Any way to check 'exact' monster stat in-game (or out-game)?

[Sandman25]

I choose to haste just because it's fast and I didn't want to risk in my first encounter

I have a question. How did you know that it cannot one-shot you? You were a VS in robe, right? What if it had max damage greater than your HP+MP?

[tasonir]

As an example: whenever you provide a number (such as "monster has AC 20" or "your piety is 185"), you have to provide the reference frame. This is easy for piety ("185/200") but harder for other numbers -- whenever further functions come into play (like stepdown on spellpower) or the situation is not as symmetric as a player might guess (monster AC).

Wading into this debate might be suicide, but I take issue with the idea that you have to provide a reference frame for "ac 20". The player AC is displayed right from turn 0, most likely 2 ac, but hey maybe you're a fighter and you have 5 ac. As it goes up, you just know that now you have 12 ac. That's it. And it works fine. You don't know what "5 ac" means on your first fighter, but after playing ~20 games you start to realize how protective that is (or isn't). If a new player examines a goblin first and sees 0 ac/12 ev, they may not immediately realize that 12 is actually pretty high ev, but after they've gotten to lair and examined some/most monsters on the way, they'll know the scale pretty well. And then they'll understand when they get to spider why emperor scorpions are so damned tough - they have 20 ac, which is quite uncommon, especially at that depth.

This should apply to ac, ev, sh, and hp.

If a reference frame is required, then this should be considered a design flaw that none is given to the player when they start, so please bring up a dialog on turn 0 that explains that "2 ac will help protect you slightly from attacks, but it is considered low armor and your character is expected to reach ~20 ac by the end of the game if you like magic, and at least 30 or even 40-50 ac if you choose to focus on heavy armor." Repeat for ev, sh (emphasize that only some characters will use SH), and hp.

<press space to continue>

[Sandman25]

Oddly enough, I'm a software engineer... And I agree you can measure all those things, and they're all proxies to usability. I also admit that I have one death due to taking 80 damage in one turn from an ettin when I didn't realize that was possible (a spriggan I think). I think having some idea of the melee damage potential would be good. But I also agree that simply handing them the maximum possible is probably misleading, since the chance of rolling that is quite low. I'm not sure what should be displayed; probably a 99th percentile damage or some such.

Sometimes. But that really doesn't stop it from being rude. And when you resort to inventing motivations which are almost certainly false for them, it's not really acceptable from my angle.

Max damage is the best. This way the player will not be able to accuse devs, it was a player mistake not to use scroll of blinking or something.

I am not inventing motivations, I am really angry/hostile/bad. When I started moaning I didn't think about emotional storm, I got the idea later (it happens often when a person does something bad and then finds an excuse). I still hope some dev will try to explain me and everyone else where I am wrong (because I believe it is impossible in this case since usability advantage is obvious and I change nothing for new players due to the fact that default value for the option keeps current behavior).

Edit. As anecdotal experience, I lost a Dr to Tor. Snail recently, it rolled max damage (25/25) and I rolled min AC (0/26) so max damage is not that rare. 1/25*1/26=1/650=0.15%

[Berder]

To truly make Crawl combat transparent to the uninitiated (or even to the initiated) it would be necessary to greatly simplify it. AC/EV/SH/GDR/RMSL/DMSL/Shroud/DD damage reduction/umbra/fighter flag and even resistances are too complicated and spoilery in their effect.

I favor displaying monster max damage in-game though. That's an important number that a good player really needs to pay attention to. Displaying the 99th percentile of damage would be too tricky since it depends on too many factors - enemy weapon, and all of the aforementioned complicated player defenses.

[Hurkyl]

I'm not sure what should be displayed; probably a 99th percentile damage or some such.

If a bridge has a 1% chance of failing each Sunday, it won't last three years.

Permadeath games require being extremely risk averse; 1% chance of death in a turn is really too much risk to take with any sort of regularity.

[tasonir]

I am not inventing motivations, I am really angry/hostile/bad. When I started moaning I didn't think about emotional storm, I got the idea later (it happens often when a person does something bad and then finds an excuse). I still hope some dev will try to explain me and everyone else where I am wrong (because I believe it is impossible in this case since usability advantage is obvious and I change nothing for new players due to the fact that default value for the option keeps current behavior).

