A Little Opinion Manifesto...

[lordhamshire]

I'm not a huge forum goer, so I'm sure these topics have been brought up in the past, but here's some changes I would make to crawl if I held the reins, perhaps more to state opinions than to incite altercation.

- Simplify or remove hunger/food.
- Remove item destruction and corrosion (compensate by making destructible items less common, and once corrosive, item-destroying enemies more difficult in combat.)
- Merge and purge even vaguely similar races/classes.
- Make it possible, (presumably a fairly rare occurrence,) for a Jiyva altar to appear in Ecumenical Temple.
- Make weapon types more distinct and interesting. (I'm sure ya'll are workin' on this.)
- Remove Labyrinth.
- Do... something... to the pre-branch-end Vaults to make it not so main-dungeon-y.

[Sar]

Jiyva altar already has a (really small) chance to appear in early D (not in the Temple, in its own vault, but it's mechanically similar).

[lordhamshire]

Jiyva altar already has a (really small) chance to appear in early D (not in the Temple, in its own vault, but it's mechanically similar).

Yeah, I know. I just thought it would be cool.

[Robsoie]

I agree for the food/hunger , it's probably the only thing i don't like in Crawl, how hunger is too important on the gameplay, i would prefer to focus on battles and the tactical aspect instead of having to butcher everything and eat each 5 minutes to keep my character from going hungry constantly (at least until i find an amulet of the gourmand that allow me to focus much less on that food minigame)

[crate]

- Remove Labyrinth.

You can do this for yourself already, if you want to, assuming you play console (it won't work in tiles since you can't change glyphs in tiles, as far as I know).

Add this to your rcfile:

  Code:

msc := message_colour
############################################
# Remove labyrinths because they are awful #
############################################

feature = labyrinth entrance {.,.,floor,.,blue}
msc ^= mute:distant snort
msc ^= mute:ticking.*clock
msc ^= mute:dying ticks
msc ^= mute:labyrinth
msc ^= mute:starvation awaits

This will mute the labyrinth messages and make the entrance portal look exactly like floor. You can theoretically still enter one but only if you happen to press > or < on the lab entrance which you do not know exists before it times out (and you did not know about the timer).

[Wahaha]

Merge and purge even vaguely similar races/classes.

So merge the 2 similar races? Maybe another 2. The way you say it seems like you think there are many of these.

Do... something... to the pre-branch-end Vaults to make it not so main-dungeon-y.

This was done one version ago. Now Vaults are very different from Dungeon. Thank you to everyone who contributed.

[Klown]

Agree with pretty much everything.

It's too easy for someone to argue against merging/removing species/backgrounds/gods. I believe that is the reason not as much action happens there.

[lordhamshire]

Merge and purge even vaguely similar races/classes.

So merge the 2 similar races? Maybe another 2. The way you say it seems like you think there are many of these.

Do... something... to the pre-branch-end Vaults to make it not so main-dungeon-y.

This was done one version ago. Now Vaults are very different from Dungeon. Thank you to everyone who contributed.

I think, as stated, the vaults are still too dungeon-y, and I said, "even vaguely similar" not "practically identical."

[Wahaha]

The only way Vaults are similar to D is by sharing some monsters, and these monsters are threatening in different ways between D and Vaults because of the difference between D and V layouts and V having stone walls. These branches play very differently.

Right, I can't think of any "vaguely similar" races except for 2 or maybe 4 of them. Ko and Ha, and maybe HO and Mi. If you mean like, ogres and trolls are vaguely similar because they're big and have lots of health, we should remove half of the races in the game because normal size causes too much of an overlap.

[dck]

Op are just really fat and vain Hu, please remove.

[Sandman25]

1) If you don't like some races, don't play them.
2) If you think some races are too similar, play each. If you still think they are too similar, see point 1.

[Grimm]

General discussion threads with multiple topics don't work well in GDD. Please make individual threads for specific ideas. In fact some of these ideas are already being discussed.

[galehar]

You Must Read This Before Posting in GDD.

[dpeg]

[...]here's some changes I would make to crawl if I held the reins.

- Simplify or remove hunger/food.

There are some ideas for this, but for me this is not as urgent as, say, rune-locking Maybe we can get something in this direction soon enough.

