[User Guide Development] Questions

[ekolis]

I agree, to some extent. However, the shops in Angband are clearly modelled after supermarkets: you get 20% off discounts and mass-produced weaponry and armour. Also, assume that the flasks of oil are all found in a dungeon and look a little the worse-for-wear...

Funny, I thought the discounts were removed a while back for being too silly/unbalancing/whatever...

But what WOULD be cool (albeit perhaps beyond the scope of vanilla Angband and more suited for a variant) is if you did NOT model the shops after supermarkets and instead modeled them after farmer's markets, bazaars, etc...

An initial step in that direction might be simply to randomize the stocking algorithm somewhat so that while cheap "staples" such as daggers, scrolls of blessing, potions of CLW, etc. are always common, you could occasionally wind up with ego items (or even artifacts?) in the shops (going for exorbitant prices of course) - basically making all shops into the "black market" but specialized in one group of items! (As for the black market itself, it could either be removed or made actually shady as opposed to just another shop with better but overpriced items - e.g. perhaps if you trade too much there, you start attracting the attention of thieves?)

Another step might be a "supply & demand" system - I believe this was actually in some variant or another (Ey perhaps?) - basically what this means is, for any savefile, the more of an item (say, "potion of restore mana") you buy, the higher the base price goes (for buying and selling), while the more you sell, the lower it goes, and if you go for a while without buying OR selling an item, the buy and sell prices converge in a similar manner to increasing your charisma. This system might not be popular with everyone, so perhaps a birth option could toggle it...

Finally, a trendy thing in CRPG's these days is "crafting" - that is, creating your own items out of components, and enhancing existing items with other items. It's in a few Angband variants, such as Sangband, and combined with the other ideas here it might make for an even more interesting gameplay experience. So you want to make a (+15, +3) longsword of Never Missing? Well sure you can use enchant weapon scrolls on a longsword you bought from the store, but what if you took 5 lb of iron ore you found while tunneling into a vault, a broken stick (need a handle!), and took it to the smithy in town, where you made your own longsword much cheaper... of course, if you wanted a mythril longsword you'd need some mythril, and if the price of mythril is high... This would help with several problems at once, actually - the TMJ problem (any junk you find lying around the dungeon might actually be a useful component!), the equipment grinding problem (no need to grind for "resist poison" if you can make your own items with commonly available materials!) Of course it would need some sort of balancing so buying stuff from stores isn't TOO pointless (see ToME alchemists!) - perhaps crafting could require lots of time (represented in-game by needing to stock up on rations or something beforehand, much like with chopping trees in ADOM), and of course you couldn't make items ANYWHERE, just at the smithy in town... perhaps you'd need to pay a fee in gold to rent the smithy, less than the cost of buying a premade item but still significant... maybe you could only make items with powers that you've actually observed (e.g. you can't make a shield of poison resistance until you find some other source of poison resistance - though that would negate the "less grinding" aspect)...

But I suppose only the first two ideas are really suited for Vanilla... crafting is just a bit too unusual...

Oh yeah, and one more thing... Non-casters who find spellbooks should get XP for destroying them! Otherwise they're just junk to sell to the store for a few gold pieces... Or maybe take a cue from UnAngband and let the stores offer special services or extra items for selling spellbooks...

[takkaria]

Sorry to edit your post like that but:
1. Honestly, Thanks for the appology. But I know you are developing for a community - hopefully overall the community is appreciating the changes (forum posts seem to show that they are)

Communities are made up of individuals, so it's worth talking to everyone individually when that's possible.

2. I will give it a go. I have some version since tried 3.0.5, and not seen a reason to change yet. I would hope the difference between 3.0.x and 3.0.y is a lot less than the difference between 3.0.99999 and 3.1.0

The difference between 3.0.9 and 3.1.0 is bigger than the difference between 3.0.5 and 3.0.9; otherwise I might have been tempted to make it 3.0.10.

3. I had not realised it was only to be an option. In fact I am getting a huge impression that a great deal of work was being done to reduce the number of options (and as someone who plays with auto scum both on and off, and with preserve both on and off, .... that is another seeming reason to not change versions)

Work has been done to reduce the number of pointless options that few or no people actually change-- not genuine gameplay options. I trust that if you look at 3.0.9, you will find it easier to find the options you want to find and will not be distracted by ones which you don't.

Also, if autoscum disappears, it will be because dungeon generation at large will have been changed. There is enough demand to keep preserve around, so that's not going, either.

