Poisonous chunks were removed???

[Berder]

http://s-z.org/neil/git/?p=crawl.git;a= ... 9f8b6a458b
Summary: Monsters that used to leave poisonous corpses now leave "inedible" corpses.

1. No Damn Food. Oh, you say there's plenty of permafood? If you're a fighter, yes, there's plenty of permafood. If you're a blaster mage trying to cast bolt spells, fireball, or poison arrow in lair with sub-20 int, then not being able to eat poisonous corpses is crippling. Have you ever tried that? There's more than one playstyle and they aren't all light on food. I've played many mages that have had to eat every chunk available for a long time.
2. What about vampires? Spider was already really bad for vampires because they can't drain blood from spider corpses, requiring many vamps to leave a reserve of creatures in lair, so they can return to bottle more blood when they run out halfway through spider. Now hydras (a major blood source in swamp) and almost everything in snake are inedible too.
3. The patch makes specific mention of "ignite poison", implying that it no longer works on all monsters that used to leave poisonous corpses:
   

   Ignite poison checks for innate poison spells now, so monsters nagas will still be affected.

   
   Good thing black mambas and spiny frogs and, I don't know, everything in spider that used to leave poisonous corpses also casts poison spells. Wait, they don't. Ignite poison is now completely useless in lair and spider.
4. Even in games where there is enough permafood, not having chunks means you have to carry all different types of permafood with you, or else go back to where you dropped it. Inventory juggling is a much bigger hassle than chopping up corpses.

If you're going to remove poisonous chunks just have them leave regular chunks. Almost everybody who needed it (and some characters did need it) was previously able to get rPois somehow and eat poisonous chunks, so poisonous chunks acted a lot more like regular chunks than like inedible chunks. To preserve the game balance then all creatures should leave regular chunks.

[bel]

I found the commit really puzzling myself. Firstly, it specifically talks about lair branches (I'm assuming spider and snake, and perhaps swamp marginally) and saying that swapping in rPois to eat poisonous chunks is a hassle. I am wondering, if you have a source of rPois, why would you not be wearing it constantly in snake and spider?

Secondly, the commit talks about permafood as if it's always sufficient, but as Berder says, food is definitely an issue for spellcasters. I remember doing spider without rPois once and I had to switch to lower level conjurations to preserve food.

Thirdly, the commit mentions snake, but spider is not mentioned. Is this a roundabout way to nerf ignite poison?

Edit: Shouldn't this be in GDD and not CYC? I don't know, just asking.

[duvessa]

The intent wasn't to preserve game balance. And ignite poison is being redone right now; if you want changes to come all at once instead of one at a time then maybe don't play trunk.

[bcadren]

If ignite poison checks for spells...wouldn't it end up igniting SOME ALiches and SOME Pan Lords?

[Sar]

It checks for innate posion spells. Should also probably check for venomous melee attack flavour.

[Sandman25]

I realize it sounds crazy from flavor standpoint but it actually could be interesting if poisonousness of chunks depended on player rPois: the chunks would be edible only if you killed the monster without having rPois on yourself. So players would have a choice: equip rPois and get no chunks OR fight without rPois and get the chunk to eat. It could be fun to remove one more no-brainer.

Edit. The chance should depend on damage dealt without rPois of course, to avoid removing ring with rPois before final blow.

[wheals]

It checks for innate posion spells. Should also probably check for venomous melee attack flavour.

It's a good thing it does and has for years, then!

[jejorda2]

I realize it sounds crazy from flavor standpoint but it actually could be interesting if poisonousness of chunks depended on player rPois: the chunks would be edible only if you killed the monster without having rPois on yourself. So players would have a choice: equip rPois and get no chunks OR fight without rPois and get the chunk to eat. It could be fun to remove one more no-brainer.

Edit. The chance should depend on damage dealt without rPois of course, to avoid removing ring with rPois before final blow.

The rPois doesn't make any sense from a flavor standpoint, but something like fire vs. ice damage or blunt vs. edged damage making corpses more likely to drop could make sense. Or perhaps Agony/pain/miama could make corpses that are unsuitable for necromantic purposes.