- Remove item destruction and corrosion (compensate by making destructible items less common, and once corrosive, item-destroying enemies more difficult in combat.)

Here I disagree but this topic is hotly debated for years. It's obvious why item destruction is unpopular with players but again, I would never put this highly on any todo list.

Merge and purge even vaguely similar races/classes.

This is one I find a surprising proposal, almost insulting. If there's one game design principle that DCSS has held up through the years, then it's the reevaluation of old content and being willing to modify and remove features. (This is relevant because in free & open games, I think it's a lot more often about new content rather than polishing existing one or balancing.) And the one area where this is particularly true are species! We've removed so many (Gnome, Hill Dwarf, Elf, Grey Elf, Ogre Mage, Sludge Elf, Mountain Dwarf), added a bunch (Vampire, Deep Dwarf, Felids, Octopodes, Gargoyles), changed some substantially (Demonspawn, Ogre) and all of this always with variety in mind. Similarly, so much has happened to backgrounds: many gone (Thief, Paladin, Reaver, Priest, Death Knight, Stalker) gone, one completely new (Artificer), some massively changed (Crusader/Skald, Conjurer, Monk).

I realise that the standards of what "similar species" means has changed completely over the last years but I'm really curious if you could follow up your words with a somewhat precise proposal: which species or backgrounds would you merge or purge?

- Make it possible, (presumably a fairly rare occurrence,) for a Jiyva altar to appear in Ecumenical Temple.

This will not happen. Early (rare) Jiyva altars exist; the god will never feature in the temple.

- Remove Labyrinth.

I am very much against this, so you have to wait or branch.

- Do... something... to the pre-branch-end Vaults to make it not so main-dungeon-y.

I am confused: this is exactly what DracoOmega did! If you've played both old and new(est) Vaults, it's completely unclear to me how you'd call the current incarnation "main-dungeon-y".

[lordhamshire]

General discussion threads with multiple topics don't work well in GDD. Please make individual threads for specific ideas. In fact some of these ideas are already being discussed.

Yeah, I didn't mean for it be be a huge discussion or anything. I was just kinda presenting my opinions.

-

To respond to dpeg's response, specifically the merge or purge part, it not a huge issue for me, because it doesn't affect me too much. I was just saying if I had the reins I personally would narrow it down to a dozen or so races/classes.

[duvessa]

My experience with new vaults is that it feels the same as the main dungeon; same monsters, similar layouts. (Vault wardens etc are harmless if you are paying any attention at all so they may as well not exist imo). Of course this is still a big improvement over old vaults because old vaults exclusively used one of the worst level generators in the game, and the branch still probably has more reason to exist than the lair branches and crypt/forest/blade.

this isnt why i thanked the post btw

[Sandman25]

Almost every monster is harmless if you pay attention. I usually do D up to 20+ before entering Vaults, I am surprised some call it similar. The most important difference is Mark. Next dangerous thing is Convoker with its recall which greatly combines with door lock by Warden by the way.

[1010011010]

Current Vaults is much improvement from the old with the layout and the new guards.
If there's any problem with vaults, it's the lack of consistency in the monster set. It has no recognisable theme, especially when compared to any other branches.

[lordhamshire]

This is one I find a surprising proposal, almost insulting. If there's one game design principle that DCSS has held up through the years, then it's the reevaluation of old content and being willing to modify and remove features. (This is relevant because in free & open games, I think it's a lot more often about new content rather than polishing existing one or balancing.) And the one area where this is particularly true are species! We've removed so many (Gnome, Hill Dwarf, Elf, Grey Elf, Ogre Mage, Sludge Elf, Mountain Dwarf), added a bunch (Vampire, Deep Dwarf, Felids, Octopodes, Gargoyles), changed some substantially (Demonspawn, Ogre) and all of this always with variety in mind. Similarly, so much has happened to backgrounds: many gone (Thief, Paladin, Reaver, Priest, Death Knight, Stalker) gone, one completely new (Artificer), some massively changed (Crusader/Skald, Conjurer, Monk).

I realise that the standards of what "similar species" means has changed completely over the last years but I'm really curious if you could follow up your words with a somewhat precise proposal: which species or backgrounds would you merge or purge?

