Improving Z+Angband

[LostTemplar]

Not detecting in time can kill.

[zaimoni]

Not detecting in time can kill.

So, set a count limit on running when detection is available. [This still gets the main benefit of running, which is that the computer's accuracy in noticing things is better than yours.]

Crawl very intentionally doesn't have adequate detection methods by Angband standards, so this objection doesn't apply to autoexplore there. [They never were Angband-adequate to begin with, but starting with 0.8.0 there are no item sources to speak of; beyond the ranged searching for traps, other long-range detection is controlled by a god choice. "How many cursed items do you want to wear today"?]

Basically, from Angband-side Crawl autoexplore looks like an APW borg that automatically disengages whenever there's something to attack or damage has been taken.

[LostTemplar]

Maybe I missed some options, but running continues even if corridor changes direction, I dont like this behavior, I want to stop and think before every corner and sometimes more often, actually allmost every turn.

computer's accuracy in noticing things is better than yours

this statement seems wrong to me, computer ignore many important things (e.g. I probably want to detect or heal or recharge immediately once I have mana for it, or want to go back/dig/destruct/teleport if corridor bends into wrong direction). It is just personal preference to use or not running/autoexplore.

[Magnate]

For instance, I am very skeptical of any attempt to remove "no-brainer" decisions from Angband.

No-brainer decisions are what Angband is all about. Specifically, what separates a competent player from a poor player is the ability to consistently make no-brainer decisions correctly.

Unfortunately we are using different terminology. My definition of "no-brainer" is a decision that a poor player cannot get wrong. Wearing Thorin is currently a no-brainer, because it has no competition. (You might wear Anarion to melee Morgoth, but that is an extreme edge case which does not apply to poor players.)

[Magnate]

And then, why would you try to remove opportunities to grind from Angband?

Many (most?) Angband players like a bit of grinding now and then.

The ones that don't, find ways not to do it.

A.

Are you serious? The no-brainer comment seemed real, but this seems like a joke. By definition, nobody likes grinding. People like levelling, and when you are new to a game, or the game is very good (think Diablo II) the experience of levelling remains interesting for a very long time before it becomes grinding.

The best angband example is probably worm farming. When you've never done it before, it's quite fun for a little while. Very soon it's not, and you stop. If something about the game's design meant you *had* to do it, that would be ... awful.

[Antoine]

Unfortunately we are using different terminology. My definition of "no-brainer" is a decision that a poor player cannot get wrong. Wearing Thorin is currently a no-brainer, because it has no competition. (You might wear Anarion to melee Morgoth, but that is an extreme edge case which does not apply to poor players.)

Ha! I hoped you'd say that.

If a player could readily find both Thorin and an equally good alternative, then yes, that would lead to a challenging decision - wield Thorin or wield the alternative.

The status quo, however, is better because it leads to several points of challenge:
(a) somehow obtain Thorin AND
(b) realise that it is the best alternative AND
(c) adjust kit to deal with having it AND
(d) adjust playstyle in response to your new capabilities, OR
(e) somehow do without Thorin (as a diver often has to do).

A.

[Antoine]

Are you serious? The no-brainer comment seemed real, but this seems like a joke. By definition, nobody likes grinding. People like levelling, and when you are new to a game, or the game is very good (think Diablo II) the experience of levelling remains interesting for a very long time before it becomes grinding.

The best angband example is probably worm farming. When you've never done it before, it's quite fun for a little while. Very soon it's not, and you stop. If something about the game's design meant you *had* to do it, that would be ... awful.

Yes I am absolutely serious.

> By definition, nobody likes grinding

I don't think 'like' is quite the right word for the benefit or satisfaction that one gets from the grinding experience. 'Has fun' would also be the wrong word. And yet people do it.

> The best angband example is probably worm farming. .... If something about the game's design meant you *had* to do it, that would be ... awful

True. But if a change to the game design meant you could no longer do it, that would suck.

A.

[Antoine]

Crusade against no-brainers
Anti-grinding
Interface

I would think a more appropriate set of design philosophies for V game play (as distinct from code design, collaboration or interface design) might read something like:

- The game should be winnable using a broad spectrum of playstyles
- Whatever the playstyle, the game should be hard to win
- Since players are going to have to spend a lot of time if they are going to win the game, there should be a lot of content for them to experience
- It is better to change nothing than to change the wrong thing. (In official releases, that is.)

A.

[Magnate]

Ha! I hoped you'd say that.

If a player could readily find both Thorin and an equally good alternative, then yes, that would lead to a challenging decision - wield Thorin or wield the alternative.

The status quo, however, is better because it leads to several points of challenge:
(a) somehow obtain Thorin AND
(b) realise that it is the best alternative AND
(c) adjust kit to deal with having it AND
(d) adjust playstyle in response to your new capabilities, OR
(e) somehow do without Thorin (as a diver often has to do).

A.

Wow, I don't think I've disagreed with a post so much in a long time. We are on totally different wavelengths.

(a) and (e) are not relevant to the issue of whether something is a no-brainer or not (because it has to be found to trigger the issue)

(c) and (d) are null if it's a no-brainer. This is the whole problem with no-brainers: you *don't* have to adjust anything!

(b) might be a fair point, but in 11 years I have never seen or heard of a newbie who didn't instantly realise that Thorin was a no-brainer.

[Magnate]

Yes I am absolutely serious.

> By definition, nobody likes grinding

I don't think 'like' is quite the right word for the benefit or satisfaction that one gets from the grinding experience. 'Has fun' would also be the wrong word. And yet people do it.

> The best angband example is probably worm farming. .... If something about the game's design meant you *had* to do it, that would be ... awful

True. But if a change to the game design meant you could no longer do it, that would suck.

