mild alt to abstracting weapons

[goodcoolguy]

If the interface issue with tracking weapons on monsters were solved, there would still be people who find the point about varying melee damage and brands sufficient justification to alter monster weapons significantly or remove them, but not that many.

I'll take a stab at the interface side of the question:

First, don't allow existing weapon wielding monsters to wield polearms. Make a variant "lancer" or whatever type monster wherever wielding a polearm is desired, make it clearly visually distinguishable and make it always have a polearm.

Second, change weapon glyphs to differentiate them by class along the lines of what angband does, e.g. \ for m&f, | for swords, / for polearms. Between colors and bold effect on console, you can convey reasonably well what type and brand a weapon is.

Third, introduce an easily toggled "weapon view" that displays the glyph of monsters' weapons instead of monster type. Unarmed monsters would be just show their usual glyph.

That would largely eliminate the tracking issue. I don't think there's much merit in complaints about variation in base melee damage, frankly. It would be easy enough to narrow the range of weaponry available to each type of monster to reduce that variation anyway.

[ion_frigate]

First, don't allow existing weapon wielding monsters to wield polearms. Make a variant "lancer" or whatever type monster wherever wielding a polearm is desired, make it clearly visually distinguishable and make it always have a polearm.

Definitely a good idea. One term should be used for all such variants (i.e. we don't want to have spear gnolls, orc lancers, elf hoplites, etc). This decreases the cognitive load imposed by the new monsters: a valid point made by Laraso earlier, but one that can be overcome with good monster design that makes each monster's function obvious.

Second, change weapon glyphs to differentiate them by class along the lines of what angband does, e.g. \ for m&f, | for swords, / for polearms. Between colors and bold effect on console, you can convey reasonably well what type and brand a weapon is.

I think this is a good idea in general, but it doesn't solve the clutter problem - particularly in ^F, where you have to make sure your search strings avoid all the random junk weapons lying on the floor.

Third, introduce an easily toggled "weapon view" that displays the glyph of monsters' weapons instead of monster type. Unarmed monsters would be just show their usual glyph.

This isn't a whole lot better than xv. The problem is that it has to be manually activated and deactivated (since it obfuscates the monster type, you can't just leave it on). It requires fewer keypresses, but that's not really the issue - *anything* active that you have to do repeatedly is going to break the flow of the game.

I don't think there's much merit in complaints about variation in base melee damage, frankly.

There is in the early game. Armed goblins/kobolds/hobgoblins put out 80-120% more damage than their unarmed counterparts, enough to comfortably two-shot many starting characters. As I and others have said, the issue isn't that this variation exists, but that the player needs to know about it immediately. Hiding it behind easily-missed messages and active interface features is just bad. Or put another way: if half of all ettins hit as hard as Antaeus, I don't think anyone would say it's good design to require xv, a one-time message, or observation of subtle differences in artwork to see which ones do.

Later on it's less of an issue, but that's exactly why I proposed to eliminate most of the variation: because it's not that significant.

[Utis]

I think both proposals address an actual concern. The variety you defend is more visual than real; it belongs more to a simulation/sandbox game than a roguelike, in my opinion.

The simulation aspect (and the story telling aspect, often derogatorily called 'flavour') is an important aspect of what makes the whole genre and crawl in particular attractive. Mind you, in case of direct conflict with gameplay I'm all in support if design decisions are made against the former. I'm certainly not missing managing inventory weight. But it's not as if removing simulationist aspects came with no cost at all.

Let me put it like this: I recently got into chess a little bit more seriously. Chess has a nice "flavour" (two armies on a battlefield), no storytelling, no simulation aspect, but a tactical and strategical depths unmatched by any other game except by its Eastern relatives and Go. But chess doesn't scratch my simulation and storytelling itch. And for me, at least, crawl shines by providing this together with at least a little bit of strategy and tactics. "A little bit" compared to chess, "a lot" compared to other CRPGs.

As an CRPG, with the simulationist and storytelling aspects that the genre involves, crawl is magnificent. As an abstract board game, crawl would suck in comparison. I'm not saying that abstracting monster weapons turns crawl into an abstract board game. All I'm saying is that removing simulation and storytelling aspects comes at a cost. That cost might be minuscule compared to a gameplay concern it resolves. But it's there.

I'm sure I'm going to survive the removal of monster weapons. But: After skimming this and the other threat it seems to me that the concern is an interface issue. And I would expect the search for a solution to explore interface solutions first before more drastic measures are considered. Unless I'm simply missing something.

Gameplay-wise, the one thing that I'd miss is Kobolds/Hobgoblins with weapons of venom or electrocution in the beginning. They make the player consider whether he/she wants to have an easy early game or whether they want to avoid the risk involved.

Considering the likelyhood of weapon upgrades with regard to monster weapons (halberds from gnolls, scimitars from orc warriors, giant clubs from ogres, great swords from wights) is an important part of the strategic decision of which weapon route to go (assuming all other factors being equal). That, of course, can be easily solved by adjusting floor drops, without, in effect, affecting the strategic decision at all. But that would have a drawback both in interface and story telling. In the interface, because it's easier to get an intuition and to remember how frequent gnolls are before Lair and how often they have an halberd than it is to get an intuition of how likely halberds spawn on the floor. In storytelling, well, it's more that little bit more pleasing to get a power upgrade after wrestling your new weapon from the cold hands of a recently slain dangerous foe.

