Tomb Titivator
Posts: 885
Joined: Sunday, 28th June 2015, 14:44
Although the central place for design discussion is ##crawl-dev on freenode, some may find it helpful to discuss requests and suggestions here first.
Tomb Titivator
Posts: 885
Joined: Sunday, 28th June 2015, 14:44
Crypt Cleanser
Posts: 714
Joined: Saturday, 5th December 2015, 06:56
Siegurt wrote:I suggested a long time ago that we revamp charms into spells that are only useful to cast in combat, (by actual having effects that are only useful when critters are around to fight, rather than by spending shortening the duration)
And mostly there was no response at all.
Here are some examples:
Shroud of golubria: when you move, the spell ends
Rmsl: i still think this would be more fun as the previous "wind wall" proposal, pretty much you spawn clouds in your los that have a chance to deflect missiles (and of course they disappear when they leave your los, like all clouds)
Spectral weapon: I would just have the summoned weapon not move at all, it should also be dismissable in case you summon it somewhere annoying, since you wouldn't be able to swap with it.
Of course this only solves the "it is tedious and optimal to cast these spells when you are out of combat, just in case" problem, it doesn't change the no brainer-ness of them (that the investment is nearly always worth it for low level charms at least at some point)
Probably to solve that, the effects of low level spells would need to be very low or nonexistent against higher level critters. (for example critters could get a hd-based chance of bypassing SoG)
Also, I personally think charms are better when they are powerful, but apply to less situations. More situationally useful charms that you would cast only in some circumstances would mean you wouldn't drop your entire list of memorized spells on every combat, but rather make a hopefully intelligent choice about what would be useful.
Anyway doing all of that is more work, but imho way more worthwhile than removing charms outright.
Ziggurat Zagger
Posts: 6454
Joined: Tuesday, 30th October 2012, 19:06
Lasty wrote:much like Siegurt's proposal for wall of wind.
Barkeep
Posts: 1788
Joined: Saturday, 29th June 2013, 16:52
VeryAngryFelid wrote:Edit. If we can have just a single charms spell active, we can add more decisions/spells: have higher damage, higher AC, higher EV, higher HP, RMsl etc.
ydeve wrote:You can reduce the effect of the spamminess by making the spell give a status that constantly drains your mp until you cancel the effect. This would let charms function like in the OP without the recasting.
Ziggurat Zagger
Posts: 6454
Joined: Tuesday, 30th October 2012, 19:06
Ziggurat Zagger
Posts: 4432
Joined: Friday, 8th May 2015, 17:51
archaeo wrote:If the goal is to just allow players to have one charm active at a time, why isn't that the point of the reform on its own? Why should they be spells at that point? What makes it interesting for them to be spells instead of items?
Ziggurat Zagger
Posts: 6454
Joined: Tuesday, 30th October 2012, 19:06
lethediver wrote:Siegurt wrote:I suggested a long time ago that we revamp charms into spells that are only useful to cast in combat, (by actual having effects that are only useful when critters are around to fight, rather than by spending shortening the duration)
And mostly there was no response at all.
Here are some examples:
Shroud of golubria: when you move, the spell ends
Rmsl: i still think this would be more fun as the previous "wind wall" proposal, pretty much you spawn clouds in your los that have a chance to deflect missiles (and of course they disappear when they leave your los, like all clouds)
Spectral weapon: I would just have the summoned weapon not move at all, it should also be dismissable in case you summon it somewhere annoying, since you wouldn't be able to swap with it.
Of course this only solves the "it is tedious and optimal to cast these spells when you are out of combat, just in case" problem, it doesn't change the no brainer-ness of them (that the investment is nearly always worth it for low level charms at least at some point)
Probably to solve that, the effects of low level spells would need to be very low or nonexistent against higher level critters. (for example critters could get a hd-based chance of bypassing SoG)
Also, I personally think charms are better when they are powerful, but apply to less situations. More situationally useful charms that you would cast only in some circumstances would mean you wouldn't drop your entire list of memorized spells on every combat, but rather make a hopefully intelligent choice about what would be useful.
Anyway doing all of that is more work, but imho way more worthwhile than removing charms outright.
