Formicids

[pratamawirya]

Instead of thinking about an obscure (though not unrealistic) scenario where the player bores himself to death by digging a lot of killholes, we should instead think about WHY the player would want to do that. The answer is kind of obvious, right? Because Fo is rather WEAK, even after their HP and xp aptitude got buffed.

Well, yeah, I understand that this is the internet, the place where people overthink stuff all day. But still... instead of overthinking Fo's digging, why don't we direct our attention and energy to their more obvious flaw?

[bcadren]

Instead of thinking about an obscure (though not unrealistic) scenario where the player bores himself to death by digging a lot of killholes, we should instead think about WHY the player would want to do that. The answer is kind of obvious, right? Because Fo is rather WEAK, even after their HP and xp aptitude got buffed.

Well, yeah, I understand that this is the internet, the place where people overthink stuff all day. But still... instead of overthinking Fo's digging, why don't we direct our attention and energy to their more obvious flaw?

I agree. I also don't really like putting a lot of attention into banning something just because it 'could' be used in a boring strategy that no one would really want to do unless they wanted to.

[dck]

Uh, their xp apt was nerfed, not buffed.
Anyway I'm not sure what power level you're expecting from the race with permastasis conduct.

[pratamawirya]

Uh, their xp apt was nerfed, not buffed.

What? I thought they were changed to have human's xp apt. Was it reverted or something?

[dck]

For had +2 exp for a good while.

[One-Eyed Jack]

Instead of thinking about an obscure (though not unrealistic) scenario where the player bores himself to death by digging a lot of killholes, we should instead think about WHY the player would want to do that. The answer is kind of obvious, right? Because Fo is rather WEAK, even after their HP and xp aptitude got buffed.

No, they do it because they want to win. How strong the character is is completely irrrelevent to whether this particular tactic is effective or not.

Well, yeah, I understand that this is the internet, the place where people overthink stuff all day. But still... instead of overthinking Fo's digging, why don't we direct our attention and energy to their more obvious flaw?

"This race encourages a boring way of playing" is transparently against crawl's design philosophy. "This race is hard/frail" is not. Which one is an "obvious flaw"?

Also kudos for referring to design discussion as "overthinking"

[khalil]

Here's the thing. If you get a easy race, you don't need to do stupid stuff to win. A DeCj is not going to grind lair, whereas a MuCj has to do that in order to make up for terrible attributes.
When players grind, don't think "How are they grinding and how can I make them stop," think "WHY are they grinding, and how can I make it so they don't have to?"

[dck]

I've never had to grind as a Mu and I can see no sensible course of action that would make me have to grind while playing any Mu.

[One-Eyed Jack]

If DD of Makhleb had intrinsic free digging it would be optimal to use it extensively in a tedious manner. So buff them, I guess

"No one would do his in practice so why remove it" is a terrible argument that has been rejected repeatedly so if we could stop retreading it that would be nice thanks

[crate]

also, a race being weak (or strong) is not a flaw
a mechanic that encourages things that are directly in opposition to crawl's design goals is definitely a flaw

(lair ood spawns being completely harmless is indeed a problem with crawl and you can exploit it with mummies if you want, but that's a problem with lair and not really with mummies; it is also potentially useful for other races)

[TeshiAlair]

So, to me, its obvious infidig is going away because.

1. The people think it should have good reasons
2. The people who think it shouldn't use the reason that they don't abuse it, and thus putting a restriction on it won't affect them unless it is an absurd restriction.

Can we move on?

I like personally the "+X charges per XL" option.

[pratamawirya]

Instead of thinking about an obscure (though not unrealistic) scenario where the player bores himself to death by digging a lot of killholes, we should instead think about WHY the player would want to do that. The answer is kind of obvious, right? Because Fo is rather WEAK, even after their HP and xp aptitude got buffed.

No, they do it because they want to win. How strong the character is is completely irrrelevent to whether this particular tactic is effective or not.

But who actually does that? How many players actually do that?

Also, people don't just do boring stuff like that. There's always a reason.

Well, yeah, I understand that this is the internet, the place where people overthink stuff all day. But still... instead of overthinking Fo's digging, why don't we direct our attention and energy to their more obvious flaw?

"This race encourages a boring way of playing" is transparently against crawl's design philosophy. "This race is hard/frail" is not. Which one is an "obvious flaw"?

