What happened to artifacts?

[Antoine]

You could call it DROP_GREAT

A.

[Timo Pietilä]

well...you're always going to get some crappy drops from uniques. There are far too many uniques for them all to drop something useful. The general idea is to weight the useful drops more towards uniques and less towards other areas.

Keep GV:s as good source of useful drops please. If exploring dungeon changes to boring repetition I lose quite a bit of my interest of the game. Also some of the greater normal monsters should have at least DROP_GOOD just because they are so dangerous. If the reward is not there, then you just avoid those monsters. Demon and dragon pits are now "who cares" -things. Especially demon pits.

[Mondkalb]

OTOH there are the monster pits that now may have useful items. I never bothered with them in the past, but I am now more tempted to use an Mass Banishment scroll or try to handle them otherwise if I can spot something useful in there.

[fizzix]

Keep GV:s as good source of useful drops please. If exploring dungeon changes to boring repetition I lose quite a bit of my interest of the game. Also some of the greater normal monsters should have at least DROP_GOOD just because they are so dangerous. If the reward is not there, then you just avoid those monsters. Demon and dragon pits are now "who cares" -things. Especially demon pits.

The problem was that DROP_GOOD made someone more likely to drop junk than a useful item. DROP_GREAT was ok because then you got extra artifact rolls, but DROP_GOOD was useless because it only limited what you could get. The deprecation of DROP_GOOD for deep monsters in 3.4 was designed to make monster drops better, not worse. I guess the jury's still out on whether this was a good idea.

The problem with GVs is that there is such variation based on what type of GV you get. There have been some changes here, but it still is a bit slanted. The most lucrative GVs (ones with individual cells) are also the ones that are easiest to clear. That has always seemed to me to be a poor design choice. GVs still have a leg up on normal monster drops because of the OoD nature of the items. You are still more likely to find a deep artifact in a GV than you are by killing an at-level unique monster. I'm not sure what the optimal solution is here, there are lots of issues.

Dragon/Ainu pits are great for consumable gathering (although you do get some artifacts too). I think that's a perfectly reasonable purpose for them. Demon pits, as you mention, are more problematic because they are in general too dangerous, Undead nests are similar. Again, I'm not sure what the ideal solution is. In my tweaked version I made pits smaller, but that was more because I found clearing the large sizes too tedious to be fun and doesn't really get at the problem you are mentioning.

edit: the presence of dracolisks and dracolichs IMO was a negative change to dragon pits.

[Timo Pietilä]

The problem was that DROP_GOOD made someone more likely to drop junk than a useful item. DROP_GREAT was ok because then you got extra artifact rolls, but DROP_GOOD was useless because it only limited what you could get. The deprecation of DROP_GOOD for deep monsters in 3.4 was designed to make monster drops better, not worse.

Maybe we need to redefine what is considered good for drops? I would count stat-potions, augmentation, *healing*, Life etc. top consumables good, and maybe also those deep rods (speed, healing) as well. Dungeon spellbooks definitely (I think those can be dropped with drop good as well as drop excellent)

[Estie]

The problem was that DROP_GOOD made someone more likely to drop junk than a useful item. DROP_GREAT was ok because then you got extra artifact rolls, but DROP_GOOD was useless because it only limited what you could get. The deprecation of DROP_GOOD for deep monsters in 3.4 was designed to make monster drops better, not worse. I guess the jury's still out on whether this was a good idea.

The problem with GVs is that there is such variation based on what type of GV you get. There have been some changes here, but it still is a bit slanted. The most lucrative GVs (ones with individual cells) are also the ones that are easiest to clear. That has always seemed to me to be a poor design choice. GVs still have a leg up on normal monster drops because of the OoD nature of the items. You are still more likely to find a deep artifact in a GV than you are by killing an at-level unique monster. I'm not sure what the optimal solution is here, there are lots of issues.

