"Nick is going to butcher the game"

[Hounded]

I confess I am weary of seeing this title at the top of the forum every day (There I go, adding to the popularity by responding to it). Perhaps I am too polite for Tangars taste but the title feels combative.

Is there any way the genuine feedback discussion(s) can be pulled into the development discussions thread rather than fueling this one?

[Derakon]

Done.

[Carnivean]

In the 5 years I've been playing Angband I don't remember changes to the game as drastic as the ones that are occurring now. It might not be a bad idea for Nick to slow down a bit; pick one aspect of the game to overhaul and get it right before going to the next.

I can think of 2 main reasons why an overhaul should be done holistically rather than by honing a single piece at a time:

1) Nick has finite time on his hands to maintain and update the code. Following the 80/20 rule we'll get significantly more complete per unit of Nick's work than if we get him to spend more time polishing (in the 20%). Crowd-sourcing the balance is going to help and while that happens Nick can go on ruining other parts of the game. Your thoughts on shield bashing might have come to Nick eventually, but over how long a time?

2) Parts of the game don't exist in isolation. They exist in balance with and in tension with each other. Honing a single change and bedding it in is a waste of time if, when the next area is changed, Nick needs to go back and redo the balancing against the new changes. Rather he should introduce as many changes as he has in mind to functionality and then iteratively hone them to a balance. Yes the development versions might have bugs and weird situations and even parts that feel wrong, but they are development versions. Come a full release I'd expect a cohesive, "balanced" game to have emerged.

Finally, I think I've got a bit too snippy a couple of times in this thread, sorry about that. Maybe it's the title

With your patience you might want to consider becoming a monk.

[dos350]

but you don't have the right to engage in verbal diatribe against the efforts of the maintainer. That's just a dick move. Seriously, I don't understand why people have to be told these kinds of things.

the people opposed to the sweeping changes are clearly being dehumanized in this thread, treated as a joke or brushed off, or spammed into oblivion~

i havnt seen a single person abusing the users who are for the changes, just trying to show another perspective in a polite manner,

angband is important and needs to remain angband at all costs

[takkaria]

the people opposed to the sweeping changes are clearly being dehumanized in this thread

dehumanized?!?

[Youssarian]

dehumanized?!?

Perhaps degnomed?

[Nick]

the people opposed to the sweeping changes are clearly being dehumanized in this thread, treated as a joke or brushed off, or spammed into oblivion~

i havnt seen a single person abusing the users who are for the changes, just trying to show another perspective in a polite manner,

I think dehumanized is a bit OTT, dos, but I take your point.

As maintainer I'm in the odd position of advocating for the changes I'm making - because if I wasn't in favour, I wouldn't be making them (apart from rune ID, but that's another story) - but also needing to be a bit even-handed. IMHO I haven't always got the balance right, hence the apology upthread.

I don't think there's a good general answer to how change like this should work. I will try to list my reasons for change, though, so at least everyone has a shot at understanding why I'm doing stuff.

1. People are complaining about it. A good example here is the current situation where randarts are overpowered - it's not working as intended, everyone can see that, and it just needs fixing.
2. It has been discussed for a long time and there is a general acceptance of a needed change. Rune ID is the classic here. Alternatives to the old ID scheme had been discussed over a long period, and rune ID had emerged as the favourite contender (I initially preferred an alternative scheme that I had used in FA, but I now think I was wrong).
3. There is a game mechanic which has become pointless, usually because of other changes in the game. Traps and curses (and bad objects generally) are a good example of this, and possibly hunger falls here too. In this case either the mechanic can be removed altogether (potions of Death), or if it is seen as too integral a part of the game it has to be re-made in some way that fits with the current state of the game.
4. There is something which seems like it was a good idea in theory, but doesn't work that way in practice. This is how I see the point that the old classes had got to as of 4.1. For example, mages had 57 spells in 9 books, but one of the books only had 2 spells, and many of the spells were in practice never or rarely used. So it seemed like redoing classes to have less spells, but actually useful ones, would be a good idea. There was a big thread about it. The problem here is that redoing a class, or making a new class, involves a lot of creative work, and everyone is going to have their own opinion about the outcome. So in this case "Can't we just go back to the way it was?" has a certain amount of appeal.
5. Something has been a particular way for a long time, and it's not exactly bad, but it could be better. This is probably the most difficult one, because a lot of opinion comes into it, and it's how I see most of the monster changes. I'm relying on my own instincts a lot, but also on other people's opinions; note that I have made a lot of the changes suggested by people, particularly those who have playtested the changes. This sort of change is probably the most fun to do, but also the most difficult because of everyone being different and having different personal histories with the existing monsters. The arguments I have tended to push back against the most are the "you shouldn't change it because I don't want it to change" variety, which is understandable but (as I've explained a number of times in different ways) in my opinion doesn't get us anywhere.

