Spellcasting in the early-midgame

[Hurkyl]

- conjure flame on the title the monster will step (easily with hydra, I admit it requires a little more practice with frog and mambas). It will cost 2 mp less for turn. It won't wake up anything. Plus, if you make a fire close to you and the monster will step inside, it will take HUGE damage (more than a fireball unless having some enhancer at this point of the game). A wounded frog/mambas can't survive in this way more than 1 or 2 two at most. Usually they actually die before reaching you. If they actually reach you, you can also sticky flame them. If it's a hydra, you can walk away while it burns.

Aside: last I played, a lot of full-health frogs and mambas would walk around clouds of flame. And they would do so pretty much always if they were damaged and not already in a cloud (which is bad news if you miscast and didn't allow yourself an extra turn to fill their path with clouds).

[Sandman25]

Aside: last I played, a lot of full-health frogs and mambas would walk around clouds of flame. And they would do so pretty much always if they were damaged and not already in a cloud (which is bad news if you miscast and didn't allow yourself an extra turn to fill their path with clouds).

It is often possible to put 2 adjacent clouds, then they step into one of them. Conjure Flame is somewhat limited in open indeed (not vs Hydra, it is a really stupid monster and always moves into flame at full HP)

Some wizmode math. I started OpFE (starting Int 17), set training to dodging/spellcasting/focused fire/focused conjurations and got to XL 12. Putting 4 bonus points into Int and a +4 ring of intelligence allows to have Int 25. Spell power for Sticky Flame/Conjure Flame/Fireball is 60.
Conjure Flame damage is 6 + (3d16)/3 (6-22, average 14).
Fireball damage is 3d(3.33+power/6)=3d13.333 (1-40, average 20).
I can't calculate Sticky Flame damage so I changed crawl to display some data.

  Code:

The six-headed hydra roars!
Cast which spell? (? or * to list)
Aiming: Sticky Flame
Press: ? - help, Shift-Dir - straight line, f - six-headed hydra
Aim: a six-headed hydra
The sticky flame hits the six-headed hydra.
The six-headed hydra is lightly wounded.
The six-headed hydra is covered in liquid flames!
The six-headed hydra burns!
Sticky flame damage: 2
The six-headed hydra completely misses you.
The six-headed hydra barely misses you. The six-headed hydra misses you.
The six-headed hydra barely misses you. The six-headed hydra bites you!
The six-headed hydra closely misses you.
Huge Dmg: -22%(-15hp) hp: 78%(51hp)
The six-headed hydra burns!
Sticky flame damage: 4
A giant newt and a hydra come into view.
The six-headed hydra burns!
Sticky flame damage: 2
The six-headed hydra burns!
Sticky flame damage: 6
The six-headed hydra burns!
Sticky flame damage: 4
The six-headed hydra burns!
Sticky flame damage: 4
The six-headed hydra stops burning.
Press: ? - help, v - describe, . - travel
Here: a six-headed hydra (moderately wounded)
The floor.
Unknown command.
Unknown command.
Press: ? - help, v - describe, . - travel
Here: a six-headed hydra (moderately wounded)
The floor.
Unknown command.
Unknown command.
Press: ? - help, v - describe, . - travel
Here: a six-headed hydra (moderately wounded)
The floor.
Unknown command.
Casting: Sticky Flame
Confirm with . or Enter, or press ? or * to list all spells.
Aiming: Sticky Flame
Press: ? - help, Shift-Dir - straight line, f - giant newt
Aim: a giant newt
The sticky flame hits the giant newt.
You kill the giant newt!
Casting: Sticky Flame
Confirm with . or Enter, or press ? or * to list all spells.
Aiming: Sticky Flame
Press: ? - help, Shift-Dir - straight line, f - six-headed hydra
Aim: a six-headed hydra (moderately wounded)
The sticky flame hits the six-headed hydra.
The six-headed hydra is heavily wounded.
The six-headed hydra is covered in liquid flames!
The six-headed hydra burns!
Sticky flame damage: 2
The six-headed hydra bites you but does no damage.
The six-headed hydra closely misses you.
The six-headed hydra bites you!
* * * LOW HITPOINT WARNING * * *
The six-headed hydra bites you.
* * * LOW HITPOINT WARNING * * *
The six-headed hydra closely misses you.
The six-headed hydra completely misses you.
Mandatory exit. Think how to survive! ; Huge Dmg: -27%(-18hp) hp: 52%(34hp)
Save game and exit?
Welcome back, b the Octopode Fire Elementalist.
Press ? for a list of commands and other information.
The six-headed hydra burns!
Sticky flame damage: 3
The six-headed hydra burns!
Sticky flame damage: 2
The six-headed hydra burns!
Sticky flame damage: 4
The six-headed hydra burns!
Sticky flame damage: 4
The six-headed hydra burns!
Sticky flame damage: 2
The six-headed hydra stops burning.
Cast which spell? (? or * to list)
You don't know that spell.
Cast which spell? (? or * to list)
Aiming: Sticky Flame
Press: ? - help, Shift-Dir - straight line, f - six-headed hydra
Aim: a six-headed hydra (severely wounded)
The sticky flame hits the six-headed hydra.
The six-headed hydra is severely wounded.
The six-headed hydra is covered in liquid flames!
The six-headed hydra burns!
Sticky flame damage: 3
The six-headed hydra bites you!
* * * LOW HITPOINT WARNING * * *
The six-headed hydra bites you!
* * * LOW HITPOINT WARNING * * *
The six-headed hydra barely misses you. The six-headed hydra bites you!
* * * LOW HITPOINT WARNING * * *
The six-headed hydra bites you.
* * * LOW HITPOINT WARNING * * *
The six-headed hydra misses you.
Mandatory exit. Think how to survive! ; Huge Dmg: -49%(-32hp) hp: 5%(3hp)
Save game and exit?
Welcome back, b the Octopode Fire Elementalist.
Press ? for a list of commands and other information.
The six-headed hydra burns!
Sticky flame damage: 3
The six-headed hydra burns!
Sticky flame damage: 6; Decayed enchantment to 78
The six-headed hydra burns!
Sticky flame damage: 3
The six-headed hydra burns!
Sticky flame damage: 4
The six-headed hydra burns!
Sticky flame damage: 4; Decayed enchantment to 58
There is a staircase leading out of the dungeon here.
The six-headed hydra burns!
Sticky flame damage: 3
You kill the six-headed hydra!


