Mage equipment

[Magnate]

That's an illusion. Every addition affects rarity of every item on the game. If you add something you need to address rarities of everything else or remove something from the game. Every addition that makes some decision easier makes game easier. Everything affects everything.

The penultimate sentence isn't correct. Adding one item that makes one decision easier makes every other item slightly rarer. It is not possible to conclude that the net result is to make the game easier.

This seems to have snowballed into a big debate about making the game easier, and I'm not sure why anyone thinks that adding caster items would do that. If anything the whole point is to make the game more challenging - reduce the effectiveness of the "battlemage" approach (arguably this is what rogues are for) and offer pure casters alternative equipment that is more effective for them but less effective than the battlemage is now, upping the overall challenge level slightly.

That's not to say we'll get it right first time, but it doesn't make sense to assume that any additions will automatically make the game easier.

[Timo Pietilä]

The penultimate sentence isn't correct. Adding one item that makes one decision easier makes every other item slightly rarer. It is not possible to conclude that the net result is to make the game easier.

Usually this is the case, because net result includes that one item added, and thus overall rarity of the items did stay same, just that one item that made decision easier made game easier to that decision maker. However if that item is completely useless to everybody else then game got slightly harder (or more annoying) for those.

If that impact to others is big enough this usually leads to addition of another item giving them some extra ability they now lacked compared to the previous additionand so game got easier as whole. This trend of adding things has been going on for some time now. Monsters, effects, inventory slots, detection abilities, items, item attributes, dungeon features... everything.

I think at this point of zillion things affecting everything balancing game is actually easier made by removal of useless or semi-useless and overpowered things than adding anything more. Sometimes less is more. By removing one artifact you just made every other artifact slightly more common. By removing some vault you just made every other vault more common etc. By removal you narrow the selection making game less dull by increasing the variability between things.

[Malak Darkhunter]

Usually this is the case, because net result includes that one item added, and thus overall rarity of the items did stay same, just that one item that made decision easier made game easier to that decision maker. However if that item is completely useless to everybody else then game got slightly harder (or more annoying) for those.

If that impact to others is big enough this usually leads to addition of another item giving them some extra ability they now lacked compared to the previous additionand so game got easier as whole. This trend of adding things has been going on for some time now. Monsters, effects, inventory slots, detection abilities, items, item attributes, dungeon features... everything.

I think at this point of zillion things affecting everything balancing game is actually easier made by removal of useless or semi-useless and overpowered things than adding anything more. Sometimes less is more. By removing one artifact you just made every other artifact slightly more common. By removing some vault you just made every other vault more common etc. By removal you narrow the selection making game less dull by increasing the variability between things.

I think this idea is a proposal of stagnation, and a greater likely hood of the same old repetitive gameplay, this gets old over time. Introducing new items and thereby trying to rebalance things makes the game interesting again and different, increasing likelyhood of replaying. Some people like new stuff, for me and for some others it's not about winning- it's about treasure hunting, and making that all powerful character. It's not always about just winning.

[Timo Pietilä]

I think this idea is a proposal of stagnation, and a greater likely hood of the same old repetitive gameplay, this gets old over time. Introducing new items and thereby trying to rebalance things makes the game interesting again and different, increasing likelyhood of replaying. Some people like new stuff, for me and for some others it's not about winning- it's about treasure hunting, and making that all powerful character. It's not always about just winning.

Trust me, new items gets old fast. New item that isn't really anything new is boring. If you add something you need to remove something else to prevent this accumulation of boredom from happening. Variance is good, mass of similar items is bad. In roguelikes variance should come from randomness and difference between things not from introducing things in the game.

Changes are good as long as the reason for change is not the change itself. If the goal is to introduce something completely new (like those mage staves) the overall impact on the gameplay needs to be considered. I'm not against adding something if that doesn't make game just a bit more dull in a long run changing things in a gray mass.

You could use forest as a metaphor for the game.