I don't think you're wrong, but I do think that this method of arguing is highly ineffective. You're basically in the worst case scenario for the backfire effect: http://skepdic.com/backfireeffect.html

Repeatedly telling someone "you're wrong" tends to make their mind scream "I'm right" even louder, and they'll be more resistant to change. People HATE changing their beliefs. This is one of the main reasons (besides just being nice) that it's so important to avoid hostility in arguments (arguments here meaning rational debates, not fights).

[ontoclasm]

Jeez, I thought gammafunk's first post in this thread was a made-up example and not a real monster that's actually in the game. What the hell is that thing supposed to accomplish other than making crawl look bad

It's fast. It hits hard. It has no gimmick other than "you can sometimes walk away from it." It doesn't have ranged AI or attack anything other than your HP or have weird resistances or cast spells or come in packs or affect other monsters in any way. Until you posted this I would have assumed that it would get the highly-coveted Minmay Seal of Approval. What am I missing here?

Like are we only allowed to have speed 12 yaks or what?

[ThreeInvisibleDucks]

I read the OP as wanting exact numbers, which is a different story, this is why they were directed to gretell.

But why is that? The most useful monster stat I could use in-game is max damage to know whether I run the risk of dying to a single blow. Sure, that info is available elsewhere, but it's tedious to break the flow and switch out of the game to look up something that crucial.

I have managed to play so far without caring about whether the max damage is more than my HP, and plan to keep doing so. Crawl combat is too insanely swingy for such calculations to matter in general. I have a general sense of danger at any particular point, that is good enough for me. Maybe it isn't for you, so you are welcome to source dive or use wiki or whatever (I do both, but not for this purpose).

I don't know the max damage of most monsters either, but I'd still like to see it in xv. Crawl combat surely is swingy, and that's one thing that makes it hard to get a good feeling on the actual monster difficulty. One might tab through one monster game after game, and suddenly die to a combination of bad AC roll and close-to-max monster damage roll. It's usually those moments that make me fire up the wiki and check the actual numbers. I don't think having that number available in-game would do any harm, but rather make the game more discoverable without having to resort to external sources.

[Sandman25]

I don't think you're wrong, but I do think that this method of arguing is highly ineffective. You're basically in the worst case scenario for the backfire effect: http://skepdic.com/backfireeffect.html

Repeatedly telling someone "you're wrong" tends to make their mind scream "I'm right" even louder, and they'll be more resistant to change. People HATE changing their beliefs. This is one of the main reasons (besides just being nice) that it's so important to avoid hostility in arguments (arguments here meaning rational debates, not fights).

Yes, I know. As I told before I tried to be nice. And not only me.
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=16505&p=226753

It does not work, as dpeg said devs write crawl for devs (and I must add "and only for devs" because they refuse to accept easy-to-support patches which make game more user friendly for non-devs who don't live in #crawl). That makes me hostile.

Edit. If their mind is screaming "I am right", it is screaming also "I will show that bastard how wrong he is" and this is what I want. I want to make them present a clear answer and not that stupid "it's in won't do list", is it some kind of religious book or something? Smart people have a rationale reason for everything they defend.

[duvessa]

Jeez, I thought gammafunk's first post in this thread was a made-up example and not a real monster that's actually in the game. What the hell is that thing supposed to accomplish other than making crawl look bad

It's fast. It hits hard. It has no gimmick other than "you can sometimes walk away from it." It doesn't have ranged AI or attack anything other than your HP or have weird resistances or cast spells or come in packs or affect other monsters in any way. Until you posted this I would have assumed that it would get the highly-coveted Minmay Seal of Approval. What am I missing here?

Like are we only allowed to have speed 12 yaks or what?

