The Tavern

Psiweapon wrote:OT:
So, I'm playing a Lasombra now? Tzimisce seem much harder to pull off, what with self-transmutations only being castable when you'r'e so full of blood it pours out of your ears.

Which is nerdier: Making this joke, or getting it?

Spoiler: show

Got splatted by Harold. Net, bolt of fire, net, bolt of fire... Tried kiting him with batform + poison needles, but he nailed me in the end. For 44 damage.

I think the corona hatred should be removed even if it makes sense thematically. This would be for quality-of-life purposes, mostly because he is a common god to play as an enchanter and sometimes I zone out a touch and think I am a blaster dude and casually cast my first spell without thinking. I postulate that I am not alone in this.

Maybe just have you forget spells that your god hates when you convert, though that's more of a can of worms.

EDIT:
I guess I would also postulate that not being able to cast corona is not exactly a game-changing conduct, which might make such inconvenience worth it. Though a simple warning would probably suffice.

johlstei wrote:I think the corona hatred should be removed even if it makes sense thematically. This would be for quality-of-life purposes, mostly because he is a common god to play as an enchanter and sometimes I zone out a touch and think I am a blaster dude and casually cast my first spell without thinking. I postulate that I am not alone in this.

Maybe just have you forget spells that your god hates when you convert, though that's more of a can of worms.

Do other gods warn you before you cast a spell they forbid?

johlstei wrote:I think the corona hatred should be removed even if it makes sense thematically. This would be for quality-of-life purposes, mostly because he is a common god to play as an enchanter and sometimes I zone out a touch and think I am a blaster dude and casually cast my first spell without thinking. I postulate that I am not alone in this.

Maybe just have you forget spells that your god hates when you convert, though that's more of a can of worms.

EDIT:
I guess I would also postulate that not being able to cast corona is not exactly a game-changing conduct, which might make such inconvenience worth it. Though a simple warning would probably suffice.

How do you cast a spell without thinking? Are you using macros? You could probably change the button of corona, once you started following Dith or forget it since you'll never need it again.

Amnesiac wrote:How do you cast a spell without thinking? Are you using macros? You could probably change the button of corona, once you started following Dith or forget it since you'll never need it again.

With your fingers :mrgreen:

I understand about the muscle memory(didn't read furthen than the title) but, still, if it's a problem, then do something. Like I suggested - remapping the button. I do that..

"Dithmengos appreciates your extinguishing a source of fire"

Shouldn't it be "extinguishing of a source of fire" ?

Psiweapon wrote:"Dithmengos appreciates your extinguishing a source of fire"

Shouldn't it be "extinguishing of a source of fire" ?

Nah. Gerund phrases, man.

Dithmenos appreciates your extinguishing of a source of fire.
Dithmenos appreciates you extinguishing a source of fire.

nicolae wrote:
Psiweapon wrote:"Dithmengos appreciates your extinguishing a source of fire"

Shouldn't it be "extinguishing of a source of fire" ?

Nah. Gerund phrases, man.

Hope you'll excuse a brief moment of grammar nerding:

You are right that "extinguishing a source of fire" is a gerund and that "extinguishing of a source of fire" is incorrect, but, to clarify, the reason the latter is incorrect is actually because the verb "extinguish" takes an object: "He extinguished the fire," not "He extinguished of the fire." This property is retained in gerund form. Thus a gerund based on a verb that, unlike extinguish, does not take a direct object, might indeed be of the form "your XXXXing of XXXX."

For instance, "I appreciate your writing of these matters, as it gives me an occasion to pretend briefly that my degree in English is not entirely useless." (Note "writing about" instead of "writing of" would also be correct.)

EDIT:

Wahaha wrote:Dithmenos appreciates your extinguishing of a source of fire.
Dithmenos appreciates you extinguishing a source of fire.

Now this:
"Dithmenos appreciates you extinguishing a source of fire" is incorrect, and it is incorrect because "extinguishing a source of fire" is a gerund. It is a verbal operating as a noun (specifically, as the direct object of "appreciates") and therefore must be treated as a noun. So it takes possessive "your."

and into wrote:
nicolae wrote:
Psiweapon wrote:"Dithmengos appreciates your extinguishing a source of fire"

Shouldn't it be "extinguishing of a source of fire" ?

Nah. Gerund phrases, man.

Hope you'll excuse a brief moment of grammar nerding:

i'll let it slide this time but i'm watching you buddy! *points to his eyes and then points to you*

and into wrote:
nicolae wrote:
Psiweapon wrote:"Dithmengos appreciates your extinguishing a source of fire"

Shouldn't it be "extinguishing of a source of fire" ?

Nah. Gerund phrases, man.