Dragon/Ainu pits are great for consumable gathering (although you do get some artifacts too). I think that's a perfectly reasonable purpose for them. Demon pits, as you mention, are more problematic because they are in general too dangerous, Undead nests are similar. Again, I'm not sure what the ideal solution is. In my tweaked version I made pits smaller, but that was more because I found clearing the large sizes too tedious to be fun and doesn't really get at the problem you are mentioning.

edit: the presence of dracolisks and dracolichs IMO was a negative change to dragon pits.

The single cell vaults are the most dangerous for low level characters, as there is no way to avoid LOS with most cell inhabitants (and many of those will be non-banishable uniques). While other types with more monsters may be more cumbersome and take longer, its a matter of patience to get to the treasure, provided you dont run out of resources.
When encountering single cell GVs early, I typically dig from each end up to a cell that holds some instant death monster, leaving most of the goodies untouched.
I do have opened Tarrasques cell with 100 hp characters on a speed potion before (usually, but not always, ending with a glorious pile of ash), but its rather suicidal and not recommended for home usage

Anyway, I dont see a problem with the single cell vaults. If there is one, its with some of the other ones which are just too big. Filling half the screen with monsters makes for a dangerous vault true, but clearing that gets rather repetitive. To provide a tactical challenge 1/4 of the area is probably enough.

One of the worst in that regard is the "gauntlet" one, with entrance on left and basically an empty hall with a couple pillars. While the idea is good (looong run to the treasure), halving the height of that thing would reduce the ridiculous amout of monsters to something more manageable.

[Derakon]

The problem with GVs is that there is such variation based on what type of GV you get. There have been some changes here, but it still is a bit slanted. The most lucrative GVs (ones with individual cells) are also the ones that are easiest to clear. That has always seemed to me to be a poor design choice.

It is a fantastic design choice. Part of the point of Angband is that sometimes you find awesome stuff. Not often enough to bank on it, not every game, but sometimes your luck comes in and you get a big leg up on the rest of the game. The cell-type greater vaults have fantastic reward:risk ratios, it's true, but there is nothing wrong with that.

Unifying the game so that everything has the same reward:risk ratio just means making the challenge curve boringly flat.

And yeah, sometimes the vault is instead horrifyingly hard for very little reward. Hellpit is a good example of that, being basically a giant open space (several times larger than a normal pit), filled with monsters and the occasional loot pile. But if you see something good in there, you might be tempted to give it a shot anyway...

[fizzix]

It is a fantastic design choice. Part of the point of Angband is that sometimes you find awesome stuff. Not often enough to bank on it, not every game, but sometimes your luck comes in and you get a big leg up on the rest of the game. The cell-type greater vaults have fantastic reward:risk ratios, it's true, but there is nothing wrong with that.

Unifying the game so that everything has the same reward:risk ratio just means making the challenge curve boringly flat.

And yeah, sometimes the vault is instead horrifyingly hard for very little reward. Hellpit is a good example of that, being basically a giant open space (several times larger than a normal pit), filled with monsters and the occasional loot pile. But if you see something good in there, you might be tempted to give it a shot anyway...

I agree with your general statement. I think we disagree on the magnitude of how the ratios should change.

Also to me, most of the allure comes from "unknown" rewards. Like loot from killing a unique vs. guaranteed loot from a vault square. The GCVs give guaranteed rewards at little risk. It's the opposite of a "rocks fall you die" it's a "rocks fall, you win!" Or at least that's how it seemed to me...

[Derakon]

Also to me, most of the allure comes from "unknown" rewards. Like loot from killing a unique vs. guaranteed loot from a vault square. The GCVs give guaranteed rewards at little risk. It's the opposite of a "rocks fall you die" it's a "rocks fall, you win!" Or at least that's how it seemed to me...

That sounds to me like you don't like vaults in general, since they fundamentally are "a layout that has guaranteed loot and guaranteed hard monsters". But I think most people are pretty happy with vaults as they stand; there's the occasional complaint about a vault that's not worth the risk, but I don't think many people (besides you, apparently) feel that they're unbalancing.