[Utis]

I think this is a good idea in general, but it doesn't solve the clutter problem - particularly in ^F, where you have to make sure your search strings avoid all the random junk weapons lying on the floor.

I long sinced wished there was something like "good" as a possible search term, so I could do "C-f good && mace" in order to find only dire flails, great maces etc.. Of course a whip of draining is better than just good on D1, so "endgame worthy" would be a more precise term. But ... *shrug* ...

Third, introduce an easily toggled "weapon view" that displays the glyph of monsters' weapons instead of monster type. Unarmed monsters would be just show their usual glyph.

This isn't a whole lot better than xv. The problem is that it has to be manually activated and deactivated (since it obfuscates the monster type, you can't just leave it on). It requires fewer keypresses, but that's not really the issue - *anything* active that you have to do repeatedly is going to break the flow of the game.

There's an opportunity here to utilize unicode combining diacritics on console. I'd love to have, e.g. ĝ for hobgoblins/gnolls with flails. Or g̍ for gnolls with spears, g̎ for halbberds, g⃗ if the monster is wielding a glaive or bardiche etc.

[andreas]

Personally I think I'd rather just have different diacritics for different weapon classes (polearm/axe/etc). I doubt I would end up keeping track if every different type (glaive/halberd/etc.) has a different diacritic. Or, it would be okay if all the different polearm marks (and so on) were similar looking in some way. Also it could be good to have a mark for if a weapon is branded, too.

Does unicode include the ability to have diacritics over numbers?

[Utis]

Does unicode include the ability to have diacritics over numbers?

Behold Mckhymouse, demon warrior from Dsney: 1̈

Implementations sometimes vary, though. My xterm clone doesn't handle them.

[andreas]

Well, how about that! What is the application, do you know, besides for use in roguelikes?

[Haelyn]

No, what's bloody backwards is putting features up on a bloody pedestal just because they plain exist.
You got people bending over backwards to make certain spells work.
Trying to rescue features binds you to their service - a perversion of their purpose, which is to serve you.
Think of the sheer expense that goes into rescuing bad mechanics.
Imagine if all that energy wasn't tethered to retaining any given facet, at all.
If a prop detriments the show, get it off the set. If it's useful in the workshop, keep it there.
As with worldly possessions, it is often best to toss the crap - without deliberation - and (perhaps) to get new stuff.
Removal is painful (even to just see it happening, let alone doing it yourself) and can cloud reasoning; a cloud of "that's just wrong" goes poof and settles.

This is why I went on a massive tangent earlier. Because you keep misunderstanding me.

It can very easily be argued that any one thing causes detriment, because as I said earlier, and which we apparently disagree one for reasons that escape me, FUN, and therefore, WHAT IS BETTER, are subjective to each person. As evidenced by us having this argument in the first place.

This isn't about avoiding removal, putting things on a pedestal, or rescuing things. You're either making the odd assertion that it's agreed this feature is actually just plain bad and horrible, which doesn't make sense given my and other's defense of it, or you're accusing me of defending it baselessly for no other reason than to prevent removal in general; which, as I again went over in that massive tangent, isn't the point or the goal.

You're making a mistake in drawing it as energy spent on retaining useless facets. Mindlessly removing things they instant they seem detrimental is no smarter than a calculator. Every single feature, regardless of whatever kind of reputation it may have, regardless whether it's in the game or merely a concept, is worth thought. It doesn't need to be hours and days. And removal can be a good thing sometimes, when something is just plain bloody annoying and isn't helping anything at all. Corrosion comes to mind but that's probably just because I loathe the slime pits. I'll topic about that later, maybe.

My point is what I said earlier. It's not about removal or retaining. That's a silly black and white. It's about how to make the game better, more fun. It's about taking ideas and existing concepts and proposals and seeing how to make the game bigger, better, more inspired, more fun, funnier, more immersive, more engaging, all those lovely good words. For a game in development, it's a fluid process, and it should be treated as such.

How to put it into simpler words... Making it into a removal VS antiremoval debate is detrimental and pointless. The only reason I'm against removal here is because we're talking about a relatively core mechanic that causes some divide between love and hate from the players, and I'd rather rework it to please all parties given that context. That is the wiser thing to do. If you're in charge of a game and somebody proposes removing a mechanic, you don't just go "Oh sure you're right out the door" if there's actually debate over it and the change would be a massive one.

Yes, in general I prefer improvement to removal because that shows actual effort and thought. But that isn't the point of the current debate.

EDIT: A perfect example of what I mean is the recent thread about mottled dragons. Sure, we could just remove mottleds and stickyflame and have done with the niche. But I think some of the proposals could potentially remake it into something that ties in beautifully and makes significant improvements for those things in all aspects. That, to me, is a glowing example of thoughtful, loving development. Yes that's cheesy.

That's not quite what I was talking about. There are things that need to change and things that devs want to change. Normally, you could just experiment, rework, start over. But if you accidentally get something even terrible into Crawl, then... too bad! it's in for at least a version. And then if it gets removed... good luck getting it back in! even if the circumstances change. That's a reason removals can be dangerous to Crawl's future - they tend to have permanence. You may be too new to know or to have noticed this about Crawl's development.

