[Feature Request] Traps and Double Negatives

**CunningGabe** · March 21, 2008, 20:11

I'd support both changes. I'm guessing there's some historical reason that those options are expressed the way they are, but it would certainly be clearer if they were expressed without the double negatives.

**Mondkalb** · March 21, 2008, 20:13

*signed*

**Pete Mack** · March 21, 2008, 20:53

Originally posted by CunningGabe

I'd support both changes. I'm guessing there's some historical reason that those options are expressed the way they are, but it would certainly be clearer if they were expressed without the double negatives.

I presume the reason is that the 'yes' option is generally a little tougher than 'no.' In each case, you are imposing a restriction.

**Bandobras** · March 21, 2008, 21:23

Originally posted by MKula

2) More significantly, I would like to request removing traps entirely from DL1.

This is what TOME does, IIRC.

What Un does, inspired by potion effects in S is that you can't die from a trap, a potion, a mushroom, etc., if you are at more than HP/2 health. You are left at 1 HP instead.

(BTW, this is only one step from allowing negative HP from any source, for one or two player turns without death, as in "you fall to the ground, dying", but teleport level, desctruction and mass genocide have to be toned down for that to make sense, e.g. with 1 turn delay)

Originally posted by MKula

It's happened to me more than once (and I've seen it with others as well), where you roll a new @, take a few steps, fall into a spiked pit (or onto a summoning square, or enveloped in flames, etc) and you're dead.
Some deaths are from greed, some deaths are from stupidity, but I don't think this is one of them. The only real game play effect this would have is prevent you from having to reroll again after something that wasn't really your fault. This only really matters if you're CL1 anyway, because by the time you get to CL2, I don't think there are any DL1 traps that can kill a full health @ anyway.

Yes, I think this is outrageous. But even more outrageous is that the same sometimes happens for mid-level characters, when you already invested a lot of time and effort. Even with traps, which makes trap detection mandatory even for barbarian warriors and makes searching and perception useless instantly.

**Pete Mack** · March 21, 2008, 21:55

Originally posted by MKula

Ok, a couple more reasonably simple feature requests here:

2) More significantly, I would like to request removing traps entirely from DL1. It's happened to me more than once (and I've seen it with others as well), where you roll a new @, take a few steps, fall into a spiked pit (or onto a summoning square, or enveloped in flames, etc) and you're dead.
Some deaths are from greed, some deaths are from stupidity, but I don't think this is one of them. The only real game play effect this would have is prevent you from having to reroll again after something that wasn't really your fault. This only really matters if you're CL1 anyway, because by the time you get to CL2, I don't think there are any DL1 traps that can kill a full health @ anyway.

Comments?

I strongly disagree with this suggestion. Death to traps by misadventure is already nearly avoidable as the game stands. Yes, there's always a chance of stumbling on a trap within the first few moves, but it almost never happens (frequency ~ 1% of all games.) What traps on the first few levels do is encourage you to get your ass down to dl 5 or below, where there are plenty of Rods of Trap Detection. You can be past the danger level within a few hundred moves of the start of the game. (cl 5 before 1000 player turns is eminently doable.)

**MKula** · March 21, 2008, 22:14

Originally posted by Pete Mack

What traps on the first few levels do is encourage you to get your ass down to dl 5 or below, where there are plenty of Rods of Trap Detection. You can be past the danger level within a few hundred moves of the start of the game. (cl 5 before 1000 player turns is eminently doable.)

Hmm... I'm not sure I agree with your disagreement. You're assuming a player wants to bee-line for DL5 ASAP. What if they don't? Yeah, a agree that this sort of event happens <1% of the time, but that's still more often than never.
My reasoning for this suggestion was to think "would there be any adverse effect from this implementation?". My effective answer is "no"; all this would do is prevent pointless deaths at DL1 (since at DL2+ traps would behave as they do now).

An alternative suggestion would be to scale trap creation the same way lit rooms work: at DL1 there's a 100% chance of a room being lit, at DL2, it's 96%, etc. Traps would be the same: at DL1, a trap has 100% chance of *not* being created, at DL2 96%, etc. But this is kind of long winded and unnecessary. I'd much rather just no traps at DL1.

EDIT: Also, the conundrum with your suggestion is that a new @ should get to ~DL5 asap... but what if you die along the way by falling into a trap?

**Bandobras** · March 21, 2008, 22:41

Originally posted by Pete Mack

What traps on the first few levels do is encourage you to get your ass down to dl 5 or below, where there are plenty of Rods of Trap Detection. You can be past the danger level within a few hundred moves of the start of the game. (cl 5 before 1000 player turns is eminently doable.)

Well, then, why not start the game with CL5 on DL5? Also, remove hobbit mages, because they still cause problems and start character generation with as high CON as the race/class can get at birth and only then roll/assign points? Also, perhaps just start with a rod of trap detection and searching and perception skills removed?