This all does sound really good, but the chief problem i see is that it is REALLY hard to design a spell that isn't still gameable without prohibitively short durations.
For example, non-moving shroud ... it's still optimal to back off when you see an enemy, shout from out of range, activate shroud along with all other relevant buffs, and lure enemy into melee range (utilizing corners if the enemy is ranged). This didn't solve the problem of out-of-combat tedium, it actually exacerbated it, assuming a player who is dedicated enough to fully abuse your spell mechanic.
Same thing applies to non-moving spectral weapon... shout or whatever to grab enemy attention, retreat behind a wall, cast in a spot adjacent to you, wait for enemy to fall into trap.
For 'wall of wind' - this spell achieves exactly the same thing as rMsl (preventing some missiles from hitting you), just on a timer. Same problem remains - the winning move is always to activate the spell pre-fight, and that means prior to almost any fight.
Conversely, with extremely short durations, there really just is no conceivable way a player can bring buffs forward into a fight using pre-fight preparations. Which means that such preparation gets eliminated.
I'm not saying it would be impossible to design Charms spells to prohibit pre-fight set up without these short durations... but at the moment, I'm not seeing how it can be done in a way that isn't highly convoluted. Perhaps if you could come up with a bulletproof example. I see loopholes in all the ones you listed thusfar.
I definitely agree with you about it being better to use Charms situationally instead of them always being optimal - that's half the reason I like this solution, because with short durations you can only pick 1, perhaps 2 at max, charms to have active at once - any more than that is a waste of turns/MP. This means you have to choose carefully.
In the end, I feel there is room to merge our two approaches. For example, if your spectral weapon doesn't move AND lasts only 4 turns, casting it before being in melee range of an enemy is inefficient. At best, you have time to prep your spectral weapon, and no other Charms, limiting the amount of prep work that can be done. And i'm sure there are situations where you'd rather have a high chance of reflecting missiles, or a few turns of running speed, or whatever the case may be, depending on the positioning, monster set, terrain, etc. in a given fight. The more situational the spells, the less likely players will simply be driven to "shroud, tab tab tab, shroud, tab tab tab".
So the end goal should be spells that are situational, short duration, and powerful enough to justify the former two caveats.
Crypt Cleanser
Posts: 714
Joined: Saturday, 5th December 2015, 06:56
archaeo wrote:If the goal is to just allow players to have one charm active at a time, why isn't that the point of the reform on its own? Why should they be spells at that point? What makes it interesting for them to be spells instead of items?
Barkeep
Posts: 1788
Joined: Saturday, 29th June 2013, 16:52
VeryAngryFelid wrote:Decisions:
1) Should I cast ANY buff before fight?
2) Which buff should I cast?
3) Should I cast a buff after current one expires during fight and which one?
4) Should I spend XP to be able to use those buffs?
Also items are bad because they can be used in heavy armour and take inventory slots. I don't want to replace boots of RMsl with boots of Spectral Weapon before opening a door.
Crypt Cleanser
Posts: 714
Joined: Saturday, 5th December 2015, 06:56
Siegurt wrote:You misunderstand the problem I am trying to solve, i think it is a *good* (or at least charms neutral) thing if you discover critters, back off and fight them in a way that is to your advantage, this is true whether charms are involved or not, if you back off and shout around a corner then pelt things with conjurations instead of buffing yourself with charms as they approach, is that any better?
Siegurt wrote:The problem i am proposing to solve is that it is technically optimal to cast all your charms and have them up at all times while exploring or even traveling, on the off chance you should stumble across something that wants to fight you.
That is a whole additional *level* of tediousness.
Ziggurat Zagger
Posts: 4432
Joined: Friday, 8th May 2015, 17:51
archaeo wrote:VeryAngryFelid wrote:Decisions:
1) Should I cast ANY buff before fight?
2) Which buff should I cast?
3) Should I cast a buff after current one expires during fight and which one?
4) Should I spend XP to be able to use those buffs?
