What is wrong with Crawl


If it doesn't fit anywhere else, it belongs here. Also, come here if you just need to get hammered.

Swamp Slogger

Posts: 155

Joined: Friday, 18th April 2014, 16:42

Post Saturday, 31st May 2014, 19:33

What is wrong with Crawl

So it seems to be all the rage lately for people with suggestions to make their own threads to consolidate their ideas. So I figured I'd follow suit to try and give some form and function to all the things I think are wrong with this game. And I know I'm gonna have a lot of detractors, but such is life. If people don't agree with my sentiments, they are free to ignore my thread. In an effort for full disclosure, not all of these are purely my ideas. Some are modified from ideas in other threads. But I think they need as much attention as possible, because they are problems.


Mana Pool soft cap:
Currently, there is a soft cap on mana so when you pass 5O, you start receiving half increases for any more mana beyond that. This is something that serves no real function but to give the illusion of usefulness. If mana is supposed to be a limited resource, and players are meant to be required to find alternatives like worshiping Sif or a crystal ball of energy; then this would be served much better as a hard cap. If the intent is to nerf magic, this is a very obtuse and ineffective approach and it’d be better to actually tackle the magical spells that are the problem. This makes the softcap more of just an inconvenience than an actual limiting factor. And any argument that can be made about the balancing of magic is thrown out the window when things like Vehemet are brought into the picture that largely trivializes the concept of the soft cap in any context. But being shoehorned into a God like that is a bad thing. The biggest problem with this cap though, other than being a general nuisance for no actual gameplay benefit, is that it is a massive limiting factor for player choice. It trivializes the benefits of high MP races in the mid to lategame, which is bad enough. But it also massively harms itemization choice. If a player decides that an extra 9 MP is worth a ring slot over something else, they should have that option. But when it’s a mere 4, it isn’t even a choice. And that’s to say nothing of artifacts that have +MP on their list of attributes. So in short, this soft cap does nothing to add balance to the game, and just adds frustration and limits player choice, and should therefore be removed.


Distortion Brand:
Distortion Brand is an outlier that causes a lot of big problems in a lot of ways because it is always a possibility. If you are an average player, optimal play patterns dictate that you ignore the fact that this brand exists and play as if it doesn’t, because of how rare it is. But if you’re on a streak and want to keep every character alive, then any enemy with any glowing weapon needs to be treated as a massive and imminent threat. They suddenly need to be top priority because of the chance that they will suddenly effectively instant-kill you by banishing you if they get an attack off. When in reality the odds of this are astronomically small, they are still considered by streakers because perma-death. This leads to extremely frustrating gameplay for the hardcore players, and also random ‘unavoidable’ deaths for the average player every now and this. I shouldn’t need to explain why this should be unacceptable in terms of enemies. But then there’s the problem with wield-IDing on top. Again because of the extremely unlikely occurrence of this brand existing, suddenly the whole game changes because it is the only thing that makes wield-IDing a bad idea(assuming you have remove curse scrolls(. This makes it so if you want to be safe you have to use an ID scroll on every ego weapon you find, which is extremely inefficient and scarcity makes it hard to do. There are so many things that could be done to fix this, from making Distortion unique in that it auto-IDs, removing the abyss-related things to distortion, removing ID-ing altogether as many people are advocating for, making distortion an artifact-only brand, etc. But as it stands right now it is an extremely rare occurrence that completely changes the way people play or is ignored and used as a frustrating instant-death when it does show up.


