Bugs and complaints on current master

[Derakon]

This is a slightly confusing, but it's two different types of darkness. The darkness that's cast as a spell is just removing light; the effect you were resisting was getting blinded, but it doesn't do you any damage. Then there's a stronger form of Dark that does damage - that's the one in Darkness breaths and storms. So the rune you learnt was the resist for the second one.

Why don't we change the "cover in darkness" spell into a weak darkness ball spell? The only mechanical changes would be a) it'd deal some damage, and b) it would only darken the squares hit by the ball instead of the entire room the player is in. Well, I guess and c) it would potentially damage neighboring enemies. The hard/soft division for light and darkness elements is weird and confusing IMO; make everything hard (i.e. damage-dealing) and you remove one more "weird undocumented thing" about Angband, without really losing anything important.

As an added benefit, Magic Mushrooms would theoretically be able to kill the PC.

[Nomad]

If you try a staff of Remove Curse when you're not carrying any cursed items, you get the "You have no curses to remove" message, but the staff does not ID.

[PowerWyrm]

I've already posted this bug once in a different game and different scenario (and I believe a different game version), but I am going to post it again:

The Drider surrounds you in Darkness.
Darknesss surrounds you.
You resist the effect!

You see a scroll of Identify.
You read the scroll of Identify.
You have learned the rune of resist Dark.

Surely I should have learned this rune when the Drider surrounded me in Darkness and I resisted?

The drider surrounded you with "darknesss" not "darkness", that's why you didn't notice.

[Ingwe Ingweron]

This is a slightly confusing, but it's two different types of darkness. The darkness that's cast as a spell is just removing light; the effect you were resisting was getting blinded, but it doesn't do you any damage. Then there's a stronger form of Dark that does damage - that's the one in Darkness breaths and storms. So the rune you learnt was the resist for the second one.

The above statement could add to confusion when saying there are "two different types of darkness ... darkness that's cast as a spell is just removing light ... but it doesn't do you any damage."

More accurately, perhaps -- there are two types of darkness. One merely "creates darkness", which may be cast as a spell, and the other is Dark, which may come as breath weapon or may be invoked as a spell in the form of a Darkness Storm.

E.g., Ungoliant - may breathe darkness (400) [this breath damage estimate decreases as the monster's hit points decline] or may cast spells intelligently which invoke darkness storms (475) [as a spell, this darkness damage will not decline even if the monster's hit points are diminished]; versus, say, an illusionist, whose spell merely "creates darkness".

[Ingwe Ingweron]

Why don't we change the "cover in darkness" spell into a weak darkness ball spell? The only mechanical changes would be a) it'd deal some damage, and b) it would only darken the squares hit by the ball instead of the entire room the player is in. Well, I guess and c) it would potentially damage neighboring enemies. The hard/soft division for light and darkness elements is weird and confusing IMO; make everything hard (i.e. damage-dealing) and you remove one more "weird undocumented thing" about Angband, without really losing anything important.

As an added benefit, Magic Mushrooms would theoretically be able to kill the PC.

I don't see why it is a problem to have two different types of spells that affect light conditions. The fact that "create darkness" does enshroud an entire room in darkness is one of the small tactical difficulties presented. I also find the "remove one more weird undocumented thing" argument unpersuasive; if it's undocumented, simply document it and, voila, problem solved.

[Derakon]

I don't see why it is a problem to have two different types of spells that affect light conditions. The fact that "create darkness" does enshroud an entire room in darkness is one of the small tactical difficulties presented. I also find the "remove one more weird undocumented thing" argument unpersuasive; if it's undocumented, simply document it and, voila, problem solved.

What's confusing is that there are two things that have the same name but behave differently, and especially that there are sources of light that only damage creatures that are vulnerable to bright light, and other sources that damage everything.

Fixing the problem by documenting it is an unsatisfying solution, not least because people don't read the documentation. The game should be self-documenting (through its UI and in-game actions) as much as possible.