As for the risk in a GCV, there's been plenty of discussions on how to fix that issue. For my part, I think actually fighting an enemy in an open corridor is pretty bad tactics, so the only real problem is Teleport Other. I recommend tweaking Teleport Other so that it dumps the monster just outside the vault (much like Phase Door dumps the player just outside), which means that if the player ever has to teleport out, then they have to deal with all the monsters they "dodged" when they try to get back in, except the terrain won't be as favorable. It's not foolproof, but nothing the game does to prevent certain behaviors should be completely foolproof IMO. Otherwise we just end up dictating "You shall play the game THIS way!"

[fizzix]

That sounds to me like you don't like vaults in general, since they fundamentally are "a layout that has guaranteed loot and guaranteed hard monsters". But I think most people are pretty happy with vaults as they stand; there's the occasional complaint about a vault that's not worth the risk, but I don't think many people (besides you, apparently) feel that they're unbalancing.

Maybe, I'll have to think about it more, because I don't dislike vaults per se. But there are aspects of them that are, less fun than otherwise. Fuzzy detection does help a lot with weakening the "guaranteed loot" part, so I see that as a nice improvement.

[Philip]

I personally like vaults. With vaults, I can risk breaking in, but I might die. I also might get a leg up. I also can decide not to break in, and regret it for a long time. Or it just scares you, which I like.
With monsters, you can fight them or avoid them, but there's a level of "that monster will appear again". If you can't see the reward, there's much less will to fight.
If you could identify all the objects in a vault at a distance, they would be boring. But if you can see object types, you might take a risk to get that hard leather cap or that un-id'd ring.
If vaults are less likely to have artifacts they'll be a superdangerous place on the level monsters can't really escape from. Or, in other words, a zoo. Now, they're a zoo with a sword that might be Ringil in the tiger pen.

[donalde]

If the reward is not there, then you just avoid those monsters. Demon and dragon pits are now "who cares" -things. Especially demon pits.

I tend to leave level if I see graveyard, way too annoying for my playing style. I occasionally clear demon pits if I have suitable resistances and immunities, teleporting off those few demons I don't want to fight. But generally speaking, pits and nests are great fun, but only if you happen to play suitable character. For example my last winner (hT Warrior) had loads of fun clearing nests, while graveyard on level was sign to leave level in fastest possible manner. (or in one occasion, there was GV on level, then ?o*Destruction* was solution)

One thing that has sometimes come into mind: clearing vaults/pits/nests with (mass)banishment is relatively easy; how about giving both spells chance that they don't actually banish that monster, instead it just teleports it outside of vault (say like up to 10 grids from vaults wall) or teleports monster to other side of level. How that sounds like? (sorry about out of topic)

[Derakon]

One thing that has sometimes come into mind: clearing vaults/pits/nests with (mass)banishment is relatively easy; how about giving both spells chance that they don't actually banish that monster, instead it just teleports it outside of vault (say like up to 10 grids from vaults wall) or teleports monster to other side of level. How that sounds like? (sorry about out of topic)

I'd rather make Banishment / Mass Banishment rare enough that players have to really think about whether or not they want to expend it on pits/nests/vaults. And frankly they're already pretty dang rare so I'm not certain any action is needed here.

Let mages banish as much as they like; it's part of their reward for surviving to the endgame.

[Timo Pietilä]

The GCVs give guaranteed rewards at little risk. It's the opposite of a "rocks fall you die" it's a "rocks fall, you win!" Or at least that's how it seemed to me...

Looking at the vault.txt it seems that spiral-version of the CGV still is twice as good as original zig-zag -version. I wouldn't mind if that is tuned down to match that zig-zag version of the vault.

[scud]

Looking at the vault.txt it seems that spiral-version of the CGV still is twice as good as original zig-zag -version. I wouldn't mind if that is tuned down to match that zig-zag version of the vault.

I've *just* got back from a spiral on DL40 (3.3.2), and agree that they're rather generous. That's a whole heap of randarts for my mad Teleport Other skillz...