I've been following Crawl for some time. I'm quite aware of it, and it doesn't really support your argument. If anything it suggests that either removal is something to be avoided or that removed concepts and ideas deserve slightly more attention for reconsideration; at least, the ones with any virture behind them. Certainly some things don't need to come back. Item destruction comes to mind.

ah so you want me to justify how Haelyn's assertion has no evidence behind it?

And yours does? We've both been talking quite at length and it seems the main problem is a fatal difference in philosophy, which will probably NEVER resolve unless we both were trying to reconcile with each other. Which probably won't happen mid-debate.

I'll take a stab at the interface side of the question:

Although I play Tiles, I do like the sound of the second and third proposals here. Even if there was another x-v complaint.

I think this is a good idea in general, but it doesn't solve the clutter problem

Yeah I'm working out an idea to address that since it'll happen anyway.

(Pretty much everything Utis wrote here)

Gameplay wise I'd have to say I would most miss the wights and orcs' weapon variation and threats. I also really love that last sentence of yours~

But anyway that's probably another issue with subjectivity. I'm one of those who tries to keep a Crawl diary, and I write it in very much a story fashion, though not to a writing-a-novel degree. I try to make it look like a pseudo-real journal. I can see where other players wouldn't care nearly as much about that; it is a game, after all. So obviously, even though I do defend the gameplay wise side of this issue, the story side of it also matters; perhaps more so, as Utis has said.

There's an opportunity here to utilize unicode combining diacritics on console. I'd love to have, e.g. ĝ for hobgoblins/gnolls with flails. Or g̍ for gnolls with spears, g̎ for halbberds, g⃗ if the monster is wielding a glaive or bardiche etc.

This also sounds good. Though I think the forum didn't totally support what you were trying to type?

Also wow I typed way too much again.

[jwoodward48ss]

Guys, the intrinsic value of removal is not, in and of itself, important. There will always be good removals, bad removals, popular removals, angrily-discussed removals...

Let's look at removing food. Obviously, this would be a controversial change. There are some pretty good arguments either way. But no one in their right mind would say "removing food is good because removing stuff is generally good." Removing bad things is generally good, yes. But that's effectively a tautology. If people are divided on whether a particular mechanic is good or bad, arguing that it should be removed because REMOVAL... that would be idiotic.

So let's discuss the pros and cons of removing monster weapons, not the abstract pros and cons of removal itself.

===============

DCSS is a more complex game than other games, and I don't think it should be dumbed-down for the sake of slightly easier gameplay for some people.

Let's take this to the extreme: only 27 or so enemies. Flavour is irrelevant. Elemental damage is somewhat irrelevant. After all, with swapping, resists are frequently possible. Maybe figure out which elements are tougher, and give tougher enemies tougher elements.

So we'll just have a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, v, w, x, y, z, A. Some of these will have reaching attacks, some will have cleaving attacks. This will always be intrinsic. Maybe some of them could have elemental attacks, some of them ranged attacks.

Goblins and hobgoblins are both popcorn after a while. Lump them into b or c, have them only appear in D:1-4. Super-easy things can be in a, like newts and kobolds. Centaurs and ogres are similar, put them in adjacent letters like i and j. Demons just need to take up 5 or 6 slots. Why do we need four imps again? Put Lords into A.

Now, I realize that this could become a very well-thought-out game, with great gameplay. Maybe, with monsters simplified, other things could be focused on.

But this is not Crawl. Crawl has complexity! Flavour! Detail!

A few more arguments against abstracting weapons:

1. The current similarity between the player and monsters is good for players. Don't you dare tell me that an orcish warrior with a mace isn't easier to defeat than an orcish warrior with a demon whip/great mace/eveningstar. This lets players see which weapons are better, and lets them use their own knowledge of weapons to see which enemies are harder on an individual basis. It ties together personal weapon choice and monster summing-up in a glance. And it just feels right to have the player not quite so special-cased.

2. When I run away from Terence, I don't get his weapon. If I defeat him as a M&F user, I get a pretty cool weapon. It's a challenge. Why would you remove that?

Look, if you keep saying there's no significant different between an orc w/ dagger and an orc w/ flail, I'm going to pull up the arena and show you some results.

Edit: Seven times in a row, the daggerorc killed the flailorc. (How the hell do I use fsim? Where do I even find it?) This obviously means that a dagger is stronger than a flail, in the hands of an orc. Now I'll try with a cluborc and a demonwhiporc.

Edit: Seven times in a row, the demonwhiporc defeated the cluborc. See? There is a difference between weapons!

[duvessa]

Removing stuff is generally good. Removing has the intrinsic advantage of making the game faster for new players to learn.

This lets players see which weapons are better, and lets them use their own knowledge of weapons to see which enemies are harder on an individual basis. It ties together personal weapon choice and monster summing-up in a glance.

No it doesn't. The same weapons that are good for players are not good for monsters, because both damage and attack delay are different for monsters and players.

Look, if you keep saying there's no significant different between an orc w/ dagger and an orc w/ flail, I'm going to pull up the arena and show you some results.

There's no significant difference between an orc w/ dagger and an orc w/ flail. Both do pitiful damage and die really fast. Sure, the one with the flail does more damage, but not enough for it to actually matter.

[jwoodward48ss]

You're right. We're currently in a limbo where monsters are kind of like players, but not really. Let's fix it by making them more like players!

And fine, a goblin with a dagger is pretty much the same as a goblin with a club. But what about tougher monsters? Warlord with club vs warlord with great mace?