Disclaimer: killing Hydra with 3 Sticky Flames as Op is not recommended

[nago]

I started playing a OpFe because clearly playing Op is the only metric to judge something in crawl.
UnfortunatelyI died in a volcanowhile resting to regain mana, losing like 80ish hp in what I suppose was a turn. No idea how could it happen (from the log it seems it was like I was hit thrice by the flames), if it is intended or it was a bug. Totally unexpected for me, at least.

Anyway you could see I killed a 7-headed hydra at lv9. Lolwut. Certainly it was a bit scary because I decided to engage it despite being only 3 square away. Having used stairs to engage from a better position it would be 100% safe to kill hit. Another Hydra died without problem at xl.12.
The worst thing is probably that I've to point out that it's easy to kill a speed 10 monster with conjure and sticky flames.
edit: oh I also kiled komodo dragons. Why nobody fear nor respect komodo dragons and everybody talks about hydras is still a mystery for me.

[Berder]

nago, I made a mistake earlier that I have the courage to admit; I overestimated the amount of fire/conj you need to cast fireball. I said "10-15"; it's more like 10 and not 15. So, it doesn't make sense to disqualify players who didn't train to 15. Also, you wanted to disqualify players who trained any defenses whatsoever in addition to their fireball use, but my advice was compatible with training some defenses, as long as you still get and use fireball in time for lair.

