Preparing for 4.2 release

[Derakon]

I think we must first agree on what the goal is.

1. The stronger races are easier to play, and hence more newbie-friendly.
2. All races offer a comparable difficulty, hence the stronger races must be nerfed somehow.
3. The stronger races have drawbacks, but they are drawbacks which matter more to experienced players than to newbies.

The old idea of having an experience penalty fits well with 3. Maybe the XP penalty just needed to be adjusted rather than eliminated? Or maybe the XP penalty doesn't seem like a drawback to newbies, but it's actually harmful because the more time you spend in the game, the more likely you are to die (as diving teaches), and then it must be eliminated?

This is a good summation. As for ideas for 3, how about if more powerful races had a lower level cap? Like, you topped out at level 40 for a high-elf and level 50 for a human, and everyone else was somewhere in-between? Newbies will die before the level cap becomes relevant. The biggest problem of course is that this limits spell access for full casters; a lot of the really class-defining spells would be unavailable to high-elves if we used the numbers I suggested. But both the level caps and the spell levels could be tweaked.

This is a nice idea in some respects, but I feel that having to watch out for your town book supplies is one of the prices a spellcaster pays. Maybe if they were deep and rare enough - how do others feel?

Fireproof town spellbooks as a moderately rare/deep thing are a good idea IMO. They serve a similar quality-of-life improvement as finding Rods of Recall vs. ?WoR. Maybe have them start appearing from around dlvl50?

[clouded]

the stealing command is "+" "alter grid".

Just dropping by to say that ctrl+dir changing from attack in direction to steal from monster (or make a trap) when you play a rogue is something that annoys me about O/S (playing an S rogue atm). It actually completely overwrites the funtionality so you can no longer do it at all and if your muscle memory fires you end up waking everything up accidentally. By the way Nick if you ever go back to FA, ctrl+dir attacking doesn't work at all there which is a bummer.

I actually highly recommend Vanilla implement an "attack in direction" command like composband did, which can be targeted with *t. If you aren't next to the targeted monster then you move towards it, this provides a very simple and predictable auto-fight command macro which you can use to clear weak monsters by just hitting a single key.

[Nick]

New builds up on the nightlies page and angband.live with the following changes:

• Fix the bug I introduced fixing the running bug
• Fix a couple of vaults which were allowing corridors to connect to them with no door (thanks Sphara)
• Start updating the help files
• Use 's' for stealing from monsters instead of overloading the alter ('+') command (thanks clouded)

[Chud]

Is it considered "correct" to have disconnected levels? I have one that isn't technically disconnected (maybe), but in practice it is because it's connected only by the permanent walls of a vault. I don't really mind this, but I couldn't remember whether this wasn't supposed to happen or not.

[Vorczar]

My opinion on non-flammable shop spell books is they aren't necessary.
To me, each immunity has a Second-Best reason for seeking it. Non-flammable books would mitigate the Second-Best reason for Fire Immunity.


My food opinion:
I loved (because it was so easy) 4.1.3 getting Slow Digestion and never worrying about food except to eat an occasional Elvish Waybread. 66 gold from starting equipment and I wouldn't think about it again.

That said, what I've seen in 4.2 seems good. At least there'll be no hunger deaths.

Someone mentioned "better mushrooms". Perhaps they mean better versions of the same stuff that feeds longer and sustains benefits longer? I'm usually happy enough as I gain more Inherent Speed that spells, food, and effects last longer, relatively speaking. But it could be real nice to have really-long-lasting when you can't find that resist confusion or ESP item.

And/Or add ones meant for unique resists: Time, Gravity, Water, Aether?

[Derakon]

Is it considered "correct" to have disconnected levels? I have one that isn't technically disconnected (maybe), but in practice it is because it's connected only by the permanent walls of a vault. I don't really mind this, but I couldn't remember whether this wasn't supposed to happen or not.

It's been a thing since the beginning. The game assumes that vaults are walkable. I suspect that breaking that assumption would make it significantly harder to place vaults in levels, and thereby de facto make vaults more rare.

[Nick]

So, looking through the 13 remaining bugs/tasks before 4.2 release, I came to #2118 and thought "that should be straightforward". And it probably is. But.

As a consequence of looking at what is needed to fix the bug, it became apparent to me that the correct thing to do is a major modification to the command system, and looking into that has showed me some shortcomings in the UI code...