Hope you'll excuse a brief moment of grammar nerding:

You are right that "extinguishing a source of fire" is a gerund and that "extinguishing of a source of fire" is incorrect, but, to clarify, the reason the latter is incorrect is actually because the verb "extinguish" takes an object: "He extinguished the fire," not "He extinguished of the fire." This property is retained in gerund form. Thus a gerund based on a verb that, unlike extinguish, does not take a direct object, might indeed be of the form "your XXXXing of XXXX."

For instance, "I appreciate your writing of these matters, as it gives me an occasion to pretend briefly that my degree in English is not entirely useless." (Note "writing about" instead of "writing of" would also be correct.)

EDIT:
Wahaha wrote:Dithmenos appreciates your extinguishing of a source of fire.
Dithmenos appreciates you extinguishing a source of fire.

Now this:
"Dithmenos appreciates you extinguishing a source of fire" is incorrect, and it is incorrect because "extinguishing a source of fire" is a gerund. It is a verbal operating as a noun (specifically, as the direct object of "appreciates") and therefore must be treated as a noun. So it takes possessive "your."

A W E S O M E

I stand corrected and I hope that this particular piece of grammar lodges itself properly inside my cranium.

Thanks A LOT for the free lesson :ugeek:

Why not make Dith accept sacrifices of flaming (forbidden) items?

Psiweapon wrote:Why not make Dith accept sacrifices of flaming (forbidden) items?

Um... Why?

Yes it's slightly flavorful, but so is Dith right now. Weapon sacrifice doesn't really work, as seen by the bizarre break point in the Elyvilon mechanics. (You can sac all weapons until you reach ***, then you can only sacrifice "evil" brands for the rest of the game, even if you drop below *** or leave Ely and come back.)

He doesn't accept them because he doesn't want them.

Psiweapon wrote:Why not make Dith accept sacrifices of flaming (forbidden) items?

This is a terrible mechanic in general because it encourages walking around the dungeon and finding flaming weapons, which isn't very interesting because it takes time and is always optimal. This will also mean going back to unexplored areas after joining Dith which is even more boring. This particular case of weapon sacrifice is particularily boring because flaming weapons don't auto-ID so you would maybe want to ID glowing weapons just for the purpose of finding out if they are flaming or not (unless you let Dith auto-ID flaming weapons, and of course distortion factors into this decision, so it isn't the main point why this would be bad. The mechanic is problematic in general, not just because of this).

cerebovssquire: Sure, but one could mention TSO and Elyvilon who have similar problem issues. Of course, I agree to leave Dithmenos alone.

depg: how exactly does TSO have that issue? You can't use evil/unholy items, but that's the same as with Dith.

And as for Ely, there's a specific reason for weapon sacrifice -- that you only get piety by pacifying monsters, and that presumably makes it hard to start off (?) (at least this is the only reason i can think of for its existence).

Point 1:
Going out of your way to find weapons to test in order to sacrifice is about as entertaining as banging your head against the wall. If you do that kind of stuff, well, you're welcome to your fun or lack thereof. And this is only actually worth it (leaving the mind numbing tedium aside for a moment) if the sacrifice nets a lot of piety, I'm not going to trek all the way to whatever vault just because there might be 2-3 monsters worth of piety disguised as an item.

Point 2:
Why? Because it would be extinguishing a source of fire. It's not that he could want them, it's that he could want them *destroyed*

Point 3:
You all went "Zomg sacrificing weapons ohnoes that's so stupid" where I wasn't thinking particularly about weapons... there are a lot of fire items beyond weapons. But hey, alright, before you tell me that'd be exactly as stupid just multiplied by the number of item categories it would apply to, I'll just shut my trap... not. Wands, elemental evokers, rings of fire, tomes with fire spells, fire magic manuals (if such a thing ever gets generated)

Point 4:
If you can't stop giving in to the urge of using every single scummy/tedious mechanic and MUST by all means go and retrieve a single sacrifice from the furthest square in some god-forsaken rune-bearing branch end, or else you get a fit and start flipping tables crying NOOO! MY GAMEPLAY IS NOT OPTIMAL ANYMORE!! YAAARRRGH!!!, then I can understand how you foresee such player behavior with so much certainty... :mrgreen:

Edit: I'm not even THAT partial to the suggestion I made, I just thought it'd feel cool and in character, also giving an use to the forbidden items. I didn't think you'd take it as a grievous sin, but of course, nobody expects the SPANISH INQUISITION! :lol:

Psiweapon wrote:Point 1:
Going out of your way to find weapons to test in order to sacrifice is about as entertaining as banging your head against the wall. If you do that kind of stuff, well, you're welcome to your fun or lack thereof. And this is only actually worth it (leaving the mind numbing tedium aside for a moment) if the sacrifice nets a lot of piety, I'm not going to trek all the way to whatever vault just because there might be 2-3 monsters worth of piety disguised as an item.
.....
Point 4:
If you can't stop giving in to the urge of using every single scummy/tedious mechanic and MUST by all means go and retrieve a single sacrifice from the furthest square in some god-forsaken rune-bearing branch end, or else you get a fit and start flipping tables crying NOOO! MY GAMEPLAY IS NOT OPTIMAL ANYMORE!! YAAARRRGH!!!, then I can understand how you foresee such player behavior with so much certainty...