For completeness and so I can't be accused of cherry-picking, let's look at all of the names who won OpFE.
DrKe - used fireball 186 times between xl 10-15
mopl - fireballed 190 times from xl10-15, learned fireball on d:7
Temoid - learned bolt of fire on d:7 from vehumet, probably as a result didn't learn fireball. Data for how many times he cast it not available.
78291 - did not use fireball in lair. This is the only player on the list whose log shows he played lair like you advise, apparently with melee, conjure flame, and sticky flame.
magistern - used fireball 372 times from xl10-15
moose - cast fireball 374 times from xl 7-15. You dismissed him because he "trained some fighting too"
Ololev - cast fireball 607 times between xl 7 and 15
yokelz - log unavailable
drimon19 - cast fireball 323 times between xl 7 and 15
4tharraofdagon - cast fireball 315 times between xl 7 and 15. A speedrun.
yogaFLAME - learned fireball at XL 9, number of times cast unavailable
ListenToMetal - cast fireball 268 times between xl 7 and 15
mikee - learned Bolt of Magma at xl7, probably used that instead of fireball. number of times cast not available
aj12037 - cast fireball 163 times between xl 7 and 15
Napkin - learned fireball at xl9, number of times cast not available
tcjsavannah - learned fireball at xl7, number of times cast not available
bmfx - learned fireball at xl6, number of times cast not available. A speedrun.
HLA - cast fireball 520 times between xl 10-15. Somehow you dismiss him because he raised some fighting too.
Demise - cast fireball 825 times between xl 7 and 15
Misha - cast fireball 637 times between xl 7 and 15
MackTheKnife - learned fireball at xl 6, number of times cast not available
Cybermg - learned fireball at xl7, number of times cast not available
drag0n - cast fireball 379 times between xl 10 and 15
Maniacuz - learned fireball at xl 9, times cast not available
heteroy - cast fireball 166 times between xl 7 and 15
Berder - cast fireball 73 times between xl 10 and 15. This low amount was due to using bolt of draining.
Lasty - cast fireball 267 times between xl 7 and 15. You dismissed him because he stopped training after getting 10 fire/conj.
johnnyzero - cast fireball 230 times between xl 7 and 15
bart - learned fireball at xl8, times cast unavailable
Pac - learned fireball at xl9, times cast not available
tsouns - cast fireball 409 times between xl 7 and 15
eeviac - learned fireball at xl7, times cast not available
minmay - learned fireball shortly after entering lair, began casting it immediately. times cast not available

Thank you for the advice about conjure flame against hydras. I'll have to try that more, next time I play a FE.

I'm happy to see you testing OpFE for yourself. Absolutely, komodo dragons are very nasty fellows. Not quite as dangerous as hydras in terms of potential damage, but they still hit very hard and you can't escape them in water. At least they are susceptible to blowguns. Black mambas are awfully dangerous too due to their speed and poison resistance.

If you win an OpFE your way (and why not?) well, more power to you.

[nago]

Actually from the log you posted I only intended to point out that getting so much (15ish) fire/conj isn't necessary for FE starting spells and actually is a bad choice.

I didn't intend to dismiss their fireball usage (except speedrun) in Lair because as I've I said I believe unless watching their replay and asking them why did they do that everytime it mattered we can only make big assumption about their use.
Certainly it's plausible to say they used fireball at least sometimes in situations where it's the best choice (I can think at least a couple of common ones where I would use it over other FE spells).

Maybe you don't know but also hydras are faster in water! And they're certainly more dangerous than komodo dragons for low ac char due multiple attack per turn (while the viceversa being generally true for high ac char) but they're also kinda easier to be killed from afar as having lower defence.

[Berder]

Actually from the log you posted I only intended to point out that getting so much (15ish) fire/conj isn't necessary for FE starting spells and actually is a bad choice.

Yes; and I never said you needed 15. What I originally said, the line of advice causing all this fuss, was "Generally stop training conj/fire once you can cast all your spells at low fail. This tends to be around 10-15 skill." That 10-15 was a vague estimate; it's not necessary to train all the way to 15 for fireball, assuming your int is decent and you are in light enough armor. 10 is enough. That is subject to change if you get bolt of fire.

[Sandman25]

Komodo Dragons are not scary to OpFE because with 87 HP you are guaranteed to survive 2 max roll attacks and they have speed 10 with relatively low HP so Sticky Flame is absolutely safe if you were unlucky to get adjacent to one.

I am playing an Imp FE now (it has -2 HP modifier and cannot use gloves/boots so AC is relatively low) and it was safe to kill even a pack of Elephants with sticky flame, you just move to stairs and watch it burning.

[tabstorm]

I think trying to use morgue data to make claims about optimal spellcasting strategy is questionable, since it will only contain information about the character's skills, saying nothing about the items it has, which obviously affect how a player will pilot said character. Claiming that the morgue data from players with many wins is a good approximation to optimal play is even more questionable. Many good players can "get away with" fairly suboptimal play for various reasons.

[Berder]

I think trying to use morgue data to make claims about optimal spellcasting strategy is questionable, since it will only contain information about the character's skills, saying nothing about the items it has, which obviously affect how a player will pilot said character. Claiming that the morgue data from players with many wins is a good approximation to optimal play is even more questionable. Many good players can "get away with" fairly suboptimal play for various reasons.

Yes - but what bothers me is when people try to make it sound like there's absolutely no possibility of an alternative way to do things from the way they like to do it, no way, and say you're giving terrible advice. And then you look at some games and see that your advice is actually what nearly everybody does, including some of the best players. Who can say whether it's optimal? There is doubt and room for debate - no room for angry condemnation. Does it work? It's been demonstrated to work!