So I will probably be vanishing down this rabbit hole for some time, and emerging with the codebase improved (and hopefully a fix for #2118). Which means 4.2 (which I was hoping to get out the door soonish) will probably be delayed a bit. Which gives everyone more time to argue the important issues like XP modifiers and food

[Chud]

It's been a thing since the beginning. The game assumes that vaults are walkable. I suspect that breaking that assumption would make it significantly harder to place vaults in levels, and thereby de facto make vaults more rare.

That makes sense. As I said, I don't really mind the behavior; by the time you get far enough to be encountering large vaults on a regular basis you typically have enough mapping and digging options that you aren't going to miss out on much anyway.

[Voovus]

On stealing - issues and recommendations. Findings of the Rogue @s committee. Executive summary.


1.
Issue:
Stealing is too difficult. Moreover
(i) Stealing should be worthwhile, so there should be some chance to steal an item off a high level opponent;
(ii) Defeating monsters should be more rewarding than stealing, so it should remain difficult to steal several items off opponents.

Recommendation:
In the code for calculating the chance of stealing (monster_reaction and skill_steal) change
monster_reaction = guard / 2 + randint1(MAX(guard / 2, 1));
monster_reaction += obj->weight / 10;
to
monster_reaction = guard / 4 + randint1(MAX(guard / 2, 1));
monster_reaction += obj->weight / 20;

The detailed computations can be made available (...if people don't have enough maths in their lives).


2.
Issue:
In the mid and late game there is no way of preparing @ for stealing off particularly tough targets through the use of limited consumables.

Recommendation:
Introduce a "Mushroom of Shadows", or some other consumable, that gives +10 Stealth for 50 turns and that can be found in the dungeon from early on. It will be useful to all characters for looting vaults, and to thieves for stealing. If desired, it can have negative side effects, such as Fear. Stat drain is not recommended as non-rogues will then not use this consumable.



3.
Issue:
It is currently desirable to keep weak uniques alive and repeatedly steal from them throughout the Angband journey.

Recommendation:
Either
(a) Do not generate unique monsters significantly deeper than their native depth, e.g. native depth + 30 (so no Wormtongue below 1900'),
or
(b) Give loot to (unique) monsters purely based on their native depth and not on current dungeon depth.

Note: this will have side-effects for all other players.

[Nick]

On stealing - issues and recommendations. Findings of the Rogue @s committee. Executive summary.

Vote of thanks to the committee.

1.
Issue:
Stealing is too difficult. Moreover
(i) Stealing should be worthwhile, so there should be some chance to steal an item off a high level opponent;
(ii) Defeating monsters should be more rewarding than stealing, so it should remain difficult to steal several items off opponents.

Recommendation:
In the code for calculating the chance of stealing (monster_reaction and skill_steal) change
monster_reaction = guard / 2 + randint1(MAX(guard / 2, 1));
monster_reaction += obj->weight / 10;
to
monster_reaction = guard / 4 + randint1(MAX(guard / 2, 1));
monster_reaction += obj->weight / 20;

The detailed computations can be made available (...if people don't have enough maths in their lives).

I would actually like to see the maths. The current idea is the monster has a natural "protectiveness" which ranges between guard/2 and guard; so I'd probably rather rewrite what guard is so the code makes more sense later.

2.
Issue:
In the mid and late game there is no way of preparing @ for stealing off particularly tough targets through the use of limited consumables.

Recommendation:
Introduce a "Mushroom of Shadows", or some other consumable, that gives +10 Stealth for 50 turns and that can be found in the dungeon from early on. It will be useful to all characters for looting vaults, and to thieves for stealing. If desired, it can have negative side effects, such as Fear. Stat drain is not recommended as non-rogues will then not use this consumable.

I like this idea a lot.

3.
Issue:
It is currently desirable to keep weak uniques alive and repeatedly steal from them throughout the Angband journey.

Recommendation:
Either
(a) Do not generate unique monsters significantly deeper than their native depth, e.g. native depth + 30 (so no Wormtongue below 1900'),
or
(b) Give loot to (unique) monsters purely based on their native depth and not on current dungeon depth.

Note: this will have side-effects for all other players.

I think the side-effects are unacceptable. What does the committee think of the (slightly clunky) solution of keeping track of all unique thefts, and increasing their protectiveness each time an attempt is made to steal?