4. I don't think you can compare a 21st century supermarket with a middle ages "general store" (as if such a thing existed). hell, even in the current century if you go to the right (wrong) parts of the world there are frequent seasonal variations in food supply. It's all about communications and transport: http://lirneasia.net/2007/05/mobile-...n-fish-markets
5. see 4. If the supermarket is actually a farmers market, and I drove in with a truck load of watermelons (think: @ walks in with 99 flasks of oil) when they have none at all... sure they will buy them. Where do you think farmers markets get their stock from anyway? (by which I mean, real farmers markets which do still exist if you look in the right places)

I agree, to some extent. However, the shops in Angband are clearly modelled after supermarkets: you get 20% off discounts and mass-produced weaponry and armour. Also, assume that the flasks of oil are all found in a dungeon and look a little the worse-for-wear...

Having said all that, yes, stores are a bit of a weird construction at the moment, and I'm not entirely happy with them. There's no good in-game explanation for how the stores work; they're there entirely for gameplay's sake. All I've done is tweaked that a bit.. and they'll be tweaked more in future.

6. I like !salt water. I like broken sticks. I like canine skeletons and I miss that they aren't there. I don't expect that every item I find when I kill a thousand year old dragon will be useful to me... some of it will be the crappy equipment which lead to the demise of the last hundred poor saps that tried killing it. Hell, I even play with "auto pickup" turned on until I get to DL25 or so.

Fair enough. I hope to re-introduce skeletons and the like at some point as dungeon features rather than items so they don't get auto-picked-up. Also, there will always be some junk in the dungeon, I just want to reduce the amount of it, particularly at later levels (e.g. at dungeon level 100 at the moment, it would not be atypical to get ~300 objects generated. that is far far too many for any individual to sort through).

There is a difference between "consensus" and "unaminous". But hey, you're the maintainer: go ahead and change things. Overall the community will like the changes or bay for your blood!

As I said, a community is a community of individuals. Whilst I may not be able to satisfy everyone, I can at least discuss and explain changes I've made so that people have a better idea of what the game now is and where it's going. I do, of course, hope that I bring some people round to liking the changes if they didn't before, but it's not necessary to do that.

[Garrie]

Garrie

Perhaps I should clarify that there will be separate information tables in the UG for:
a) flavour descriptions of artifacts
b) stuff that you can learn with Identify
c) stuff that you learn with *Identify*

If people want to go ahead and read all of it, they can - but it will be signposted clearly that it's spoiler info, so those who want to find out for themselves, can.

My understanding is that all of the above in current spoilers comes straight out of the source. And that in the source it is all "flavourful" / narrative text. The Information screen would look a bit unusual if it looks like:

The blade has fire running along it's length
1d6 (+4,+12)
------------
|Resist Fire |
------------

[Garrie]

1. I'm sorry to hear that.
2. When 3.1 is out, I'd appreciate it if you played it just to see what it's like-- I'm not sure there's much point in changing the game at all if most people aren't interested in playing newer versions.


3. Also, you should realise that forbidding selling will always be an option, not a necessity
4. and the general store set stocking could be easily grounded in realism
(5.think about it, when did your local supermarket ever buy anything back from you? they also tend to have fairly good stock control).
6. Sorting out "too much junk" is something which applies equally to all players; it's a tedium-reducer.

Sorry to edit your post like that but:
1. Honestly, Thanks for the appology. But I know you are developing for a community - hopefully overall the community is appreciating the changes (forum posts seem to show that they are)
2. I will give it a go. I have some version since tried 3.0.5, and not seen a reason to change yet. I would hope the difference between 3.0.x and 3.0.y is a lot less than the difference between 3.0.99999 and 3.1.0
3. I had not realised it was only to be an option. In fact I am getting a huge impression that a great deal of work was being done to reduce the number of options (and as someone who plays with auto scum both on and off, and with preserve both on and off, .... that is another seeming reason to not change versions)
4. I don't think you can compare a 21st century supermarket with a middle ages "general store" (as if such a thing existed). hell, even in the current century if you go to the right (wrong) parts of the world there are frequent seasonal variations in food supply. It's all about communications and transport: http://lirneasia.net/2007/05/mobile-...n-fish-markets
5. see 4. If the supermarket is actually a farmers market, and I drove in with a truck load of watermelons (think: @ walks in with 99 flasks of oil) when they have none at all... sure they will buy them. Where do you think farmers markets get their stock from anyway? (by which I mean, real farmers markets which do still exist if you look in the right places)
6. I like !salt water. I like broken sticks. I like canine skeletons and I miss that they aren't there. I don't expect that every item I find when I kill a thousand year old dragon will be useful to me... some of it will be the crappy equipment which lead to the demise of the last hundred poor saps that tried killing it. Hell, I even play with "auto pickup" turned on until I get to DL25 or so.

There is a difference between "consensus" and "unaminous". But hey, you're the maintainer: go ahead and change things. Overall the community will like the changes or bay for your blood!