So, there it is. Wall o' text I'm afraid, but whatever

[dos350]

thanks for reply nick, u really are doing a good job talking to the community about this, but theres more to it than talking,


alot of users do not follow the development or use the forum, but they download the latest versions in hopes of enjoying the game they love, the game they know, i dare to say most of this category hope for general improvements, and that does not necessarily mean changes to the lore or class/item/combat systems, or additions to the game OR things being removed entirely (besides options)

i think very small incremental changes to these things are better than an all at once overhaul,

not only will the final product be more refined but it will not run a risk of shocking and terrifying returning players who do not follow the development

things like "fixing randarts" is an important thing to do, but personally i think that having wide range is fun , they are rand after all,

things liek removing search though, well thats a slippery slope
,,, i grew to accept it but i question its value and in the context of legacy i think maybe its the wrong move, same with rune id

even considering removing hunger however, i believe is a huge mistake

people in favor of massive changes please understand that once classes and monsters that have been there for 20years+ get changed in a big way, or removed or replaced, angband is not far from becoming a variant in the eyes of traditionalist players, and although that may not matter to the developers, it does really mean alot to these users

play an older version is not an answer, wats important is the live version because thats the default for all but the most hardcore users

i know its not possible to please everyone, but to me angbands history and living legacy is more important than a direction for development

[Philip]

It's interesting to me that what the official version is is so important to people who will swear that there is one true perfect Angband. It feels like unintentional validation of Nick's theory that the game has to be maintained in order to survive.

Again, all of you underestimate the extent to which the game has changed in the past. The classes are, perhaps, more of a legacy than most aspects, but even then, did you know Mages used to be a heavily melee class in the late game (before Globe of Invulnerability was removed)? Later still, they were effectively a more utility-focused ranger (they then lost most of Tenser's which made this strategy a lot weaker).

Anyway, I think it's funny that dos350 is back talking about how all of these changes are ruining Angband because a) that's what tangar reminded me of this whole time and b) dos350 would always inevitably switch from saying that 3.1.2v2 was the one true angband and the 3.2.0 devbranch was an abomination to saying that 3.2.0 was the one true angband and that the 3.2.1 devbranch was an abomination shortly after 3.2.0 officially came out. Let's see if that pattern holds up.

[dos350]

hi phillip,

honestly im struggling to express myself about this in text,

i believe , despite all the changes , that 4,1,3 is the pure version ,, and i compare it to 3,1,2v2 in my mind ~ but not once in my career have i gone back to play an older version once a new one is out, however~ thats not to say i wont, for example, if a new version comes one day that i believe has gone TOO FAR, i will stick with watever the last one was, and to me thats a tragedy, not just to me but in general, to play an old version of a game is like an abomination, a crime against nature,


despite being against major change ever since i first played angband, ive accepted them, not cos i agree completely or think its better, but because i love angband and want to enjoy it in its latest form, which to me as of now is wat ive always known, even though alot has changed. (eg i play now finally with no selling on, for a long time i refused utterly and turned it off every game)

its not about a pure version though, its about treating the game with respect and care moving forward, not as some kind of experiment where maybe u find something new and exciting but it divides the community because its too different

[mrfy]

alot of users do not follow the development or use the forum, but they download the latest versions in hopes of enjoying the game they love, the game they know, i dare to say most of this category hope for general improvements, and that does not necessarily mean changes to the lore or class/item/combat systems, or additions to the game OR things being removed entirely (besides options)