The only one of these decisions specific to spellcasting is the skills question, and I personally find that strategic decision to be the least interesting by far. It's very rarely an actual decision the player makes, because there is only a single correct choice in most circumstances and the player has made that choice long before it becomes necessary to make a decision about whether or not to learn buffs. Either you're wearing heavy armour, in which case you're better off waiting to learn buffs until extended, or you're wearing light armour, in which case you should start learning buffs whenever they become available. None of this seems so compelling as to encourage us to keep buffs as spells.
Your Spells Type Power Failure Level Hunger
g - Regeneration Chrm/Necr ######.... 1% 3 None
h - Death Channel Necr ######.... 2% 6 ##.....
i - Song of Slaying Chrm #####... 1% 2 None
r - Repel Missiles Chrm/Air ###### 1% 2 None
M - Swiftness Chrm/Air ######.. 1% 2 None
O - Invisibility Hex ######.. 2% 6 ##.....
S - Silence Hex/Air ######.... 1% 5 None
The heavy armour objection is pointless; there aren't any buff spells that are better than equipment/consumables that already exist.
Likewise, we have plenty of existing mechanics that discourage tactical swapping in most equipment slots, and there's no reason we can't come up with more, whereas figurng out this kind of thing for spells is going to be real dicey.
Barkeep
Posts: 1788
Joined: Saturday, 29th June 2013, 16:52
VeryAngryFelid wrote:Consumables are fine, they are spent. Even then I don't know any equipment/consumable that can almost double melee output or give +18 slaying.
Dungeon Master
Posts: 3160
Joined: Sunday, 5th August 2012, 14:52
dowan wrote:I think the people complaining about the tedium are forgetting how spells work in this game. If you want to kill a guy with fire bolts, you keep casting fire bolt until he's dead. If you want to confuse an enemy before you stab him, you cast confuse on him till he's confused.
Now, if you want to have a +3 to damage and guarantee to hit on your next x attacks, you cast infusion. What exactly is the difference here? You literally can't just cast all your charms before each fight, because they don't last long enough. It's less tedium, every time you cast a charm, it's because it was a meaningful thing to do, not just a "just in case" like it is now.
Ziggurat Zagger
Posts: 4432
Joined: Friday, 8th May 2015, 17:51
archaeo wrote:Amulet of Rage? Amulet of Faith + a good god? Either way, assuming that you're talking about Spectral Weapon (you are, right?), there's an argument to be made that it should be part of a god instead of a spell or a piece of equipment; I think "Amulet of Spectral Weapon" would still usually be worse than Rage or Faith, but Hepblahblahblah is already basically a Spectral Weapon god.
Shoals Surfer
Posts: 270
Joined: Sunday, 23rd March 2014, 23:51
Tomb Titivator
Posts: 909
Joined: Thursday, 3rd January 2013, 20:32
Ziggurat Zagger
Posts: 4432
Joined: Friday, 8th May 2015, 17:51
tedric wrote:Because it will always be bad to have the buff end at the wrong moment, there is no incentive to buff up out of combat -- you need to know what you're facing before you can make a smart decision about which charms to activate (and if there's no drawback that achieves this, the spell should be removed). Durations can then be adjusted so that you have to think even harder about when to.......turn on the charm
Vestibule Violator
Posts: 1601
Joined: Sunday, 14th July 2013, 16:36
tedric wrote:It is obvious to me that Swiftness is the best-designed charm spell in the game right now: It's a powerful short-duration buff immediately followed by a powerful short-duration debuff. You can't have it up all the time (non-passive), you can't cast it multiple times in a row (non-spammy), and you have to be careful about when/how you use it (tactically interesting).
Tartarus Sorceror
Posts: 1762
Joined: Monday, 14th October 2013, 01:05
VeryAngryFelid wrote:goodcoolguy wrote:"You should win the game before getting charms. They are also OP."
You win the game because charms (and some other support spells and wands) are OP. Remove them and see how easy depths/vaults 5/zot will be. This is off topic in this thread probably
Dungeon Master
Posts: 3160
Joined: Sunday, 5th August 2012, 14:52
tedric wrote:It is obvious to me that Swiftness is the best-designed charm spell in the game right now: It's a powerful short-duration buff immediately followed by a powerful short-duration debuff. You can't have it up all the time (non-passive), you can't cast it multiple times in a row (non-spammy), and you have to be careful about when/how you use it (tactically interesting).
