Balance and pacing (long)

[fizzix]

Yeah, this is intended to be a weaker form of Sil's hard clock. At the moment I think we all still agree that players should be allowed to play at their own pace; we just want them to know that their pace can be improved.

Someone with more experience with the ladder (and more recent play experience in general) could probably give better numbers for what different paces are, but at a guess I'd say 125k for average, 100k for powerdiver, 65k for lightspeed.

The only reason I dislike these metrics is a lot of your pace depends on how lucky you get. (In addition to class choice, a mage is going to go a lot slower than a warrior.)

Anyway, the problem is entirely in the domain of the balancers. Your turncount suggestions presume an "average" turncount which I guess is what you plan to balance around? I've always prefered a balance based on levels, the idea being you get enough gear to win in 100 levels (right now it's probably closer to 50, especially if you focus on clearing vaults and high reward monsters). I like this metric because it's easy to balance through stats, and it doesn't depend on class. My current thinking is we need to either greatly reduce the frequency of good items, or reduce the number of levels significantly.

[Derakon]

The only reason I dislike these metrics is a lot of your pace depends on how lucky you get. (In addition to class choice, a mage is going to go a lot slower than a warrior.)

Anyway, the problem is entirely in the domain of the balancers. Your turncount suggestions presume an "average" turncount which I guess is what you plan to balance around? I've always prefered a balance based on levels, the idea being you get enough gear to win in 100 levels (right now it's probably closer to 50, especially if you focus on clearing vaults and high reward monsters). I like this metric because it's easy to balance through stats, and it doesn't depend on class. My current thinking is we need to either greatly reduce the frequency of good items, or reduce the number of levels significantly.

We might need different metrics for different classes, yeah. Or at least some kind of modifier to the base numbers.

And I didn't intend necessarily to use game pace as a metric for balancing, so much as for guiding user expectations. If the game tells an inexperienced player "hey, you're playing super slowly", then they'll have a better idea of why they feel bored.

I definitely favor the use of statistics for guiding game balance decisions, so long as we have a reasonable expectation that the stats are relevant to how easy the game is. And it seems intuitively reasonable that the measured frequency of various items at different depths would be useful information when balancing the game.

[Grotug]

Would it be reasonable to have @ ID stat rings immediately upon walk over once he knows what they are from previous experience of trying them on, once he reaches a certain CL level, 30 or 40? Might this also apply to {ego} items he's already identified, like caps of telepathy and Katanas of extra attacks for example? He still doesn't know the stats on the {ego} item, but he knows that it has telepathy because he's ID'd caps of telepathy before, or he knows it has extra attacks because he's id'd katanas with extra attacks before.

[Sky]

i agree that some items need to be rebalanced; some egos and artis appear when they are already useless, and are immediately squelched. however, i do not think a massive rebuild is in order. the reason why angband seems too easy with certain modifications, is because you have deep, complex experience in the game, not because it's "too easy".

[fizzix]

i agree that some items need to be rebalanced; some egos and artis appear when they are already useless, and are immediately squelched. however, i do not think a massive rebuild is in order. the reason why angband seems too easy with certain modifications, is because you have deep, complex experience in the game, not because it's "too easy".

Some egos and artifacts will always have to appear when they are useless. Not every item you find can be useful. Provided you can instantly squelch the items, and all others of their type, then I don't see the big problem here.

While it is true I am experienced in the game. The game is objectively easier than it was in 3.0.x for many reasons. Just the fact that breaths now reduce with distance means the game is easier. We've also removed many sources of tedium (having to ID every item, having to wade through seas of orcs and hounds to get anywhere, having to spam trap detection because hitting a summon trap often will instantly kill you, etc.) While getting rid of these makes a better game it's also an easier game.

[Nick]

I was going to finish my current game first, but I think I've seen enough so far (character is at endgame) that I can make some suggestions to game balance and game pacing that hopefully will improve things.

Thanks for this excellent analysis.

As context, I should say that I have spent very little time thinking about game balance. My focus has been on getting structural game changes in place (breaths, traps, curses, ID) and on code improvement. I have always expected significant rebalancing to happen before 4.1, and this thread will be of major assistance in that; there are still a few things that need addressing first, though (stuff may happen to stealth and monster AI, for example).

Now, to suggestions. The monster ones are great. The item suggestions (which seem to have been the most contested) all sound fairly reasonable to me too, and the vaults and pits comments are useful and a bit unexpected to me.

So some things I am thinking about for when balancing time comes. I was already thinking about caster level independent of depth, so I'm pleased you suggested it and am inclined to go with that one. I also have a bunch of other ideas broadly around the make-monsters-more-dangerous theme, including:

• Introducing worse side-effects for unresisted elemental attacks
• Making (new or existing) more dangerous deep monsters
• Introducing a (or expanding the existing) selection of monsters in the early- to mid-game which target particular player deficiencies - lack of pConf and pBlind, for example
• AI improvements mentioned earlier

These are fairly unformed thoughts, though. We'll see as we go along, and more ideas are good

[PowerDiver]

I thought I had nerfed hounds, but I guess I made them tougher.

With symmetric LOS I get pack damage from all of

ZZZ
#Z#
#@#

assuming the middle top Z breathes on the intermediate Z causing splash damage.

What I thought was my nerf is that breaths are treated as bolts that explode into a ball, a la meteor swarm. In retrospect I guess that symmetric LOS dwarfs the so-called "nerf" change of a breath from a ball to a bolt.