Damage Variance:
Unfortunately for me, Tasonir posted an entire thread about this a few days ago, which is linked here. But it is still a major problem that I’d like to address. Damage varies too much in this game, with many damages being based off a single die roll that can go from 1 to ridiculously large numbers. This is compounded by the fact that the way AC works is randomized off a similar die roll, so the possibility exists to have any reduction reduced by almost nothing or a very large number. This inconsistency is really bad in a game about strategy and permadeath. It is hard to plan an optimal strategy when an enemy is doing on average ~3 damage to you, and suddenly they do 47 because they got a good roll and your AC roll was bad. And while you could argue(and i’m sure the elitists will( that you could just be safer, and always plan for the worst roll possible, it does not make this a smart or sensible design decision. Players don’t want to assume their armor is useless. Players don’t want to feel like they invested an Octopode level of ring slots to get 38 AC and then get one-shot anyways because it was effectively ignored by an unlucky toss of the dice. This is a deep problem that would take a lot of work to fix. Lowering variance on enemy attacks would be a start, but that is a lot of time and coding to go through each and every attack in the game to minimize it. I think we’d be better served to take a closer look at the way armor and shielding work and make them more consistent, as well as having more pronounced GDR to make use of as well. Tl;dr every enemy shouldn’t have the opportunity to be Yuif if luck is on their side.


Torment:
I’m not sure exactly how to approach torment from an objective standpoint, but Torment is extremely poorly designed. Percentage based damage in a game with such limited healing options is a poor thought to begin with. Percentage based damage in a game with such limited healing options than can’t effectively be reduced or mitigated(15% is not nearly enough for ‘maximum resist’( is ten times worse. It ignores magic resist, it ignores direct LoS, there is no REAL way to combat it outside of extremely niche things like lich form or worshiping kiku. And that’s the problem. On an average character, there is no way to mitigate it, no way to stop it, you are going to get hit by it, and it’s going to take out over a third of your health in best case. It lacks counterplay(fog isn’t enough, especially when stairs are involved like tomb..and since you’re likely to be hit the turn they come into LoS(. It lacks strategy. There needs to be more that can be done about it, simple as that. The tomb isn’t challenging because it’s challenging. The tomb is challenging because it is so densely packed with the worst designed mechanic in the game.


Binary Runic Gameplay:
That header probably conveys very poorly what I’m trying to say, so I’ll try to spell it out. Right now there is a fairly binary system in place between the 3/4-rune win and the 15-rune win. People will either do the bare minimum, and win the game, or they will go “into extended” and probably do all of it. And while that in and of itself isn’t a problem, the problem is that transition and how extended is designed. Going from Vaults/Slime into Pan/Hell is a massive difficulty spike. Regardless of how easy or hard you think the endgame is, the transition could be smoother. And I think this is primarily because of how the extended game is designed. The popular sentiment among most players is “If I’m strong enough for <insert endgame branch> then I’m strong enough for all the others.” There is a very flat mesa-eque difficulty curve after that initial spike. Everything there feels kinda samey. And this is the root cause of older players thinking the game is too long. It isn’t that it’s too long, it’s just that there’s this expanse of time where the enemies don’t really get any more threatening. The solution isn’t to shorten the amount of gameplay but rather vary it. This is a problem I haven’t fully thought out a solution to, but I know a good place that we can start with(again, idea taken from another thread(. Take the demonic rune out of Pan, and instead have a rune at the bottom of Elf. This would at least give some sense of progression between the “easy” runes and the “hard” runes. It’s definitely still on the easy side, but players could get more than the bare minimum before having to dive into the hardest areas in the game, which a lot of newer players aren’t prepared for.


Species:
There are a few species that need work. All three of these species share common problems. They are all considered by the community based on poll results both extremely underpowered as well as extremely unfun to play. And that’s a problem. A race can be one or the other and still survive in the context of crawl. But when their downside is that they are bad at ‘everything’ then their upside can’t exist. And when there’s no strengths to play to, there is no reason to play them. Formicids get a lot of flak for being terrible, but they at least have some things going for them. They have some solid aptitudes and a few unique attributes that give you a unique experience and allow you to at least attempt to compensate for their glaring flaws. But these three don’t really have that, they are just bad.

1. Mummies. First and foremost is a race near and dear to my heart. Mummies, the unofficial challenge class of crawl. It is that pedigree that makes the mummy the hardest to try and change. For some unknown reason, people like mummies being both terrible and unfun to have something to make fun of. It’s a terrible place for the race to be in; because again, ‘bad at everything’ is a really poor design decision. They have the worst aptitudes across the board, slowest exp gain, and a host of negative attributes not the least of which is the inability to quaff. And in exchange for that, they get to be undead and…nope, that’s it. And undead in itself is a mixed bag because of the ‘dispel undead’ vulnerability, God and transformation limitations, etc. Mummies need a purpose, a function, something they can excel at.