[tabstorm]

You could always just not give advice. Not every thread needs to be replied to.
If a large number of reasonably good players keep telling you that the advice you give is terrible, perhaps you should reconsider the conclusions you're coming to.

[gammafunk]

Note that in DrKe's game where 186 fireball was used in xl10-15, it was the damaging spell cast in that range about 12.4% of the time. DrKe cast damaging spells that weren't fireball 1316 times in that same range:

  Code:

Action                   | 10-12 | 13-15 |Total (10-15)
-------------------------+-------+-------+-------------
Cast: Flame Tongue       |    84 |    26 | 110
       Conjure Flame     |    73 |   100 | 173
       Sticky Flame      |    55 |    96 | 151
       Throw Flame       |   292 |   518 | 810
       Fireball          |    33 |   153 | 186
       Regeneration      |       |     7 |   7
       Iskenderun's Myst |       |    65 |  65
       All               |   537 |   965 |1502


It's incorrect to point to this game and say that it supports the idea of rushing to and focusing on the use of fireball; DrKe was using less noisy spells much more frequently. He did train fire/conj to 10, and certainly neglected defenses in this game, not getting dodging above 3 nor any fighting at all until post-Lair, but I think we'd all (or at least mostly) agree this isn't optimal. But even ignoring his motivation of getting 10 fire/conj, he used conjure flame+sticky flame much more than fireball and throw flame alone far, far more than fireball.

[and into]

Yes - but what bothers me is when people try to make it sound like there's absolutely no possibility of an alternative way to do things from the way they like to do it, no way, and say you're giving terrible advice.

I can't speak for others, obviously, but the major objectionable thing in your first post, IMO, was the following:

It's much more effective if you get fireball online fast and neglect defenses to achieve that.

This isn't a claim about one option or legitimate way of playing; it is a claim about good play, and it was given as advice. Perhaps you meant something more along the lines of, "You may want to prioritize getting fireball castable on less robust/resilient species, even if you end up with less dodging, but you should of course still train as much dodging as you can spare." That would not have been an unreasonable thing to say, in my view. But that isn't what you said.

New players actually reading Tavern for advice (may god have mercy on these poor souls) will interpret the above quoted sentence as it is written: Train minimal if any defenses until fireball is "online," which they may well interpret as being "1 or 2% failure." This tends to be a common mistake among new players, already; they under-train dodging on "casters." (The YAVP/YASD forum is an archive with many examples of this.) So yeah, any advice that reinforces that mistake is bad advice, and is going to be attacked/shot down pretty viciously by many of the old hands here on the Tavern.

And then you look at some games and see that your advice is actually what nearly everybody does, including some of the best players.

First, before you go off cherry-picking from people's morgue files, maybe you should first listen to what the people who actually played those games are telling you!

Second, more generally, the advice people give to others who are new to something is not just an imitation of how an experienced person does the same. This isn't just true of Crawl, it is true of nearly everything, and it doesn't make the person giving advice a hypocrite.

For someone struggling to ascend their first character, of course I am going to advise him or her to retreat from *all* enemies, draw them back to safe places to fight, and so on, even when they are playing a MiBe. When I play a MiBe, I do not do this consistently, because the only reason I play MiBe in the first place is so that I can play pretty carelessly and fast, even in the early game, and still usually be alright.

Some of the posts in this thread might sound like the view it expresses is the only possible way to play the game successfully, which is not accurate. But your insinuations that everyone actually does agree with you and is just saying otherwise to give you a hard time is pretty toxic to conversation also, fwiw.

[mps]

Speaking as someone relatively new to the forums, it would seem to me more toxic to the discussion that the focus is on shooting down Berder for differing from some established/consensus position rather than offering elaboration where his advice is lacking in nuance or constructive contradiction. Constructive contradiction would include making explicit the points of contention upfront and offering alternative advice. Recall: The original comment, which pretty much set the tone, calls out Berder as consistently giving "terrible advice," the poster of which later goes on to accuse him of "advice trolling," which could be reasonably taken as an accusation of deliberate deception. It does not include any explanation, you know, the kind of thing that would be useful to someone reading for informational purposes as opposed to, say, socializing and/or entertainment, or the new players minmay and others are so keen to protect. When pressed, minmay offers a list of quotes without explanation, and finally many posts later an actual response including clarification and points of contention -- that's great, but came only after being pressed a second time by a third party.

