The Tavern

If you want to get a sense for how it would play out to make this change, try playing through a game where after going down stairs to a new level, you always immediately go back up and descend another stair, since that's quite nearly the same as the change we're discussing. My guess is that if you did this for 1000 games in a row, you would probably not see a single example of dying after going down stairs without getting a chance to act. I base this assertion on the fact that I've never seen anything of the kind happen over the course of probably thousands of games, a significant portion of which were played while I was 1) bad at the game and 2) also intentionally taking every down stair I saw as soon as I saw it so that I'd have the level below mapped in case I was shafted.

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!

Also, I'm going to do it with felids of chei only.

I'm still waiting on someone to win a FeEn^Qaz.

hey i actually died once to taking a stair up and ending next to a hydra on a HE with no defenses, though I did get some actions before I died

Also, just because you died right after going down the stairs doesn't mean it was an unavoidable death. You could have gotten better defenses before doing so.

crate wrote:stairs are already the most broken thing in crawl, might as well embrace it

Isn't the rejection of this sort of attitude an essential part of what separates Crawl from many other Roguelikes. Part of what I like about Crawl is that it's willing to reject many of the arguably broken mechanics that make games like Nethack so frustrating, and that the devs don't hesitate to remove or fix something broken no matter how much people have come to accept and live with the broken mechanic. Whether or not consistent stair mechanics or reducing unavoidable deaths should be considered preferable, I don't think "stairs are broken, may as well embrace" is an acceptable argument for either side. If we embraced everything broken about Crawl, then patches would be a lot smaller and we'd just see them adding things like races and classes rather than fundamentally reworking long-standing game mechanics like 0.15 did.

The biggest problems with stairs in crawl are not fixable because if you fix them you make crawl into not-crawl.

There are possibly some ways to improve stairs, but the ones I would suggest are not going to be implemented (like "destroy all items on the ground when a player takes stairs").

Maybe there's a way to do it. Make stairs become continuous portals, flat pathways through simple arches, still represented by a single object. The rise and drop of the dungeon depths is assumed natural and irregular to some degree, so there are no "stairs" proper. The levels just overlap the way the do. The entrance that used to be stairs would now function as an open pathway for wandering monsters, too. The action of taking a former stair (now entryway) also could be augmented by a new, smaller, intermediary map that joins two respective entryways on adjoining levels (explaining their unmatched positioning, even), which could themselves be subject to some good (but small) vaultmaking ideas. So the time it takes to traverse this entryway then becomes exactly the speed of your own movement, and once you awaken anything on the other side - or on the inside! - the (former) stairs are no longer a retreat, but at most only a single block bottleneck.

Just throwing it out there, off the top of my head.

Lasty wrote:My guess is that if you did this for 1000 games in a row, you would probably not see a single example of dying after going down stairs without getting a chance to act.

Maybe, but there can be plenty of ways for it to end up essentially doomed upon the moment of stepping down. I get damiac's point. It just happened to me on Snake:5 last night, OgWz splat at XL20 or so. On the second descent (after rejecting the first option and moving immediately to another), I landed adjacent to several yellow-titled monsters. Adjacent. Okay, so what are my options? A lot of uncertainty and guesswork for anyone lacking an encyclopedic knowledge about the game, and no small measure of plain old luck will be required to survive. It was a very messy and prolonged death, during which I made numerous tactical errors that total experts would love to throw at me, but I would appreciate being spared. Anyway, it happens.

How about at least making the adjacent squares off-limits? Earlier in same game, an anaconda was adjacent and began constricting immediately. Didn't kill me, but maybe that was just because I was playing an ogre. Imagine Vault:5 with monsters on adjacent squares. Well, sometimes, even if infrequently, something like Vault:5 spawns at random, I think.

I think the clear solution here is to redraw the floor every time the player enters it.

Also move O:3 to D:1.

This new (better) version will be called 'Crand'.

Aule wrote:
Lasty wrote:My guess is that if you did this for 1000 games in a row, you would probably not see a single example of dying after going down stairs without getting a chance to act.

Maybe, but there can be plenty of ways for it to end up essentially doomed upon the moment of stepping down. I get damiac's point. It just happened to me on Snake:5 last night, OgWz splat at XL20 or so. On the second descent (after rejecting the first option and moving immediately to another), I landed adjacent to several yellow-titled monsters. Adjacent. Okay, so what are my options? A lot of uncertainty and guesswork for anyone lacking an encyclopedic knowledge about the game, and no small measure of plain old luck will be required to survive. It was a very messy and prolonged death, during which I made numerous tactical errors that total experts would love to throw at me, but I would appreciate being spared. Anyway, it happens.