2. Demigods. A while back I did the math on demigods bonus stats versus negative aptitudes and found that on average humans(the most mundane race( were better than demigods at nearly everything assuming equal exp. And at worst they were very close. This is to say nothing about all the races that push past humans in terms of anything. In the end you’re left with a race designed not to specialize in anything(because specialists would want to choose a race that is good at that thing(, but which gets such negative returns on all his skills that he effectively has to specialize to be able to function at anything. You end up getting a human that is worse than a human in every way save for base HP/MP, that also can’t worship a God(which is a major hindrance(. If anything, this should be the challenge race, given how generic the concept currently is. If that were the case I could see it staying how it is(and in which case, please buff mummies for the love of Cheibriados(. But there’s so much design space that could be utilized for a “Demigod.” They are descendants of Gods, they should be strong. But they are frail, meak, and just…bad.

3. Ghouls. Ghouls get ignored a lot, mostly because they are both bad and unfun, but also because they lack the identity that mummies do. They continue the ‘bad at everything’ theme of the previous two, with aptitudes -1 almost across the board, but also have the worst base stats in the game on top. They get to specialize a bit better than the other two as they have at least a few redeeming aptitudes of 1, but their base stats being so weak, and their growths being so poor, means that even the things they are good at…they aren’t very good at. Add to this an extremely finicky and micromanagey food system(way worse than old Nemelex, what’s with that devs?(, and you have a race that nobody really wants to play as.

There’s a reason these three races consistently show up with among the lowest playrates and winrates. They need overhauls. They need tweaks. They need some form of advantage to give them a reason to be played over their counterparts that are almost strictly better besides “I want to be sub-optimal to make this harder”(because most players don’t want that, and those that do don’t want it until they’ve played for a long time and gotten very good(.

But this thread took a while to write up, and I'm sure it's full of typos, bad grammar, missed points. But overall...thoughts?

For this message the author NessOnett has received thanks:
treerex5
User avatar

Tomb Titivator

Posts: 895

Joined: Saturday, 15th June 2013, 23:54

Post Saturday, 31st May 2014, 19:42

Re: What is wrong with Crawl

Just to add to your species part.
In my surveys, which drew in about 50 or so votes(plenty).
Mummy was voted weakest.
Then for 'fun', Mummy was voted most boring. Ghoul and Demigod followed with a 2 out of 5 'meh' rating in the fun column.

I'm in the boat that believes the Demigod could be a lot more interesting with an overhaul, and that there are dozens of cool undead species out there more interesting than ghoul.
User avatar

Zot Zealot

Posts: 947

Joined: Monday, 15th April 2013, 15:10

Location: Augsburg, Germany

Post Saturday, 31st May 2014, 19:57

One thing about difficulty in extended ("Binary Runic Gameplay"), I only want to discuss pan and hells here.

Pan, although containing foes of about the same difficulty as hell's 7th floors, is easier for the following reasons:

  • there are no hell effects
  • cTele is available
  • you can dig tunnels in most situations
I agree that pan/hell are harder than the main dungeon, but there is still a difference between pan and hell.
User avatar

Eringya's Employee

Posts: 1782

Joined: Friday, 7th October 2011, 19:24

Location: Athens, Greece

Post Saturday, 31st May 2014, 19:58

Re: What is wrong with Crawl

Ghouls I think are far from underpowered, the only thing that keeps me from playing them more is the amount of times I have to press e when playing one. I've won GhCK and lost an extended Ghoul to a pan lord's Dispel undead. I still play Deep Dwarves less. :P

On the other hand, mummies suck. Necromancy enhancers are pretty much pointless imo, they come too late and Mummy early game is terrible and that's the hard part of the game. But you will be underpowered all the way up to the late game, since your apts are horrible.