I don't think monsters that are summarized by "don't melee this" are good for the game. If it appeared earlier so that you couldn't just trivially avoid meleeing it, I'd be fine with it. I'm pretty sure I've voiced the exact same complaint about shrikes.

edit: also, differing movement/action speeds for monsters are really, really bad IMO. It leads to so many silly things. "Stand next to the stairs, let this speed 15 monster hit you, then step onto the stairs and go up, so that it can't follow you up the stairs, because its paralyses itself when it attacks for some reason".

[byrel]

I didn't see anywhere in that thread where dpeg said that devs are the target audience of crawl. Instead he justifies it based on his understanding of player (particularly new player) psychology. I think he overgeneralizes, but... it doesn't look like he's trying to make a game for him, so much as for his understanding of the average gamer.

[Sandman25]

I didn't see anywhere in that thread where dpeg said that devs are the target audience of crawl.

It is not in this thread but I am sure it happened recently.

Edit. viewtopic.php?f=17&t=17482&p=240273#p240273

[byrel]

Eh. I have a distinct dislike for dpeg's tone in that and the previous thread. You can't advocate for certain policies based on egalitarian reasons and then claim that the best you can do is design the game for yourself. Ick.

But I still don't think getting hostile will help.

[Sandman25]

But I still don't think getting hostile will help.

I agree, nothing will help. They will add it to won't do and that's it.

[MainiacJoe]

In the four times I've made it to Zot:5 I've not had trouble with Orb Guardians. Thus Zot:5 has been largely boring for me: I have a plan for OoF, a plan for ancient liches, and the rest I can handle normally. If the worry here is that the juggernaut is too strong for Depths, and if I'm right that Orb guardians are not terrifying in Zot:5, then why not just keep the names and where they spawn, but switch stats? Running into an Orb Guardian in Depths would be a challenge but not a potential RNG murder, and the Orb chamber gets a lot more scary.

[byrel]

In the four times I've made it to Zot:5 I've not had trouble with Orb Guardians. Thus Zot:5 has been largely boring for me: I have a plan for OoF, a plan for ancient liches, and the rest I can handle normally. If the worry here is that the juggernaut is too strong for Depths, and if I'm right that Orb guardians are not terrifying in Zot:5, then why not just keep the names and where they spawn, but switch stats? Running into an Orb Guardian in Depths would be a challenge but not a potential RNG murder, and the Orb chamber gets a lot more scary.

I tend to be terrified of Zot:5, but it's not the orb guardians; unless berserk they aren't scary. It's the ancient liches and orbs of fire.

I agree, nothing will help. They will add it to won't do and that's it.

Welp, we might as well go softly into that dark night. In reality though, there are things we all agree could use clarification. The hex's success was one of those, and I think there are probably some sets of numbers where they could be persuaded by an adequately well-designed display. I think we can get more and better change by not letting ourselves get lumped into an 'us vs them'; no numbers or ALLLLL the numbers. And the way to accomplish that, from my point of view, is to acknowledge their points when they're legitimate. Numbers CAN distract. Honestly, I think the strength number particularly tends to distract newer plays. So many 'I'm a MiBe and I always raise strength!' So I think in specific instances we take those seriously and try to design around them.

[Sandman25]

Yes, I agree, there is no point in displaying Str/Int/Dex for MiBe. It distracts player. Different body armour should display "It is a bad light armour for you", "It is an average middle armour for you", "it is an excellent heavy armour for you", "it is the best heavy armour for you". When you are Int-drained, there should be red status line "You are somewhat close to being mindless", "you are close to being mindless", "you are almost mindless".
I am not kidding by the way.

[byrel]

Yes, I agree, there is no point in displaying Str/Int/Dex for MiBe. It distracts player. Different body armour should display "It is a bad light armour for you", "It is an average middle armour for you", "it is an excellent heavy armour for you", "it is the best heavy armour for you". When you are Int-drained, there should be red status line "Your are somewhat close to being mindless", "you are close to being mindless", "you are almost mindless".
I am not kidding by the way.

I'm not sure that's the best way of handling it, but in many ways it would be more user friendly than the current way.

[Sandman25]

I'm not sure that's the best way of handling it, but in many ways it would be more user friendly than the current way.

Yes. How is the player expected to know that 0 is special? It could be -1.

