Bugs and complaints on current master

[Derakon]

The original version of that vault had four "8" tiles in it, meaning monsters up to 40 levels out of depth and guaranteed at least ego-quality items up to 20 levels out of depth. Notice that all that's stopping the monsters from getting out is a door. The vault (rightly) got toned down at some point.

[Nomad]

In the category of bizarre and deeply trivial bugs: if you have a Wooden Torch that's not fully identified (due to having an unknown curse), the Inspect screen will show the line "Refills other lanterns up to 15000 turns of fuel." from the Lantern description. Standard non-cursed Wooden Torches don't have this, and if you fully ID the Torch by identifying the curse, it goes away.

(Also, while I was pondering how the hell you'd even generate a cursed torch to recreate this, it occurred to me that with the new curse system we really ought to have some more negative scrolls that put curses on your equipment - bring back Curse Armour and Curse Weapon, and add another one for lights/jewellery as well - and possibly even monsters with the ability to do so as an attack.)

[Grotug]

Really. Wow. Well, cool. I learn something new about this game all the time.

[Pete Mack]

Yes, that cross is a a cryptic lesser vault. I suspect there were 4 monsters and 4 treasures at the corners of the little cross.

[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).

[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.

[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.

[Nick]

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

Fine, whatever...

[Estie]

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

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

[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.

[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.)

[Nomad]

light - darkness: affects rooms, does no damage

radiance - gloom: affects specified area, does damage

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

[Estie]

light - darkness: affects rooms, does no damage

radiance - gloom: affects specified area, does damage

[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.

[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.