And in general, removing things is neither good nor bad, because when we stop having "too much" whatever, we'll then have "too little." Maybe you could say that right now, DCSS is too complex. I disagree.

We don't need to dumb DCSS down. There are other games that fill that niche.

[genericpseudonym]

You're right. We're currently in a limbo where monsters are kind of like players, but not really. Let's fix it by making them more like players!

And fine, a goblin with a dagger is pretty much the same as a goblin with a club. But what about tougher monsters? Warlord with club vs warlord with great mace?

And in general, removing things is neither good nor bad, because when we stop having "too much" whatever, we'll then have "too little." Maybe you could say that right now, DCSS is too complex. I disagree.

We don't need to dumb DCSS down. There are other games that fill that niche.

A goblin with a great mace is scarier than a goblin with a dagger.

But a warlord with a spear is scarier than a warlord with a bardiche, because he adds his own 32 melee damage to the damage of the melee weapon, and as a result benefits more from a low delay than from high base damage.

[jwoodward48ss]

Irrelevant. If broken, fix. Not remove. Simple fix exists: treat monster like player when using weapon. Turn HD into effective skill.

Apologies for unusual prose. Am on phone. Hard to type.

[Shard1697]

Irrelevant. If broken, fix. Not remove.

This is far from true all of the time, often cutting content is the best way to a more focused and interesting game.

[Hurkyl]

I see you've tangled my words somewhat. Or a lot, rather. 'Making the game terrible' IS NOT AN OPTION. It doesn't even register on the list.

It's always an option. And more to the point, to varying degrees it's almost always already on the list, but couched in different terms. It appears in a wide variety of forms, of course, but a topical example would be "leave feature X as is", where feature X is something that detracts from the game in its current form.

If you can find an option even better than "remove X", that's great. But don't let your search prevent you from acknowledging those times when "remove X" is a better option than "leave X as is".

I just can't redeem something I was working on and I can even see that it's clearly not worth it, then I'm not going to put it in the game anyway.

You made a mistake in your evaluation, and you did put a bad feature in the game. Or maybe it was good at the time, but further development has changed that fact. Or some other developer with bad standards put it in the game.

These things happen. And they need to be fixed; if you keep the bad things around, you're making that shoddy product you're trying desperately to avoid.

[HardboiledGargoyle]

One thing brought up in the conversation is the loss of fragile monsters with dangerous weapons. But if that's desirable, why not add a rare "goblin lord" monster that spawns with (and can pick up) branded weapons? The description can even say that they're otherwise identical. The objection, "why even bother?" Well, for easy recognition, for flavor.

I also simply don't buy the "loss of flavor"/"storytelling" claim, and made my counter-argument by pointing out iconic monsters that don't vary their equipment. I'd be surprised to find someone calling centaurs or Frost/Fire Giants bland or boring for always using the same weapon.

What's wrong with the statement that abstraction can help engross you into the fantasy world?

But: After skimming this and the other threat it seems to me that the concern is an interface issue. And I would expect the search for a solution to explore interface solutions first before more drastic measures are considered. Unless I'm simply missing something.

This is def not just an interface issue, this is about using wielded weapons to modify monster melee, which is a non-interface game mechanic.

Also, calling removal a "drastic measure" betrays the kind of reactionary attitude that surrounds removal, which I've been trying to point out, as if removing something is more "extreme" than changing or keeping it. It's not. We're not cutting out kidneys here, people.

You're either making the odd assertion that it's agreed this feature is actually just plain bad and horrible

No, I'm asserting that this feature is bad. However, it is definitely not agreed that this feature is bad. Agreement does not make a thing true.

My point is ... about how to make the game better, more fun... bigger, better, more inspired, more fun, funnier, more immersive, more engaging

Yeah... mine too! But, a list of flowery adjectives ain't gonna win an argument, is it? That would be silly.

Yes, in general I prefer improvement to removal because that shows actual effort and thought.

1)don't underestimate the e&t required to remove 2)stop glorifying e&t, it is useless by itself 3) removing is to improve (not mutually exclusive).

thoughtful, loving

dang, how is that descriptive vocabulary, and "fearful, weak" is "not what it's about". And yeah, development is a "fluid process", and you know what fluid does really well? It removes, that's why washrooms use it so much.

And yours does? We've both been talking quite at length and it seems the main problem is a fatal difference in philosophy, which will probably NEVER resolve unless we both were trying to reconcile with each other.

No, our positions are contradictory. One of us has to be wrong.
You're coming in with claims that retentive development is wiser and better, and calling other methods backward. I just haven't seen any evidence for it, neither before nor at this point of the conversation, and that is my honest experience.

[Haelyn]

For the love of the nine... sorry, four hells, will all of you stop nitpicking and misconstruing pieces of my sentences and ignoring chunks of words. Unless I'm talking to robots or you're intentionally trying to screw with me it should be painfully clear what I'm trying to say.

Especially you, HBG. Look, I'll try to ground this with as few extra words as possible since that's apparently a problem.

I really don't want to be hostile but hells if this isn't a little testing. Not that I have personal problems with anyone, obviously, that'd be silly, just. agh.