Vestibule Violator
Posts: 1601
Joined: Sunday, 14th July 2013, 16:36
Abyss Ambulator
Posts: 1194
Joined: Friday, 18th April 2014, 01:41
VeryAngryFelid wrote:goodcoolguy wrote:"You should win the game before getting charms. They are also OP."
You win the game because charms (and some other support spells and wands) are OP. Remove them and see how easy depths/vaults 5/zot will be. This is off topic in this thread probably
Tartarus Sorceror
Posts: 1694
Joined: Tuesday, 31st March 2015, 20:34
lethediver wrote: And I'm gonna posit that most people agree. Why? Because there are many complaints here about possibly having to cast charms multiple times in battle, but no one chimes in with "but you already have to cast conjurations multiple times in a given battle, so isn't this pretty much the same thing?"
dowan wrote:I think the people complaining about the tedium are forgetting how spells work in this game. If you want to kill a guy with fire bolts, you keep casting fire bolt until he's dead. If you want to confuse an enemy before you stab him, you cast confuse on him till he's confused.
Crypt Cleanser
Posts: 714
Joined: Saturday, 5th December 2015, 06:56
Mines Malingerer
Posts: 36
Joined: Thursday, 6th October 2016, 15:14
Ziggurat Zagger
Posts: 4432
Joined: Friday, 8th May 2015, 17:51
sooheon wrote:I think there can be different types of charms. I think some, like transmutations, can be semi-permanent with max mp decrease. You can prevent heavy armour guys from always having charms on by making spell failure meaningful for these toggles. Taking damage can have a chance to disrupt your concentration and dispel a charm, so you're incentivized to keep training to better spell failure rates. The benefit of long lasting charms can be accounted for by the cost of them possibly being dispelled, requiring you to recast them.
Crypt Cleanser
Posts: 746
Joined: Thursday, 5th December 2013, 04:01
Ziggurat Zagger
Posts: 4432
Joined: Friday, 8th May 2015, 17:51
Barkeep
Posts: 1788
Joined: Saturday, 29th June 2013, 16:52
Ziggurat Zagger
Posts: 4432
Joined: Friday, 8th May 2015, 17:51
Blades Runner
Posts: 546
Joined: Friday, 2nd October 2015, 14:42
Barkeep
Posts: 1788
Joined: Saturday, 29th June 2013, 16:52
Halls Hopper
Posts: 85
Joined: Monday, 9th February 2015, 01:57
Location: Limberry Castle
Tartarus Sorceror
Posts: 1694
Joined: Tuesday, 31st March 2015, 20:34
elmdor wrote:I guess I am one of the few weirdos who is mostly fine with how current charms work. Isn't tedious play its own punishment?
Temple Termagant
Posts: 11
Joined: Sunday, 29th May 2016, 17:58
lethediver wrote:Charms are currently the one type of spell you can cast pre-battle to gain a long lasting strategic advantage, instead of having an instantaneous tactical effect. This places them in a weird position, balance wise, rendering their spell power (insofar as it is tied to duration) and failure rate largely irrelevant. It also makes them tedious to use since it is never not optimal to have charms active, but doing so requires frequent casting. Finally it steps on the toes of equipment and consumables by giving your character a (theoretically) continuous advantage at the cost of mere spell slots.
My proposal is this: change the duration of Charms to be quite short (around 4 turns), and increase their effects dramatically. This will necessitate frequent casting during combat, which will make failure rate and spell power meaningful, as well as introduce some degree of tactical uncertainty as to when to use a Charms spell, which one to use, and when to use your valuable combat turns on something else. This will also make constant out-of-combat activation suboptimal and/or impossible (due to much higher MP cost vs. turns active).
Example of what im talking about:
Infusion - Guarantees your attacks will not miss for the duration and do +3 flat dmg. 3-6 turns depending on spellpower.
Repel Missiles - 90% chance to repel missile attacks against you for the duration. 3-6 turns depending on spellpower. (Deflect missiles becomes reflect missiles)
Shroud of Golubria - 90% chance to absorb melee attacks against you the duration. 3-5 turns depending on spellpower.