[Rast]

This has come up number of times, but for some reason people keep saying it's never gonna be implemented...

People will continue to say this until it actually is implemented, and then everyone will take it for granted and never debate it again.

The only question is what version that will happen in.

[Lasty]

Reacting to disagreement with an insult-laced temper tantrum isn't acceptable, and it's already happened on this topic several times. I've given Sandman25 a time out.

Just to be clear, none of these topics are off limits, but this type of behavior is. Everyone is free to advocate for their preferred vision of crawl ad nauseam as long as they aren't also behaving badly.

[VeryAngryFelid]

Lasty,
Does it mean there is no other response from devs in regards to sequel vs in-game description problem?

I hope it is allowed that I use this account instead of Sandman25 to ask the question.

[Rast]

I was always wondering who very angry felid was....

Sandman, just let it go. You aren't convincing the devs, and everyone else is already convinced.

[Lasty]

The point of the 24 hr ban is that you aren't allowed to post here for the time of the ban.

[gammafunk]

Seems like a new monster called 'juggernaut' got added to the recent trunk version. I want to know its stats-hp, movement speed, AC/EV/whatever numeric values the game is not showing. Is there any way I can get access to the information?

Emphasis added by me to highlight what was in the original request. The game will always not display certain details and there will always be places where one can look up some of those details. If I'm in ##crawl and I enter the fleshworks wizlab, I can type !vault wizlab_cigutovi and see the des file implementing the entire map, giving the layout, details on what kinds of enemies it places, how many, and how both monsters and loot are randomized, etc. This is not information we'd conceivably want to put in the game, but it's made available so that people who want spoilers don't have to go out of their way.

There's no inherent problem with bots existing to look up spoilers and said bots displaying higher levels of detail compared to in-game information. I'm sure the monster information and related displays in crawl can be improved, but matching the information in Sequell, other IRC bots, or the Wiki is not an aim we have.

[dpeg]

I am not really sure what I am doing here, with people telling how much they like my tone, or my motivation etc.
Anyway, I should definitely mention Eino's usability tests conducted with genuinely new players.
And hey, I really like your tones! Makes me wanna post to no end!

Yo dpeg, not to tag team you or anything, but have you guys ever considered linearizing and/or otherwise simplifying some of the formulas that make the actual numbers so inscrutable?

No, why should we?
Since the start of DCSS, Erik put "combat reform" on the TODOs. It is very hard to do, and never happened. If you know about Brent Ross' abandoned DC 4.1 fork (which later triggered DCSS): he had good code and good formulas, but was unable to emulate the DC 4.0 gameplay closely enough.
This is why DCSS intentionally sets lower aims. We're trying to move in smaller steps, and still fuck up at times (like with the AC reform around 0.6, which was largely my fault).

dpeg, Yes, I remember our conversation. But we didn't mention sequel at that time. How is using sequel different from using a new option which I suggested?

I told you already back in the message, and it's been said here as well: an option makes it part of the game, with Sequel it is outside of the game. This is an important difference.
Moreover, if it was an option, then just like new players hearing "switch off auto-skilling right away" (which is not good for someone starting out, I'm convinced), they'd be recommended to turn on numbers right away.

Garbage is when devs are hiding that Ettin can do 116 damage per attack (with 2 dire flails, with GSC it will be even more) or Azure Jelly can do 272 damage during 1 turn because "new player can be distracted by numbers".

It is very hard to discuss with a sentence starting with garbage. This is a roguelike, permadeath is part of the package, one-hit deaths should be more than a source of frustration. As we have discussed before, displaying something like "this monster can kill you in a single hit" might be conceivable, but obviously if wouldn't satisfy your needs: what about dying in two hits? Almost dying in one hit?

You have already confessed that you enjoy new players dying, please stop talking about caring about new players.

There is something called humour. Won't explain, am German.
What I am really unhappy about is how you misconstrue my intentions: I enjoy any player dying, new, old, slim, fat, male, male, all of them. The only good player is a dead player.

(By the way, your comments about objective assessment of usability tells me that we're living on different planets. To me, good/bad interface etc. always depends on the context. I tried to indicate this in my replies, but I'll let go of it.)

