Tartarus Sorceror
Posts: 1762
Joined: Monday, 14th October 2013, 01:05
Although the central place for design discussion is ##crawl-dev on freenode, some may find it helpful to discuss requests and suggestions here first.
Tartarus Sorceror
Posts: 1762
Joined: Monday, 14th October 2013, 01:05
Ziggurat Zagger
Posts: 6454
Joined: Tuesday, 30th October 2012, 19:06
Shard1697 wrote:if we remove oka ally conduct, please also remove Dith's horrid fire conduct
Tartarus Sorceror
Posts: 1762
Joined: Monday, 14th October 2013, 01:05
Siegurt wrote:Shard1697 wrote:if we remove oka ally conduct, please also remove Dith's horrid fire conduct
Well, to be fair, there are very very few ways to accidentally cause fires, oka can get pissed because you forgot to use . Instead of f for targeting, the only "unintentional" way to piss off dith that i know of is to fire lightning bolts at trees (although that does make being a black draconian wierd sometimes)
I would actually rather gods just generally suppress or prevent effects they don't like, rather than getting upset about it.
Ziggurat Zagger
Posts: 6454
Joined: Tuesday, 30th October 2012, 19:06
Shard1697 wrote:It doesn't matter if it's accidental or not, it's annoying and stupid and not based around balance considerations or anything. The flavor doesn't even make much sense.Siegurt wrote:Shard1697 wrote:if we remove oka ally conduct, please also remove Dith's horrid fire conduct
Well, to be fair, there are very very few ways to accidentally cause fires, oka can get pissed because you forgot to use . Instead of f for targeting, the only "unintentional" way to piss off dith that i know of is to fire lightning bolts at trees (although that does make being a black draconian wierd sometimes)
I would actually rather gods just generally suppress or prevent effects they don't like, rather than getting upset about it.
Tartarus Sorceror
Posts: 1762
Joined: Monday, 14th October 2013, 01:05
Cheibrodos wrote:Remove the fire conduct. It doesn't change the way you play at all except for making some of your loot unusable at random.
PleasingFungus wrote:i don't think that's what the word 'random' means.
Shard1697 wrote:"Arbitrary", then, since it's not really a balance consideration(fire items/spells specifically are not better than, for example, ice items/spells, so fire's not banned to balance Dith's abilities)
Especially since it cares only about Fire, and not other sources of light. Dazzling Spray is allowed, Corona is allowed...
schoen wrote:As are thunderous bolts of lightning. Part of me thinks then that this discrepancy should be addressed in the other direction and make all these other sources of light bad conduct.
Arrhythmia wrote:It was like this for a while, and then changed to what it is now, because that was even more arbitrary (bolt of lightning made light and was Bad, but conjure ball lightning was chill?)
schoen wrote:Then CBL should have been made bad conduct too? And corona and dazzling spray and all that. I'd prefer if the flavour was actually consistent. However many spells you disallow, it can't be as restrictive as Trog. Buff Dith if he needs it.
Arrhythmia wrote:Okay that sounds good until you realize that a lot of the shit in crawl doesn't exist in real life and deciding whether or not it makes light is completely arbitrary. Like, does IMB create light? When I wield a weapon of freeze, it "glows with a cold blue light", should those be banned? Should irradiate be banned because of the magical contamination I stick myself with? What about "clouds of seething chaos", do those involve light or not?
Even after you've compiled a grand list of everything in crawl and decided whether or not it makes light, the question of why banning these things makes Dith a better god is still unanswered. Does not letting me cast Irradiate change the way I play? What is good about having Dith ban freezing weapons from me?
Quazifuji wrote:If I remember correctly, Dith's conduct was basically added solely for the sake of adding a conduct, there wasn't really any gameplay reason behind it besides "conducts are neat, let's add a conduct," and that's a pretty terrible reason for it, in my opinion.
Conducts that affect the way you play the game in interesting ways are neat. But I think it's exceedingly rare for Dith to do that. I feel like the vast majority of the time, Dith's conduct affects me in one of two ways:
- I rely heavily on fire, so choosing Dith is out of the question. Thus, a potentially interesting character choice is not available.
