Player knowledge

[Nick]

OK, looks like no, yes, maybe, later.

Now, rune-based ID. The basic plan is that every item property constitutes a "rune", which once learned, the player can always recognise. Properties include resists, slays, brands, protections, powers (like see invisible), sustains, stat modifiers, skill (like stealth) modifiers and probably curses. They also include magical to-hit, to-dam and to-ac. Some examples of how this works in practice:

• A starting warrior will have a Dagger (1d4). They might look in the weaponsmith's shop and see a Long Sword (2d5) for 100 gold, and another for 4500 gold, but not know the difference. When they find a weapon with + to-dam, and use it on something, their dagger will then appear as a Dagger (1d4)(+0,+0), and they'll recognise all plusses from there on.
• A character picks up a weapon, and recognises it as a Broad Sword (2d5)(+4,+6) [+3] with RAcid and RFire. Wielding it, they recognise it gives +2 to Stealth, so they learn the stealth rune. Inspecting it describes all this, adding "This item has unknown properties". After they get the RElec and RCold runes, they name it (Defender).
• A character picks up a Long Sword (4d5), and has it immediately identified as 'Ringil'. It is marked as having unknown properties until they collect all the relevant runes.

Points to note:

1. There is no more pseudo-ID.
2. There is no magical ID, except (probably) as a mage spell.
3. The only mystical knowledge the player gets is that an item still has unknown properties.
4. Ego types are identified when all their runes are known - think of it as the character saying "This fine hat gives me protection from fear, confusion and stunning, and resistance to sound. I name it Hat of Serenity."
5. Artifacts are legendary objects that everyone has heard of, and that probably have their names stuck on with dymo tape. You wouldn't want to believe legends too closely though, so actual properties are identified in the usual way.

[Timo Pietilä]

1)
4) A Shapshifter class of monsters would definitely be a tremendous addition to the game. Both true shapshifters (a monsters that likes to appear as a weak something to lure the player in), as fake shapeshifters (a monster that shows itself as a meaner monster to scare the player away). But we also need forms of detection. Telepathy could be one.

Both monster types are basically a mimic that moves. Could go both ways, weaker to lure monster in, or big and scary to scare player away. A true shapeshifter needs to be able to change form which could be a bit tricky to implement.

[krugar]

So, here are some questions:

• This allows for detected monsters to be left on the screen, representing where the player saw them last. Is this a good idea, and if so how should it be done?
• The obvious thing for objects is for the player to continue to believe they are in the place they were last seen until either the object or the place is seen again. Does this sound correct?
• The whole system allows a much more imaginative version of hallucination to be developed. How should that work?
• There is also the potential to have monster shapechanging (somewhat like in FAangband). Would that be a good idea?

1) I'd rather see detected monsters disappear when out of LOS, for the sake if simplicity and also to avoid a certain advantage over immovable monsters. Essentially just have the game behave as it does now. As soon as you start playing around with telepathy the screen may just start to become too crowded and confusing, while not offering any real tactical advantage, because greyed out monsters are usually guaranteed to not be at their locations anymore. On the other hand, greyed immobile or sleeping monsters will become easy prey to such a formidable adventurer memory.

Alternatively, if you wish to implement such a memory, give us an option to turn it off

2) Absolutely! And I have to say right now, I love that you are planning to finally implement this feature. Boy, I can't count the times I prepared myself way ahead of time because I saw a door open on the other side of the screen. But we need a detection range. Only doors/walls that get opened or destroyed outside of our ear/sight range will not be updated on the map. Of course, certain powers will update the map for us (magic mapping, detection, etc)

3) No opinion on this, sorry. I quite never enjoyed the idea of hallucinations. So you won't hear any ideas from this dude

4) A Shapshifter class of monsters would definitely be a tremendous addition to the game. Both true shapshifters (a monsters that likes to appear as a weak something to lure the player in), as fake shapeshifters (a monster that shows itself as a meaner monster to scare the player away). But we also need forms of detection. Telepathy could be one.

[Rydel]

For monsters out of LoS, Grayscale sounds good, or alternately, a reserved color for out of sight monsters

I like the idea of Hallucination monsters that vanish when you interact with them. I'd specifically have them spawn out of LoS, so the player can't be certain if they're a hallucination or an actual monster that wandered in on them. While not related to separating player knowledge in the UI, I'd also have hallucinations display some fake messages occasionally. For example, after you take an action, seeing the message. "It touches you. You hold on to your life force." Now the player has to worry about if there's actually a life draining invisible monster around. Or, after getting hit "***LOW HITPOINT WARNING***" even if their health is fine.

When dealing with Hallucination, the Gamecube game Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem can be a great source of inspiration.

[Bogatyr]

I think having detect leave grayscale version of the monster in its last detected location is a good idea. Makes it more in line with detect doors and objects.

Re: doors: oh boy, now I get to spam detect doors even more, what fun.

objects: maybe similar to doors: what's to say that "detect doors" and "detect objects" doesn't set up a *permanent* telepathic connection to the object and its state in its location, so that once detected, the player knows when its state is changed (opened, picked up). It's as good as any other explanation. OK, so an object is picked up: you should then see the "*" move around the screen with the monster carrying it, and it should disappear if stomped.

[Monkey Face]

How will telepathy affect this? For example, if a monster detected by telepathy goes through a closed door, will @ "know" that the door is no longer closed? How about when a telepathy detected monster picks up an object (or tries but fails to pick it up)?

[Carnivean]

1. I agree with Derakon, except for the first one. I don't think detection of monsters should remain on screen. @ knows these are animate (though not necessarily alive) and would have no expectation that they would remain in place.