Vampires I haven't really got into much. I sometimes have luck playing them as long blades Berserkers. :P

All the undead races are gimmicky and tedious to play imo, Vampires are the least tedious, unless you're trying to stay bloodless or something like that.
MuCK;
  Code:
612 | D:1      | Xom revived you
614 | D:1      | Xom revived you
614 | D:1      | Slain by a gnoll

Sar

User avatar

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 6418

Joined: Friday, 6th July 2012, 12:48

Post Saturday, 31st May 2014, 20:03

Re: What is wrong with Crawl

NessOnett wrote:Torment... there is no REAL way to combat it outside of extremely niche things like lich form or worshiping kiku

Here's an excellent post by evilmike on the multiple ways you have to deal with torment: https://crawl.develz.org/tavern/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3443&p=43566&hilit=torment#p43566
For what it's worth, I think that torment by itself is good, but the amount of postend branches that utilize it is probably not as good.
NessOnett wrote:And this is the root cause of older players thinking the game is too long.

I can't speak for all the "older players" but when I say Crawl is too long, I don't even think about postend (because I don't do postend). 3 runes Crawl is too long. Lair branches are too long, Lair is too long, some other branches are too long. Probably postend is too long too (especially since some levels of it are infinite!), but I don't have to do postend to win.
NessOnett wrote:Species... They are all considered by the community based on poll results both extremely underpowered

Judging the powerlevel of anything by a community vote is not a very good way, otherwise, as minmay said before, we'd have to buff Ely (one of the least popular gods!) and nerf Chei. For example, out of 3 species you mention, only mummies are really bad! I don't want to comment on species being "unfun" because "fun" is not an argument (I won 4 Mummies and those were fairly fun games).

Edit: I think Mummies are one of the least tedious races to play in Crawl, period. They're quite hard though!

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 3037

Joined: Sunday, 2nd January 2011, 02:06

Post Saturday, 31st May 2014, 20:11

Re: What is wrong with Crawl

NessOnett wrote:Torment:
I’m not sure exactly how to approach torment from an objective standpoint, but Torment is extremely poorly designed. Percentage based damage in a game with such limited healing options is a poor thought to begin with. Percentage based damage in a game with such limited healing options than can’t effectively be reduced or mitigated(15% is not nearly enough for ‘maximum resist’( is ten times worse. It ignores magic resist, it ignores direct LoS, there is no REAL way to combat it outside of extremely niche things like lich form or worshiping kiku. And that’s the problem. On an average character, there is no way to mitigate it, no way to stop it, you are going to get hit by it, and it’s going to take out over a third of your health in best case. It lacks counterplay(fog isn’t enough, especially when stairs are involved like tomb..and since you’re likely to be hit the turn they come into LoS(. It lacks strategy. There needs to be more that can be done about it, simple as that. The tomb isn’t challenging because it’s challenging. The tomb is challenging because it is so densely packed with the worst designed mechanic in the game.


I usually block Torment damage with my character's non-gender-specific manliness. It's a perfect example of a game mechanic that feels scary without actually being particularly dangerous. Almost all sources of Torment are incredibly fragile, and it naturally reduces its own damage to you every time a monster tries to use it on you. I don't even remember the last time I bothered picking up Necromutation before going into Pan/Hell/Tomb, and I bring Kiku to these areas only if she's been with me since Temple depth. If you are being seriously inconvenienced with Torment in a normal 15-Rune game, either you ran into some sort of freak event or you have more serious problems with your build or strategy to worry about.

