My Thoughts on 4.2

[DavidMedley]

Rubble

Rubble seems OP heh. Whenever I see a room full of rubble, I get excited! Item chance probably needs to be about 10% of what it is now.

[DavidMedley]

This goes back a while, I know, but the items and spells that don't allow a monster "saving throw" are just so much better than those that do. This really needs to be flattened out somehow or a big chunk of the items in the game are just trash.

I could be wrong - I'm not an Angband strategy expert - but that's how it looks to me.

[Nick]

This goes back a while, I know, but the items and spells that don't allow a monster "saving throw" are just so much better than those that don't.

I think you'll need to rephrase that

[DavidMedley]

Ah, I see it now. Thanks.

[DavidMedley]

Free Action

I get Free Action as soon as possible and never let myself be without it thereafter. Died more than enough times 15 years ago, so my info may be out of date. But it just seems like the one that resist you can never be without for a huge chunk of the game. Does it have to be this way? A lot of other games give "stun resistance" after being stunned, which is what they call Angband's version of paralyzed. Could a mechanic like that be used to prevent monsters from chain-locking you until you're dead?

[DavidMedley]

It's kinda like the discussion we were having elsewhere about Protection From Evil. A monster with the ability to paralyze is super fucking deadly unless it doesn't work and then it never works. Very all-or-nothing.

[DavidMedley]

Back on the Necromancer

Read Minds is incredibly powerful. Does it map radius (PL/10)d(PL/10+1) squares around each mind read? It would be awesome if the in-game description added that it starts at level 10.

"and then, *starting at level 10* maps in a region around them"

* my addition

[DavidMedley]

Dark Resist

There's no such thing as dark resist for monsters, right? Because there were no player darkness attacks until Necros? I'd suggest starting with the following:
- Anything that is hurt by bright light
- Anything with spell: DARKNESS or BR_DARK

Looking through monster.txt, I'd guess that would put prevalence in the vicinity of other monster resists.

Also, it'd be awesome to remove "bright light" and "rock remover" from monster resists in recall, which is redundant. Leave it only in the "hurt by" section. This is how the monster files are written anyway, so it's curious that they ever came to be written this way in recall.

[Nick]

There's no such thing as dark resist for monsters, right? Because there were no player darkness attacks until Necros? I'd suggest starting with the following:
- Anything that is hurt by bright light
- Anything with spell: DARKNESS or BR_DARK

Looking through monster.txt, I'd guess that would put prevalence in the vicinity of other monster resists.

An excellent suggestion, with just two tiny drawbacks:

1. BR_DARK monsters already resist dark (this is true of all breaths, not just dark)
2. The damage of this spell was designed for the fact that few things resist it.

Also, it'd be awesome to remove "bright light" and "rock remover" from monster resists in recall, which is redundant. Leave it only in the "hurt by" section. This is how the monster files are written anyway, so it's curious that they ever came to be written this way in recall.

Yeah, possibly that whole section could do with a rethink.

[wobbly]

There's no such thing as dark resist for monsters, right? Because there were no player darkness attacks until Necros? I'd suggest starting with the following:
- Anything that is hurt by bright light
- Anything with spell: DARKNESS or BR_DARK

Looking through monster.txt, I'd guess that would put prevalence in the vicinity of other monster resists.

yeah I've been dark spearing wraith pits & it feels a bit odd.

Also, it'd be awesome to remove "bright light" and "rock remover" from monster resists in recall, which is redundant. Leave it only in the "hurt by" section. This is how the monster files are written anyway, so it's curious that they ever came to be written this way in recall.

If you have full monster memory it is. I actually like it being there as I don't always remember which trolls are light vulnerable & which ones I've tested.

[DavidMedley]

If you have full monster memory it is. I actually like it being there as I don't always remember which trolls are light vulnerable & which ones I've tested.

That's a good point. That must be why it's in there.

[DavidMedley]

1. BR_DARK monsters already resist dark (this is true of all breaths, not just dark)
2. The damage of this spell was designed for the fact that few things resist it.

I didn't know that first part, but it makes sense. I figured the second. But if you look through, there's lots of creatures that cast darkness but don't breathe dark that seem like they should definitely resist. Huorn, Shadow Drake, wraiths, shadow. A lot of those have negative light, though, so that could be another key to look for. IDK if light-sensitive creatures should resist dark like trolls and vampires... it seems like if they hate light they should love dark but dark is not really the same thing as darkness attacks.

I just feel like it's weird for the dark depths to have fewer monsters that resist dark than other elements. It seems path dependent, not a choice any Angband developer would make if starting from scratch.

[fph]

Also, it'd be awesome to remove "bright light" and "rock remover" from monster resists in recall, which is redundant. Leave it only in the "hurt by" section. This is how the monster files are written anyway, so it's curious that they ever came to be written this way in recall.

I am not sure I understand here. There are three possible messages that you want to convey in the monster recall: (1) resists bright light, (2) does not resist / is hurt by bright light (3) you don't know yet because you never pointed a laser at it. Are you suggesting that (1) and (3) should get the same recall entry?

[DavidMedley]

I am not sure I understand here. There are three possible messages that you want to convey in the monster recall: (1) resists bright light, (2) does not resist / is hurt by bright light (3) you don't know yet because you never pointed a laser at it. Are you suggesting that (1) and (3) should get the same recall entry?

Wobbly already pointed this out, and I agreed it's a good point. Here is what I'll say about it: The things listed in the resists part are exceptions, and the things listed in the "does not resist" part are typical. I (and I imagine most players) read the "is hurt by" and resists sections carefully and skim the does not resist section, at best. So maybe put bright light and rock remover at the end of the does not resist section? That would be a bit wonky, but it would save us all from reading "resists bright light and rock remover" in almost every recall when we're looking for useful information.

[fph]

Ah, I see, this makes sense; I agree that it stands out more than it should now.