- I do not rely on fire, so it has little-to-no bearing on my choice of whether or not to worship Dith. Some completely arbitrary (from a gameplay standpoint) items and spells will not be available to me for the rest of the run. Most of these spells and items are redundant with other, similar spells or items, so this does not significantly affect my playstyle.
Overall, Dith's conduct just feels arbitrary and pointless. It doesn't affect the way I play the game or restrict my character in any interesting ways. Most of the time, it just does nothing, or it takes a choice that might have been interesting ("Do I want to worship Dith with my DEFE?" or "Do I want to learn this fire spell/use this fire item?") and makes it not interesting instead. There's never a point where Dith's conduct makes me seriously consider how it's going to affect my playstyle in a meaningful way.
KoboldLord wrote:If we need a flavor-based reason why the goddess of shadow would be okay with light and fire, just consider that light casts shadows. Light is not an opposite for shadow; it is a source of power as well as a potential threat. All the more reason for her followers to take control of it.
schoen wrote:Re: Arrhythmia,
Point well taken. Then the best way forward seems to be not to go all in on this current conduct, but get rid of it or think of a better, more internally consistent one with interesting gameplay ramifications.
Quazifuji wrote:Why does Dith need a conduct? That was part of the point I wanted to make in my post: Dith is a perfectly good god design without a conduct, and adding a conduct for the sake of adding a conduct just seems silly. Most other gods with conducts or drawbacks have that as the core of their design. The good gods are an exception, but the good god are extremely flavor-focused, especially TSO and Zin.
Trying to add a conduct to Dith just for the sake of having a conduct feels like bad game design. Dith wasn't designed with a conduct in mind (like I said, I remember it being added part way through just because people liked the idea of gods having conducts, and "no light" made thematic sense). Dith wouldn't be overpowered with no conduct. There is no reason that the fire conduct needs to be replaced. It can be removed.
This isn't to say that it isn't possible to give Dith a cool, meaningful conduct that really adds to the god's design, or that we shouldn't discuss it. I just think "Should the fire conduct be removed?" and "Are there interesting conducts that could be added to Dith?" are entirely unrelated discussions, because there's no particular reason Dith needs to have a conduct.
Swamp Slogger
Posts: 143
Joined: Friday, 24th July 2015, 23:03
Tartarus Sorceror
Posts: 1762
Joined: Monday, 14th October 2013, 01:05
Quazifuji wrote:If I remember correctly, Dith's conduct was basically added solely for the sake of adding a conduct, there wasn't really any gameplay reason behind it besides "conducts are neat, let's add a conduct," and that's a pretty terrible reason for it, in my opinion.
Conducts that affect the way you play the game in interesting ways are neat. But I think it's exceedingly rare for Dith to do that. I feel like the vast majority of the time, Dith's conduct affects me in one of two ways:
- I rely heavily on fire, so choosing Dith is out of the question. Thus, a potentially interesting character choice is not available.
- I do not rely on fire, so it has little-to-no bearing on my choice of whether or not to worship Dith. Some completely arbitrary (from a gameplay standpoint) items and spells will not be available to me for the rest of the run. Most of these spells and items are redundant with other, similar spells or items, so this does not significantly affect my playstyle.
Overall, Dith's conduct just feels arbitrary and pointless. It doesn't affect the way I play the game or restrict my character in any interesting ways. Most of the time, it just does nothing, or it takes a choice that might have been interesting ("Do I want to worship Dith with my DEFE?" or "Do I want to learn this fire spell/use this fire item?") and makes it not interesting instead. There's never a point where Dith's conduct makes me seriously consider how it's going to affect my playstyle in a meaningful way.
Ziggurat Zagger
Posts: 6454
Joined: Tuesday, 30th October 2012, 19:06
Shard1697 wrote:I do not care nearly so much why Dith hates fire, I care that Dith hates fire. Changing the flavor would be a bandaid solution because the flavor is not the biggest problem, I think it is a dumb and arbitrary restriction that does not really add anything to gameplay, and is at most mildly annoying.