I would cut the species down to just Human, Deep Elf, Kobold, Merfolk, Naga, Spriggan, Tengu, Troll, and Vampire, and I'd cut the classes down to Fighter, Berserker, Healer, Hunter, Conjurer, Enchanter, Necromancer, Ice Elementalist, and Air Elementalist.

Agree with pretty much everything.

It's too easy for someone to argue against merging/removing species/backgrounds/gods. I believe that is the reason not as much action happens there.

I actually don't have anything with the gods the way they are. *shrug* They're all really well made IMO.

[Sar]

Deep Elves are Tengu with worse combat apts and no weird flight mechanic. You leave those two races and cut down stuff like Demonspawn?

[Klown]

I'd personally remove the zealots and add 5 new zealots based on the 5 least popular Gods. You can get every God 5 mins into the game, and I've seen Lugonu temples and Jivya vaults early.

I'm not sure where to find who those 5 Gods would be going by 0.13 webtiles/tournament but they'd probably give some more unique zealots than the current ones.

[Sar]

You can get every God 5 mins into the game

It takes you 5 minutes to reach and clean D:9 on any combo? I am very impressed.

[Jeremiah]

We could just have two species, human and mountain hill octengoyle.

[Wark]

I would cut the species down to just Human, Deep Elf, Kobold, Merfolk, Naga, Spriggan, Tengu, Troll, and Vampire

Would you mind explaining the reason you've chosen these ones? Leaving alone other races, I'm particularly interested why you would remove both Minotaurs and Hill Orcs, and what is the reason behind cutting Ds, Dg and Dr, unless you believe they're too similar to Humans because of their flat apts.

and I'd cut the classes down to Fighter, Berserker, Healer, Hunter, Conjurer, Enchanter, Necromancer, Ice Elementalist, and Air Elementalist.

Makes me wonder which of these classes Transmuter is "even vaguely similar" to.

[Tiktacy]

We could just have two species, human and mountain hill octengoyle.

Deep mountain hill octengoylid

[rebthor]

This is one I find a surprising proposal, almost insulting. If there's one game design principle that DCSS has held up through the years, then it's the reevaluation of old content and being willing to modify and remove features. (This is relevant because in free & open games, I think it's a lot more often about new content rather than polishing existing one or balancing.) And the one area where this is particularly true are species! We've removed so many (Gnome, Hill Dwarf, Elf, Grey Elf, Ogre Mage, Sludge Elf, Mountain Dwarf), added a bunch (Vampire, Deep Dwarf, Felids, Octopodes, Gargoyles), changed some substantially (Demonspawn, Ogre) and all of this always with variety in mind. Similarly, so much has happened to backgrounds: many gone (Thief, Paladin, Reaver, Priest, Death Knight, Stalker) gone, one completely new (Artificer), some massively changed (Crusader/Skald, Conjurer, Monk).

I realise that the standards of what "similar species" means has changed completely over the last years but I'm really curious if you could follow up your words with a somewhat precise proposal: which species or backgrounds would you merge or purge?

I would cut the species down to just Human, Deep Elf, Kobold, Merfolk, Naga, Spriggan, Tengu, Troll, and Vampire, and I'd cut the classes down to Fighter, Berserker, Healer, Hunter, Conjurer, Enchanter, Necromancer, Ice Elementalist, and Air Elementalist.

You misspelled Halfling in your list. It's not spelled k-o-b-o-l-d. And I'd also keep Demigod, Draconian and Demonspawn. And while I love merfolk, I wouldn't be overly fussed to see them go from your list.

[Grimm]

octengoylid

Some sort of Yiddish species?

[Confidence Interval]

octengoylid

Some sort of Yiddish species?

You're thinking of some sort of playable golem, perhaps.

[Grimm]

Oy!

[Confidence Interval]

Reminds me of that bit in Kavalier and Clay where Joe escapes from Prague in place of the golem. Good book.

[Grimm]

Did he have the Orb with him?

[indspenceable]

I would cut the species down to just Human, Deep Elf, Kobold, Merfolk, Naga, Spriggan, Tengu, Troll, and Vampire

Would you mind explaining the reason you've chosen these ones? Leaving alone other races, I'm particularly interested why you would remove both Minotaurs and Hill Orcs, and what is the reason behind cutting Ds, Dg and Dr, unless you believe they're too similar to Humans because of their flat apts.

