Bugs and complaints on current master

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pete Mack
    replied
    Yes, that's right. I looked it up. "Giant Humanoid" is fine for Morgoth.

    In any case, Saruman in particular should be the same symbol as Radagast (though I still think Radagast doesn't belong in the game.)

    Leave a comment:


  • Ingwe Ingweron
    replied
    Originally posted by Pete Mack
    Saruman is not Maiar. Nor is Sauron or Morgoth.
    If, I recall correctly, Saruman was a fallen Maiar (originally his name was Curumo and was associated with the Valar Aule before coming to Middle-Earth), once one of the group of Istari that included Gandalf, Radagast, and the two Blue Wizards whose names were forgotten, all of which arrived in Middle-Earth during the Third Age. [In the game, Angband, he is represented by a "p", not an "A"; "A" was originally an angel in Angband.]

    Sauron also was one of the Maiar (named Mairon and associated with Aule). He spied on the Valar for Melkor (Morgoth) during the First Age before joining his master in Middle-Earth.

    Morgoth is a fallen Valar, one of the gods, not a Maiar, one of the lesser spirits. (Technically, still an ainur, as all the Valar are, but usually ainur refers to the lesser spirits, not the Lords).
    Last edited by Ingwe Ingweron; April 9, 2017, 15:02.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gwarl
    replied
    I don't know the above is a bug, especially not with regards to Morgoth. Morgoth is base Morgoth.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pete Mack
    replied
    Saruman is not Maiar. Nor is Sauron or Morgoth.
    Last edited by Pete Mack; April 9, 2017, 05:37.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pete Mack
    replied
    HTML sreen dump causes clean (exit code 0) exit, but with no save file made. Lost the victory over Morgoth

    Leave a comment:


  • Pete Mack
    replied
    Ever since Enchant scrolls stopped showing up in the Alchemy shop, Calris has been essentially broken for mages and warriors. It's almost impossible to get the thing even up to (+0,20). I kept it all game, since it was my best +CON weapon. I religiously picked up *Enchant Weapon* scrolls. I Managed to get it only to (-5,+20) which is still pretty crippling for a mage. Make it (-8,+20) or at least make Enchant scrolls always work when the value is below zero, even for artifacts.

    +CON weapons are so desirable for Mage, it's a shame that one of the two common good ones (Thunderfist being the other) isn't useful for the class. (Eonwe and especially Deathwreaker are rare.)

    Edit: another possibility is to make Enchant Weapon work for mage the way it does for priests--almost useless, except for Calris and Glaive of Pain. But that's really special pleading.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pete Mack
    replied
    Yes! The value has to be a bit higher than the actual max value in the standard artifacts, because the artifacts won't be so carefully matched as they are in V. But gloves based on Deathwreaker are just silly.

    Originally posted by fizzix
    Pete is right. This item is unbalancing. Finding it has made me not want to play the character anymore...

    The simplest short term solution would be to put a power cap on specific slots. Lights should have a low cap, and amulets, gloves and cloaks should have a medium cap.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick
    replied
    Originally posted by Pete Mack
    Did you consider game balance when you made that change? The Palantir was removed because it was unbalancing. That phial is even more so. I have said it before: when randarts are completely random, on average it makes the best weapons and armors slightly worse (with shields more or less a wash.) But for everything else, the best items are on average significantly better--as is the average for that slot.
    The idea was to make a minimal change first, to make sure the mechanics were right, and then test how well that worked. I agree that the current situation is unbalanced.

    The traditional philosophy has been to base the randart set on the standard artifacts. My favoured solution, then, would be to try to mimic the power distribution for each slot. This will probably require a more holistic approach to the randart set generation rather than the current approach of running through and randomising the standarts one by one in index order; I think the result should be worth it, though.

    Leave a comment:


  • fizzix
    replied
    Pete is right. This item is unbalancing. Finding it has made me not want to play the character anymore...

    The simplest short term solution would be to put a power cap on specific slots. Lights should have a low cap, and amulets, gloves and cloaks should have a medium cap.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pete Mack
    replied
    @Nick--
    Did you consider game balance when you made that change? The Palantir was removed because it was unbalancing. That phial is even more so. I have said it before: when randarts are completely random, on average it makes the best weapons and armors slightly worse (with shields more or less a wash.) But for everything else, the best items are on average significantly better--as is the average for that slot.
    As there are extremely good ego items in the armor and weapon slots, the result is the average character ends up significantly more powerful. Adding lights to the mix makes this even more extreme.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick
    replied
    Originally posted by fizzix
    Are randarts bugged (as of e906c66) because the phial I found should never be creatable.
    I think that's just the result of the recent change where lights, rings and amulets are randomised like other artifacts.

    Leave a comment:


  • fizzix
    replied
    Are randarts bugged (as of e906c66) because the phial I found should never be creatable.

    Leave a comment:


  • PowerWyrm
    replied
    I IDed-by-use a potion of lose memories as a hobbit and it didn't do anything. I'm pretty sure HOLD_LIFE didn't prevent xp drain completely before...

    Leave a comment:


  • PowerWyrm
    replied
    Current game, climbing up the stairs: assertion failed, cave-square.c line 464, square_in_bounds(c, y, x).

    Leave a comment:


  • takkaria
    replied
    Originally posted by PowerWyrm
    Latest source doesn't compile for me. The compiler complain about "ssize_t" not defined in set_del(). It works if I replace it with "int".
    Yeah, we should just use int instead. ssize_t is unnecessarily anal and also not ISO C.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
😀
😂
🥰
😘
🤢
😎
😞
😡
👍
👎