Again, Quazifuji's post:If a god is to have a conduct, they should have a good reason for it. Chei's conduct is good and meaningfully changes gameplay. Qaz's conduct is a bit too harsh atm because of how extreme the noise is, but if toned down it would be good(and either way meaningfully changes gameplay). The part of TSO's conduct where they prohibit necromancy is flavorful, meaningful(because necromancy is so strong) and less annoying than the stabbing thing. Dith's fire conduct not only is weird flavor-wise, but more importantly doesn't really change gameplay in an interesting way.Quazifuji wrote:If I remember correctly, Dith's conduct was basically added solely for the sake of adding a conduct, there wasn't really any gameplay reason behind it besides "conducts are neat, let's add a conduct," and that's a pretty terrible reason for it, in my opinion.
Conducts that affect the way you play the game in interesting ways are neat. But I think it's exceedingly rare for Dith to do that. I feel like the vast majority of the time, Dith's conduct affects me in one of two ways:
- I rely heavily on fire, so choosing Dith is out of the question. Thus, a potentially interesting character choice is not available.
- I do not rely on fire, so it has little-to-no bearing on my choice of whether or not to worship Dith. Some completely arbitrary (from a gameplay standpoint) items and spells will not be available to me for the rest of the run. Most of these spells and items are redundant with other, similar spells or items, so this does not significantly affect my playstyle.
Overall, Dith's conduct just feels arbitrary and pointless. It doesn't affect the way I play the game or restrict my character in any interesting ways. Most of the time, it just does nothing, or it takes a choice that might have been interesting ("Do I want to worship Dith with my DEFE?" or "Do I want to learn this fire spell/use this fire item?") and makes it not interesting instead. There's never a point where Dith's conduct makes me seriously consider how it's going to affect my playstyle in a meaningful way.
Siegurt wrote:Are you saying that necromancy is something that every character would want some of if they aren't using a god that forbids it, is necromancy magic somehow inherently better than fire magic?
Swamp Slogger
Posts: 143
Joined: Friday, 24th July 2015, 23:03
Shard1697 wrote:I do not care nearly so much why Dith hates fire, I care that Dith hates fire. Changing the flavor would be a bandaid solution because the flavor is not the biggest problem, I think it is a dumb and arbitrary restriction that does not really add anything to gameplay, and is at most mildly annoying.
Tartarus Sorceror
Posts: 1891
Joined: Monday, 1st April 2013, 04:41
Location: Toronto, Canada
Siegurt wrote:Are you saying that necromancy is something that every character would want some of if they aren't using a god that forbids it, is necromancy magic somehow inherently better than fire magic?
Tartarus Sorceror
Posts: 1762
Joined: Monday, 14th October 2013, 01:05
Dioneo wrote:Shard1697 wrote:I do not care nearly so much why Dith hates fire, I care that Dith hates fire. Changing the flavor would be a bandaid solution because the flavor is not the biggest problem, I think it is a dumb and arbitrary restriction that does not really add anything to gameplay, and is at most mildly annoying.
If it's really that trivial then I see even less reason to remove the conduct. It introduces a nice bit of flavour to Dithmenos and (according to you) doesn't impact gameplay in any major way, I'd say that's a win. Your point seems to be that purely thematic features are not "needed" unless they noticeably change gameplay but you could just as well say the opposite; if it adds some interest or character to the game without shaking things up too much then surely there's no reason not to have it in the game?
Siegurt wrote:Are you saying that necromancy is something that every character would want some of if they aren't using a god that forbids it, is necromancy magic somehow inherently better than fire magic?
Swamp Slogger
Posts: 143
Joined: Friday, 24th July 2015, 23:03
Shard1697 wrote:Because it's irritating and removes character options. You cannot cast fireball as a Dith follower, but you are allowed to cast throw icicle, lightning bolt, battlesphere etc.just fine. Why limit character build choices like this if there's no good reason for it? It's not as if fireball or bolt of fire are inherently better than, eg, bolt of cold and other non-fire damage spells, so forbidding them isn't for the purposes of character balance and it's not as if fire damage spells are hugely different from non-fire damage spells. It just means you don't want to start as FE and go Dith, but it's fine to start as IE and go Dith. Why? Because of arbitrary flavor limitations, nothing to do with the power or gameplay or either of these spellbooks.