Whether people say they disagree with Berder just to give him a hard time, it is obvious that people go out of their way to give him a hard time and they do so in a way that is obviously not helpful to new players or anyone else. That's not to say late in the thread that people arguing against his position don't make good points. It's just that it would be nice if this good point making phase came earlier in the discussion.

It's also worth pointing out that Berder isn't bad at the game, so whether you agree with his ideas about what makes good play or how to analyze the game, the fact is that his way of thinking seems to work for him. It seems pretty dubious to me that his ideas about how to play are consistently useless or harmful to less experienced players, unless, like minmay, you think he's trolling. I mean, look at the objections -- when it comes down to it a lot of the arguments seem to rely on how a hypothetical new player is going to interpret Berder's commentary. This is pretty weak sauce given the tone of the thread.

[ebering]

To be more on topic:

Monster cloud AI was changed in subtle and not-so-subtle ways for .16. The not-so-subtle is that monsters with a relevant resist will now consider entering clouds they resist. The more subtle one is the damage check inequality for when a monster will consider entering a damage cloud was adjusted by PF to use average cloud damage pulled from a data structure instead of i-can-t-remember-what-i-looked-at-the-code-several-months-ago.

I'm guessing that the average hydra has just enough HP so that it (almost) always thinks it can survive a flame cloud.

One thing that wasn't changed, though, is that monsters, like tavern posters, fall victim to the sunk cost fallacy: once in a cloud they'll happily keep traveling through it, even if doing so will kill them.

[gammafunk]

Whether people say they disagree with Berder just to give him a hard time, it is obvious that people go out of their way to give him a hard time and they do so in a way that is obviously not helpful to new players or anyone else. That's not to say late in the thread that people arguing against his position don't make good points. It's just that it would be nice if this good point making phase came earlier in the discussion.

This is an advice forum, so players ask for advice and experienced players then offer their advice, the latter doing so with relatively short justification since it takes a lot of time to compose a long post. It certainly takes a lot of cumulative time to respond with a long post to the same or similar questions in many threads. If a poster frequently disagrees with consensus advice, they have the right to do so, but it takes a lot of effort to examine faulty reasoning or incorrectly interpreted statistics etc. Regular posters are probably going to respond to that in some way in every thread where it occurs, but there have been many long-running debates with Berder in previous threads at this point, so I don't think it's worth it to maximize the initial discussion in some way.

It's also worth pointing out that Berder isn't bad at the game, so whether you agree with his ideas about what makes good play or how to analyze the game, the fact is that his way of thinking seems to work for him. It seems pretty dubious to me that his ideas about how to play are consistently useless or harmful to less experienced players, unless, like minmay, you think he's trolling. I mean, look at the objections -- when it comes down to it a lot of the arguments seem to rely on how a hypothetical new player is going to interpret Berder's commentary. This is pretty weak sauce given the tone of the thread.

Anyone can play the game however they like, but the OP was seeking an answer to a question, so if someone posts something that others disagree with, there's naturally going to be debate. I don't think Berder nor anyone else gets a free pass when explaining their ideas for how to play, and the initial responses to his post don't seem unreasonable to me at all.

I definitely disagree with the assertion "when it comes down to it a lot of the arguments seem to rely on how a hypothetical new player is going to interpret Berder's commentary". and into made a nice point about how differences arise between the gameplay one sees (or maybe perceives) on the part of experienced players and their advice, but that doesn't mean this is the basis of the other arguments for using e.g. sticky flame and getting not-so-high levels of fire/conj skill.

[and into]

Speaking as someone relatively new to the forums, it would seem to me more toxic to the discussion that the focus is on shooting down Berder for differing from some established/consensus position rather than offering elaboration where his advice is lacking in nuance or constructive contradiction. Constructive contradiction would include making explicit the points of contention upfront and offering alternative advice. Recall: The original comment, which pretty much set the tone, calls out Berder as consistently giving "terrible advice," the poster of which later goes on to accuse him of "advice trolling," which could be reasonably taken as an accusation of deliberate deception.

I do think people should try not to carry grudges, and should avoid bringing in bad juju from other threads. To some extent this is inevitable, though. If someone feels another poster has been unreasonable in some way, consistently, across a number of recent threads, that is going to impact their response to that poster elsewhere.

But let's look back at the actual time line, here:

Berder made some questionable claims on the first page. Several people argued against Berder's claims, and/or gave advice that contradicted what Berder said, but did so in a neutral and reasonable tone (see the posts by nago, basil, all but one post by Sar, inter alia). It was only when Berder doubled-down on the questionable advice, which also involved a lot of (at least borderline) irrelevant claims, that people got impatient and personal. There was quite a lot of good, useful information early in the thread, too, before that happened.