Ah, now here we agree. I am happy for grinding to be *possible*, I just don't want it to be *required*. Others go further and don't want it to be even remotely beneficial. IMO the current balance is about right: you can worm farm if you want, but after a certain cl it's more or less negligible in XP value, and they drop nothing.

[Antoine]

Wow, I don't think I've disagreed with a post so much in a long time. We are on totally different wavelengths.

(a) and (e) are not relevant to the issue of whether something is a no-brainer or not (because it has to be found to trigger the issue)

(c) and (d) are null if it's a no-brainer. This is the whole problem with no-brainers: you *don't* have to adjust anything!

(b) might be a fair point, but in 11 years I have never seen or heard of a newbie who didn't instantly realise that Thorin was a no-brainer.

I'm trying to tread a fine line and be very provocative without being at all obnoxious, hope I get it right.

My point is not that the (former) superiority of Thorin over all other boots created no-brainer decisions which enhanced fun.

It is that the (former) superiority of Thorin was not a problem - because the key gameplay element was not the kit decision ("Thorin or my other boots") - it was the search ("Gee I wish I had Thorin, let's go look for it in that vault") and the newbie learning experience ("Hey, these boots are the best you can get! I don't need to look for any other boots now") and the diver's problem ("Here I am at 4500' and I don't have Thorin").

If you add a second set of artifact boots just as good as Thorin, then you make the kit decision more interesting but all the other experiential elements above are unchanged or reduced.

If (strawman) you make both Thorin and the second set of boots more common - so that the player more frequently gets to make the interesting kit decision - then the situation is even worse.

A.

[Antoine]

Ah, now here we agree. I am happy for grinding to be *possible*, I just don't want it to be *required*.

Right, well, then we do agree, but then I think you don't agree with the "anti-grinding" leg of the Crawl philosophy. The DCSS guys explicitly seek to make grindign impossible.

Which good on them, but I don't think it's right for Angband.

A.

P.S. I think the Crawl crew were explicitly motivated by the desire to make Crawl "less like Angband". Fine and dandy, but I don't think the correct response is to seek to make Angband less like Angband.

[Magnate]

I'm trying to tread a fine line and be very provocative without being at all obnoxious, hope I get it right.

My point is not that the (former) superiority of Thorin over all other boots created no-brainer decisions which enhanced fun.

It is that the (former) superiority of Thorin was not a problem - because the key gameplay element was not the kit decision ("Thorin or my other boots") - it was the search ("Gee I wish I had Thorin, let's go look for it in that vault") and the newbie learning experience ("Hey, these boots are the best you can get! I don't need to look for any other boots now") and the diver's problem ("Here I am at 4500' and I don't have Thorin").

If you add a second set of artifact boots just as good as Thorin, then you make the kit decision more interesting but all the other experiential elements above are unchanged or reduced.

If (strawman) you make both Thorin and the second set of boots more common - so that the player more frequently gets to make the interesting kit decision - then the situation is even worse.

A.

No offence taken - this is exactly how I like to explore disagreements.

I understand your point much better now. You are right that both "let's go look for the No-Brainer" and "I've got it, I can stop looking now" disappear if you take away no brainers. IMO those are both prices worth paying: I think "let's go look for an awesome item" and "I've got an awesome item, I can stop now" are close enough for this not to be too painful - whereas the benefit from removing the no-brainer kit choice is IMO huge.

Thorin is a shield, btw, but no worries.

[Derakon]

- The game should be winnable using a broad spectrum of playstyles
- Whatever the playstyle, the game should be hard to win
- Since players are going to have to spend a lot of time if they are going to win the game, there should be a lot of content for them to experience
- It is better to change nothing than to change the wrong thing. (In official releases, that is.)

- Fine, to the extent possible. Variety is a good thing, but it is also very hard to implement while keeping everything balanced. This is, I suspect, one reason why NetHack hasn't had an official release in eight years.
- Yes. Difficulty is good. Easy games do not promote replay as strongly as hard games doe.
- No problems with more content. I think it'd be neat to have a little webapp "monster maker" where you could plug in stats and the app would generate the appropriate entry as well as tell you how hard the monster is compared to others in its depth.
- No. Change, on its own, is good, even if it is the wrong change. If you don't want things to change, you can play a previous version of the game. It's not going anywhere. Even change that everyone agrees was a bad idea is still good, because a) it's easily reverted in 99% of cases, and b) it gets people to think about why it was a bad idea and help them understand what changes will be good ideas.

You're going to have a lot of trouble finding a maintainer willing to just implement UI improvements while leaving the base gameplay alone. Maintainers take the job so they can tinker with the game, and that includes gameplay.

That said, of course changes get a lot of review before becoming official versions. That's what the nightlies are for. I don't expect every change in the nightlies to make it to an official release -- though at the same time, the vast majority of the changes I've seen so far are good ones, albeit occasionally unpolished.

[Antoine]

No offence taken - this is exactly how I like to explore disagreements.

I understand your point much better now. You are right that both "let's go look for the No-Brainer" and "I've got it, I can stop looking now" disappear if you take away no brainers. IMO those are both prices worth paying: I think "let's go look for an awesome item" and "I've got an awesome item, I can stop now" are close enough for this not to be too painful - whereas the benefit from removing the no-brainer kit choice is IMO huge.

Thorin is a shield, btw, but no worries.

I never find the darn thing so I wouldn't know whether it was a shield or a bar of soap.

> IMO those are both prices worth paying

My value judgement is the opposite. I don't have a problem with a few no-brainer kit choices, I'd much rather that than (strawman) making all arts more common.

What did you think of my suggested list of V design principles?

A.