I believe that most users when they download a new version expect that changes have been made. And that there will be major changes from a 3.1.x to a 3.2.x to a 3.3.x or even a 4.x version. They will either dive right in, or do as I do, look at the list of changes in the release notes.

i think very small incremental changes to these things are better than an all at once overhaul,

not only will the final product be more refined but it will not run a risk of shocking and terrifying returning players who do not follow the development

I disagree completely. The game needs to evolve in order to remain interesting, imo. The classes did need changes, and to balance the game he also looked at monsters and now randarts. Much better to make the major changes and then tweak the balance.

u even considering removing hunger however, i believe is a huge mistake

FWIW, I agree with removing search, but am ambivalent about hunger.

people in favor of massive changes please understand that once classes and monsters that have been there for 20years+ get changed in a big way, or removed or replaced, angband is not far from becoming a variant in the eyes of traditionalist players, and although that may not matter to the developers, it does really mean alot to these users

Sorry, I again disagree. There have been many major changes over the 20+ years. Those who have been around for so long understand this.

play an older version is not an answer, wats important is the live version because thats the default for all but the most hardcore users

Of course it is. If you don't like the changes, why upgrade? There's plenty of games I've played where I didn't like the next versions, either I moved on to other games or stuck with the version I had.

i know its not possible to please everyone, but to me angbands history and living legacy is more important than a direction for development

Again, disagree completely.

[dos350]

did tetris or final fantasy 7 need to change to remain relevant or interesting?

wat about world of warcraft, that keeps changing and many users are upset and demand the original

if someone new plays angband 4,1,3 its very much the same experience as i had starting in 3.1.2v2 , (finer points are an exception)

i hope that remains true for the lifetime of angband

[fph]

On the contrary, Tetris changed a lot along the years. The method of randomizing pieces changed, the scoring, 7-8 different rotation systems, different level setups. It did so through various games released at different times rather than successive versions, though, because that's how commercial games work: you can't resell version 2.1, so you have to make a different game and sell it with another name. Take a look at https://tetris.wiki/, for instance, to see how many rule variants there are, and how many official games. Representative page: https://tetris.wiki/Scoring .

As for Final Fantasy, well, it did the same: a lot of successive games, each significantly different from the previous one.

[dos350]

ur missing the point,

i am a serious tetris player, and i dont mean that original nes or gameboy tetris is the only tetris, eg i play mainly on nullpomino or tetrisfriends, but i never really played any other puzzle game that i like besides tetris

and i was speaking only of ff7 not others, but lets even change that to ff8 seeing as that wont be remade any time soon.

the core game has not changed , still no 5 block piece in tetris cos then its not tetris

ff8 is as it was when it released unless u mod it, and its remained interesting,

so has tetris the original, even if later versions are prefer'd , classic tetris is infact at the highest point of interest see classic tetris world championship for info


or consider chess,,, theres 4 way chess on some site but thats really not chess

[Philip]

Well obviously, if there were 5 block pieces it would be called pentis, and that looks a bit too much like penis, especially considering one of the possible arrangements of 5 blocks does resemble a crudely drawn phallus.

More seriously, it is preposterous to identify one particular rule that tetris has not changed and pretend that it signifies some sort of internal consistency. It is trivial to identify similar rules about Vanilla that have not changed (though some have in variants): one town, one dungeon, dungeon has 127 levels of which 100 are relevant to the primary objective, the primary objective is to kill sauron on dlvl 99 to unlock dlvl 100 where you kill morgoth, players have one weapon slot, one bow slot, two ring slots, an amulet slot, an armor slot, a cloak slot, a shield slot, a glove slot, a hat slot, and a shoe slot. It is also trivial to identify similar hard and fast rules of precisely this sort that have been violated in Vanilla itself before Nick even became the maintainer, without actually harming it: 6 basic stats reduced to 5 through removal of charisma, for example. Randarts violated, as far as I can tell, at least one rule. The only rule change of this magnitude Nick has actually made is the change to classes, as far as I can tell.