[Sprucery]

Even though I personally like numbers in many places, I have to say that "die and learn" should still be part of the roguelike experience imho.

[Sar]

It still would be even if numbers were more transparent.

[bel]

One point I want to make about the opacity of crawl's melee formulae. While, of course it would be good to have something clearer, it's not too important to showing more numbers or not.

For instance, I mentioned this before. Sil has completely transparent damage formulae: it even shows combat rolls in a window. But I never bother to calculate max damage vs HP there either. Because:

a) that would make me overly conservative with consumables
b) that would be too boring
c) critical hits can make technically anything dangerous
d) the game is too long (Sil is shorter than Crawl), to do this consistently in a decent amount of time

Unless you want to play a short chess-like game, the calculations of "HP vs max damage" are beside the point. I have a general idea of danger, that's it. People who want to engage in detailed numbers analysis have plenty of options, wiki, sequell, source diving etc.

[emikaela]

As we have discussed before, displaying something like "this monster can kill you in a single hit" might be conceivable, but obviously if wouldn't satisfy your needs: what about dying in two hits? Almost dying in one hit?

i like how brogue does it: "at worst, this monster can kill you in x hits". any chance of getting this in here?

[dpeg]

emikaela: Yes, and if you've seen me post here for a while, you'll notice that I endorse Brogue to no end. That is really a very elegant, tight game. I love it!

Note, however, that Brogue was designed with these properties in mind. I am afraid that with Crawl's combat system, that number x would be not as meaningful (generally 2, for example) -- I expect the range to be larger than with Brogue. It's definitely a great way to give feedback (it does not need any numbers apart from "turns".)

[Maels]

As we have discussed before, displaying something like "this monster can kill you in a single hit" might be conceivable, but obviously if wouldn't satisfy your needs: what about dying in two hits? Almost dying in one hit?

i like how brogue does it: "at worst, this monster can kill you in x hits". any chance of getting this in here?

I really like this idea. But even a simple "this monster can kill you in one hit" would be really useful for new players.

[vible]

As we have discussed before, displaying something like "this monster can kill you in a single hit" might be conceivable, but obviously if wouldn't satisfy your needs: what about dying in two hits? Almost dying in one hit?

i like how brogue does it: "at worst, this monster can kill you in x hits". any chance of getting this in here?

I really like this idea. But even a simple "this monster can kill you in one hit" would be really useful for new players.

Yeah maybe another line in the description is really all that is needed

[byrel]

I don't know how helpful this would be. Crawl combat is so swingy, I'd worry that a new player might see (say) a worm labelled 'this monster can kill you in two hits' and think that means they shouldn't engage. Or see an ogre that says 'one hit' and simply decide the game is sadistic and unwinnable.

[dpeg]

byrel: Indeed. It is complicated, for me at least. Also, I don't think the issue is *really* pressing... players can definitely get by with what the game gives to them. Perhaps we can do something about it over time.

[Sar]

Or see an ogre that says 'one hit' and simply decide the game is sadistic and unwinnable.

I think the situation is better than a new player getting hit for almost 40 damage by an ogre and wondering the same thing. Besides, you really aren't supposed to fight ogres when they can one-shot you.

[dpeg]

Sar: The lesson that it is often better to not fight a monster is better learned by dying to Sigmund or ogres, in my opinion, rather than a warning. Early dungeon is fair game... when players complain about instadeaths, they mean late ones. (Not saying that there's anything wrong with such instadeaths.)

It don't see a good way to indicate what might happen without intimidating players. Perhaps a duel mode, where you can set up fights?

[Sar]

It's not about the lesson that it's sometimes better not to fight a monster, it's about a lesson that it's pretty much never a good idea to fight this particular monster when you have X HP simply because it can one-shot you. Crawl has lots of monsters which can do it at different stages of the game, and that is not a bad thing, but the sheer amount of monsters and the variance the combat has makes it kinda difficult to remember them or to judge from experience. "Duel mode" sounds way more complicated than a simple DANGER ZONE warning.