How about at least making the adjacent squares off-limits? Earlier in same game, an anaconda was adjacent and began constricting immediately. Didn't kill me, but maybe that was just because I was playing an ogre. Imagine Vault:5 with monsters on adjacent squares. Well, sometimes, even if infrequently, something like Vault:5 spawns at random, I think.

So I just watched this death and here are a few comments.

1) This doesn't actually apply to this topic anyway, since you got plenty of actions on snake:5
2) There were a lot of things you could've done better, even if I limit myself to just what happens after you take the second staircase to snake:5. The most obvious things: teleport (with how many teleports and fog scrolls you had you were very likely to land somewhere perfectly fine before you die), or use your scroll of summoning (they're very very good). I think your first random blink was a really bad idea too.
3) The first staircase that scared you off was pretty much harmless (4 black mambas scare you in snake:5? Really?) even if we remove the guaranteed-first-move you get.
4) This character looks bad for being xl20 and in snake (but see 2 and 3, this is after them for a reason).

crate wrote:3) The first staircase that scared you off was pretty much harmless (4 black mambas scare you in snake:5? Really?) even if we remove the guaranteed-first-move you get.

So I'm faulted for being abundantly cautious and seeking a less obtrusive welcoming party? Interesting. Ironically, that may be the closest truth. Snake:1 through 4 were such cakewalks that the sudden caution should have not occurred because it was unwarranted, and then the rest could have been stairdanced away from there.

But thanks for the expert tips.

The cautious move is actually staying near the stairs that you know are safe (the one with the mambas) since you're not going to die to those monsters (and you couldve even done something like draw the 4 mambas up the stairs and kill them there to eliminate noise, if you wanted to really be cautious). No single monster moving into your los from that spot would've been a threat, though if you got a combination of both a guardian serpent and an anaconda maybe that would've been dangerous (but you have fear for the anaconda, so idk).

Yes, I'd say it's usually a mistake to go down a staircase to snake:5, see nothing dangerous, and then decide to use a different staircase anyway.

Did you guys not read where he specified he didn't want your opinion? I mean sure you are totally right, but Aule (like many here nowadays, myself included) is a newish (and perhaps bad) player. If he says he is not interested in why he died then take his word for it. (I expect he has tired of the advice after realizing it is going above his head to some degree.) The point is he objected to the adjacent snakes and perhaps no one else would ever encounter that ever again in a trillion games but it happened and isn't a good thing to have happen imho. Sure he should have done xyz and still had a chance after not doing so if he just did uv and or w.

Imho, adjacent monsters suck even if they can't kill you because they cause a battle to happen immediately unless you can blink away. And even then that may not always be possible. Anyway wtf do I know? You all are the experts. If you say it is so it must be so, including what is "best" for the game.

well the point of this discussion is about not getting a single action at the bottom of stairs, and he posted a game that involved quite a lot of actions at the bottom of said stairs

crate wrote:well the point of this discussion is about not getting a single action at the bottom of stairs, and he posted a game that involved quite a lot of actions at the bottom of said stairs

Which, while not precisely and exactly an example of the cited behavior, remains relevant as similar because adjacency can easily produce the end result of no action. But go ahead and nitpick. That's one way to get rid of lice, though perhaps not the most efficient way.

Hopeless wrote:Did you guys not read where he specified he didn't want your opinion? I mean sure you are totally right, but Aule (like many here nowadays, myself included) is a newish (and perhaps bad) player. If he says he is not interested in why he died then take his word for it. (I expect he has tired of the advice after realizing it is going above his head to some degree.) The point is he objected to the adjacent snakes and perhaps no one else would ever encounter that ever again in a trillion games but it happened and isn't a good thing to have happen imho. Sure he should have done xyz and still had a chance after not doing so if he just did uv and or w.

Then why did he post it? The whole opposing argument, as I understand it, is that making stair usage consistent would cause too many unavoidable deaths. Why did he post a death if he knew it was avoidable and would remain avoidable with the rule change? How is it possibly relevant?

