GOOD and GREAT

[fizzix]

I was going to add this into another thread, but it started expanding and I decided to make it its own thread.

I think that ditching the current definitions of GOOD and GREAT altogether is the way to go. I think I tried to explain this on IRC, but probably sucked at it, so I'll try again. First I guess I should go through what we currently have. (FORCED_GOOD and FORCED_GREAT are my terms)

Right now GOOD means:
Has positive AC bonuses or combat pluses if a weapon or armor
Is one of a small set of jewelry, amulets.
Is a dungeon book.

FORCED_GOOD (distinguished from good in that it is dropped by a DROP_GOOD monster, a vault spot)
Has a 10 level boost to base level
Same as GOOD

GREAT means
Is an ego (if a weapon or armor)
Is one of the same set of jewelry, amulets as GOOD items
Is a dungeon book.
Gets 1 roll for an artifact

FORCED_GREAT (distinct from GREAT, these have to become GREAT either by being dropped by a DROP_GREAT monster, or a vault spot, or by failing a special artifact roll)
Is the same as GREAT
Gets 4 rolls for artifact


My proposal would be to:

0) Remove the weird mechanic that a failed special artifact becomes FORCED_GOOD, FORCED_GREAT

1) move the random roll determination of good and great into make_object. This eliminates the difference between GOOD and FORCED_GOOD. (and btw GREAT and FORCED_GREAT)

2) All good objects get a +10 boost to level. If they are a weapon/armor/light, they get a chance to become an ego. (prob something like level/2/100). They do not get an artifact roll.

3) All great objects get a +20 boost to level. They are automatically egos. They get 4 artifact rolls.

4) The formulas for calculating good and great objects will be different. The chance that a normal object will become good should be something like:
(level*2 / 100)

The chance that a normal object will become great should be something like:
MIN(level/4 , 15)

5) No exclusion of consumables from DROP_GOOD or DROP_GREAT. As long as the level of the object is in the appropriate range, that object can be dropped.

My guesses as to what will happen. Artifact frequency will drop considerably, possibly too much. High end staves/scrolls/rods will increase in frequency, enough that we may need to increase their rarity. Egos will be rarer, although there will be less junk items littering the dungeon, since more monsters will drop squelchable items.

[Timo Pietilä]

I was going to add this into another thread, but it started expanding and I decided to make it its own thread.

5) No exclusion of consumables from DROP_GOOD or DROP_GREAT. As long as the level of the object is in the appropriate range, that object can be dropped.

I think this is good for monster drops and general floor items, however I would hate to see this in "8" block vault items. Too many consumables have too high range of levels where they can be generated, so that would weaken greater vaults a lot. If you make vault risk/reward ratio too high nobody will enter any vault, which pretty much negates reason for their existence.

[fizzix]

I think this is good for monster drops and general floor items, however I would hate to see this in "8" block vault items. Too many consumables have too high range of levels where they can be generated, so that would weaken greater vaults a lot. If you make vault risk/reward ratio too high nobody will enter any vault, which pretty much negates reason for their existence.

ok, no restriction of consumables from DROP_GOOD but continuing to restrict them from DROP_GREAT seems ok as well. Then consumables would be restricted from 8 squares, some unique drops, and for the <15% of items that pass the test for GREAT.

[Derakon]

That sounds reasonable to me.

[fizzix]

Also in response to Timo's point, I think I'm more often inclined to enter a vault that has a known consumable like a ?mass banish than I am to enter one that has a bunch of unknown weapons. Nevertheless, restricting consumables from 8 squares is reasonable.

[Derakon]

?MassBanish is one thing, ?Identify is another. There's lots of consumables that have strong allocation throughout the dungeon, because they're basic "bread and butter" items. This makes them not very exciting to find.

[bulian]

I'm a little surprised to see dungeon books on both the "good" and "great" lists.

[fizzix]

?MassBanish is one thing, ?Identify is another. There's lots of consumables that have strong allocation throughout the dungeon, because they're basic "bread and butter" items. This makes them not very exciting to find.

?identify is still better than a slay orc broad sword. At least one is useful.

[Derakon]

?identify is still better than a slay orc broad sword. At least one is useful.

But it's not better than a broadsword that might be Slay Orc and might be Aranruth. Really, you're not going to go take on a remotely difficult fight if you know the reward is ?Identify, but you would if the reward has the potential of being a useful new piece of equipment.

[fizzix]

But it's not better than a broadsword that might be Slay Orc and might be Aranruth. Really, you're not going to go take on a remotely difficult fight if you know the reward is ?Identify, but you would if the reward has the potential of being a useful new piece of equipment.

that's true. However, my point is that it's not clear that allowing consumables into vault 8s will decrease the amount of times you are willing to take on a fight to get the item, at least in standart games.

[Timo Pietilä]

that's true. However, my point is that it's not clear that allowing consumables into vault 8s will decrease the amount of times you are willing to take on a fight to get the item, at least in standart games.

I fail to understand how standart games differ from randart games in this. To me allowing consumables in 8-blocks definitely would decrease my willingness of checking what the item is.

[dos350]

standarts is rofl i havnt played it since i won this game also nn4this imo~

[Magnate]

I fail to understand how standart games differ from randart games in this. To me allowing consumables in 8-blocks definitely would decrease my willingness of checking what the item is.

I think my problem with this is that all consumables, which can drop at the given level, are assumed to be equally good. That's wrong. ?ID and ?WoR drop throughout most of the dungeon, but that doesn't mean that when you're at dl90 they should be considered competitive with ?Banish and ?MassBanish.

I don't think I have any issue with fizzix's proposed changes to the good/great mechanics, but I don't think they go far enough if they don't distinguish between low-end and high-end consumables.

By exactly the same token, they don't solve the problem of basic, non-magical DSM being better than most "good" non-DSM armours. (Ditto blades of chaos etc.)

Nor do they address the issue that having plusses to hit/dam/AC doesn't really make most weapons or armours any better than +0, except in the very early part of the dungeon before ego items begin to appear. For the vast majority of the game the definition of "good" is wrong.

So I would add to fizzix's proposals the following:

(i) Redefine "good" to include low-end egos for weapons and armour (single resist, single non-* slay, etc.), plus DSM/BoC et al., and also to include a set of high-end consumables (staves of destruction, stat potions etc.), along with the existing jewelry and early dungeon books

(ii) Redefine "great" to mean the rest of the egos for weapons and armour, and the very top consumables (staves of magi/power, wands of annihilation, Kelek's/WoG etc.)

This means changing the creation mechanic so that instead of settling on the base item and *then* checking for good/great, you do that check first so that you can then select from base items that are good/great. This should address the DSM/BoC problem, and also avoids any hackishness about '8' squares excluding consumables (because you know that they'll be great ones).

EDIT: I'd quite like to make jewelry follow the same mechanisms as weapons and armour, i.e. have base items that can get ego types - but that's a slightly separate suggestion from extending fizzix's proposal.

[Nomad]

This means changing the creation mechanic so that instead of settling on the base item and *then* checking for good/great, you do that check first so that you can then select from base items that are good/great. This should address the DSM/BoC problem, and also avoids any hackishness about '8' squares excluding consumables (because you know that they'll be great ones).

This seems like the right way to go to me. Would this mean de-coupling the rarity of artefacts from the rarity of their base items? I think that's probably a good move, even if it requires some tweaking to keep things like Deathwreaker suitably rare.

[PowerWyrm]

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.