I'm fine with having the "create darkness" spell still darken rooms, but it really ought to deal damage to everything that isn't immune to darkness. Ditto all light-creating spells should hurt everything. The damage may be a merely nominal amount but it shouldn't be nothing.

[Estie]

light - darkness: affects rooms, does no damage

radiance - gloom: affects specified area, does damage

[Nomad]

light - darkness: affects rooms, does no damage

radiance - gloom: affects specified area, does damage

I'd go with 'Shadow' rather than gloom.

[Nomad]

In selling games, shopkeepers now offer the correct price for unidentified items, meaning you can guess what they are by looking at offered prices without actually selling them. (Oddly, though, the shopkeeper will still give the "Yipee!" or similar message when you sell them a valuable item, as if they think they've ripped you off.)

[Derakon]

I would accept "surrounds you with shadow" for the darkness-causing spell and "darkness" for the elemental damage source. It doesn't really address the underlying oddness of having two kinds of light/dark but it's an easy patch fix for the specific issue of explaining why the rDark rune doesn't ID.

[Estie]

I'd go with 'Shadow' rather than gloom.

Good. Shadow it is, so thats settled. Someone needs to get hold of Nick now

[Nick]

Good. Shadow it is, so thats settled. Someone needs to get hold of Nick now

Fine, whatever...

[Ingwe Ingweron]

I would accept "surrounds you with shadow" for the darkness-causing spell and "darkness" for the elemental damage source. It doesn't really address the underlying oddness of having two kinds of light/dark but it's an easy patch fix for the specific issue of explaining why the rDark rune doesn't ID.

I'm not sure why one darkness spell that causes blindness to @'s not immune and darkens rooms must necessarily, or "ought", cause damage, just because there is another form of Darkness that does cause damage. One does not necessarily follow from the other. You adopt a premise that there is an underlying "oddness" to the two forms and that there "should" be damage associated with both. But, you haven't adequately explained these foundational premises.

To me it seems totally fine to have one darkness that just turns out the lights, while another is a thick miasma full of evil and foreboding from the nether realms that freezes your soul.

I don't find it confusing, especially when "create darkness" and "you are surrounded by darkness" are used only for the lights out variety.

There are other confusing nomenclature issues in the game. For example, Water Trolls have nothing to do with acid, but Water Hounds breathe acid, Water Vortices breathe acid. Maybe Water Trolls should be called Bog Trolls, or Water Hounds and Water Vortices should be Acid Hounds and Acid Vortices?

I don't find either of these ambiguities disturbing and think leaving them as is would be just fine.

[Pete Mack]

To be sure, there are two kinds of light, as well. The kind made by the player, which damages only light-vulnerable monsters, and the kind made by breathers, which damage everything.

[Grotug]

So I found a "Weaponmastery where @ is standing. When I inspect the amulet, it says it was found in a vault. But this is not possible since the monsters that were where I picked up the amulet were all sleeping when I killed them (except the light hounds, but I don't think they pick up objects). Surely the area I am standing in is not a vault?

There *is* a vault southwest of @'s location. A very small non permanent wall triangle vault with lots of items inside. I have not cracked the vault, yet, as I don't have enough CON to risk the Beholder inside.

What I am suggesting is something is amiss: that the amulet should have generated inside the vault but erroneously generated in a hallway. In the above image, you can see the top of a very commonly shaped oval special room. But a Special Room is different than a vault.

~~~~~~~~~~

Well said Ingwe. I *do* find it confusing (though, maybe now that the difference has been explained my diminutive pea-sized nodule will [hopefully] remember the difference). However, I think I agree with you that the two types of darknesses should be kept as they are, despite the potential to confuse players. I think all the different types of maladies @ experiences is part of what makes Angband such a rich experience, and reducing that richness for the sake of reducing player confusion is not a worthwhile trade off. The deep learning curve to mastering Angband is a big part of its replayabiity and staying power.

EDIT: I think changing water trolls to bog trolls is a great idea. I think having water associated with acid is fine, though since, like, acid rain and stuff (so I wouldn't change the name of water hounds/water vortices).