My philosophy is always aimed at bigger and better. It is always aimed at more fun *for a variety of people with differing tastes*. I have a personal belief that *thoughtless* removal is poor work. I have a personal belief that when a section of playerbase wants something gone, but another section disagrees, it is better to compromise or option or rework rather than make one or the other displeased. I have a personal belief that an actively developed game easily can, and thus should, test different theories and always be aware of the assets it has and the ideas at its disposal.

And finally, I have a personal *bias as a player* that Crawl is a game about variety, complexity, detail, strategy, and getting killed in new and interesting ways before an amazing victory. I have a personal *subjective experience* that there are plenty of other games, roguelikes, and so on that have their niches, and that Crawl is better suited to growing like some kind of apocalyptic ivy. That flowers.

So. The supposed problems for monster weapons were largely this:

random mooks can pick up and use items. I consider this a good feature. But in fairness to whoever said uniques should be doing that (an opinion I agree with), let me say this. Random mobs should be able to pick up items in their path, sure. Uniques should *seek out* items and maybe even take them from mooks. They're technically other adventurers, right? In fact that would be pretty awesome.

junk on the dungeon floor. This will happen anyway. Some people like the flavor of the remains of battle spread out. Jiyva worshippers enjoy it. I think there, yes, ought to be some use for it. perhaps you could use such things to bait a jelly. Or a rust monster, say.

console players who hate x-v for some reason. There were already several good interface proposals to fix this. ...or you could, you know, play tiles. I promise it looks nice.

(no I'm not serious I understand some people like ASCII and that's fine)

players get items from monsters. There were already several arguments against this, including mine, regarding RNJesus and stuff.

it's annoying to track which monster has what weapon / it doesn't actually matter unless it's branded. I spitballed a proposal for this and offered to flesh out a new thread. I guess I have to do so?

pointless variation. See above. Also flavor. ...To some people, anyway. Incidentally of course centaurs use bows. Just because monster variety weapons is good doesn't mean monsters well known for certain weapons shouldn't have them. Kobolds love blowguns. I would happily write code that makes like thirty percent of them use blowguns. That's what they're FOR. Kobolds are weak nasty tricky little buggers. Hell, I'd have them luring the player over shafts and pressure plate traps. With a trail of coins. Reapers always use scythes. Why the nutter all would they use anything else.

On top of that, it's mainly just being complained at with "Well why NOT remove it?" to which the response has been "Well why remove it?" And there's been a long and largely pointless argument, mostly between myself and HBG, about design philosophy and I'm pretty sure neither of us actually understood what the other was on about.

Sorry about that, then.

[HardboiledGargoyle]

oh sorry, I wasn't done yet

no one in their right mind would say "removing food is good because removing stuff is generally good."

Right, that has absurd consequences, and I don't think anyone really says that. But rather many people say that "removing X is bad because removing stuff is generally bad." Like the chicken guy I linked to, and other remove-as-last-resort people.

Let's take this to the extreme

This is what our proposals are not doing. I don't want to take it to the extreme and I don't think ion-frigate wants to, either. So I'm not sure why you're invoking this slippery slope argument. Look, I can do it too: imagine harmless level-1 juggernauts and terrifying level-27 cockroaches.

2. When I run away from Terence, I don't get his weapon. If I defeat him as a M&F user, I get a pretty cool weapon. It's a challenge. Why would you remove that?

I wouldn't. I think that's cool. Mind the thread's title.

And in general, removing things is neither good nor bad, because when we stop having "too much" whatever, we'll then have "too little." Maybe you could say that right now, DCSS is too complex. I disagree.

We don't need to dumb DCSS down. There are other games that fill that niche.

This is a place where Crawl can afford to get "dumbed down". It can make room for better forms of complexity, or for more difficult encounters where players can focus and deftly handle the situation because they don't have to think about monster weapons.

There are already legends in the esoteric roguelike niche, to which Crawl can't compare. The niche Crawl is most ready to excel in is: accessible, replayable, turn-based, hack-and-slash RPG. What competition does it face in that niche?

Irrelevant. If broken, fix. Not remove. Simple fix exists: treat monster like player when using weapon. Turn HD into effective skill.

Shit, why? It's not that monster weapons aren't fulfilling their purpose. So you're proposing repurposing monster weapon use. It's like there's a couch in the house, and it's tattered and you don't want it and there's no place to put it. There's no need to use the couch, and there's no automatic benefit to using it. By insisting that it be used in some manner, you're only hurting yourself. If thought and effort is a valuable resource, then that's a pretty bad policy.

[HardboiledGargoyle]

My philosophy is always aimed at bigger and better. It is always aimed at more fun *for a variety of people with differing tastes*. I have a personal belief that *thoughtless* removal is poor work. I have a personal belief that when a section of playerbase wants something gone, but another section disagrees, it is better to compromise or option or rework rather than make one or the other displeased. I have a personal belief that an actively developed game easily can, and thus should, test different theories and always be aware of the assets it has and the ideas at its disposal.

I mean, you're telling us that you have a personal belief that you think something is better. Okay, I can comprehend that.
I feel like you're sharing your beliefs with a purpose. Are they, by any chance, supposed to affect us somehow?
What if someone thinks you're wrong - what do you want/expect that person to say?
What is your philosophy for communication about game design? about personal beliefs?
You're new but starting to post heavily, and if you continue to promote an "ok everyone just share your thoughts, remember it's all subjective" atmosphere, it will decrease the quality of discussion we can have around here.
btw

I have a personal belief that *thoughtless* removal is poor work.