Because Fo are frail (because being a little bit beefier human but with permastasis kind of sucks), they encourage a boring way of playing that is digging killholes everywhere they can. Really, this line of thought isn't that hard to understand.
(Do you realize we use "encourage" rather liberally here?)

Also kudos for referring to design discussion as "overthinking"

Unless you can present a compelling argument about how "design discussion" is immune to overthinking, your passive-aggressive stance doesn't really bring anything to the table.

[Tenaya]

Also, people don't just do boring stuff like that. There's always a reason.

The reason people do boring stuff in video games is because it is the optimal strategy.

[pratamawirya]

Also, people don't just do boring stuff like that. There's always a reason.

The reason people do boring stuff in video games is because it is the optimal strategy.

And why is it the optimal strategy at the first place? Why design a race in such a way that they aren't really fun to play without resorting to boring tricks? (Notice the contradicition there?)

[One-Eyed Jack]

But who actually does that? How many players actually do that?
Also, people don't just do boring stuff like that. There's always a reason.

Whether or not people exploit a mechanic is irrelevant to whether or not it's a good mechanic. There are many reasons not to exploit tedious mechanics - e.g. tedium - but as long as one of the reasons to exploit it is that it increases your odds of winning, then it's a bad mechanic.

Because Fo are frail (because being a little bit beefier human but with permastasis kind of sucks), they encourage a boring way of playing that is digging killholes everywhere they can. Really, this line of thought isn't that hard to understand.
(Do you realize we use "encourage" rather liberally here?)

I don't understand how killholes utility are related to Fo's frailty. They would also be very useful on a Dg or Hu or whatever.

The only plausible argument I could see is that you are more likely to exploit a bad mechanic if you think your odds of winning without it are lower relative to other races, but I think the problems with this argument are pretty obvious

My understanding of "encourage" is "if you play this way, you are more likely to win" because that's the most important factor for the player as envisioned by the design philosophy. So the game "encourages" using two-handed weapons at high skill, but does not encourage repeatedly apporting the Orb of Zot.

[Magipi]

Instead of thinking about an obscure (though not unrealistic) scenario where the player bores himself to death by digging a lot of killholes, we should instead think about WHY the player would want to do that. The answer is kind of obvious, right? Because Fo is rather WEAK, even after their HP and xp aptitude got buffed.

No, they do it because they want to win. How strong the character is is completely irrrelevent to whether this particular tactic is effective or not.

Did the best players dig killholes all over the place in all the earlier versions of Crawl?

[crate]

A thing is not "not a problem" just because it is not used.

Twisted ressurrection is a perfect example of this (well, the old one, where aboms healed over time). It was actually, for very many versions, a ridiculously, hideously overpowered spell ... if you chose to deal with the tedium of turning so many corpses into aboms (you could have hundreds of aboms). This abomination army could kill everything outside of zot without you even doing anything to help it other than keeping it with you (it might've worked in zot also, but I never tried). And this is without kiku corpse dropping. With it...

No one actually did this, because carting abominations from floor to floor was so horrendously tedious that not playing crawl at all was a more fun alternative. But it was still a possibility, and bad design, and bad for the game.

(My suspicion is that current twisted ressurrection--which is the same as the old one except abominations no longer heal over time--is still problematic in this same way but I cannot say for sure).

[pratamawirya]

Kind of weird this got split from the original thread and landed on Dungeon Crawling Advice. But, eh....

@One-Eyed Jack:
People play games because games are fun. If winning is fun, then okay, we'll try to win. If not, well... why bother?

(Guys, please note that I'm not actually against the removal of Fo's innate digging, but if I ever support the removal, I do it for a different reason.)

[Kate]

Kind of weird this got split from the original thread and landed on Dungeon Crawling Advice. But, eh....

@One-Eyed Jack:
People play games because games are fun. If winning is fun, then okay, we'll try to win. If not, well... why bother?

(Guys, please note that I'm not actually against the removal of Fo's innate digging, but if I ever support the removal, I do it for a different reason.)

It was split because (as was also explained in PM) it demonstrated a lack of understanding of Crawl design, and as such was unhelpfully derailing a thread that actually had a relevant point and some useful discussion. If you happen to just not care about these design ideas that's fine, but in that case please don't post in and derail otherwise-useful GDD threads.