I've been play testing. In another thread, where I bemoaned the change to reduce hound pack sizes leading to universal derision, I now understand that to make packs interesting you need symmetric LOS including knight moves. I now firmly stand by my opinion that reducing pack size was a mistake. But only if you do the other stuff right.

[debo]

Literally the only fun thing in angband is finding cool stuff. If we reduce frequency of both egos and arts, I think combat will have to get a lot more interesting than it is now (sounds like this is well underway), and probably the game length could be axed by a lot also?

If you look at Sil as an example, the game got more or less progressively harder with each version even though you find quite a bit of good stuff. In the latest version the drop rates for good items were boosted pretty significantly, and the game is still challenging enough (and had enough diversity of challenge) that this works out.

Re: glass cannons, poschengband has quite a few early casters that are fragile but seriously mess you up if you're missing a resist or three. The arch-vile and the logrus master are the ones that jump to mind, and I think those are likely both from zangband. The logrus master is even pretty dangerous in melee, which could be something to think about if we're designing some new early monsters

[Pete Mack]

@debo--
the fun part is sneaking around way out of depth, where any mistake could kill you. Loot is secondary to this. (At depth, you will find it in the first survivable vault.)

[Mondkalb]

@debo--
the fun part is sneaking around way out of depth, where any mistake could kill you. Loot is secondary to this. (At depth, you will find it in the first survivable vault.)

That's why I like to play rogues.

[quarague]

I really support the idea of adding various glass cannon monsters. They seem to be lacking at all depths. Practically all monsters with dangerous attacks also have a bazillion hit points.
This would also improve the game in the direction that different monsters become hard or easy for different classes. Tanky monsters are easy targets for warriors which are even more tanky but hard to take down for mages (although relatively easy to avoid). Glass cannon casters are dangerous for warriors but good targets for mages.

[fizzix]

I thought I had nerfed hounds, but I guess I made them tougher.

With symmetric LOS I get pack damage from all of

ZZZ
#Z#
#@#

assuming the middle top Z breathes on the intermediate Z causing splash damage.

What I thought was my nerf is that breaths are treated as bolts that explode into a ball, a la meteor swarm. In retrospect I guess that symmetric LOS dwarfs the so-called "nerf" change of a breath from a ball to a bolt.

I've been play testing. In another thread, where I bemoaned the change to reduce hound pack sizes leading to universal derision, I now understand that to make packs interesting you need symmetric LOS including knight moves. I now firmly stand by my opinion that reducing pack size was a mistake. But only if you do the other stuff right.

While I support the symmetrical LOS changes, if the only way we can make the game "interesting" is to flood the floors with annoying monsters, then we have a serious problem.

It'd be something at least if the annoying monsters were at least different. But killing scores of hounds gets very old very quick. There are a very limited number of players that would find that enjoyable.

[Derakon]

While I support the symmetrical LOS changes, if the only way we can make the game "interesting" is to flood the floors with annoying monsters, then we have a serious problem.

It'd be something at least if the annoying monsters were at least different. But killing scores of hounds gets very old very quick. There are a very limited number of players that would find that enjoyable.

This at least is conceptually easy to fix -- add several more types of monsters that fill a similar niche as the hounds but are different somehow (in flavor, in exact abilities, etc.). I guess that niche is something like "always awake monster, preferably with a ranged attack, that chases you from anywhere on the level".

Some kind of clockwork golem sentinel as a precursor to the Drolem, for example. A group ghost enemy as a precursor to Dreads (sort of like ZAngband's Phantom Warriors). A high-level jelly that can spit acid. Elite uruks could probably use an upgrade (they just aren't that scary right now), so why not make them always awake? They're the elites, after all.

[PowerDiver]

It'd be something at least if the annoying monsters were at least different. But killing scores of hounds gets very old very quick. There are a very limited number of players that would find that enjoyable.

You can always try to avoid the Zs. In addition, staves of destruction litter the dungeon.

In my current 3.0 based game, I have killed significantly more orcs than Zs. I haven't seen people clamoring for fewer orcs the way they clamored for fewer Zs. I think you're all munchkins. An easy kill that produces loot is considered a plus, and a monster that hurts the pack is considered a minus.

What makes Zs boring is assymetric LOS. If dangerous, they might or might not be too annoying to be a game mechanic, but at least they aren't boring.

Anyway, I doubt you have to worry about anyone on the dev team wanting to change hound generation back. They are too polite to say it, but I assume they think I've lost my mind. I'm making a specific point about a specific situation in the hopes that they'll consider the underlying ideas in some other context later.

[Estie]

What makes Zs boring is assymetric LOS.

What makes Zs boring is that they have the best possible attack type en masse focusing on @ from lvl 20 onward. Elemental, max range, pack, ball (ball aoe is irrelevant for 1 target but still adds insult to injury).

The weakest attack is the melee, which has to get in range and overcome AC, ranged projectile is next etc. If you flood the dungeon with Zs from early on, you basically state that you cant challenge the player with the lesser attack types, and I dont think that is true. There are no dangerous archers in the game, people are worried to give monsters melee attacks that can 1-hit, in a game where offscreen ranged attack have been 1-hitting forever. I say this not because I necessarily want 1-hitting melee attacks soon, but because it shows how far off the perception is.

I would like to see the basic tactical combat explored more; a pack of monsters all using irresistable ball attacks should be reserved for special occasions, not become bread and butter encounters. This is probably a lot of work, compared to just increasing 2 numbers in the monster generation (more and earlier hounds).