[Crawl-ref-discuss] Homes, homes for the gods, where the deer and the buffalo roam

[Piper E. <Eri...@zo...>]

This started out as a comment in a feature request box, but it's a
little too long and open-ended for that, methinks. :-D
=20
Crawl could use a few more gods to resolve certain gaping holes in the
pantheon (e.g. stealth). They'll probably not be implemented too soon
due to the other issues in front of us, but they're probably on the way.
Unless we decide to remove existing gods or use an odd-man-out system
(D. Ploog's), both of which solutions have, I think, show-stopping
problems, we need to build an East Wing for the Divine Palace. Are we
ready, boyz? This problem is twofold, a programming problem and a design
problem, so let me approach the design part.
=20
We can go four routes, or some combination of two or more of them:=20
=20
1. expand the temple/minitemple
2. give new gods homes in existing areas
3. give new gods homes in special parts of existing areas
4. give new gods homes in purpose-created areas just for them.
=20

I think it would be too assuming of me to pretend I can dictate
something regarding such a big can of worms, so consider the below "just
opinions".=20
=20
1. Expand the temple/minitemple: Simple. Thus, little room for
introduced bugs and imbalances. A little boring.=20
=20
2. Existing areas: Simple. Thus, little room for introduced bugs and
imbalances. A tiny bit boring, but even less so than expanding the
temple. Limits players, may thus face some opposition ("why do I have to
wait all the way until Snake for the Snake God?! I want him *now*!!").
Most people should bear it well, though, I think. This is not so much a
reason against, as a reminder to ourselves as to what we'll be getting
ourselves into if we do this.
=20
3. New sub-areas in existing areas: Cool and neat. And prone to all the
problems these attributes entail. Will require design work (but it'll be
fun; it's the debugging/rebalancing work that'll be less fun). "Why must
I wait?!"s expectable.
=20
4. New areas: like New sub-areas, only more so.
=20

1. may be most powerful if used alone. That's one for You Programmers to
tell me, not the other way around. Considering that we may well
eventually want to use one or more of the other routes, 1. may well
eventually *won't* be used alone. Thus if its strength really does
depend on being used in isolation, maybe we should avoid it altogether.
This would create an interesting pattern of an "old guard" and "new kids
on the block" among the gods, especially if minitemples become less
hyper-rare (which might not be a bad idea).=20
=20
2. seems like the best balance between ease of not breaking things and
flavour, but there are only so many places we can put things...
=20
(Heh, maybe we could banish the altar of the traditional Nemelex to the
Abyss, whilst keeping him his same old self? It's not like he's of much
use before you're capable of handling a trip there. And it's not like
we're adamant about punishing munchkinhood; otherwise we'd have
eliminated mummies long ago. ("We" as in "the dynasty of subconciously
telepathically intercommunicating Crawl developers past and present,"
y'know.))
=20
3. and 4. set off my Neat Stuff Syndrome alarm. They sure are... neat,
however.
=20
=20
My vote would be for a strict 1. if it brings benefits, or a mix of 1.
and 2., with room for an occasional very-well-argued and fleshed-out 3.
or 4. proposal.=20
=20
=20