But Naga have flat aptitudes, too... Justification, here?

and I'd cut the classes down to Fighter, Berserker, Healer, Hunter, Conjurer, Enchanter, Necromancer, Ice Elementalist, and Air Elementalist.

Makes me wonder which of these classes Transmuter is "even vaguely similar" to.

Or wanderer. Or Skald.

backgrounds aren't all totally different - but that's ok! Background really only matters early game, but each one guarentees some sort of unique advantage. So sure, Abyssal Knight and Berserker are fairly similar, but the one thing that differs actually makes a huge difference, early on.

Why would you cut down the backgrounds to that list?

[duvessa]

Cutting two of Fi/Gl/As, or at least one, has come up pretty frequently. I support it.

Ds, Dg and Dr

Well Dr really is basically just "human but stronger" so it seems pretty reasonable to get rid of it. Of course, unlike with Fi/Gl, I doubt the current devteam ever would.

But Naga have flat aptitudes, too... Justification, here?

I'm guessing redundancy just isn't the only criterium being used here. It's hard to think of races very similar to Fe or DD but they're both at the top of many people's lists of species they'd like removed, including mine.

[and into]

Naga's flat aptitudes are far and away the least defining and distinctive thing about them, though. Also, I agree Draconians are stronger than humans, but they are also pretty different, especially after the "no body armor slot, +innate AC as one levels up" change.

[Sandman25]

Naga's flat aptitudes are far and away the least defining and distinctive thing about them, though. Also, I agree Draconians are stronger than humans, but they are also pretty different, especially after the "no body armor slot, +innate AC as one levels up" change.

... and vulnerability to Dragon slaying weapon is a big deal also. That's worse than rF- of Mummy IMHO which is possible to get rid of with rF+.

[indspenceable]

Naga's flat aptitudes are far and away the least defining and distinctive thing about them, though. Also, I agree Draconians are stronger than humans, but they are also pretty different, especially after the "no body armor slot, +innate AC as one levels up" change.

I meant that more as a point of: yeah, you can have flat apitudes and still be distinctive (Na, Dr, DS, and even DG are all very distinctive IMO). I think there is probably some work that could be done on some of those races, but they're different enough that cutting them cause they're too similar to other races is misguided.

[shackleton]

I don't like the idea of cutting down species - frankly, I can't think of two I'd play in the same way. I mean, take Centaurs and high elf hunters, for instance. In the first case, I usually go for AC and don't worry about magic. In the second case, I usually try and get some translocation spells going.

I for one love the new vaults designs.

I do agree with the thing about the labyrinths, I think they're really great thematically, but in terms of gameplay, pretty dull. It would be nice to work out a way of intensifying the puzzle-solving aspect of the labyrinth so it wasn't just a simple matter of persistence. Just off the top of my head, wouldn't it be possible to have the correct route form a mathematical sequence, so the only way one could get through would be to recognize the pattern?

I mean, for instance, from Conway's game of life:

there are loads of pretty simple but interesting series, that could be materially represented in the structure of the labyrinth.

The other weak part of the game I think is the hell branches before they end. Thematically, they''re nice, but in terms of play, one tends to just run through them. Some incentive to actually explore would really help them. (Also, I can imagine all sorts of fascinating vaults and features that could work to really flesh out the idea of hell on DCSS. There's a great lovecraftian vibe in some of the monster descriptions - I think some demonic courts, circles of babbling cultists, lost madmen etc would really spice up the hell levels).

All that said, DCSS is honestly the best game I've ever played - I've played it for about four years(?) now, never won once*, and enjoyed every minute of it. Good games are good stories - that's the reason why people still play the old X-com, or alpha centauri. It's not because they have slick mechanics or some feature that no other game has. It's because they make you believe in an engaging situation, in a comprehensive way. A lot of re-launches of old games make the mistake of doing away things that helped the story to make the game more streamlined, but it's always a mistake. The new X-com, for instance, got rid of base attacks, because frankly they were a pain in the ass and a hassle all round. But, losing that, they deprived the game of that thrill of fear you used to get when you saw a battleship looking for your base on the radar. DCSS is better than a lot of other dungeon crawlers not because it has a better feature set, but because the writing, and the story, is so much more engaging.

*Don't ask.