[Greyr]

Wait so, the chunks are still there just not edible? Like, I can still abuse Animate Undead?

[jejorda2]

There are now "inedible chunks." I think a "why would you want to butcher a poisonous corpse" message would make more sense than generating useless items, since chunks can't be used for anything be eating these days. Butchering a swamp dragon should give some combination of a hide, a skeleton, and nothing.

"Other resistances don't affect what you can eat" Is a good reason to *keep* poisonous chunks. Differentiating resistances is better than having them all be the same except cosmetics.

I understand the interface hassle, but in places where poisonous chunks are prominent, poisonous attacks are as well, so the resistance is useful.

[XuaXua]

Poison chunks don't make a lot of sense. I can chop off the head of a venomous snake. The meat isn't poisoned; the poison is in the poison sacs.

I'm sure there is some non-poisonous meat in a Naga.

[Berder]

Removing chunks means you have to be more concerned about food, not less. Food is not fricking fun. Like now I need to go gather up more food in my already extremely limited inventory, in order to do spider.

[XuaXua]

Like now I need to go gather up more food in my already extremely limited inventory, in order to do spider.

Three slots: 1 open for chunks (just in case), 1 for ration-time food (meat, bread), 1 for immediate-time food (jerky, fruit).

[jejorda2]

Poison chunks don't make a lot of sense. I can chop off the head of a venomous snake. The meat isn't poisoned; the poison is in the poison sacs.

I'm sure there is some non-poisonous meat in a Naga.

Yes, the venomous-poisonous distinction is valuable in reality, and could be used to keep us from having to think about chunks too much as a game mechanic.

[Berder]

Like now I need to go gather up more food in my already extremely limited inventory, in order to do spider.

Three slots: 1 open for chunks (just in case), 1 for ration-time food (meat, bread), 1 for immediate-time food (jerky, fruit).

No - because I don't have enough of one kind of ration to use that only, when I'm getting no food from chunks. That's what I would carry if there were chunks. Also have to worry about possibly getting banished (did meet Louise in spider) - 8 meat rations is likely not enough to last in the abyss.

[bel]

Let's ignore Ignite Poison issue, since it takes just one line in the commit explanation. As I said in my earlier post, it is not clear to me what hassle the commit is referring to:

Why would you swap rPois in and out, when doing spider or snake? You will likely wear rPois all the time, in which case you can eat the chunks. Or you don't have rPois at all. Or look at other branches, where you have both venomous and non-venomous monsters. Then you can just ignore the poisonous chunks, and eat the others. In any case, there is no hassle. I fail to see the logic of making them inedible instead of plain.

Berder listed many other valid arguments, can refer to them for more.

[tasonir]

Let's keep this simple: If you want to remove ring swapping for access to more chunks, then you remove poisonous chunks and make them clean chunks. If you're trying to tighten the food clock, then you remove chunks from monsters. It sounds like the intent was to do #1 but they ended up doing #1 and #2. People are complaining about #2, not #1.

Make snakes/spiders/naga leave clean chunks?

Honestly I don't have much of a problem with #2 myself, as I tend to avoid play styles with high hunger costs, but I can understand the concern. #CheiReasons #+15IntMasterRace

[Hirsch I]

just remove chunks and make hunger a legitimate concern, man.

[Sandman25]

As a player who loves Mu because of no hunger I don't see any problems if spells/rods don't make you hungry at all, you will still die to miscasts, zero mana problem and Sif's channeling if you try to keep your spellcasting too low.
Having spellcasting affect hunger is meant to encourage training it but spellcasting increases MP also so to me it is like if Fighting would substantially increase accuracy when you already train it for HP and damage. Oh, wait...

[mps]

Of course, removing food altogether would be by far the best approach to the "problem" of poisonous chunks being a "hassle." Food is barely a factor and hugely annoying.

[Scalding Steam]

just remove chunks and make hunger a legitimate concern, man.

We all know what happened the last time someone tried to make the food clock actually relevant. Let's not go there again.

[XuaXua]

For this message the author XuaXua has received thanks:
duvessa

I... I don't understand. Were you trying to quote and accidentally hit thanks?