Also I do not think it's a nice bit of flavor that adds interest/character to the game. I think it is purely annoyance.
Tomb Titivator
Posts: 911
Joined: Thursday, 17th December 2015, 02:36
Tartarus Sorceror
Posts: 1762
Joined: Monday, 14th October 2013, 01:05
Dioneo wrote:Just out of curiosity, what kinds of conducts do you find interesting/acceptable? Trog entirely disallows magic, for example, is that better? Are you ok with the dietary restrictions of Zin? If you had to preserve some kind of conduct for Dithmenos, how would you like it to operate?
Ziggurat Zagger
Posts: 6454
Joined: Tuesday, 30th October 2012, 19:06
Shard1697 wrote:Like I mentioned before, Chei's conduct is good(flavorful and important to the gameplay design of the god), and Qaz's is ok(only problem being it's too punishing, which can be fixed by just lowering the amount of noise it makes). Trog's conduct is also good and the god would not make sense without it.Dioneo wrote:Just out of curiosity, what kinds of conducts do you find interesting/acceptable? Trog entirely disallows magic, for example, is that better? Are you ok with the dietary restrictions of Zin? If you had to preserve some kind of conduct for Dithmenos, how would you like it to operate?
Zin's diet restriction is kind of lame and I would prefer if it didn't exist, but it's not as bad as Dith fire conduct because it's so meaningless. Yred still bans use of holy weapons iirc, which is a pointless conduct. TSO's conducts aside from anti-necromancy should go IMO.
Tartarus Sorceror
Posts: 1762
Joined: Monday, 14th October 2013, 01:05
Crypt Cleanser
Posts: 746
Joined: Thursday, 5th December 2013, 04:01
Siegurt wrote:So what would it take it juice diths conduct up to meanigful, rather than annoyance levels? Add more schools? Change them, something else? You seem to draw the conclusion that since dith's balance doesn't reside in it's conduct it should be removed, but if it was intended to be a balancing factor, but isn't shouldn't we fix that? The power level can easily be tuned up or down, but designing a good, interesting, workable conduct is hard.
Ziggurat Zagger
Posts: 6454
Joined: Tuesday, 30th October 2012, 19:06
Quazifuji wrote:Siegurt wrote:So what would it take it juice diths conduct up to meanigful, rather than annoyance levels? Add more schools? Change them, something else? You seem to draw the conclusion that since dith's balance doesn't reside in it's conduct it should be removed, but if it was intended to be a balancing factor, but isn't shouldn't we fix that? The power level can easily be tuned up or down, but designing a good, interesting, workable conduct is hard.
From what I remember, it wasn't intended to be a balancing factor at all. Maybe someone else can dig up the original thread where Dith was proposed and created, but as far as I remember, it basically started with people thinking that conducts were cool and wanting to add a conduct just for the sake of having one. Banning light was a natural fit flavor-wise, but it turned out to be too spoilery, so they simplified it to a fire ban. I don't remember balance ever entering the equation at all, it was all a mix of flavor and people just liking the concept of giving the god a conduct.
Also, if Dith wouldn't suddenly become overpowered without the conduct, then I don't think it matters if it was originally created for balance purposes or not. It's fully possible that the original decision to add a conduct was simply a mistake.
Tomb Titivator
Posts: 911
Joined: Thursday, 17th December 2015, 02:36
Shard1697 wrote:Trog's conduct is also good and the god would not make sense without it.
Tartarus Sorceror
Posts: 1762
Joined: Monday, 14th October 2013, 01:05
Crypt Cleanser
Posts: 746
Joined: Thursday, 5th December 2013, 04:01
Snake Sneak
Posts: 92
Joined: Thursday, 28th July 2016, 04:11
Quazifuji wrote:There are also cases where you can end up turning an ally hostile without even knowing what happened. I had a recent game where I used a Nemelex summoning deck, got two Wyverns, one fell through a shaft, the others started attacking me. At no point did I use any AoE abilities or attack the second wyvern, I have no idea why it turned on me.
Return to Game Design Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 73 guests