Edit: of course, when you factor in weapons, ranged and spells, player GDR and resistances it suddenly isn't simple at all...

[Maels]

Sar: The lesson that it is often better to not fight a monster is better learned by dying to Sigmund or ogres, in my opinion, rather than a warning. Early dungeon is fair game... when players complain about instadeaths, they mean late ones. (Not saying that there's anything wrong with such instadeaths.)

It don't see a good way to indicate what might happen without intimidating players. Perhaps a duel mode, where you can set up fights?

I still think it would seem a lot more "fair" if you got a warning before. I mean if the game is clearly telling you: "you can die in one hit fighting this monster" and you try to kill it anyway, you really have no one to blame but yourself. Not that I think the game isn't fair now, but I do think it would make a difference for new players.

[Dharmy]

The game already tells you "It looks [extremely ]dangerous."

[Maels]

The game already tells you "It looks [extremely ]dangerous."

I guess for me the "looks dangerous" thing just means you have to play carefully around it, because so many monsters get that tag. If I knew the monster can kill me in one hit, I would probably run as soon as I see it.

[Hurkyl]

Deleted

[megawidget]

Sar: The lesson that it is often better to not fight a monster is better learned by dying to Sigmund or ogres, in my opinion, rather than a warning. Early dungeon is fair game... when players complain about instadeaths, they mean late ones. (Not saying that there's anything wrong with such instadeaths.)

It don't see a good way to indicate what might happen without intimidating players. Perhaps a duel mode, where you can set up fights?

What I'd like to see, at least, is fsim enabled outside of wizmode.

Way back when, on my first ghoul 15-runer, I created a very similar character in wizmode and fsimmed a fight against Mennas. It was extremely tedious but also very useful. There's little reason to not be able to do this without having to engage in silly shenanigans.

Edit: Ooh, another idea! Allow Mara's illusion of any currently saved character in arena mode.

[tasonir]

I enjoy any player dying, new, old, slim, fat, male, male, all of them. The only good player is a dead player.

[Emphasis mine] Dpeg confirmed sexist, wants all males to die.

it's a joke don't kill me

[duvessa]

The "it looks dangerous" line is worthless. Prior to it being added, unspoiled players were already told which monsters the game considers a big deal by their names, descriptions, hp, etc, with much greater precision than the four danger levels, two of which are basically meaningless anyway because when a monster is "harmless" or "easy" either you've already seen it before (so you get no new information from the danger level) or the game is wrong about it being "harmless" (because monsters aren't supposed to be "harmless" when you first see them). Like, even the name and the oldest, barest description of the "lich" monster indicated its actual danger level much, much better than the "danger level" system does. But the names and descriptions of crawl's monsters are still piss-poor at informing unspoiled players; it's just that the danger level system is piss-poor even compared to literal piss.

Crawl has HUNDREDS of monsters in it; if players are supposed to learn what each monster does by dying to it, then they are supposed to die hundreds of times before they can actually legitimately play the game. The only reason the current situation sort of works is that most of the monsters in the game are total jokes when they start generating; you don't really need to know what most of these monsters in lair/swamp/snake/spider/shoals/elf/vaults/depths/late dungeon/etc monsters do in order to win, because they suck at killing you even when you have no idea what they do; not knowing what they do still leads unspoiled players to play really badly and without any meaningful decision-making, obviously, but I will assume you are fine with that. So the number of deaths "needed" is a two-digit number instead, if we assume it only takes one death to learn what a monster does (but, as people have hinted at, that's not a reasonable assumption to make).

This is, needless to say, not maintainable at all if Crawl adds new monsters that are likely to kill unspoiled players...which is exactly what keeps happening with every version.

[onget]

Multiple yellow name is a bad situation, red name usually has means to kill you. that's all.

[sanka]

As an example: whenever you provide a number (such as "monster has AC 20" or "your piety is 185"), you have to provide the reference frame. This is easy for piety ("185/200") but harder for other numbers -- whenever further functions come into play (like stepdown on spellpower) or the situation is not as symmetric as a player might guess (monster AC).

