Re: [Crawl-ref-discuss] FW: Looking for playtesters; you might be good

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

 Hi Linley!


> - One thing I meant to do but didn't get around to before I=20
> stopped working on Crawl was to add a whole lot more branches=20
> and make most or all of them non-guaranteed (except for Zot,=20
> the temple and the other planes). That was part of the=20
> original plan, which failed mostly because the atrocious=20
> branch code made adding new ones a real pain.

That's interesting to see you say! I'd say the general feeling among the
playership and the newborn Good Ship Developership has been against
tampering with the number of branches, simply out of a feeling that
there was a strong intention behind the current count and that we'd
Better Not Mess with It. Even though we've all wanted to at times. Or at
least, I have. Even with this in mind, I'm still a bit afraid to add new
branches in the sense that any new branch can be a tremendous change in
the overall balance, which I feel is pretty darn good at the moment.


> - I don't understand the 'this weapon is better for the=20
> strong/dextrous' thing. It suggests that by becoming stronger=20
> or more agile you might actually get worse at using=20
> particular weapons. I haven't checked this in the code, but=20
> it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.=20

It predates Stone Soup. The idea was simply to give a bonus to dextrous
characters who used weapons that one might associate in one's mind with
the dextrous (e.g. nimble thieves getting a little extra boost with
their shortswords) and to strong characters using weapons mentally
associated with strength (e.g. trolls with big, heavy clubs), and vice
versa (penalties). Few understand it, many have misunderstood it, few
are really satisfied with it, and the degree of effect is understood by
few, but often called small.=20

In (the unfinished opus) Crawl 4.1, Brent went so far as to dismantle it
entirely, based on his "poorly perceivable systems are worse than none"
principle, a principle that I like a lot. I suspect we'll either beef it
up or also discard it, but we're a group, and I don't feel just
justified to say that we WILL do this or that here.


> - I notice that the map display doesn't preserve the colour=20
> of stairs when there is something on top of them. I added=20
> this feature because it was annoying to lose track of stairs=20
> because an item or monster overwrote them on the map.=20

Hmm. AFAIR (and I play every day most of the time, though I just had a
sev'ral-days' pause), it works as you describe the desired setup.
However, there may have been a build or two where item colors took first
place.

Devteam member David Ploog has an even more radical desire: to make the
stair *symbol* trump item *symbols*.

Ideally, we would find some Gordian Knot Scissors (tm) here.


> - Is Summon Horrible Things permanent?=20

Yes.

I can't remember=20
> whether I left it this way, but it shouldn't be. Among other=20
> things this devalues the main advantage of necromancy versus=20
> summoning, which is permanency.

You're not alone in this viewpoint; it has several fairly vehement
supporters out there. I was always lukewarm on this matter, but it's
hard to argue with the game's founder on the matter, especially when I
don't have any actual arguments to present. :-)


> - Tomb of Doroklohe doesn't really belong; it's an instant=20
> panic button escape route that is infallible (other than=20
> miscasting) in most circumstances, and I tried to avoid panic=20
> buttons. I think I added it in one of my last versions, and I=20
> probably would have removed it or toned it down later. If=20
> there's some way of making it last just a couple of turns, or=20
> limiting it in some other way, that might be best.

ToD is controversial, to be sure. It's also a freakin' level 7 spell,
though.

Lots of discussion has taken place about it, but has produced very
little in the way of consensus.

Brent's 4.1 makes it provide a random number of squares of protection.
It feels kind of sucky that way.

Temporary protection might work. Perhaps gradual "breakdown" due to
instability (see transmutations suggestion below).

A move out of Conjurations would probably be in order as well, as doing
things that radically differ from a school's normal effect is very big
business, which could normally be paid for by a high cost, but it has
little room to grow in that respect since it's already paying a high
cost for being So Good. Yes, yes, ToD Makes Things, which is by
description is the business of Conjurations. But I think what it does by
effect is more important.=20

So I hope that we just declare it by fiat to be transmuting things
instead (extruding the ceiling and floor). :-)=20


> - I remember years ago reading a post in r.g.r.dev from=20
> someone complaining about the defects in the Crawl skill=20
> system, particularly the 'victory dance', and suggesting an=20
> improvement: instead of xp going into a pool and being=20
> allocated as the character does things, the game would=20
> distribute xp among skills as soon as you got it. It would=20
> keep track of which skills the character had exercised in the=20
> last several hundred moves, and allocate xp proportionally.
>=20
> I really liked this idea. It's intuitive, it simplifies the=20
> interface by removing that stupid pool thing that I could=20
> never get working right, it removes the illogical victory=20
> dance, and it puts points into the skills which were used to=20
> get them. It would take plenty of careful balancing to get=20
> right, though.

Interesting, and sounds nice. Pretty damn major, though! Probably 0.3
material (0.2 is going to be about a combat reworking, inspired by 4.1.)


> Please forward this email on to the other developers, if you'd like.

Done!

e.

>=20
> Bye,
> Linley
>=20
>=20
> --- Piper Erik <Eri...@zo...> wrote:
> > =20
> >=20
> > ________________________________
> >=20
> > From: Piper Erik
> > Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 1:29 PM
> > To: 'cap...@fa...'
> > Subject: Looking for playtesters; you might be good
> >=20
> >=20
> > Hi there,
> > =20
> > There's a variant of a venerable turn-based, single-character CRPG=20
> > that needs all the playtesters it can get, and I think you might be=20
> > good for it. You can find out more here:
> > =20
> > http://tinyurl.com/lxe5f
> > =20
> > Cheers,
> > =20
> > Erik Piper ("erisdiscordia")
> >=20
>=20
>=20
> Send instant messages to your online friends=20
> http://au.messenger.yahoo.com=20
>=20