[Voovus]

I would actually like to see the maths. The current idea is the monster has a natural "protectiveness" which ranges between guard/2 and guard; so I'd probably rather rewrite what guard is so the code makes more sense later.

Ok, will do later today (UK time).

I think the side-effects are unacceptable. What does the committee think of the (slightly clunky) solution of keeping track of all unique thefts, and increasing their protectiveness each time an attempt is made to steal?

This would still not solve issue 3 - it would still be worth keeping Wormtongue alive and farm him for loot at 4950'.

The other options considered by the committee were:

(c) Do not give monsters/uniques that are significantly deeper than their native depth any artifacts. (But this equally has side effects.)

and

(d) Keep track of the number of items carried by unique monsters. In other words, each time an item is stolen the total number of drops decreases in all future incarnations of this unique. So if you've already stolen from Wormtongue, then he will have an empty inventory forever after. (This feels clunky, but does not have side effects for other @s.)

[Youssarian]

Another idea to make stealing more interesting, you could make certain things ONLY available through theft.

Maybe it's special consumables, scrolls or potions that would give the would-be thief a huge benefit later in tough battles.
Or you could steal something that you can then embed in an armor that gives it extra bonuses (which would be a lot more work to make possible I'm sure.

This would give thief a real benefit over playing other classes.

[wobbly]

Suggestion 36: Introduce a virtue system. Player receives a message "How dishonourable!". This should have no in-game effect, just the warm fuzzy feeling of being a bad bad hobbit. The only honourable path should be to murder wormtongue for his loot.

Suggestion 47: Allow wormtongue to carry objects such as: death molds, scroll mimics & potions of death. Bonus pts if he cackles evilly about traps.

Suggestion 56:Wormtongue hires body guards. Next time you see him he has 1 extra mean mercenary for every object you steal.

More seriously maybe the way drops work in general isn't the best? Wormtongue dropping great at lvl 8 seems fine. When he drops great at dlvl 40 & drops a depth 24 great, I'm still unsure why the game is rewarding you for not killing him till he is way too easy. Why does a blue yeek on dlvl 100 drop depth 51 objects? That one is not as bad as it is probably still trash, but it's possible that how drops_great interacts with this stuff is not the best?

[Voovus]

The current mechanic for stealing compares @'s "steal skill" (Skill) to the monster's defensive "monster reaction" level (Defense), adjusted by the weight of the item being stolen (Weight). To be successful one currently needs

Skill - Weight > Random[Defense/2, Defense],

where Random[A,B] denotes a random integer in the interval [A,B]. A failed attempt at a theft normally results in the monster waking up, which doubles their Defense value and makes further attempts futile. Thus, to have a decent chance to steal an item

@ needs (Skill - Weight) to be approximately (Defense*3/4).

For instance, this means that it is worth having a stab at stealing, but that @ is very unlikely to steal everything that a higher level monster has. In particular, defeating a monster will give higher rewards than theft.

What follows is a list of Skill values and Defense values for typical rogues and for sleeping monsters. For the sake of clarity, I will use the following slightly simplified formula compared to what's actually implemented:

Defense = MonsterLevel + MonsterSpeed/2 (for sleeping uniques),
Skill = Stealth + ToHitBonus(Dex) + PlayerSpeed*3/8,
Weight = Item weight in lb.

Formally, PlayerSpeed currently adjusts the monster Defense value rather than @'s Skill level, but that makes it harder to visualise what's going on. (The chosen factor 3/8th comes from the 1/2 in MonsterSpeed and the 3/4 in the second formula for the estimate of "reasonable stealing".) ToHitBonus(Dex) is, if I read the file right, +3, +4, +6, +10, +15 for Dex 18, 18/50, 18/100, 18/150 and 18/200, respectively.

Here is what typical hobbit rogues will have as their Skill values (with the simplified formula); bonuses refer to Stealth. Other rogues will have slightly lower skill due to lower stealth and dex.