NessOnett wrote:Binary Runic Gameplay:
That header probably conveys very poorly what I’m trying to say, so I’ll try to spell it out. Right now there is a fairly binary system in place between the 3/4-rune win and the 15-rune win. People will either do the bare minimum, and win the game, or they will go “into extended” and probably do all of it. And while that in and of itself isn’t a problem, the problem is that transition and how extended is designed. Going from Vaults/Slime into Pan/Hell is a massive difficulty spike. Regardless of how easy or hard you think the endgame is, the transition could be smoother. And I think this is primarily because of how the extended game is designed. The popular sentiment among most players is “If I’m strong enough for <insert endgame branch> then I’m strong enough for all the others.” There is a very flat mesa-eque difficulty curve after that initial spike. Everything there feels kinda samey. And this is the root cause of older players thinking the game is too long. It isn’t that it’s too long, it’s just that there’s this expanse of time where the enemies don’t really get any more threatening. The solution isn’t to shorten the amount of gameplay but rather vary it. This is a problem I haven’t fully thought out a solution to, but I know a good place that we can start with(again, idea taken from another thread(. Take the demonic rune out of Pan, and instead have a rune at the bottom of Elf. This would at least give some sense of progression between the “easy” runes and the “hard” runes. It’s definitely still on the easy side, but players could get more than the bare minimum before having to dive into the hardest areas in the game, which a lot of newer players aren’t prepared for.


Pan is already mostly easier than Depths for many characters, and it would be able to drop the 'mostly' qualifier for some of those if it was guaranteed not to drop the player into a vault on entry into a new level. Remember, you aren't required to kill the uniques to get the Runes.


NessOnett wrote:3. Ghouls. Ghouls get ignored a lot, mostly because they are both bad and unfun, but also because they lack the identity that mummies do. They continue the ‘bad at everything’ theme of the previous two, with aptitudes -1 almost across the board, but also have the worst base stats in the game on top. They get to specialize a bit better than the other two as they have at least a few redeeming aptitudes of 1, but their base stats being so weak, and their growths being so poor, means that even the things they are good at…they aren’t very good at. Add to this an extremely finicky and micromanagey food system(way worse than old Nemelex, what’s with that devs?(, and you have a race that nobody really wants to play as.


Ghouls are unpopular because their chunk-eating mechanics are intrusive and obnoxious. They are actually quite strong. -1 aptitude is actually an average aptitude, and it is more than good enough to serve as your main aptitude for your build. Ghouls get quite a few useful bonuses on the side, but nothing that makes up for wanting to carry dozens of chunks everywhere you go.

For this message the author KoboldLord has received thanks:
Lasty

dck

Vestibule Violator

Posts: 1650

Joined: Tuesday, 30th July 2013, 11:29

Post Saturday, 31st May 2014, 20:23

Re: What is wrong with Crawl

Right I would like to mention that I really did think those surveys were just silly stuff for laughs and if they actually are intended to be wielded as if they had any sort of weight behind them then HA.

Second of all addressing random points of the OP that look really off to me:

-Distortion isn't poorly designed and being banished isn't any sort of "instant kill" by any extent of the definition. Abyss is a bad place and working around it not the most fun thing ever, but still keeping in mind that glowy weapons could be distortion isn't some huge mental toll and it isn't poor design since a ton of branded weapons are potentially very dangerous and you are always made aware of it by the game already.
To give an example of what is actual poor design because you have to keep a ton of things in mind at all times I would say muck. Basically you have to be aware at all stages about all the potential horrible events that could take place and you have block them as well as you can; even then most of the really awful stuff is simple to block and the rest you can't because you're allergic to liquid, so even in the one concrete combo of crawl where you do have to keep a ton of shit that could happen in mind it isn't all that terrible.
Furthermore, making distortion auto-ID on seeing it or any of those other horrible ideas is missing the point of the brand completely. Distortion is an incredibly strong brand with a very mild price to pay for and most character are well served by it; however yeah, if you wield a glowing whip when you have a +7 elec lajatang you might be pissed about it. Perhaps the solution to that would be knowing that the distortion brand exists and ID'ing your weapons appropriately with the knowledge in mind. Again being aware of basic mechanics doesn't seem like a terrible thing to me.

-Torment and hellfire are designed to deal with the literally unkillable characters that do post-end by the path of the least resistance and as a big spook to make them think they're in danger, many things that are supposed to be threatening rely on this to hit you a couple of times so they can have a legitimate chance at actually killing you and torment is simply much too easily avoided and negated (mostly via corners haste and killing the tormentor) for it to be some sort of countdown to certain death. I used to believe it was bad for people who were doing pan/hells in 3 rune games but then actual 3 rune games doing those taught me it's still just a mechanic to keep you from forgetting tactics exist and I found it fun in the early game priest way.