You will also notice that there were some disagreements amongst people early in the thread (regarding the utility of throw flame), before Berder even posted, but the people involved somehow managed to discuss the matter without derailing the thread into a discussion about octopodes.

[nago]

Btw I forgot to comment throw flame in the earlier post: maybe it's because I don't play often FE but fuck it is good. I think there are better lv.2 spells, but that's more about them being overpowered.

[Hurkyl]

Honestly, I'd thought many of the arguments against bender were rather surreal, looking more like they're just being outright contrary rather than trying to be good advice. Or, at the very least, stretching the truth so as to be able to say something outright contradictory to berder (and at the cost of no longer being an accurate depiction of reality).

But if I assume both competence and noble intent on all sides... I think this is mainly another rehash of the "tavern is unreasonably suspicious of the 'don't let things hit you' style of blaster mage play", which only really works if you learn to play it well (but, IMO, it works quite well once you do, if you're not impatient).

And a number of comments, I think, reflect the types of characters people play; I conclude Berder tends to play blaster mage on characters with lower HP and fewer available armor slots (and this was before I remember he's played a lot of Op), as his comments about how dangerous it is to let things hit you line up with my experiences, whereas the groupthink is more geared towards more neutral aptitudes and a full complement of armor, allowing characters that are much more capable of playing like a melee character whose primary weapon is CF/SF rather than whatever is being carried the weapon slot, making that more attractive as compared to focusing on blasting.

I find the fear of noise displayed in this thread to be rather mystifying, but upon reflection I've tended to play blaster mage on characters that can better deal with attracting attention, either through move speed (Spriggan) or having lots of MP (Sp, DE, Mu of Sif).

[gammafunk]

That's funny because I tend to find that, when Berder argues against many others giving advice, his arguments are rather surreal, looking more like they're just being outright contrary rather than trying to be good advice. The OP was asking about a Ds, which is a neutral-aptitude species that has most of those body slots, so I'm not sure it's reasonable to refer to advice relevant to that as "groupthink". Groupthink is when a group of people voice support for something that the OP's DsFE can do to play the game better?

Relying on sticky flame and other spells that make less noise around the time of Lair is just a way to increase your winrate compared to relying primarily on fireball, but I don't think saying that makes one have an irrational fear of noise in crawl.

Edit: Actually the post that started this debate was about DE, not about Ds, not sure where I got the Ds from. I'd definitely add to the "groupthink" that fireball shouldn't be your primary killspell in lair but can certainly be used when the situation calls for it, however.

[mps]

This is an advice forum, so players ask for advice and experienced players then offer their advice, the latter doing so with relatively short justification since it takes a lot of time to compose a long post. It certainly takes a lot of cumulative time to respond with a long post to the same or similar questions in many threads. If a poster frequently disagrees with consensus advice, they have the right to do so, but it takes a lot of effort to examine faulty reasoning or incorrectly interpreted statistics etc. Regular posters are probably going to respond to that in some way in every thread where it occurs, but there have been many long-running debates with Berder in previous threads at this point, so I don't think it's worth it to maximize the initial discussion in some way.

It's not necessary to identify faulty reasoning or incorrectly interpreted statistics to offer alternative advice. For a thread in an advice forum, we seem to agree that the discussion focuses to a remarkable extent on controversy between Berder and all other participants. Nearly every point Berder makes is attacked in striking contrast to responses to previous comments, where disagreement is handled in a more collegial spirit.

It seems clear to me there's a social dynamic here where everyone feels completely free to contradict everything he has to say with relatively little argument (though of course some people, including nago and sandman do really get into it with him, which is fair enough), a low standard of civility (where a high standard would include, for example, pinning down what he really means in a lot of places -- some here have made complaints against positions it's not clear Berder even took), and with no worries that anyone's going to say anything about it.

In any case, the fact that it's an advice forum suggests you would tend to address comments to people actually asking questions and that you'd provide advice that contradicts another poster's without feeling the need to prove them wrong or even address them directly. Again, I think it's telling that this is totally the opposite of what happens when Berder posts (but not a bad approximation to what happened earlier in the thread when people differed in opinion).

Anyone can play the game however they like, but the OP was seeking an answer to a question, so if someone posts something that others disagree with, there's naturally going to be debate. I don't think Berder nor anyone else gets a free pass when explaining their ideas for how to play, and the initial responses to his post don't seem unreasonable to me at all.