If you add a tree in a forest it doesn't matter much what it is and how interesting it looks like as a individual tree, it is just another tree. If you transform one tree to be more equal to other trees you just made forest more dull. If you change landscape of the forest you change something that is something new. If you reduce number of trees you make trees less likely to be similar, thus making forest a more interesting place to be. If you reduce too many trees it stops being a forest.

Your "mage staff" -suggestion is just a tree in a forest. You could as well say you introduced a whip with permanent light and activation for restore some mana. It isn't any different from rest of the melee-weapons, not in any significant way. In order to make that change a justified one you need to make it more different from rest of the trees. Change landscape, make melee and missile combat impossible while wielding such a staff. Make it a bit more powerful, perhaps increase mana regeneration (but not HP regeneration) instead of activate for small mana amount. That would be completely new thing in the game, not just a tree among others.

[Magnate]

Your "mage staff" -suggestion is just a tree in a forest. You could as well say you introduced a whip with permanent light and activation for restore some mana. It isn't any different from rest of the melee-weapons, not in any significant way. In order to make that change a justified one you need to make it more different from rest of the trees. Change landscape, make melee and missile combat impossible while wielding such a staff. Make it a bit more powerful, perhaps increase mana regeneration (but not HP regeneration) instead of activate for small mana amount. That would be completely new thing in the game, not just a tree among others.

To be fair to Malak, it's a bit harsh to judge someone's throwaway suggestion as if it were a fully developed proposal. The great value of this forum is that ideas for improvement evolve from throwaway lines picked up and passed on through dozens of posts (or even threads). This isn't the first thread about caster-specific weapons (rods, staves, whatever you want to call them) and it won't be the last.

In your last post you said "By removal you narrow the selection making game less dull by increasing the variability between things" which is self-contradictory. "narrow the selection" and "increasing variability" are opposites.

That said, you are right that too many items would be bad. But I think your long experience means that you are several standard deviations out from the mean in terms of what constitutes too many items. I don't think most players want to see many things removed, and feel there is still room to add more.

[Timo Pietilä]

In your last post you said "By removal you narrow the selection making game less dull by increasing the variability between things" which is self-contradictory. "narrow the selection" and "increasing variability" are opposites.

No they are not. If you have a selection of 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and you remove 2,4,6 and 8 you increased variability between any two numbers that follow each other. Finding 5 after finding 4 is not as good as finding 5 after finding 3.

Zillion items that are alike is not variability. Less items with more variance between item is.

[Magnate]

No they are not. If you have a selection of 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and you remove 2,4,6 and 8 you increased variability between any two numbers that follow each other. Finding 5 after finding 4 is not as good as finding 5 after finding 3.

Zillion items that are alike is not variability. Less items with more variance between item is.

Ok, thanks for the explanation - I understand now that you meant more variability between results rather than more different results.

Personally I'd quite like to be able to find 2, 4, 6 and 8 and I see no benefit in removing them.

[Timo Pietilä]

Ok, thanks for the explanation - I understand now that you meant more variability between results rather than more different results.

Personally I'd quite like to be able to find 2, 4, 6 and 8 and I see no benefit in removing them.

Only other method of getting that is to increase rarity so much that you don't find all of these in single game which is impossible currently. This was one of the bugs you have recorded in trac.

Benefit you see only after playing quite a lot, when you have seen enough of the items individual items lose their meaning (unless there is enough difference between items), then only item attributes count. "Treasure hunt" that Malak mentions becomes a moot point, it doesn't matter anymore that you find something when it is practically identical to what you have seen previously in different item. This same applies to monsters like minor demons and skeletons and dungeon features like Vaults. After seeing enough Vaults individual Vault becomes "just another room with some treasure". It even applies to danger level progression game has. Too smooth and there is no excitement in that.

Gray mass. Another tree in the forest.

[Magnate]

Only other method of getting that is to increase rarity so much that you don't find all of these in single game which is impossible currently. This was one of the bugs you have recorded in trac.