Look at mine or ion frigate's OP. Do they look thoughtless to you? Scroll downthread to suggestions for improving monster weapon use and show me one that is less thoughtless.

[Haelyn]

They're not. They were meant to help explain myself. But it got taken to weird places so.

If someone thinks I'm wrong, they have a right to that. I recall mentioning I see people with differing tastes as valuable for a very good reason.

It's tricky with game design. Obviously communication should be open, involve your player base, and should be kept friendly if possible; angry arguments are detrimental. But the problem is that different people have different definitions of fun. If you're empathetic to a perhaps overly much degree, like me, you worry about that a lot. And even if you're not its considerable.

I'm technically new, but I'm very familiar with forums and game development; I'm an aspiring developer with several projects and a massive cache of information, theories, education, and advice. I'm also mostly talentless, possessing only a massive desire to create things. That's my driving passion. Hence the excitement I'm showing here.

And I'm not trying to make it twee. I'm saying that, mechanical pieces aside, which I readdressed, there's also a flavor value in this specific discourse. I do believe flavor is important, and simply put, what's fun is different for people; that is, subjective. I'm not going to continually repeat that with everything like its my holy mantra, don't worry. I know very well to avoid extremism.

They absolutely were not thoughtless, nor do I wish to imply so. I do wish to make clear that I don't think all removal is bad. Thought I had already, but now it should be iron.

Also, what competitor does crawl face in that list you mentioned? Uh... Every other Classic roguelike, I'd say, mate.

Sorry for odd post. Phone.

[Shard1697]

My philosophy is always aimed at bigger and better. It is always aimed at more fun *for a variety of people with differing tastes*. I have a personal belief that *thoughtless* removal is poor work. I have a personal belief that when a section of playerbase wants something gone, but another section disagrees, it is better to compromise or option or rework rather than make one or the other displeased.

As a design goal, this is a fast track to make a game worse. Aiming to please as many people as possible is not realistic and generally leads to a weaker experience-the best games are made with a clear goal in mind WRT who the game is made for. You cannot aim to make all groups(or even half of all groups) very happy with one game, because with how people's subjective tastes vary wildly, a strong game for one is a bad game for another-a game in the middle will feel tolerable, but watered down, for both. So games that people like the most are the ones that don't go for lowest common denominator appeal but instead have a sharp focus on their specific strengths.

By the way, as far as I'm concerned, Crawl is much stronger than many other RLs specifically because it is much more focused and doesn't throw in nearly as much shit just for the sake of it. It is a game that has greatly improved due to the cutting and refinement of content, and I would hate to see that reversed-it is the opposite of a game that should "grow like some kind of apocalyptic ivy". Crawl getting bogged down by needless bloat when it's been improving for so long would be tragic.

[HardboiledGargoyle]

Relevant: not just what you're trying to explain, but how you frame the whole conversation.
You've been talking about anger and hostility this whole thread, nobody else.

Also you say that people have different understandings of fun - no joke - okay, but what is the consequence of that? You say it as if demonstrating a point, but I don't know what that point is or why it warrants my attention. In other words: people have different definitions of fun, but so what? Why is it "the problem"?

Because it means that people can't be wrong? Neither you nor me?

If thoughts are so willy-nilly subjective then why even be interested in other people's subjective thoughts, or even one's own?

Also, what competitor does crawl face in that list you mentioned? Uh... Every other Classic roguelike, I'd say, mate.

Surely, they are worse, and Crawl excels among them, but not among the likes of Nethack.

[Shard1697]

pretty much all older RLs are nowhere near as accessible as DCSS at the very least, and don't really present "competition" in any meaningful sense(nowhere near as popular, and most considerably worse)

[Haelyn]

Yes, well, I'm also used to forums being a bit, ah... Rough, shall we say. I'm being over cautious perhaps; I've become veeeery used to drama and whining and oversensitivity and all sorts of fun. This place seems kinda calm though.

It's only a problem in the sense that I don't see monster weapons as a problem. We could argue for years but that probably wouldn't change. It is kind of off point.

It doesn't mean we can't be wrong, of course.

And again, everything is not subjective. I did just say that right? I think the word is getting overused to the point of meaninglessness.

Cant really argue with the last one. But it doesn't disprove the original poin either, kinda just points out what I said about differing experiences.

Was kinda hoping you'd respond to my bit regarding the mechanical since you seem as bothered by the subjective thing as I am now.

[HardboiledGargoyle]

Yes, well, hopefully, you can get to your points henceforth, instead of trying to manage other people, which is starting to piss me off.

Shard made a point about the best games. I have yet to see your example about how compromise improved your game, or even some game you know about.

I don't know what you mean "regarding the mechanical".

[Utis]

But: After skimming this and the other threat it seems to me that the concern is an interface issue. And I would expect the search for a solution to explore interface solutions first before more drastic measures are considered. Unless I'm simply missing something.

This is def not just an interface issue, this is about using wielded weapons to modify monster melee, which is a non-interface game mechanic.

Also, calling removal a "drastic measure" betrays the kind of reactionary attitude that surrounds removal, which I've been trying to point out, as if removing something is more "extreme" than changing or keeping it. It's not. We're not cutting out kidneys here, people.