[Hopeless]

My $0.025: I liked the dig ability of Formorians for the RP aspect and being reminscent of older Roguelikes tactics without resorting to infinite kill holes. However, I still found Fos unplayable. (That was probably more me failing at them than any intrinsic problem.) I expect they will be entirely unplayable now and much less fun for me. The reason for removing the ability is because people were abusing the ability? Seems ridiculous that people COULD do this but c'est la vie. If a power gamer finds a way to abuse something, they will, thus removing the fun (via having it nerfed/obliterated) from something for everyone else who doesn't. *shrugs* the game goes on.

[TheDefiniteArticle]

However, I still found Fos unplayable. (That was probably more me failing at them than any intrinsic problem.)

No it is an intrinsic problem. Specifically, formicids suck.

The reason for removing the ability is because people were abusing the ability?

The reason for nerfing the ability is people abusing it.

The reason for removing the ability is that there is no good reason for formicids to have it in the first place.

If a power gamer finds a way to abuse something, they will, thus removing the fun (via having it nerfed/obliterated) from something for everyone else who doesn't. *shrugs* the game goes on.

Did you ever stop to consider that the change will make the game much more fun for the "power gamer", and that maybe your fun is not the only fun that matters?

[pratamawirya]

Kind of weird this got split from the original thread and landed on Dungeon Crawling Advice. But, eh....

@One-Eyed Jack:
People play games because games are fun. If winning is fun, then okay, we'll try to win. If not, well... why bother?

(Guys, please note that I'm not actually against the removal of Fo's innate digging, but if I ever support the removal, I do it for a different reason.)

It was split because (as was also explained in PM) it demonstrated a lack of understanding of Crawl design, and as such was unhelpfully derailing a thread that actually had a relevant point and some useful discussion. If you happen to just not care about these design ideas that's fine, but in that case please don't post in and derail otherwise-useful GDD threads.

All I wanna say right now is you people interpret your own philosophy too literally. But it's understandable; you don't even get paid making this game, you have college lives and day jobs and whatever else outside of working on this game, so you barely have any spare time for interpreting your own design philosophy in any way other than quite literally.

(And I wasn't feeling weird about why this got split from the original thread, but rather about why this got split from the original thread AND landed on Advice section.)

maybe your fun is not the only fun that matters?

I kind of get the impression that the fun of "non-power gamers" hardly matters around here (only a very small community plays this game, after all), but maybe that's just me.

[Kate]

Thanks for informing me that you know what I think better than I do, that sure cleared things up.

[duvessa]

it is axiomatically impossible to interpret the design goals too literally

[Hopeless]

However, I still found Fos unplayable. (That was probably more me failing at them than any intrinsic problem.)

No it is an intrinsic problem. Specifically, formicids suck.

The reason for removing the ability is because people were abusing the ability?

The reason for nerfing the ability is people abusing it.

The reason for removing the ability is that there is no good reason for formicids to have it in the first place.

If a power gamer finds a way to abuse something, they will, thus removing the fun (via having it nerfed/obliterated) from something for everyone else who doesn't. *shrugs* the game goes on.

Did you ever stop to consider that the change will make the game much more fun for the "power gamer", and that maybe your fun is not the only fun that matters?

Why would you assume that I did not stop to think before posting? Did I say something to offend you personally? I mean from what I've seen of your posts, you seem like an overly aggressive asshat who has nothing nice to say to anyone but I would not go out of my way to be offensive to you. I expressed what I think of as fun/not fun so as to share my $0.025 not to demean yours. Opinions are like Elbows.

[pratamawirya]

Thanks for informing me that you know what I think better than I do, that sure cleared things up.

This sarcasm got me confused for a while....

Anyway, I wasn't saying that eliminating tedious aspects of the game was bad, but people around here might be doing it for the wrong reason. The fact that you people like to use "encourage" and such quite liberally (you don't even have any number on how many players, in reality, actually get "encouraged" to do tedious stuff with Fo) kind of shows that. And you people (at least in the original Fo thread) didn't even talk about the WHY. Why do Fo's digging encourage bad gameplay? What is wrong with Fo that the bad gameplay is even considered at all? This is a legit design question, for God's sake. But forgive me if it's not a part of your "design philosophy".

[Kate]

If you were to perhaps read some of the many responses to this thread and the original one, you would in fact notice a large number of explanations of things such as:
"why this mechanic is problematic at all" (this one is explained extremely well in the very first post of the original thread, as well as in multiple posts since then)
"why this mechanic would be problematic on any species, not just Formicids" (One-Eyed Jack has the answers to this one)
"why the existence of this mechanic is problematic even if it is not generally actively abused" (crate solved this mystery)

Completely ignoring these explanations and then having the nerve to claim that others are ignoring the questions is pretty unbelievable.