Gosh, if only there were a rule here that every post must be 100% materially constructive and a minimum of 95% pertinent to the exact single point of the entire thread. Wouldn't that be great?

duvessa wrote:Also, just because you died right after going down the stairs doesn't mean it was an unavoidable death. You could have gotten better defenses before doing so.

I wonder if we will ever have all buffs immediately expire after changing levels. It's kind of boring to cast Phase Shift/Haste/Stoneskin/Necromutation/Infusion/Shroud of Golubria etc. before taking every "stair" in Pan.

Sandman25 wrote:
duvessa wrote:Also, just because you died right after going down the stairs doesn't mean it was an unavoidable death. You could have gotten better defenses before doing so.

I wonder if we will ever have all buffs immediately expire after changing levels. It's kind of boring to cast Phase Shift/Haste/Stoneskin/Necromutation/Infusion/Shroud of Golubria etc. before taking every "stair" in Pan.

Don't do it?

Received a report on a post; I had actually thought this was in CYC already. I apologize for the oversight on my part and have moved the thread.

Aule wrote:
crate wrote:well the point of this discussion is about not getting a single action at the bottom of stairs, and he posted a game that involved quite a lot of actions at the bottom of said stairs

Which, while not precisely and exactly an example of the cited behavior, remains relevant as similar because adjacency can easily produce the end result of no action. But go ahead and nitpick. That's one way to get rid of lice, though perhaps not the most efficient way.

Except that it is not a nitpick, because it was an avoidable death, specifically because you had many actions when you went down. If you went down and died after taking 1-2 actions then I might say it was similar, but that was not the case.

Also, you may not want comments, but when you post your experience as a argument on this forum, how can you ask for none? That isn't going to happen.

As far as the issue of stairs is concerned, I have to say, I'm with crate and minmay, walking down the stairs should work the same way every time. Spoilery mechanics are, in my opinion, worse. Moreover, the design philosophy is clear, unavoidable deaths are preferable to spoilery mechanics, even if the former is to be avoided as much as possible.

Yeah, that death if anything proves crate and duvessa's point about it being bad that the second stairway was inconsistent.

Why do these 'experienced' players have to nitpick everything! Why can't they just respect my opinion already?

To be completely fair, posts attacking my posts are also not on topic. At all. So this won't be, either. If you don't like something I say, or even if you just don't like anything I say, then why don't you just ignore it/me? Why do you insist upon make the topic about the inconsequentiality of my thoughts? Is it a personal challenge? There are some quite unwelcoming people in this place, I gotta tell you. The arrogance on parade is pretty appalling sometimes. It appears one is expected to know every mechanic and nuance of the game in order to have anything meritorious to add. If you cannot keep up, then GTFO, is the way I read it. This kind of behavior, as well as the violent/antisemitic/racist shit I've watched sprout here, make me doubt my sanity for even wanting to be a part of this. The currents of toxicity are not expressly condoned, but not unequivocally shown to the door, either, which really makes me wonder. So there it is.

One way to show an argument is unsound is to show that one of its premises is false. Explaining why your premise is false is not attacking you. Asking why you are posting an argument if you don't want to argue is also not attacking you.

Oh, yes, that and its obligatory reflexive thanks from a fellow attacker is also not attacking. It's all very reasonable and unbiased. And I r dum to.

I haven't posted in this thread ???

duvessa wrote:One way to show an argument is unsound is to show that one of its premises is false. Explaining why your premise is false is not attacking you. Asking why you are posting an argument if you don't want to argue is also not attacking you.

Maybe if you didn't act in a caustic and unwelcoming way as standard procedure, when you actually have something valuable to add it would be received in a better spirit.

But of course, then you'd forgo the opportunities to say "See, I wasn't being a jerk this time"

Aule I took your part before because you had a very valid point (even if some people disagree with it) about not getting advice if you don't want it, just in order to post an example. But your assumption of hostility is not one way. Also Duvessa has been as unsarcastic and clear as I've seen him be on these boards in response to your objections (Which is really an important thing to note because he is legendary for being sarcastic, cryptic and vague). If it isn't the response you wanted then fine but don't say it is an attack because they (crate and Duvessa) disagree with you.

As for acceptance of (bs), I don't see it. There is SOME tolerance by the moderators for loose speaking but on a report, stuff gets removed or shut down. So report what you don't like. Be warned however that not everyone is going to see it the way you do and some may question your sanity for seeing it thusly. Just sayin'. As for the community being worth it? That's entirely on you to decide. People (imho) tend to be neutral until swayed one way or the other. Being overwrought probably does not weigh too much in a person's favor.

