consumables that appear throughout the dungeon.

Min level could work, as could power rating or cost. I don't particularly favour hard-coded classifications either, but they have the advantage of being maintained separately (i.e. if you change depths for some other reason, you change the categories items get put in.).

I don't have a problem with junk getting created, I think junk is fine. I actually think the problem is more on the other side. Too many high level egos get created in the mid-levels.

Sure, but the solution to this is to produce fewer "great" items at those levels, not to dilute the type of items that can be considered "great" (which is what we have now).

What did you think of the recalibration idea summarised by Nomad in the other thread? i.e. the dungeon is roughly divided into four quarters, where average/good/great/artifact are the dominant item type in each quarter (but of course could be found earlier or later courtesy of the RNG).

[camlost]

What about separating item drop rates out by quality. Each item could have a set of depths/frequency/quantities for each kind of drop.

!Healing
GREAT:20/5/1d3,50/5/2d4
GOOD:30/30/1d3
NORMAL:40/10/1d1

[fizzix]

What did you think of the recalibration idea summarised by Nomad in the other thread? i.e. the dungeon is roughly divided into four quarters, where average/good/great/artifact are the dominant item type in each quarter (but of course could be found earlier or later courtesy of the RNG).

Not too much of a fan, unless the breakpoints are gradual and smooth, in which case, i'd just prefer having a smooth function regardless.

Having the dominant type be artifact anywhere dlevel 100 or below is nuts.

[Derakon]

Having the dominant type be artifact anywhere dlevel 100 or below is nuts.

So basically everyone should play artifactless except for maybe one artifact they find per game, unless they really enjoy scumming dlvl 98?

[Nomad]

Not too much of a fan, unless the breakpoints are gradual and smooth, in which case, i'd just prefer having a smooth function regardless.

Having the dominant type be artifact anywhere dlevel 100 or below is nuts.

I think we're probably talking a bit at cross-purposes. To be hopefully a bit clearer, 'dominant type' as in what most players are likely to have for equipment at that stage, not dominant as in 'finding mostly artefacts at that stage'.

I was basically thinking of pushing back the points where the types begin dropping, rather than restricting them to those specific bands. So weak egos would normally appear between 25 and 100, high-end egos between 50 and 100, artefacts between 75 and 100. Rather than the current situation where egos start dropping relatively early on and you're happily running about in your Resistance armour long before you've seen your first average plate mail.

[fizzix]

I think we're probably talking a bit at cross-purposes. To be hopefully a bit clearer, 'dominant type' as in what most players are likely to have for equipment at that stage, not dominant as in 'finding mostly artefacts at that stage'.

I was basically thinking of pushing back the points where the types begin dropping, rather than restricting them to those specific bands. So weak egos would normally appear between 25 and 100, high-end egos between 50 and 100, artefacts between 75 and 100. Rather than the current situation where egos start dropping relatively early on and you're happily running about in your Resistance armour long before you've seen your first average plate mail.

Ok, i didn't see the original post and I don't think it was in this thread, so I apologize for misunderstanding.

1) I think artifacts need to be spread out more. They're currently designed to span the entire dungeon level. Some weapons, like the thancs, are weaker than most egos. Restricting them to level 75+ is a little silly. I think artifacts should be viewed as an upgrade to an ego item you might otherwise see at that level. I think artifacts should be determined separately. They should have their own, somewhat independent calculation. It also needs to accommodate failure. You can't say "this should be an artifact" up front, because there are a limited number of them.

2) It makes more sense to drop a slay dagger on dlevel 5 than it does to drop an average executioner's sword. The sword is junk at that point. Similarly plate mail is problematic because of encumberance reasons. It's really hard to get around this point. I don't think the weapon base drops are broken, except perhaps that DSMs are a bit too common. I'm not sure if you meant to change that, I might be reading too much in.

3) I do agree that higher level egos need to be pushed back. Branded and *slay* weapons should have a place in the game. Right now they don't. I could buy into a 'tiered' ego selection which would involve a level dependent calculation. Something like.

pseudo-code

Roll_for_good

if (GOOD) roll_for_ego (try for slays)

if (EGO) roll_for_goodego (try for brands, *slays, blessed)

if (GOODEGO) roll for greatego (try for gondolin, westernesse, HA, extra attacks)

of course this gets tricky when you start thinking about armors and I feel you need to start hardcoding stuff in. I think I still prefer an approach where the only information needed is a level value. I probably need to think about this more. Maybe I'll try writing up my basic approach this weekend and play around with it a little.

[JohnCW9]

And you could even create artefact versions of things other than wearables, such as converting the dungeon books to artefacts so they wouldn't drop more than once per game.

My concern is if you guys do this will they be common enough to find EVERY game?

[Derakon]

My concern is if you guys do this will they be common enough to find EVERY game?

Is the Phial common enough to find every game?

For any given entry in object.txt, it ought to be possible to make an artifact with an equivalent drop rate.

[JohnCW9]

Is the Phial common enough to find every game?

For any given entry in object.txt, it ought to be possible to make an artifact with an equivalent drop rate.

I not sure I haven't played much of V lately, but I understand that it is more rare these days than it was once.

[Derakon]

That was a hypothetical question, intended to draw your attention to the fact that the Phial is, in fact, found in 99.9% of games; thus, an item simply becoming an artifact does not mean it will be unfindable.

In fact, here, have a graph I made awhile back:


If spellbooks became artifacts, then you could expect similar curves for them, though presumably you wouldn't start having a significant chance of finding any of them until dlvl 40 or so.