Tweet
I disagree, in that the "old system" if by that you mean the system just recently implemented where food could now make @ gorged, but there was no good way to know when drinking CCWs or eating a ration would suddenly slow @, especially in the final fights. I like the new varieties of foods, with their differing amounts of nourishment. And the numbers allow one to make much better decisions about food. As for somehow not being as flavorfully immersive because you have numbers, tell me, how does one know so precisely how wounded a @ is and how many hit points exactly he has left? Is that somehow more "real"?
-
“We're more of the love, blood, and rhetoric school. Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They're all blood, you see.”
― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead -
It sure does make Excel-type of play easier and if one enjoys that, I'm happy for them. I was just originally stating my opinion that seeing the hunger in a 0-100 scale feels a bit overkill, even if we are talking about percentages. After a couple of games my @ was not feeling hungry in my mind, he was under some set threshold. There is probably some sort of middle ground here, I think this is the other end of the spectrum and the original is the other end. For what it's worth, I enjoyed the previous more. Being able to get gorged has never been to my liking though.Comment
-
Would it be better if we came up with a set of 10 descriptors of how hungry @ is, like the "very bad <-> superb" scale, and displayed that instead of a percentage? That would give you a pretty clear idea of your hunger state without breaking it down to a specific number.
Let's see...
Starving
Ravenous
Famished
Hungry
Peckish
I Could Eat
Not Hungry
Full
Stuffed
Bloated
Comment
-
No objection to the percentage myself but I grok the "it's another number I have to maintain" perspective.
Workable but adds potential for confusion. Where the number might seem too precise this runs the risk of being too generic if we're worried about penalties due over-eating.
And indicator bar perhaps? Then does it have red at both ends... (and I'm gonna stop before I fall down that trap-door).
Aside... quite enjoying the Trees. My first encounter with Huorns was a rather pleasantly rude surprise.It Breathes. You die.Comment
-
“We're more of the love, blood, and rhetoric school. Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They're all blood, you see.”
― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are DeadComment
-
So, Instead of hitpoints, why not have:Would it be better if we came up with a set of 10 descriptors of how hungry @ is, like the "very bad <-> superb" scale, and displayed that instead of a percentage? That would give you a pretty clear idea of your hunger state without breaking it down to a specific number.
Let's see...
Starving
Ravenous
Famished
Hungry
Peckish
I Could Eat
Not Hungry
Full
Stuffed
Bloated
dying
perishing
withering
moribund
declining
mortal
lively
sturdy
robust
vigorous
“We're more of the love, blood, and rhetoric school. Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They're all blood, you see.”
― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are DeadComment
-
I feel like it's actually reasonable for the player to know fairly precisely how full they are - in the same way as they know stuff like SP and HP. Maybe percentage is a bit too fine-grained, but it's easily understandable and I think other methods would be more intrusive. Also I do feel that it'll just become background as people get used to it.
Yes, heavier shields and especially bigger damage dice both improve bash damage.
It does damage.
There's a succession of things that get checked:- Basic chance depends on the player's to-hit skill and DEX
- Player doesn't bother with a shield bash for low level monsters
- Chance is increased if the player has a weapon with small dice, and increased by more if they have no weapon
- Higher level monsters are harder to bash
Level 8.
It's also worth mentioning that warriors and paladins also get shield bashes.One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.Comment
-
Wand of Darkness is supposed to do 6d8 dmg according to item knowledge, which would be a very nice ranged attack in the early game. Right?
It does next to nothing. It creates a beam that doesn't do any damage. Heck, it doesn't even make the squares dark
Tested in angband.live 4.2.0 with a Kobold Blackguard. Tried to aim it at various monsters, even at Light Hounds.Comment
-
Well, it does damage to darkness-sensitive monsters, in the same way wands of light only damage light-sensitive monsters and StM only damages rock-like monsters. The fact that there aren't any darkness-sensitive monsters is surely not my fault
You'll notice dark hounds breathe dark, whereas the wand creates darkness. This is (clearly) a bit confusing - how do people think it should be resolved?
It does. Try darkening some squares in a lit room, and then watch your light meter as you step on and off them.One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.Comment
-
Ok, thanks. I knew there yet isn't RES_DARK or VULN_DARK flag for monsters at all. But if the item knowledge says it does 6d8, it clearly should do plain damage (just like starlight now does). Although, 6d8 sounds quite strong given how early WoD:s start to appear.Well, it does damage to darkness-sensitive monsters, in the same way wands of light only damage light-sensitive monsters and StM only damages rock-like monsters. The fact that there aren't any darkness-sensitive monsters is surely not my fault
You'll notice dark hounds breathe dark, whereas the wand creates darkness. This is (clearly) a bit confusing - how do people think it should be resolved?Comment
-
Yup. That was just my first impression after opening the game for the first time in a while. UI-wise using percentage differs from other elements. Personally I would have preferred a bar of somekind somewhere with the other stats, but that's just me of course. I'll get use to it quickly. And the use of colors to indicate thresholds helps a lot.
Thanks for the information on the blackguard and shield bash. It would be awesome if that info would be found somewhere in the manual. And actually for all classes. A table showing the relevant character levels and class abilities that follow or something. Also a full chapter on shield bash would be much valued here.
I love the new enemies so far. I haven't got very deep yet though.Comment
-
If an item claims to be useful for a purpose but is in fact not, then that deception ought to be removed -- even if the reason why they aren't useful is due to circumstance (lack of vulnerable enemies) rather than game logic. Same reason why healing potions shouldn't claim they can be thrown for damaging effect.
Besides, enemies that are specifically vulnerable to darkness feel a bit weird. What are they doing in a dark dungeon?
The easy fix is to remove the claim that the wand does damage. Failing that, you could make it deal less damage, but of the "hard" darkness element (that damages everything, as per Dark Hound breath). I believe orcs and undead are resistant to darkness by default, which would somewhat limit the wand's utility against most early groups.You'll notice dark hounds breathe dark, whereas the wand creates darkness. This is (clearly) a bit confusing - how do people think it should be resolved?Comment
-
First things first... I'm an stupid excited about the new versions and the new classes. I'm on vacation, but had to use phone data to download this... no way I was not playing it!!!
I don't know if there is going to be a "bug section", so I'll post here. I've already seen people mention the wand of darkness not doing damage, so I won't go into that, but I have noticed that both that wand and "raise earth" haven't been updating the relevant elements in monster memory (I assume raise earth is shards damage).
Not getting weakness and resistance info is annoying when you're trying to fill out monster lore.Comment
Comment