I'm not just sneering. Perhaps Angband would be a better game if it started quicker. But if so, change it instead of balancing it for quick starters or even disregarding flaws because they don't happen for them...

As for me, I have the most fun just surviving at the first few levels. If I get too good at that (takes a _lot_ of time) I choose weak races and classes and roll my stats randomly. Or I role-play, e.g. a barbarian or a clueless hobbit merchant. Being a min-maxing super-hero is fun, but survival is fun, too. The best thing is, you can get both --- one at shallow levels, the other at deep levels. Leading a clueless hobbit farmer that started with maxxed DEX and CHR to the King of Arda status is what I dream about.

I'm already getting better and better at the clueless hobbit farmer part.

**Pete Mack** · March 21, 2008, 22:55

About those traps. The trouble with this kind of argument is that it is based on fairness, and Angband, by design, is not. Angband is about playing the odds. Why shouldn't this include the odds of a silly death by traps on dl 1?

I just don't see tweaking the game to eliminate the miniscule number of deaths to traps on dl 1. What this change will really do is decrease the cost of scumming dl 1 prior to beginning your trip.

As for hobbit mages--they get Detect Traps at cl 3 so traps really aren't their weakness; they are a challenge class for other reasons.

**MKula** · March 21, 2008, 23:13

The thing is that by the time you get detect traps, this issue becomes a non-issue, since all of this only really applies to CL1.

Also, your argument for not fixing this confuses me; we shouldn't get this changed because... well, we just shouldn't?

Dying from a trap you couldn't have prevented doesn't add anything to the game (since you aren't able to learn from your mistakes, etc), but certainly takes away, since you didn't do anything wrong but now you've got to reroll.

I can't imagine this being very difficult to code, either:
if (DL == 1)
don't make trap
endif

**Bandobras** · March 21, 2008, 23:43

Originally posted by Pete Mack

The trouble with this kind of argument is that it is based on fairness, and Angband, by design, is not. Angband is about playing the odds.

So, here we differ. I see Angband as a fair game that mocks you by waiting for your mistakes and killing you in such a way that afterwards you have to say "YASD! But I won't be so easily outwitted next time". If you get killed and can get away with "RNG hates me" or (quite equivalently) "well, that happens even when you play the odds perfectly, that's just this game's design", I say Angband failed in this case and it needs to be debugged (let's start with 4GAI).

**HallucinationMushroom** · March 22, 2008, 02:44

I guess if you were truly paranoid of dying by trap when you're level 1 or 2 you could go into search mode and just take your time. If search mode has been taken out you could just wait a bunch of turns to sort of recreate it before taking a step.

**Garrie** · March 22, 2008, 04:39

Originally posted by HallucinationMushroom

I guess if you were truly paranoid of dying by trap when you're level 1 or 2 you could go into search mode and just take your time. If search mode has been taken out you could just wait a bunch of turns to sort of recreate it before taking a step.

or scum town and buy either a staff of trap detection or multiple scrolls of trap detection before hitting the >...
come to think of it, point-based creation, don't spend all the points on stats and you will have plenty of $ to buy the above without even scumming.

**kathoum** · March 22, 2008, 10:29

Originally posted by Bandobras

So, here we differ.

My sympathy here is with Pete's opinion.

I like the fact that, despite all your experience (as a player) and gear, you're always in the hands of the RNG. Some practices increase your chance to win the game, some others may decrease it but make the game more interesting, but the bottom line is that you can't be 100% sure to win. This also means that when you do win, almost certainly there was a moment when your character was kissed by undeserved luck (be it a 3HP escape or an OOD item).

If I want to play a game where skill is all that matters, I play chess.

**Bandobras** · March 22, 2008, 12:02

Originally posted by kathoum

My sympathy here is with Pete's opinion.

OK. So perhaps the essence of Angband really is different than what I thought and I need to play a variant. Wait, I already play a variant.

Originally posted by kathoum

If I want to play a game where skill is all that matters, I play chess.

With all due respect to your play style, etc., I think this is an unfair comparison. I hate chess. Chess is non-random, has public game state, has too little state space (at the start, at least) and current winning probability is too much determined by past moves, down to the fist move. I think you may be mistaking 'random game' with 'cruel game' or 'skill' with 'deduction plus an opening book' (with apologies to chess players).

P.S. In fact, I think the 'playing the odds' style is more alike to (primitive) chess, more alike to solving a bookkeeping exercise, than is a _fair_ Angband variant, that is a game of tactical skill with a bit of simple strategy (inventory management, matching dungeon depth with combat power). I imagine, in a pure 'playing the odds' style you concentrate on counting the probabilities of unfair death and you make game choices so that the sum of the risk over the game to the end is minimal. You are not 'in the hands of RNG', but instead you average the RNG over 1000 games and win with him by statistics and repetition. I'd rather win by combat skill or die surprised by complex tactical conundrums RNG and emergent AI throws at me that I can't learn to solve in one try.