On to the topic at hand. I still agree that adjacent monsters should not happen when you go downstairs. I don't see how "spoilery" stuff matters (jargon is irrelevant) at all since I am not looking at the game in a meta sense. All I care about is: does the game do what I expect it to do. In my experience with roguelikes, going downstairs is an inherently dangerous thing to do, done because one must progress or quit at some point. So whether I like the way things work now, they work the way expected except that you get a free chance to move on the first stairs which is not expected though I like it because it means as a bad player I may survive one turn longer. :p Should this be changed to satisfy an aesthetic? I don't know but I'd rather keep it as is because as I said I don't see how "spoilery" stuff matters.

Maybe if I was more invested I'd have a different point of view. And lets be clear that's all it is. One opinion and probably a wrong one at that. But it's mine and I am proud to have it.

I think you all forget that Duvessa is right 98% of the time.

If you don't like the way he comes off, well too bad. Life ain't exactly a welcoming party either.

Greyr wrote:I think you all forget that Duvessa is right 98% of the time.

If you don't like the way he comes off, well too bad. Life ain't exactly a welcoming party either.

being right gives you no right to be an asshole, wich does not matter because he was NOT an asshole here.

Hirsch I wrote:
Greyr wrote:I think you all forget that Duvessa is right 98% of the time.

If you don't like the way he comes off, well too bad. Life ain't exactly a welcoming party either.

being right gives you no right to be an asshole, wich does not matter because he was NOT an asshole here.

I, however, was almost certainly an asshole, for pressing a button. Here in the 21st century we don't even need to use words to attack other people.

Arrhythmia wrote:
Hirsch I wrote:
Greyr wrote:I think you all forget that Duvessa is right 98% of the time.

If you don't like the way he comes off, well too bad. Life ain't exactly a welcoming party either.

being right gives you no right to be an asshole, wich does not matter because he was NOT an asshole here.

I, however, was almost certainly an asshole, for pressing a button. Here in the 21st century we don't even need to use words to attack other people.

Spoiler: show

you pulled his trigger man, check your privileges. shitlord.

You guys we should be fighting Louise, not each other!
I freakin' hate that chick.

Only thing that's strange is that Louise has no shield here.

cerealjynx wrote:You guys we should be fighting Louise, not each other!

nobody should fight Louise, it is just not worth it. if she is asleep, put on an exclusion, if she is awake, get away from LOS and skip the level.

Aule, I think you're somewhat justified in feeling annoyed for receiving advice on a post where you explicitly asked not to receive advice. It's condescending.

However, you also should realize that your post just wasn't a solid argument. You're essentially saying 'I realize that going down the second set of stairs was a preventable death, but it put me in a very difficult situation that I didn't handle well, so I am going to treat it as if it were an example of something it's not, death by stairwell.' What sense does that make?

I assume one of the goals of the game's design is to throw the player into difficult situations that require planning, consideration, and consultation of the various available sources of knowledge about the game. I enjoy that. It's a major draw of the game for me. So the fact that the game put you in such a situation for going down a stairwell is imho evidence of good design.

wow I was druuuunk

Don’t get me wrong; I don't mind being wrong, because that is the natural state of my existence.

The wellsprings for the undercurrents of contention in this thread existed in threads that have since been removed or redacted, so this playact that the infractions are limited to this topic alone is a game that I am not going to play along with. The sanitization here of past thrown feces doesn't touch the hands of those doing the throwing, IMO, and the grudges they carry are as obvious as they are pronounced.

The evidence is in the thanks. When I say thanks, it means thanks. That is, to me it means a genuine feeling of appreciation for a piece of assistance or opinion offered. When some others use the thanks button, though, it is clear there is no such emotion attached to it. The more mean-spirited or snarky the post, the more thanks are given for it. It’s been the pile-on approach of bullies since the invention of the playground (read: since forever). Anyone reading through most of the threads here can observe all the insidious thanking going on, and see plainly what I mean by this. A word has even been coined for it, here: thankbait.

The most telling aspect in all this, to my eyes, is ratio of flavorful nicks to common gray nicks in the stew. That tells me that the behavior is endemic to the hierarchy, all the way down sometimes to the developer level.

These are just my observations as an outside observer. Take them for what they're worth, and make of them what you will. Mock away, or consider. I don't care anymore. Plenty of other things to do with the little time I have left in this life.