Skill 10 - Level 1 Dex 18
Skill 15 - Level 10 Dex 18/50 Cloak of Stealth +3
Skill 20 - Level 20 Dex 18/100 Boots of Stealth +2 Ring of the Mouse +3
Skill 25 - Level 25 Dex 18/120 Boots of Stealth +2 Ring of the Mouse +4 Ring of the Mouse +2
Skill 30 - Level 30 Dex 18/150 Cloak of Stealth +3 Ring of the Mouse +4 Defender +3
Skill 35 - Level 35 Dex 18/200 Cloak of Stealth +3 Ring of the Mouse +4 Speed +8
Skill 40 - Level 40 Dex 18/200 Cloak of Stealth +3 Elf Shield +2 Speed +24
Skill 45 - Level 45 Dex 18/200 Cloak of Stealth +3 Elf Shield +2 Trickery +2 Speed +32
Skill 50 - Level 50 Dex 18/200 Cloak of Stealth +3 Elf Shield +2 Trickery +2 Elf Boots +4 Speed +32
Skill 55 - Level 50 Dex 18/200 Nimloth +3 Colannon +2 Elf Shield +2 Trickery +2 Elf Boots +4 Speed +40
Skill 60 - Level 50 Dex 18/200 Nimloth +3 Holcolleth +3 Hithlomir +3 Elf Shield +2 Trickery +3 Elf Boots +4 Speed +40
Skill 65 - Level 50 Dex 18/200 Defender +4 Belthronding +1 Luthien +3 Hithlomir +3 Elf Shield +2 Trickery +3 Elf Boots +4 Speed +48

Here are the Defense values for typical sleeping monsters (with the simplified formula and using the appropriate modification for non-uniques), followed by the range [A,B] to which Skill-Weight is compared:

0 [ 0.. 1] Maggot, Small kobold, Acolyte
10 [ 5.. 10] Wormtongue, Bullroarer, Druid
20 [10.. 20] Lugdush, Boldor, Mage
30 [15.. 30] Beorn, Mim, Vrock
40 [20.. 40] Lokkak, Lorgan, Ancient Blue Dragon
50 [25.. 50] Kavlax, Queen Ant, Elder Vampire
60 [30.. 60] Balrog of Moria, Shelob, Great Hell Wyrm
70 [35.. 70] Fundin, Smaug, Fury
80 [40.. 80] Thuringwethil, Osse
90 [45.. 90] Feagweath, Maeglin
100 [50..100] Lungorthin, Huan
230 [115..230] Morgoth (awake)

These values don't match well. Remember that it should be easier to steal something than to defeat the monster in battle. The hobbit rogue with skill level 50 described above can probably already take on Morgoth - there is no point in trying to steal from Maeglin by this stage, let alone from the Balrog of Moria, for whom Skill-Weight might actually match 3/4 Defense. The level 20 (skill 20) rogue ought to have a decent chance to pinch something from Beorn (defense 30), and the level 40 (skill 40) rogue, with preparation, from Lungorthin. Personally, I'd like the superhobbit (skill 65 + mushroom) to have a 5% chance to steal Grond from Morgoth - just because it will be fun.

Finally, the Weight penalty is quite brutal. Uniques appear to only carry equipment and ammo. A lot of (most?) equipment weighs >15 lb, resulting in almost guaranteed failure and the monster waking up.

[Derakon]

More seriously maybe the way drops work in general isn't the best? Wormtongue dropping great at lvl 8 seems fine. When he drops great at dlvl 40 & drops a depth 24 great, I'm still unsure why the game is rewarding you for not killing him till he is way too easy. Why does a blue yeek on dlvl 100 drop depth 51 objects? That one is not as bad as it is probably still trash, but it's possible that how drops_great interacts with this stuff is not the best?

I'm inclined to agree with this. "Monsters drop better items when you encounter them deeper in the dungeon" works OK when "better" mostly just means "you have a slightly higher chance to get a useful consumable out of that troll." But for monsters like Wormtongue, whose drops are already scaled to be likely useful at native depth? Improving the drop when Wormtongue is deeper in the dungeon is frankly pretty silly.

I seem to recall at some point that uniques also got an artificial boost in their drop quality (i.e. the game explicitly says "is this monster a unique? OK, then boost their drop quality"). That makes this issue even worse.

I'd be in favor of changing it so that unique drop quality is always the unique's native depth. Your reward for killing them later is that you get an easier fight, no more and no less.

You can then fix the stealing issue by forgetting about it! If players want to scum a low-level unique for easily-stolen items, then that's on them; they could as easily scum dlvl20 for easily-found floor items.