Benefit you see only after playing quite a lot, when you have seen enough of the items individual items lose their meaning (unless there is enough difference between items), then only item attributes count. "Treasure hunt" that Malak mentions becomes a moot point, it doesn't matter anymore that you find something when it is practically identical to what you have seen previously in different item. This same applies to monsters like minor demons and skeletons and dungeon features like Vaults. After seeing enough Vaults individual Vault becomes "just another room with some treasure". It even applies to danger level progression game has. Too smooth and there is no excitement in that.

Gray mass. Another tree in the forest.

You and I have this debate quite often, and I think perhaps we should agree to disagree. When you have played a game so often that the majority of its content holds no pleasure for you, and you wish its content to be reduced in order to bring you more often those few things which will provide pleasure, then perhaps it's time to play a different game?

That is of course a rhetorical question and I am not telling you to stop playing Angband. What I'm trying to put across is that I think most people really rather like there being lots of different things to find, and don't mind the fact that they're not all completely different. I don't think "less is more" applies to the extent that we should remove lots of monsters and objects from the game just because they aren't obviously fantastic tactical no-brainer items or are a bit like something else.

You do have a point on the rarity issue and yes that is on the to-do list.

[Timo Pietilä]

What I'm trying to put across is that I think most people really rather like there being lots of different things to find, and don't mind the fact that they're not all completely different.

I don't want them to be completely different. Just different. Take for example Thorin. It is different enough from rest of the crowd that finding it is always a Wohoo! -thing. Even if I couldn't use it at that point. What makes is different is that it doesn't have basic four resist.

If you refuse to reduce items then at least try to make them different.

BTW, I think this is something you can't decide. I think this is something that Takkaria has to address. You have done already too much tweaking with the weak items to make them "useful" with result of making them more alike. I don't like that. It is time to other people to take charge.

I also don't like your attitude. You act like you are the maintainer. You post your opinion about everything and act if that is only opinion that matters. You seem to have this same condescending attitude even against other coders. You are a coder, so that is why you are above me in food chain of the angband, but I still don't like the suggestion you make about "time to play different game".

[Nick]

Timo, as I see it the development team runs something like cabinet; they discuss major stuff, and get agreement before implementing it, but individuals will also have major responsibility for some areas. takkaria is Prime Minister, and Magnate is Minister of Object Generation...

[Magnate]

I don't want them to be completely different. Just different. Take for example Thorin. It is different enough from rest of the crowd that finding it is always a Wohoo! -thing. Even if I couldn't use it at that point. What makes is different is that it doesn't have basic four resist.

I think it's significant that you've chosen as an example perhaps the most famously overpowered too-easy-to-find item in the history of the game.

If you refuse to reduce items then at least try to make them different.

I am always trying to do that. You have interpreted "trying to make things more useful" as "trying to make things the same" and that's not my intention. I don't even think it has really happened all that much, but I am ever alive to the danger, for which you have my thanks.

BTW, I think this is something you can't decide. I think this is something that Takkaria has to address. You have done already too much tweaking with the weak items to make them "useful" with result of making them more alike. I don't like that. It is time to other people to take charge.

I also don't like your attitude. You act like you are the maintainer. You post your opinion about everything and act if that is only opinion that matters. You seem to have this same condescending attitude even against other coders. You are a coder, so that is why you are above me in food chain of the angband, but I still don't like the suggestion you make about "time to play different game".

Lots of interesting points here.

I'm sorry my comment came across like that. I did try to point out that it was a rhetorical point about gamers in general, but I'm sorry it was still offensive.

I am not the maintainer and have never claimed to be. You are one of the two main reasons I never will be, and I'm fine with that - debate and disagreement is healthy, providing it remains civil and constructive. You'll be reassured to know that takkaria places a huge amount of significance in your opinions, and is never shy of telling me when I ought to remove/not do/undo something because you are right about it. I have always acceded happily to these requests and will continue to do so under any maintainer. If takkaria wants items removed, they'll go.