If you really want to know, the last straw was the recently deleted cartoon thread that went way beyond tasteless. I still feel dirtied by having seen it before it was sanitized. Those involved should have been banned for good.

Sorry to have interrupted this important thread with irrelevant thoughts. I can find the door myself, thanks.

Enjoy the stew.

what the

Does this mean we aren't friends anymore?

Well, I'm not glad that someone feels they have been attacked on Tavern. But I don't like picking apart tone, and determining tone is incredibly difficult to do over the Internet, anyway. I police tone in GDD to an extent, because occasionally the discussions there can serve a purpose beyond just being a place for people to talk, and I do try to hold Advice and YASD to a somewhat higher standard than CYC.

But if I or other mods did really try to use our (staggeringly vast, I assure you) mod powers to make people talk nice all the time, wouldn't it just end up encouraging people to be even more insincere and passive aggressive, and this would just lead to greater resentment? I don't want Tavern to look like your average string of YouTube comments, obviously, but if some heated disagreement or pointed words always cause posts to be deleted or end up in probation/banning, then there really isn't a basis for meaningful discussion.

I also think that most people use thanks in exactly the way you describe:

When I say thanks, it means thanks. That is, to me it means a genuine feeling of appreciation for a piece of assistance or opinion offered.

That appreciation can stem from complete agreement, or just acknowledgment of a good point (without total agreement), to simple amusement.

Tavern is hierarchical in certain respects, some of them by design (e.g., we have mods, developers are labeled as such), but at the end of the day it helps to put things in larger perspective. I'm just a dude who volunteers to mod an online gaming forum for a free computer game, and the devs are people who work without pay on a game that (I assume?) we all enjoy. Aside from that, some people have posted on this forum for a long time or in high quantity, and what might seem like unfair magic privilege granted to some of them in secret is, I think, better explained simply as the result of others having more opportunity to become acquainted with their particular style (warts and all) over time.

That doesn't give anyone a right to treat others poorly, of course, but if (let's say) a dev who has been having a bad day loses patience and vents in GDD in response to a harsh and not particularly thoughtful or constructive post aimed at the free labor s/he supplied for this game community, I think that's pretty understandable. I also think it is understandable that someone who is maybe having a rough day and posts about a frustrating death in the Tavern and then is questioned about it, even if some of the questions are reasonable, could become upset. I don't think it is anything worth pulling a dramatic "I can find the door myself" card over, but that's just my two cents and isn't my call, anyway.

I'll just end by noting that we have a certified "vent about this stupid/frustrating death" forum, and if you don't actively ask for advice there, and don't pretend that you were blameless when you weren't, you generally aren't going to get people giving unsolicited advice or criticism. But if you just want to vent, or something, then you are likely to be misunderstood if you post about a frustrating death in the context of an advice and/or game design discussion that is already underway. In such a context, a post like that is implicitly making an argument, even if that wasn't the intent, and others are going to respond to that.

on the other hand, the cartoon thread was truly tasteless.
but those are past waters, I really dont believe anyone meant any harm, and it was quite some time since someone declared to feel offended or attacked in the tavern, wich is awesome.

also, about hierarchy: people who post here more frequently ("hey, look at me, I'm a Pandemonium Purger"), are generally more well known, helped more people with their advice (not me tho, I'm awful.), proposed more useful things, and are more respected for that. this is natural, no matter where. nobody dismisses Duvessa's advice, because he proved again and again to give excellent advice. nobody questions Psiweapon's proposals, because everyone knows they are not worth paying attention to (kidding, love ya, man.). nobody pisses the devs, because last time someone did, they removed Mountain Dwarves (totally legit.).

of course, there are always nice people coming, and those people are always welcome, but sometimes, you naturally enforce the opinion of someone you know better over someone you dont really know that much. this is natural as well. sorry if you felt bullied and ganged upon, this was nobody's intention, I'm pretty sure.

Hey!

I proposed removing fishes other than electric eels from random generation in lair!

But anyways, thanks for remembering about me 8-)

Aule wrote:Those involved should have been banned for good.

I agree! Furthermore, all the tiles those participants have ever contributed for Crawl should be replaced with less garish and racist ones!

Sonja did this to me once, waaay before I was anywhere near ready for the Abyss. Got swarmed by spatial vortexes instantly.

The Tavern

Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating

Re: Louise is cheating