You ... uhm ... had to delete the sentence immediate before my statement in order make it sound as if I was all worked up as if somebody was trying to remove my kidneys ... That I would betray a reactionary attitude is a rather new one for me. I sort of appreciate the novelty. Finally the moderantist mask has come off! I show the ugly grimace of crawl reaction and you all see the violence inherent in the system.

After reading the first of the follow-ups I was actually going to write that I'm starting to understand why dpeg and others tend to dismiss simulation and storytelling aspects as unimportant to the game. If for years I saw people foaming from their mouth because of each single simulation element while I'm trying to find ways to improve the game, I'd probably show the same attitude just for the sake of simplicity. But now I see that the excitements cancel each other out. So, I stand by my original post, addressed at dpeg.

[Digits with unicode diacritics] Well, how about that! What is the application, do you know, besides for use in roguelikes?

I doubt there is an application, specifially for numerals. It's just a result of unicode's combining diacritics. You can combine them with (I think) any character.

[goodcoolguy]

@ionfrigate: Well, if you're worried about early game monsters being unarmed versus armed, the natural solution would be not to generate them unarmed, right? My feel is the base damage issue can be solved easily by restricting monsters to carry weapons in a narrower band of base damage that varies by monster type.

@longposters: Guys, people are going to start getting out the "didn't read lol" gifs before long here.

[Haelyn]

Yes, well, hopefully, you can get to your points henceforth, instead of trying to manage other people, which is starting to piss me off.

Shard made a point about the best games. I have yet to see your example about how compromise improved your game, or even some game you know about.

I don't know what you mean "regarding the mechanical".

You could be a touch more patient. I did make a mistake but at least I'm being nice and did apologize

Compromise affecting me. Well, my journey with making games started with making minecraft modpacks. I don't need to tell you that minecraft and mods is all a very modular system, and people can put together what they want for their own personal fun. But I had a group of friends. I could've just kept only what I wanted, which was also too much for their computers to run. We could've played only my brothers which bored me. But we basically negotiated a while.

That doesn't sound like a relevant example, right? Well, I don't understand why it has to be explained that compromise is good.

I have one friend who I almost never agree with, and she's the one I bring my ideas to. I know that if she and I can agree on something, then it's going to be pretty good and appeal to a lot more people.

I restated the supposed problems behind this entire discussion and made short potential solutions or at least replies in an effort to derail the long, half tangential war were at.

[Shard1697]

Appealing towards more people is not inherently better, and I think I've already explained why-the strongest experiences in games usually happen when something is made with a specific goal and audience in mind to focus on.

Compromise can be good, but there are also times when you have to say "No, this game is not made with [x] in mind", and there are games(like crawl) where the point is simply not mass appeal.

[Haelyn]

I know, Shard, and I agree, I'm just having trouble describing this properly.

I guess my point is that I don't see Crawl as a strictly focused roguelike. Looking at some of the other classic roguelikes, like ADOM, or Brogue, or so on... It's all so linear and narrow and sort of predetermined. Even TOME, which I kind of like, has this problem.

And then there are games like Dwarf Fortress that are HUGE and complex and detailed and full to the bloody brim and then some. It's so big and free it's a little intimidating even.

To me, Crawl is somewhere between the two. It's not just a linear path, but it hasn't spread out like Jiyva taking a nap. It still takes the time to have lots of stuff, lots of variety and things you can do, without going sandbox on you and losing focus on the Orb. And that's what makes it best to me.

The reason I was banging on about compromise is simply because that seems to be what the game is itself; between those two worlds. So naturally, some of the player base will pull it TOME-wards, and some Minecraft-wards. I'm almost guaranteed to be in the latter camp, but I'm also a little conservative; I don't want to ruin it for everyone else. So I like mediated solutions. That's all.

[Shard1697]

...you think ADOM and TOME are too narrow in scope? am I in the twilight zone

[Haelyn]

Ahaha. I'm probably wrong about TOME for the most part really, I just remember playing it through and not feeling like replaying. And I think I'm confusing ADOM with something else...

Sorry about that.

[Hurkyl]

Appealing towards more people is not inherently better, and I think I've already explained why-the strongest experiences in games usually happen when something is made with a specific goal and audience in mind to focus on.

While I agree with the spirit of this statement, I disagree with the letter. Being more appealing to more people is* an inherently better thing -- the problem is the sacrifice required to actually achieve it.

That might sound a little nitpicky, but I think it's an important distinction to make, since your whole point is about the sacrifice.

*: There are exceptions, I suppose. e.g. if you have a goal of developing a small, tight community of players, mass appeal would be inherently bad.

[yesno]

@longposters: Guys, people are going to start getting out the "didn't read lol" gifs before long here.

seriously like

You ... uhm ... had to delete the sentence immediate before my statement in order make it sound as if I was all worked up as if somebody was trying to remove my kidneys ... That I would betray a reactionary attitude is a rather new one for me. I sort of appreciate the novelty. Finally the moderantist mask has come off! I show the ugly grimace of crawl reaction and you all see the violence inherent in the system.

Compromise affecting me. Well, my journey with making games started with making minecraft modpacks. I don't need to tell you that minecraft and mods is all a very modular system, and people can put together what they want for their own personal fun. But I had a group of friends. I could've just kept only what I wanted, which was also too much for their computers to run. We could've played only my brothers which bored me. But we basically negotiated a while.