-Mummies: "blah blah blah mummies are terrible at everything" They aren't. They have slow skill growth compared to other races but they still have a couple of solid points like their decent HP and good defensive possibilities and frankly for crawl's standards that is good enough that you're still with everyone else in the broken power-curve bus.

-Dg: Right well all of that is not true and it ignores the player strength relative to depth, which I suppose is understandable since Dg are great at that.

-Gh: Gh are fine and fun because you're for the most part a normal guy and when you get smacked up in a fight you press e a couple of times and you're ready to roll again. They're basically better Vp now that Invis isn't available in D: 1 every game.

My thoughts are that I don't know how you get to use this authoritarian tone of what "needs tweaks and overhauls" while being so goddamn wrong on so many things.

For this message the author dck has received thanks: 3
cerebovssquire, Hirsch I, sgrunt

Zot Zealot

Posts: 1031

Joined: Friday, 26th April 2013, 19:52

Location: AZ, USA

Post Saturday, 31st May 2014, 20:30

Re: What is wrong with Crawl

My thoughts are that I don't know how you get to use this authoritarian tone of what "needs tweaks and overhauls" while being so goddamn wrong on so many things.

Being loud tends to be more persuasive than being right, both on the internet and in real life.

dck

Vestibule Violator

Posts: 1650

Joined: Tuesday, 30th July 2013, 11:29

Post Saturday, 31st May 2014, 20:42

Re: What is wrong with Crawl

Good thing I am both!
\o/

For this message the author dck has received thanks: 4
Arrhythmia, duvessa, sgrunt, WalkerBoh
User avatar

Abyss Ambulator

Posts: 1192

Joined: Friday, 18th April 2014, 01:41

Post Saturday, 31st May 2014, 21:01

Re: What is wrong with Crawl

Mummy defensive apts are terrible, as are their stat growths, I don't think there are many (if any) races with worse defensive potential; I'm not sure how you conclude that they have good defensive possibilities. You can say that crawl is so easy that even mummy defenses are "good", though, but that has more to do with crawl being a bad game as a "tactical roguelike" than anything.
remove food

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 2995

Joined: Tuesday, 28th June 2011, 20:41

Location: Berlin

Post Saturday, 31st May 2014, 21:02

Re: What is wrong with Crawl

tabstorm wrote:Mummy defensive apts are terrible, as are their stat growths, I don't think there are many (if any) races with worse defensive potential; I'm not sure how you conclude that they have good defensive possibilities.


They can wear plate armour.

dck

Vestibule Violator

Posts: 1650

Joined: Tuesday, 30th July 2013, 11:29

Post Saturday, 31st May 2014, 21:05

Re: What is wrong with Crawl

Mu have very decent HPs, good slots and good enough dex. Why would their defensive potential be bad?
User avatar

Abyss Ambulator

Posts: 1192

Joined: Friday, 18th April 2014, 01:41

Post Saturday, 31st May 2014, 21:06

Re: What is wrong with Crawl

cerebovssquire wrote:
tabstorm wrote:Mummy defensive apts are terrible, as are their stat growths, I don't think there are many (if any) races with worse defensive potential; I'm not sure how you conclude that they have good defensive possibilities.


They can wear plate armour.

Here are the reasonable candidates for races with worse defensive potential than mummies, I think.
I can name only 5 races that I think are arguably worse:
Fe
Op
Tr
Og
Dr

I'm not sure I would agree that Og, Tr, Dr have worse defenses all due to inability to wear plate, but someone might be able to convince me.

edit: I should actually include DE and HE (and maybe Te despite their EV bonus) and remove Og/Tr due to max HP considerations.