I definitely disagree with the assertion "when it comes down to it a lot of the arguments seem to rely on how a hypothetical new player is going to interpret Berder's commentary". and into made a nice point about how differences arise between the gameplay one sees (or maybe perceives) on the part of experienced players and their advice, but that doesn't mean this is the basis of the other arguments for using e.g. sticky flame and getting not-so-high levels of fire/conj skill.

Yeah, I thought and into's earlier post was fair in many respects and makes good points re: the nature of advice, but it seems to lecture Berder as if he doesn't know what he's doing (which he clearly does) and generally excuses the pile-on dynamic. It's not even that clear to me from reading this thread and others like it that there's a real difference of opinion underlying some of these arguments. It reads like you have a number of people who consistently make uncharitable readings of his posts, pick them apart line by line, and feel ill-used when he doesn't respond by capitulating. This is part of the problem with saying experts' practice may differ from their advice for nonexperts -- do you see this distinction playing a big role in this thread? It's mostly a discussion about "good play."

For example does Berder really say you should use fireball everywhere without worrying about noise? No, but you certainly see people in the thread who seem to think that's his position. Does he say stop using sticky flame and use fireball instead? Generally, no, but in certain situations he seems to think it's better to have a strong ranged option than to sticky flame everything, e.g. hydras. Does he say don't use conjure flame? No.

In other words, I think the point about people being afraid of new players being misinformed rings hollow, that if that was the issue, there'd be a clearer defense of skilling fire/conj. to a lower level earlier in the thread (and similarly on other supposed points of contention), and that the dominant factor in this thread is a social dynamic re: Berder vs. other forum regulars.

[Hurkyl]

Relying on sticky flame and other spells that make less noise around the time of Lair is just a way to increase your winrate compared to relying primarily on fireball, but I don't think saying that makes one have an irrational fear of noise in crawl.

Allegedly increase your winrate. My experience with lair is that dealing with the monsters you see safely and efficiently is much more important than worrying about the possibility of monsters you can't see, with the only real exception being that big lake ending. But I deal with the lake ending by having an escape route, rather than trying to be stealthy. (and making lots of noise actually helps this plan)

(Yes, CF and SF are often the right tool for efficiency too; I use them for that when it doesn't compromise safety, or when low MP reserves feel more dangerous than the immediate threat)

[Sandman25]

Allegedly increase your winrate. My experience with lair is that dealing with the monsters you see safely and efficiently is much more important than worrying about the possibility of monsters you can't see, with the only real exception being that big lake ending.

I don't understand how it is possible to deal safely with Fireball level noise.
You should probably try playing an Imp or ring of teleportation challenge, it can change your opinion. I often don't kill a monster which can be killed easily because of noise issue. Typical example is an exclusion on plain Orc on D2-D3 or multiple exclusions around some dangerous unique (you really don't want to see that Goblin which is in LoS of Erolcha if you care about winrate). Basically you never want to be at low MP near unexplored territory unless you are near stairs and making noise with Fireballs is a quick way to get low on MP unless you are with Vehumet/Sif Muna.

[moocowmoocow]

In other words, I think the point about people being afraid of new players being misinformed rings hollow, that if that was the issue, there'd be a clearer defense of skilling fire/conj. to a lower level earlier in the thread (and similarly on other supposed points of contention), and that the dominant factor in this thread is a social dynamic re: Berder vs. other forum regulars.

The thing is that new players tend to benefit most from advice that is general. The more specific you get, the more nuance and experience comes into play. I think Berder's main offense that initially draws fire is that he casually and carelessly makes very specific recommendations. It takes care and nuance to address those statements, and when people do, he tends to handwave, reiterate his statement, or sometimes even make more specific statements that need to be addressed, confusing things further.

It needs to be emphasized that Crawl is very complex due to it's randomization and many systems in play. As a newbie it's very appealing to look for specific strategic advice ("build character in this order: X, Y and Z"), but that can wind up hindering progress for a long time. That happened to me when I used to follow CrawlWiki guides religiously and wonder why I could never win. It was only after reading on the Tavern for awhile and spectating games that I became aware of tactics and general principles (packaged in what you might criticize as "group think"), which finally allowed me to improve and win. So while I agree that part of it is simply Berder's tone or personality drawing ire, I do believe it's a fair to say that his way of giving advice can hurt new players, by emphasizing what is unimportant and making what is already complicated even more so.

[Hurkyl]

I don't understand how it is possible to deal safely with Fireball level noise.
...
making noise with Fireballs is a quick way to get low on MP

Don't engage in protracted fights you can't win; start retreating before things reach critical levels rather than after.