If someone else wants to lead on item generation and balancing in V, there are hundreds of other things I can work on. I am focusing on items precisely because of feedback from yourself and others that things aren't as well balanced as they were in 3.0.x. Some of the changes I've made have been good, others not so good. We are moving forwards overall, as you said in my sig. You and I are often of the same opinion. If you got over the fact that I disagree with you about some things, you'd probably be a lot happier with my work.

I'll leave it to others to tell me whether I really act like mine is the only opinion that matters, whether I'm condescending etc.

[Timo Pietilä]

I think it's significant that you've chosen as an example perhaps the most famously overpowered too-easy-to-find item in the history of the game.

Lets stick to that for a while. Why do you think it is overpowered?

[Magnate]

Lets stick to that for a while. Why do you think it is overpowered?

Well, to me "overpowered" has two meanings:

1. absolute: something is so grotesque it unbalances the game all on its own (e.g. buggy randarts with +4 blows, all slays/brands, +30 to_dam etc. etc.). Hopefully there aren't any standarts in this category, except perhaps The One (and that's perma-cursed).

2. relative: something is so powerful relative to other items in its class that it is a "no-brainer" choice. Thorin has long been in this category (though the addition of Elros in 3.3.0 begins to address this).

Thorin has no fewer than five must-have attributes:

+4 CON
IM_ACID
RES_SOUND
RES_CHAOS
FA

Without wishing to digress into a detailed debate about the relative merits of the five (e.g. FA is far more common than the other four etc.), they are all wow-factor flags - significant positives in deciding whether to wear it.

In addition, Thorin has +3 STR, RES_FEAR and +25 AC - not as important as the above, but all nice-to-haves.

It has -1 stealth (and let's bear in mind how recently it acquired this), but that's almost negligible (it ought to be -3 or -4 IMO).

Comparing with other artifact shields:

Anarion has rbase, a full set of sustains, and decent AC. Three good points compared with Thorin's eight, and only the sustains are really interesting. It's almost twice as heavy as Thorin too.

Celegorm has rbase plus rlight/rdark/pblind - let's be generous and say three pretty decent offerings between them, plus reasonable AC and no drawbacks. Not too heavy either.

Gil-Galad has huge AC, rdark and rdisen, +5 to WIS/CHR, half of rbase, plite and a fairly pointless activation. Unless you're a priest that looks like about two and a half interesting things to me. It's not heavy, but it's about 20x rarer than Thorin.

The newcomer, Elros, has +4 CON and pConf. It also has Hlife, rshards, relec and +1 INT/WIS. Again about three interesting things in total.

There still isn't a shield that comes anywhere close to what Thorin offers. That doesn't mean it's overpowered in absolute terms, but it does mean it ought to be the rarest shield by quite a long way. Since it demonstrably isn't, I consider it overpowered relative to other artifact shields.

I once tried to remove rsound from Thorin and there was an outcry. IMO that *still* leaves it as the best artifact shield, but slightly less obviously so.

Ho hum. With a truly massive penalty to stealth it would be slightly more balanced, but I don't suppose I'd get away with that either.

[fizzix]

The newcomer, Elros, has +4 CON and pConf. It also has Hlife, rshards, relec and +1 INT/WIS. Again about three interesting things in total.

1: Has haradrim been removed? You didn't describe it with the others. It's really the competitor to Thorin because of the extra shot (or is it blow, I can't remember anymore).

2: +4 CON is really the important part about Thorin. The game really penalizes you if you don't get to 18/200 con, and being able to get 4 points from a shield slot is huge. In randart games, where shields like thorin don't exist, I'm often hurting for CON and need something like a crown of might to help me out. I would consider each point of CON on equipment to be an interesting thing on its own, especially on a shield. If thorin had no other abilities but +4 CON, it still would be a strong endgame shield. Similarly Elros looks really powerful.