[takkaria]

The issue here is the in-game text was written to have flavour. definate trend lately is to get away from strict flavour aspects of the game ("why are there so many cure potions", "forbid selling", "general store has set stocking", hidden artifact features etc which are all about the game having a slightly role playing foundation rather than a wargaming one) to more "mechanics is king".

For pure readability the tables would win. But the spoiler text comes straight out of the same in-game text. So to implement tables would move the *ID* text right away from being a flavoursome part of the game (which admittedly was written in a way to allow re-use of text based on flags).

A lot of what has been discussed here lately has me keeping V3.0.5. Many of the changes lately seem to be oriented around keeping the game interesting / challenging for repeat winners. I don't have a problem with that, I'll just keep the version I'm comfortable with.

I'm sorry to hear that. I'm not a repeat winner by any means, but I'm finding the game more enjoyable with the changes I'm making. When 3.1 is out, I'd appreciate it if you played it just to see what it's like-- I'm not sure there's much point in changing the game at all if most people aren't interested in playing newer versions.


Also, you should realise that forbidding selling will always be an option, not a necessity, and the general store set stocking could be easily grounded in realism (think about it, when did your local supermarket ever buy anything back from you? they also tend to have fairly good stock control). Sorting out "too much junk" is something which applies equally to all players; it's a tedium-reducer.

[JamesDoyle]

Garrie

Perhaps I should clarify that there will be separate information tables in the UG for:
a) flavour descriptions of artifacts
b) stuff that you can learn with Identify
c) stuff that you learn with *Identify*

If people want to go ahead and read all of it, they can - but it will be signposted clearly that it's spoiler info, so those who want to find out for themselves, can.

WillAsher:
you're conflating three levels of info there, and, while they can't be entirely separated, I need to think how useful it is to use a combined base like that to determine signficaince for a new player, as well as or opposed to, an experienced user (such as those who tend to post on here!).

The three levels are:
how much damage does it do?
how often is that damage going to be reduced by resistance in creatures I encounter?
how often am I going to choose to fight creatures with such resistances, once encountered?

For a new player, the third is probably almost completely irrelevant, as most new players will tend to fight everything. The second is somewhat irrelevant, but will become relevant much more quickly.

[Garrie]

The issue here is the in-game text was written to have flavour. definate trend lately is to get away from strict flavour aspects of the game ("why are there so many cure potions", "forbid selling", "general store has set stocking", hidden artifact features etc which are all about the game having a slightly role playing foundation rather than a wargaming one) to more "mechanics is king".

For pure readability the tables would win. But the spoiler text comes straight out of the same in-game text. So to implement tables would move the *ID* text right away from being a flavoursome part of the game (which admittedly was written in a way to allow re-use of text based on flags).

A lot of what has been discussed here lately has me keeping V3.0.5. Many of the changes lately seem to be oriented around keeping the game interesting / challenging for repeat winners. I don't have a problem with that, I'll just keep the version I'm comfortable with.

[JamesDoyle]

In other words, defines.h is by definition the "right" order, and the separation of resists from other stuff is also a matter of definition in defines.h.

defines.h is the current order - doesn't mean it's logical or consistent. I don't think it's either

[PowerDiver]

I disagree about this having to be specific to a user guide - you have to have /some/ order in a user guide, and as it's merely confusing to have one order in one place and a different order in another, why not get it right now?

Because the object info code will be done according to the order in defines.h, and a user guide should be consistent. That's also why FA is an ability [or power, whatever you want to call it]. It would be *really* bad to call it something else when an object that is listed with a random ability [e.g. blessed weapons] can have it, but an object listed with a random resist [elvenkind armor] cannot. I expect some of my obj info display preferences will be making it into 3.1, and I will lobby for the rest sooner or later, so hopefully this will become significant soon.

In other words, defines.h is by definition the "right" order, and the separation of resists from other stuff is also a matter of definition in defines.h.

[will_asher]

<poison brand vs fire/other brands>

Really? I presume that's based on knowledge of damage dealt - I don't have that, but I have found poison much the most effective branding so far

Damage done is the same, but much more monsters are resistant to poison.
Probably the least amount of monsters are resistant to acid, and those that do are mostly ones you don't want to fight anyway, so acid is probably the most useful brand.

[JamesDoyle]

Thanks for your thoughts, guys, very helpful and enlightening!

Things vary, are not independent, but here is my try.

Sure, but recognition of variations due to user options, choices or circumstances can be treated at a later, more detailed level - at this stage it needs to be more basic.

Poison is weaker brand than fire.

Really? I presume that's based on knowledge of damage dealt - I don't have that, but I have found poison much the most effective branding so far

Paralysis and life draining belong with abilities, not resists.

I disagree - these both resist things being done to the character, whereas abilities are things that the character does. Resist = passive, ability - active

You should forget all that and go with the order in defines.h.