Naturally, the more your character is capable of doing before things approach critical levels, the better this works. This is probably correlated with the fact I value Spellcasting skill more than the Tavern average. (this is the same principle as a melee character starting to retreat before they get to low HP rather than after)

And this plan shouldn't be used by characters for which retreating with low-moderate MP is not a generally safe option, like a Naga or a Chei worshipper (that is away from the stairs), or

an Imp or ring of teleportation challenge

Also,

it can change your opinion.

playing such characters is unlikely to change my opinion; I do not have any reason to believe that the best options for a character without *Tele are necessarily also good options for characters with *Tele.

And really, I would expect trying to play pure blaster mage under that constraint to be infeasible even if your spells made no noise at all.

[Magipi]

- conjure flame on the title the monster will step (easily with hydra, I admit it requires a little more practice with frog and mambas).

Wait, what? WHAT? Does that really work? I have never ever heard anything like this in the Tavern or anywhere before.
(Edit: or does this only work with monsters who are willing to step into fire anyway? In this case I misunderstood.)

that famous Pteriforever post

And what is that?

[duvessa]

https://crawl.develz.org/tavern/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4288&p=55684#p55684

Wait, what? WHAT? Does that really work? I have never ever heard anything like this in the Tavern or anywhere before.
(Edit: or does this only work with monsters who are willing to step into fire anyway? In this case I misunderstood.)

Whether a monster will voluntarily move into a flame cloud is randomized but all of those monsters (especially hydras) will do so pretty readily, and if a spiny frog/mamba refuses to walk into conjured flame that also means you can block it with conjured flame (unless it's already next to you, but in the case of FE then you just sticky flame it and it dies)

[Sandman25]

playing such characters is unlikely to change my opinion; I do not have any reason to believe that the best options for a character without *Tele are necessarily also good options for characters with *Tele.

They teach player to fight in a safe way. You basically cannot die if you are never below 50% HP/MP.

[mps]

In other words, I think the point about people being afraid of new players being misinformed rings hollow, that if that was the issue, there'd be a clearer defense of skilling fire/conj. to a lower level earlier in the thread (and similarly on other supposed points of contention), and that the dominant factor in this thread is a social dynamic re: Berder vs. other forum regulars.

The thing is that new players tend to benefit most from advice that is general. The more specific you get, the more nuance and experience comes into play. I think Berder's main offense that initially draws fire is that he casually and carelessly makes very specific recommendations. It takes care and nuance to address those statements, and when people do, he tends to handwave, reiterate his statement, or sometimes even make more specific statements that need to be addressed, confusing things further.

I don't see it. I think he gets into protracted arguments about specifics because he gets sniped at with specifics in a way that other posters don't. I think he's held to a higher standard of rigor because some people don't like him/his point of view/whatever and when he doesn't back down, he has a particular style of argument that makes it hard to shut him down through ridicule. Hence long threads with lots of references to the morgues and so on, exasperated posters arguing that morgues and database queries don't tell you anything about whatever the topic is, etc.

In spite of the evidently defining moments that bad advice posts can prove to be in some readers' lives, it's easy to disagree with someone's advice without a) getting into direct arguments with them, b) getting into drawn out threads in which five people try to prove that every sentence some other guy has posted contains a grievous error, or c) being a catty.

[Sandman25]

Actually I agree with some points brought by mps. I used to be in the same position as Berder (or am I still there?). Unfortunately it cannot be resolved in a meaningful way, it's irrational.

[and into]

I do take your point, mps. But it really does take two to tango, and when someone doesn't want to, we have the report button.

Anyway, I feel I am going to have to make a bit of an injunction here, as a thread in DCA has now become a meta-discussion about posting standards. (Sorry OP—I hope there is enough fire beneath all the smoke that you got something useful out of this.)

I am locking this thread, but I will (in short order) start a new thread in the Suggestions & Criticism forum about standards in DCA (and by extension YASD/YAVP, I suppose). However, I ask that people keep the discussion in that thread general.

Looking at the moderator logs, I will note that there have not been reports on any posts in this thread, and that when it comes to matters of tone and finer distinctions of what is truly mean and what is merely snide, it is standard practice for the moderators not to act, unless a report has been submitted.

[As always, the thread can be unlocked, and I will give a fair hearing and reply to all arguments for re-opening the thread via PM.]

[Thread in S&C is here: https://crawl.develz.org/tavern/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=15396]