If @ knows the state of a monster (alert, awake, asleep) then @ can make assumptions about their location. A Silent Watcher will never move, so @'s positional memory for it will remain valid indefinitely. If the monster is asleep, then @ could rely on it to stay stationary for a long period. If the monster is aware, then it's gone from that spot next turn.

The UI is an abstraction of how we would act in the same circumstances, and I would act along the same lines. If someone was to ask me where the Silent Watcher was, I'd tell them exactly where it was, but if they asked me where the tiger was, I'd tell them where it was a few minutes ago and use that to extrapolate a potential position (unless more evidence came in).

If we're willing to explore what could be algorithmically and computationally complex, then I'd like to see a system that displays that level of complexity. Each monster memory could be given an energy counter and a decrement level based on the information that @ obtained, with a visual element to show how certain @ is of the monster's location.

For continuity you'd probably want to have a visually similar system for doors and items. The complexity of the system could range from the simple where all doors are show as memorised, to evidence based where sounds from directions change the likelihood of them staying in the same state.

----

PS the word 'thon' is a gender neutral pronoun that can be used to describe the generic @. Might be (slightly) easier to compose sentences with. Source: http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=2079

[Ingwe Ingweron]

1. I agree with Derakon, except for the first one. I don't think detection of monsters should remain on screen. @ knows these are animate (though not necessarily alive) and would have no expectation that they would remain in place.

2. On the doors and objects, I agree that player should still see them as closed/open and present, but should still be able to hear a door bang open, a lock fiddled with, and possibly an item being crushed.

3. Hallucination... I hate hallucination.... Those damned Will-o-wisps have caused @ deaths so many times.... No danger of THIS "@" taking LSD! ....again....

4. Not sure what you mean by monster shapechanging, isn't that what polymorph already kind of does? Or do you mean @ shapechanging? Maybe both or neither.

[bio_hazard]

So, here are some questions:

• This allows for detected monsters to be left on the screen, representing where the player saw them last. Is this a good idea, and if so how should it be done?
• The obvious thing for objects is for the player to continue to believe they are in the place they were last seen until either the object or the place is seen again. Does this sound correct?
• The whole system allows a much more imaginative version of hallucination to be developed. How should that work?
• There is also the potential to have monster shapechanging (somewhat like in FAangband). Would that be a good idea?

All discussion and opinions welcome.

1) Agree about greyscale. Not sure about for tiles, but maybe added transparency/fog overlay. Alternatively, a version of the tile or overlay with an asterisk over it (to be consistent with unknown but detected items)

2)Yes- you shouldn't know out of LOS that a monster has picked up an item or that it has burned up.

3) Should Hallucination make you forget the map? Would be more interesting but probably hard to implement. Failing that, it should a) mask the identify of real monsters, and b) create fake monsters. I think it might be more interesting to have the symbols change less frequently. I'm not sure what else to do- virtual combat of some sort would be cool but in practice having your cl 5 char battling with a phantom drolem seems hard to make work.

4) I think could be some interesting cases for this. Were-critters that originally look like either adventurers or the animal, but transform. Maybe breeders/oozes etc could show some development- for example, maybe breeders don't make direct clones, but they make "young", that in some random number of turns "age" and get full capabilities. Maybe some sort of necromancer equivalent that animates objects. Maybe a rare chance of adventurers picking up an ego item and leveling up to the next tier adventurer.

[Derakon]

• This allows for detected monsters to be left on the screen, representing where the player saw them last. Is this a good idea, and if so how should it be done?
• The obvious thing for objects is for the player to continue to believe they are in the place they were last seen until either the object or the place is seen again. Does this sound correct?
• The whole system allows a much more imaginative version of hallucination to be developed. How should that work?
• There is also the potential to have monster shapechanging (somewhat like in FAangband). Would that be a good idea?

1) I think it's important to distinguish between what's in LOS and what isn't. I'm not certain how best to accomplish this though. Maybe we can make everything that isn't in LOS be in grayscale?

2) Yes, this sounds right.

3) I've always wanted hallucination to create hallucinatory monsters, that look and act like the real thing until you interact with them (hit them, get hit by them, they cast a spell, etc.). I mean, we can also mess with the player's knowledge of the dungeon, but I'm having trouble thinking of ways in which that would impact the player's decision-making.

4) Maybe? Depends on how well shapechanging is implemented and what it entails.

[Nick]

There is some info in the 4.1 feature branches thread about distinguishing player knowledge from reality - here's a bit more about how that's going to be implemented.

The plan is to have two copies of the main pieces of the game world - the dungeon level (including terrain, objects, monsters and traps), the player's gear, and the player's home. One of these copies is reality, the other is the player's knowledge of reality.

So far, the published knowledge feature branch has the terrain part implemented - so, for example, a monster can open a known door out of the player's sight, but the player won't see it as open until it's seen or detected again. The next part being done is objects, which will allow a similar thing to the doors to happen with monsters picking up or crushing detected objects out of the player's sight. It will also simplify and clarify object ID (and the new, "rune-based" ID will be implemented here). And after that, there will be monsters.

So, here are some questions:

• This allows for detected monsters to be left on the screen, representing where the player saw them last. Is this a good idea, and if so how should it be done?
• The obvious thing for objects is for the player to continue to believe they are in the place they were last seen until either the object or the place is seen again. Does this sound correct?
• The whole system allows a much more imaginative version of hallucination to be developed. How should that work?
• There is also the potential to have monster shapechanging (somewhat like in FAangband). Would that be a good idea?

All discussion and opinions welcome.