Well, I was trying to avoid looking at source code Also, I think PowerDiver's list is better than defines.h as the latter relegates confusion and blindness to a lower position than their depth of effect seems to justify, which PD's list seems to recognise.

I think the abilities list also looks sensible, although I'd say that having shots and blows adjacent on the list would make more sense to a new player, and doesn't require too much distortion of what might be the most accurate ranking

I disagree about this having to be specific to a user guide - you have to have /some/ order in a user guide, and as it's merely confusing to have one order in one place and a different order in another, why not get it right now?

[zaimoni]

It would be simpler to just go with the defines.h list for order of reporting. Actual importance would go in a strategy guide.

The relative importance of these is affected by the AI options. PowerDiver looks about right for the default AI settings in V.

It is worth repeating (I've mentioned this before in the forums) that RFear becomes a negative under learn/cheat AI. There are a number of midgame monsters that dilute nasty spells (e.g., nether bolt) with the harmless Fear spell. Turning on learn/cheat AI means RFear makes these monsters more dangerous. [The Fear spell simply gets deleted from their casting repertoire when RFear is known to the monster. Just switch to ranged or spell attacks.]

Putting Hold Life ahead of Might is justifiable on annoyance factor, if not objectively correct. [Currently, Extra Shots dominates Might so completely for non-Rangers that Might is practically less important than its objective utility until the very late game, when egos providing both start appearing.]

The importance of regeneration for a slow-diving spellcaster varies considerably. (It becomes important when it enables charging a buff spell to ~9,900 normal-speed turn duration, then drops off in importance as total mana becomes capable of supporting utility spells with minimal recovery time. The combat utility of regeneration for spellcasters is similar to this curve.)

[PowerDiver]

elementals: cold, fire, lightning, acid, poison (I put this here because poison can be branded)

resists: paralysis, poison, life draining, nether, nexus, disenchant, blindness, shards, chaos, light, dark, sound, confusion, fear (should confusion be higher, as it prevents you performing certain actions?)

slays: animals, evil, orcs, trolls, giants, undead, dragons; demons

static abilities: speed, blows, shots, might, regen, telepathy, see-invis, infra, stealth, feather_fall, slow_digest, lite, search, tunnel (i put blessed in a separate category)

Anyone want to comment?

Things vary, are not independent, but here is my try.

Poison is weaker brand than fire.
Paralysis and life draining belong with abilities, not resists.
nexus, poison, confusion, blindness, chaos, sound, disenchant, nether, light, dark, shards, fear
orcs, giants, trolls, animals, undeadx3, demonsx3, dragonsx3, evil, x5
I don't see how you can compare shots to esp but I will try.
fa, esp, si, shots, speed, blows, might, regen, lite, life drain, infra, stealth, other

You should forget all that and go with the order in defines.h.

[JamesDoyle]

Further to my previous post about standardising the list of artifact (and ego-item) attributes, I want to define standard orders of resists, slays and static abilities for use in the user guide. I haven't had the opportunity to cross-check with the order these are displayed when you I an item in the game, which may oir may not match the artifact.spo spoiler file (which is, in at least some ways, internally inconsistent).

For each list order, I'd like to aim for this to be in some sort of order of importance - for elemental effects and slays this is currently weakest to strongest, but for resists and static abilities it's strongest to weakest; I'm not sure why I've done this - but this is not completely objective, so I'm soliciting views on whether these are in the right order

elementals: cold, fire, lightning, acid, poison (I put this here because poison can be branded)

resists: paralysis, poison, life draining, nether, nexus, disenchant, blindness, shards, chaos, light, dark, sound, confusion, fear (should confusion be higher, as it prevents you performing certain actions?)

slays: animals, evil, orcs, trolls, giants, undead, dragons; demons

static abilities: speed, blows, shots, might, regen, telepathy, see-invis, infra, stealth, feather_fall, slow_digest, lite, search, tunnel (i put blessed in a separate category)

Anyone want to comment?

[Bandobras]

Question: What do people think - is this better, worse, or don't you care?

I trust you on this, as long as the in-game description in V is changed in the same way so that I can steal to Un both the manual and the in-game code.

I would also like to regularise such references as lightning/electricity, and to 'flavourise' references like 'regeneration' - do people have storng feelings about this.

Wonderful. But see above about synchronizing with source code.

My last point is that I want to separate out 'spoiler' info from easy obtainable info; without going and finding every artifact, is there an easy way to tell what info is 'hidden' until an *Identify* scroll is used?

I'm stronly in favour of revealing in-game all fixed artifact properties and all non-random ego properties after ordinary ID. Add more random properties to egos (to fixed artifacts too?) to make it more interesting and hide the list of fixed artifacts as a spoiler so that people have the surprise of finding Ringil for the first time totally unspoiled (oh, yes, sure ).