My point is this: When you say that Mu has good defensive potential, if you mean that it is good relative to most other races, I don't agree, but if you mean "They can get good defenses", of course they can, since experience is so abundant in crawl.
Last edited by tabstorm on Saturday, 31st May 2014, 21:36, edited 4 times in total.
remove food

Sar

User avatar

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 6418

Joined: Friday, 6th July 2012, 12:48

Post Saturday, 31st May 2014, 21:11

Re: What is wrong with Crawl

Every time I play a Mummy, I get positively surprised by their HP. I guess I expect everything about Mu to suck, but their HP and Fighting apt are alright.

Swamp Slogger

Posts: 155

Joined: Friday, 18th April 2014, 16:42

Post Saturday, 31st May 2014, 21:27

Re: What is wrong with Crawl

dck wrote:My thoughts are that I don't know how you get to use this authoritarian tone of what "needs tweaks and overhauls" while being so goddamn wrong on so many things.

I was thinking the exact same thing.

Trying to argue that mummies are good defensively when they have base health(read average(, lowest MR possible, no stat gains, and negative armor and evasion stat scaling means their defenses. are objectively below average. read: "bad." So while they are better defensively than others, they are still bad at it. This is a fact.

And everything I posted was either a fact(like results from a survey which are objective and measurable(, or are opinions which I freely stated in the beginning...which can't be wrong by the definition of what an opinion is. So telling outright lies(like mummies are good defensively( and then saying I'm wrong instead of posting any actual truthful counterpoints is...sad.
Last edited by NessOnett on Saturday, 31st May 2014, 21:45, edited 1 time in total.

For this message the author NessOnett has received thanks:
skjarl

dck

Vestibule Violator

Posts: 1650

Joined: Tuesday, 30th July 2013, 11:29

Post Saturday, 31st May 2014, 21:30

Re: What is wrong with Crawl

Dr have a ton of hps and a ton AC built in that doesn't even affect EV negatively so that's somewhat out of place.
Cats are kind of awful but then they have rDeath, speed and and a free defense line to make up for the low AC and hps so they also don't fit a lot either.
Og and Tr have a ton of hps and incredible offense, paired with not a lot of drawbacks when it comes to gaining "actual defenses".

I don't think any race could be said to be as bad as Mu when it comes to defending themselves (because other races can drink), but it still doesn't make sense to abstract the "defenses" from the whole race because many other factors play a role on how a race in question is in terms of survivability. Mu have good enough survivability that saying they have bad defenses is not true. Indeed if they could drink they would be over Op and DE at least.

e: hi nesonett another. thing you are wrong about is mu MR, their racial MR is actually a. lot higher than "standard" )and higher than than the lowest possible. for sure)
Last edited by dck on Saturday, 31st May 2014, 21:33, edited 1 time in total.

For this message the author dck has received thanks:
cerebovssquire

Sar

User avatar

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 6418

Joined: Friday, 6th July 2012, 12:48

Post Saturday, 31st May 2014, 21:33

Re: What is wrong with Crawl

NessOnett wrote:lowest MR possible

But that's wrong.

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 8685

Joined: Sunday, 5th May 2013, 08:25

Post Saturday, 31st May 2014, 21:40

Re: What is wrong with Crawl

are you guys reading NessOnett posts for the first time or something

Swamp Slogger

Posts: 143

Joined: Friday, 15th March 2013, 23:33

Post Sunday, 1st June 2014, 08:13

Re: What is wrong with Crawl

NessOnett wrote:So telling outright lies(like mummies are good defensively( and then saying I'm wrong instead of posting any actual truthful counterpoints is...sad.


Outright lies like... Demigods are frail?

edit: just to be clear that I'm making a point, not starting another stupid argument, neither of those statements are "outright lies" depending on how you frame them but my quote is certainly as arguably false as yours, so why don't we not say things like "outright lies"
User avatar

Spider Stomper

Posts: 195

Joined: Thursday, 14th November 2013, 18:48

Post Sunday, 1st June 2014, 09:11

Re: What is wrong with Crawl

Ghouls are a cool and unique race, and i dont think anything is wrong with them past the "wait for your food to rot & you need to eat all the time" - problem.
I'm all for Demigod rework and a slight buff to Mummies

Torment gets overused a lot. I do not think its a bad mechanic by itself but because it happens too often, it just leads to running away and 55555555555555 way too much.