I honestly do not understand this argument in the case the converstaion is mostly about: damage. Your HP is displayed as an exact number, so what "reference frame" you need to provide?

This is why I believe qualitiative feedback is generally superiour: do people really want to add up monster damage (which can be complicated, if it has several, randomised attacks and a funny weapon)? Of course, the answer is definitely a resounding Yes! for some -- but if we did that, we'd tell everyone, including our new players, that understanding and using these numbers is really important. It isn't.

While with a little bit of luck you can win the game without knowing how much damage a given monster can deal, it is just because the game is extremly easy. I think it's quite clear that if the game were harder, damage a monster can deal is important to know in order to win.

Also, Sandman25 didn't asked for complicated damage formulas to be displayed, just max damage, and I think we do not want "max damage for the current character calculating GDR, resistances, etc.", but just simple plain max damage. But I think the attack display from Sequell would be a really good step forward - I know from experience that weapon damage increases this base damage, it's not hard to understand, and I know that my AC, resistances etc. decrease it.

[dpeg]

As an example: whenever you provide a number (such as "monster has AC 20" or "your piety is 185"), you have to provide the reference frame. This is easy for piety ("185/200") but harder for other numbers -- whenever further functions come into play (like stepdown on spellpower) or the situation is not as symmetric as a player might guess (monster AC).

I honestly do not understand this argument in the case the converstaion is mostly about: damage. Your HP is displayed as an exact number, so what "reference frame" you need to provide?

Yes, maximal damage of monster attacks make sense as a number. However, it has to take into account a number of things: at least resistances (and elemental weakness) and AC/GDR, perhaps more. If there was a patch that displayed each monster with an indication of current maximal damage (i.e. "ogre (60)", "ancient lich (100)", numbers just invented, not researched), I'd definitely lobby for trying that out.
In the quote I tried to explain part of my reluctance against numbers. Often, you cannot just print a number and expect it to make sense without further information. As you say, maximal damage is not of those numbers.

This is why I believe qualitiative feedback is generally superiour: do people really want to add up monster damage (which can be complicated, if it has several, randomised attacks and a funny weapon)? Of course, the answer is definitely a resounding Yes! for some -- but if we did that, we'd tell everyone, including our new players, that understanding and using these numbers is really important. It isn't.

While with a little bit of luck you can win the game without knowing how much damage a given monster can deal, it is just because the game is extremly easy. I think it's quite clear that if the game were harder, damage a monster can deal is important to know in order to win.

I agree that the game is easy. I am not sure about "a little bit of luck": I have never looked into any numbers while playing Crawl (or any other roguelike), and still won some games.

Also, Sandman25 didn't asked for complicated damage formulas to be displayed, just max damage, and I think we do not want "max damage for the current character calculating GDR, resistances, etc.", but just simple plain max damage. But I think the attack display from Sequell would be a really good step forward - I know from experience that weapon damage increases this base damage, it's not hard to understand, and I know that my AC, resistances etc. decrease it.

I told Sandman to maintain his fork, I think it's a really good idea. I got slightly pissed when he made a list of four or five completely non-sensensical "reasons" for what's going (and he really knows better), but looking at the thread, others got even more pissed.

Like I said, discussing this is good, and this means that I think something reasonable could be done. Perhaps listing maximal damage in the monster list is a good way, and changing the colours according to what portion of your current health the monster could potentially rob.

[dowan]

You got slightly pissed, he got slightly banned... Don't disagree with dpeg, that's my advice (It's on topic!)

[Utis]

FWIW: Personally, I find the formulas regarding weapon damage, AC, EV etc somewhat too arcane for me (for the time being) to be much interested in exact numbers. Me, personally. Please don't flame me. I'm going along with a "gut feeling" of how a particular character can withstand attacks and how dangerous some monster usually is.

I would appreciate a bar system (like for AC, EV, MR), though, with regard to HP, avg damge, max damage and attack speed. Especially if the avg damage bar takes my current AC, EV, SH and resistances into account. Double especially, if the max damage bar indicates how many unlucky hits it needs to kill me. That way I won't get the numbers, but I do have my experience with other monsters as a basis for comparision.