Song of slaying - Any time you kill an enemy, the damage you dealt will also be inflicted on other hostile monsters in LoS. 4-8 turns depending on spellpower.
Etc. Note that these are just examples, numbers can certainly be tweaked so long as the MP cost / turn ratio on all spells remains higher, or at least quite close to, maximum potential non CBoE based mana regeneration.
While an extreme rework, I believe this solves all current and theoretical future problems with Charms in one fell swoop, aligning the sphere with how all other magic in Crawl works (cast during combat). As well as making the spells more impactful, meaningful, and I'd guess fun to use.
Halls Hopper
Posts: 85
Joined: Monday, 9th February 2015, 01:57
Location: Limberry Castle
dowan wrote:It creates a struggle between "having fun" and "trying your hardest to win". If you have to choose between doing better at the game or having fun at the game, the game has failed, because ideally the best way to play the game (i.e. win the most) would be as fun, or more fun than playing the game poorly.
Lameador2 wrote: I would prefer going the full opposite way : charms have a permanent MP cost and stay active until forgotten. MP cost might be "Spell lvl + 1/already active charm", or "10% of base mana pool". The former makes charms a good deal for all magic users, the latter orients them towards "non troggy melee-guys". Both can be valid deisgn paths.
Vestibule Violator
Posts: 1601
Joined: Sunday, 14th July 2013, 16:36
elmdor wrote:I personally find playing centaurs interminably boring due to the constant kiting and ammo retrieval, but I accept that they are objectively a powerful race. I'd rather think of this as a difference in taste rather than a failure in game design.
Cocytus Succeeder
Posts: 2297
Joined: Saturday, 14th April 2012, 21:35
Siegurt wrote:The problem i am proposing to solve is that it is technically optimal to cast all your charms and have them up at all times while exploring or even traveling, on the off chance you should stumble across something that wants to fight you.
Sure super short durations also eliminate pre-buffing, but they also make you do a whole lot more in-combat buffing, i would argue that from a strictly tedium perspective, it is at best a wash.
lethediver wrote:I think it's absolutely more tedious to make sure you have as many Charms as possible up
there are many complaints here about possibly having to cast charms multiple times in battle, but no one chimes in with "but you already have to cast conjurations multiple times in a given battle, so isn't this pretty much the same thing?"
players sure don't mind casting conjurations the way they mind casting charms.
Ziggurat Zagger
Posts: 4478
Joined: Wednesday, 23rd October 2013, 07:56
kuniqs wrote:Remove Charms. Add "Alchemy" skill that functions as a crafting system, and strew aroud herbs in the dungeon that PC can collect. This way we'll have a truly strategic buff system.
Vestibule Violator
Posts: 1601
Joined: Sunday, 14th July 2013, 16:36
Sprucery wrote:kuniqs wrote:Remove Charms. Add "Alchemy" skill that functions as a crafting system, and strew aroud herbs in the dungeon that PC can collect. This way we'll have a truly strategic buff system.
And introduce herb seeds and Gardening skill and make herb growth follow the rules of Conway's Game of Life...
Tomb Titivator
Posts: 832
Joined: Wednesday, 17th April 2013, 13:28
Psieye wrote:- Some charms only give the buff upon killing (non-popcorn hostiles) with said damage.
Cocytus Succeeder
Posts: 2297
Joined: Saturday, 14th April 2012, 21:35
DracheReborn wrote:Psieye wrote:- Some charms only give the buff upon killing (non-popcorn hostiles) with said damage.
Ooh, killing hostiles gives a chance to drop power-ups
Tomb Titivator
Posts: 832
Joined: Wednesday, 17th April 2013, 13:28
Psieye wrote:DracheReborn wrote:Psieye wrote:- Some charms only give the buff upon killing (non-popcorn hostiles) with said damage.
Ooh, killing hostiles gives a chance to drop power-ups
'Drop' implies you have to move to pick it up. I said 'give', meaning the buff is immediately awarded for achieving the kill with the specific spell.
Return to Game Design Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 68 guests