I also think the length of the main dungeon is fine as it is.
Hell diving could be shortened though.
And the demonic rune could be moved (or just added) to a portal level that always appears on Elf3.
User avatar

Blades Runner

Posts: 538

Joined: Saturday, 15th February 2014, 03:22

Location: NYC

Post Sunday, 1st June 2014, 11:58

Re: What is wrong with Crawl

KittenInMyCerealz wrote:Ghouls are a cool and unique race, and i dont think anything is wrong with them past the "wait for your food to rot & you need to eat all the time" - problem.
I'm all for Demigod rework and a slight buff to Mummies

Torment gets overused a lot. I do not think its a bad mechanic by itself but because it happens too often, it just leads to running away and 55555555555555 way too much.

I also think the length of the main dungeon is fine as it is.
Hell diving could be shortened though.
And the demonic rune could be moved (or just added) to a portal level that always appears on Elf3.

Personally I hate the torment mechanics but that's me.

Swamp Slogger

Posts: 155

Joined: Friday, 18th April 2014, 16:42

Post Monday, 2nd June 2014, 08:28

Re: What is wrong with Crawl

dck wrote:Good thing I am both!
\o/

You may be loud, but you're pretty much objectively wrong on everything. And that has been proven. But hey, you're welcome to not listen to me. Just suggestions. I remember way back when I said similar things about weight and item destruction needing to be removed. Met similar responses from the same people. And look at where we are now. But if you're gonna let your personal dislike of me keep you from seeing objective truth then it's not worth my time trying to educate you. Even though you so desperately need it.

Sar wrote:
NessOnett wrote:lowest MR possible

But that's wrong.

Blame the wiki, has Mummies listed at 3 instead of 5(you think by now you people would get your shit together when it comes to that(. Doesn't change enough though to stop them from being objectively weak defensively. Minor MR doesn't make up for awful aptitudes across the board.

duvessa wrote:are you guys reading NessOnett posts for the first time or something

And here's Duvessa with her trademark: "I can find no actual faults in your post, but my ego is still bruised from all the dozens of times you've proved me wrong in the past, so I'm going to try an slander you out of spite and hope nobody realizes I hav no argument. There some reason you feel to need to follow me around like a lost little puppy crying and whining about how I'm better than you?

zardo wrote:
NessOnett wrote:So telling outright lies(like mummies are good defensively( and then saying I'm wrong instead of posting any actual truthful counterpoints is...sad.


Outright lies like... Demigods are frail?

edit: just to be clear that I'm making a point, not starting another stupid argument, neither of those statements are "outright lies" depending on how you frame them but my quote is certainly as arguably false as yours, so why don't we not say things like "outright lies"

Never said demigods were frail. Another "outright lie" is your accusation that I did. I said they were on par with/slightly worse than humans at almost everything, which they are. The math has been done on that.

Sar

User avatar

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 6418

Joined: Friday, 6th July 2012, 12:48

Post Monday, 2nd June 2014, 08:41

Re: What is wrong with Crawl

NessOnett wrote:Blame the wiki, has Mummies listed at 3 instead of 5

I'm sorry I objectively expected somebody campaigning for objective Mummy reform to actually objectively play an objectivist Mummy at some objective point. I guess my math was wrong on that, huh?

Dungeon Master

Posts: 1609

Joined: Thursday, 16th December 2010, 21:54

Post Monday, 2nd June 2014, 11:24

Re: What is wrong with Crawl

NessOnett wrote:Never said demigods were frail. Another "outright lie" is your accusation that I did.

NessOnett wrote:2. Demigods. [...] They are descendants of Gods, they should be strong. But they are frail, meak, and just…bad.


This thread is a good demonstration of how not to discuss your opinion on something.

For this message the author Kate has received thanks: 7
dck, Laraso, Lasty, moocowmoocow, rockygargoyle, sgrunt, tedric

Return to Crazy Yiuf's Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by ST Software for PTF.