[pratamawirya]

If you were to perhaps read some of the many responses to this thread and the original one, you would in fact notice a large number of explanations of things such as:
"why this mechanic is problematic at all" (this one is explained extremely well in the very first post of the original thread, as well as in multiple posts since then)
"why this mechanic would be problematic on any species, not just Formicids" (One-Eyed Jack has the answers to this one)
"why the existence of this mechanic is problematic even if it is not generally actively abused" (crate solved this mystery)

Completely ignoring these explanations and then having the nerve to claim that others are ignoring the questions is pretty unbelievable.

You are talking about the why of the infinite digging mechanic being abusable, and I am talking about the why of the infinite digging mechanic is even considered to be abused at all (which is rooted in Fo being a sucky race; as far as I know, in reality people don't even grind with Mu unless it's a very bad Mu). To my eyes, those two are different, but to your eyes they are potato and patata, no?

(And I actually agree with crate on why Fo's innate digging is pointless design-wise, but "pointless design-wise" isn't the same as "encouraging bad gameplay".)

[basil]

If a power gamer finds a way to abuse something, they will, thus removing the fun (via having it nerfed/obliterated) from something for everyone else who doesn't. *shrugs* the game goes on.

How is digging even fun? I use it fairly liberally, but I wouldn't say it is, save that it makes draconians much less annoying.

It's a resource like any other; with most races, it has a (tenuous) limit in wand charges, so you probably can't use it for literally every fight. So there's a minor aspect of resource management that requires some thought. But by itself, infinite digging sounds as entertaining as infinite heal wounds or infinite curing or infinite teleport: the entire concept of managing that resources goes out the window.

[Kate]

You are talking about the why of the infinite digging mechanic being abusable, and I am talking about the why of the infinite digging mechanic is even considered to be abused at all (which is rooted in Fo being a sucky race; as far as I know, in reality people don't even grind with Mu unless it's a very bad Mu). To my eyes, those two are different, but to your eyes they are potato and patata, no?

no, and also no

[pratamawirya]

You are talking about the why of the infinite digging mechanic being abusable, and I am talking about the why of the infinite digging mechanic is even considered to be abused at all (which is rooted in Fo being a sucky race; as far as I know, in reality people don't even grind with Mu unless it's a very bad Mu). To my eyes, those two are different, but to your eyes they are potato and patata, no?

no, and also no

okay thanks

[Kate]

As a final attempt to help you understand: the question of whether or not Formicids need to abuse infinite digging is, as you say, completely unrelated to whether or not the existence of infinite digging is a problem! The GDD thread, however, was specifically about infinite digging being a problem, and how to solve that problem. You had no useful input there, so your derailing posts were moved elsewhere. If you have useful things to say about the completely separate topic of whether Formicids are weak or not, go ahead and do that.

Repeatedly telling people that you know what they think better than they do is rude and obnoxious, so I would appreciate it if you stopped doing that.

[and into]

pratamawirya:

1.) A lot Crawl design is proactive. Things are changed all the time in Crawl for problems they *might* cause, without reference to numbers of people who actually experience said problems.

2.) Aside from the question of actual potential for practical abuse: Aren't limits on the use of certain helpful effects good? Doesn't it make one be more thoughtful and careful in his/her decisions?

3.) Relating 1 & 2: those things which *can* potentially be abused are usually bad design in general apart from whether or not they are actually abused. Remember when Chei slowed you down by having you choose stuff to ponderize? That was rather clunky design even apart from the bad interactions (spider form in particular) that allowed abuse. The analogy applies doubly, because like Formicids, Chei is generally challenging, and the changes necessary for good design were a non-negligible nerf. But nerfing wasn't the intent, better overall design was, and it was achieved in Chei's case. So shall it be with Fo.

4.) Formicids are still in development and maybe they will be strengthened in certain respects down the line. However the exact mechanics of their characteristics now need to be worked out. What kind of digging and how much of it they get is part of that working out.


There was a report on this thread and while there have not been any problems in the way of over-the-line personal insults, the thread does seem to be spinning in circles.

pratamawirya, read the above and the rest of the thread and, even if you don't agree with the reasoning, at least try to understand where MarvinPA and others are coming from. For now I'm going to close the thread. If anyone strongly objects PM me. New ideas for digging substitutes or tweaks for Formicids can go into GDD or CYC depending on how complete and/or serious the proposals are.