OH MY GOD STOP

[jwoodward48ss]

Ok, seriously, what would the benefit be of "have goblins only wield clubs"? I can list two good solutions for this:
1. Only allow goblins to wield daggers, clubs, etc. No morningstars.
2. Give a warning, change the colour of the monster, something to alert you to the dangerous morningstar-wielding goblin.

And as for "why should monster weapons be like player weapons," I have the response, "why the hell not?" Players expect symmetry if some degree of it seems to exist. Imagine if, when a monster wields them, morningstars were dramatically worse than daggers. WAIT! THEY ARE! Since monsters are assumed to have even skills, it makes no sense why a dirt-cheap weapon should work better than a rare, expensive one. And only for monsters.

DCSS is immersive, and having monsters work very differently from players breaks that immersiveness.

[dpeg]

Does unicode include the ability to have diacritics over numbers?

I ask about once a year whether we could use diacritics to add information in console. It doesn't seem to be possible at this time (perhaps we're bound to xterm so strongly?). Would be wonderful to enrich console through umlauts.

The thread seems a bit shaky at this stage. I've reread it, and I still think that the proposals of Hardboiledgargoyle and ion_frigate are worthy of serious discussion. I'll try to bring them up in ##crawl-dev. As I see it, the change would yield some immediate gains (clarity, interface, more focused monster design), and the losses are on the scale of "lose some flavour" and "lose some interesting, but really rare encounters". Clear case from my point of view.

[jwoodward48ss]

But but but...

then the tiny pictures would only have clubs

NOT daggers

you guys only dev for console players, damn you



========

Anyway, we should go one way or another. Either improve the way things are, or go full hog and abstract monster weapons. Not this weird thing.

[Haelyn]

But but but...

then the tiny pictures would only have clubs

NOT daggers

you guys only dev for console players, damn you



========

Anyway, we should go one way or another. Either improve the way things are, or go full hog and abstract monster weapons. Not this weird thing.

In partial response to something you said on the other topic, and I'm very serious when I say this, how much recognition/support/fanbase is there for good Crawl branches on this forum?

I have about ten threadworthy ideas and another ten that I know would get shot down for difficulty or too much a change and I feel like, well, why not.

[Utis]

Does unicode include the ability to have diacritics over numbers?

I ask about once a year whether we could use diacritics to add information in console. It doesn't seem to be possible at this time (perhaps we're bound to xterm so strongly?).

Xterm handles unicode and most combining diacritics just fine on modern distributions. Maybe crawl's code makes using combining diacritics difficult (it's technically two characters, not just one, that you have to handle).

As I see it, the change would yield some immediate gains (clarity, interface, more focused monster design), and the losses are on the scale of "lose some flavour" and "lose some interesting, but really rare encounters". Clear case from my point of view.

FWIW, if in the process of unification and clarification you'd also get rid of random weapons on the floor -- so that the player has to always wrestle his weapon upgrade from a halberd wielding "lance gnoll"*, then I for once would regard that as a net gain in simulation and flavour. That's probably even more controversial, though ...


EDIT: * or from a shop, of course.

[jwoodward48ss]

was it not said that all items would be found on the floor?

then removing floorweapons = removing weapons

this would be bad. it is a huge nerf to melee guys, unless they play oka or trog

meanwhile, the transmuters would have a large relative buff, since other buffs would be needed to balance armed melee people

this is bad guys

this is very very bad

[andreas]

Does unicode include the ability to have diacritics over numbers?

I ask about once a year whether we could use diacritics to add information in console. It doesn't seem to be possible at this time (perhaps we're bound to xterm so strongly?). Would be wonderful to enrich console through umlauts.

I'm not sure diacritics for weapon type is better than the proposals of HBG and ion_frigate. I worry it would be busy and hard to read to have so many diacritics going every which way. But my thinking was that maybe it would be easier to do and so more likely to actually happen. A pure interface change doesn't require thinking about the content of the game and rebalancing. Maybe I'm overestimating the difficulty of implementing those proposals, though.

...probably diacritics could still be useful for other purposes if they're not used for weapon type, if it becomes possible to display them.

[Siegurt]

Does unicode include the ability to have diacritics over numbers?

I ask about once a year whether we could use diacritics to add information in console. It doesn't seem to be possible at this time (perhaps we're bound to xterm so strongly?). Would be wonderful to enrich console through umlauts.

I'm not sure diacritics for weapon type is better than the proposals of HBG and ion_frigate. I worry it would be busy and hard to read to have so many diacritics going every which way. But my thinking was that maybe it would be easier to do and so more likely to actually happen. A pure interface change doesn't require thinking about the content of the game and rebalancing. Maybe I'm overestimating the difficulty of implementing those proposals, though.

...probably diacritics could still be useful for other purposes if they're not used for weapon type, if it becomes possible to display them.

So there are "combining diacritics" in unicode which *in theory* could be applied to any character, however the support for arbitrary combination of diacritics with any arbitrary character is spotty from application to application, at best, and to make things further complicated, isn't very well supported by all common console fonts, much less all console applications.

To make matters worse, when trying to render a diacritic over top of an existing glyph, not all fonts design in proper spacing to give room for the diacritic to appear in the same space and be legible for every glyph (In fact I suspect you could find at least one non standard combination that is completely illegible in just about any font, in some number of font sizes at least)

The best you could realistically hope for is that glyphs which might normally be expected to contain diacritics in at least one language will be properly supported, and even that isn't going to be compatible with every console that can run crawl now.