Philosophy section of the manual wrote:Anti-grinding

Another basic design principle is avoidance of grinding (also known as scumming). These are activities that have low risk, take a lot of time, and bring some reward. This is bad for a game's design because it encourages players to bore themselves. Even worse, it may be optimal to do so. We try to avoid this!

This explains why shops don't buy: otherwise players would hoover the dungeon for items to sell. Another instance: there's no infinite commodity available: food, monster and item generation is generally not enough to support infinite play. Not messing with lighting also falls into this category: there might be a benefit to mood when players have to carry candles/torches, but we don't see any gameplay benefit as yet. The deep tactical gameplay Crawl aims for necessitates permanent dungeon levels. Many a time characters have to choose between descending or battling. While caution is a virtue in Crawl, as it is in many other roguelikes, there are strong forces driving characters deeper.

"If you do that kind of stuff, well, you're welcome to your fun or lack thereof."
If you want to enable grinding, you're welcome to make your own game or lack thereof.

Psiweapon wrote:Edit: I'm not even THAT partial to the suggestion I made, I just thought it'd feel cool and in character, also giving an use to the forbidden items. I didn't think you'd take it as a grievous sin, but of course, nobody expects the SPANISH INQUISITION!

Have you read the endless onslaught of ideas posted here that are terrible for exactly the same reasons as yours? The reason everybody jumps on grindy ideas is that there are enough of them without making sure there are no repeat offenders. I used to try to give personal feedback and try to explain exactly why the philosophy section of the manual was so important, but I got tired after doing it around fifty times.

reaver wrote:
Psiweapon wrote:Point 1:
Going out of your way to find weapons to test in order to sacrifice is about as entertaining as banging your head against the wall. If you do that kind of stuff, well, you're welcome to your fun or lack thereof. And this is only actually worth it (leaving the mind numbing tedium aside for a moment) if the sacrifice nets a lot of piety, I'm not going to trek all the way to whatever vault just because there might be 2-3 monsters worth of piety disguised as an item.
.....
Point 4:
If you can't stop giving in to the urge of using every single scummy/tedious mechanic and MUST by all means go and retrieve a single sacrifice from the furthest square in some god-forsaken rune-bearing branch end, or else you get a fit and start flipping tables crying NOOO! MY GAMEPLAY IS NOT OPTIMAL ANYMORE!! YAAARRRGH!!!, then I can understand how you foresee such player behavior with so much certainty...

Philosophy section of the manual wrote:Anti-grinding

Another basic design principle is avoidance of grinding (also known as scumming). These are activities that have low risk, take a lot of time, and bring some reward. This is bad for a game's design because it encourages players to bore themselves. Even worse, it may be optimal to do so. We try to avoid this!

This explains why shops don't buy: otherwise players would hoover the dungeon for items to sell. Another instance: there's no infinite commodity available: food, monster and item generation is generally not enough to support infinite play. Not messing with lighting also falls into this category: there might be a benefit to mood when players have to carry candles/torches, but we don't see any gameplay benefit as yet. The deep tactical gameplay Crawl aims for necessitates permanent dungeon levels. Many a time characters have to choose between descending or battling. While caution is a virtue in Crawl, as it is in many other roguelikes, there are strong forces driving characters deeper.
"If you do that kind of stuff, well, you're welcome to your fun or lack thereof."
If you want to enable grinding, you're welcome to make your own game or lack thereof.

In my game, we try to avoid grinding or farmable stuff too. As an example, there are monsters that replicate themselves, but they can easily swamp you down (leading from an attempt at farming to an untimely demise) and plain stop reproducing after a while. If I recall correctly, they can be sterilized with radiation too

In fact, when I suggested the other dev a dimensional fatigue mechanic that spawned critters if you botched or abused teleportations, he rejected it on grounds that it had too much potential for grinding.

Psiweapon wrote:Edit: I'm not even THAT partial to the suggestion I made, I just thought it'd feel cool and in character, also giving an use to the forbidden items. I didn't think you'd take it as a grievous sin, but of course, nobody expects the SPANISH INQUISITION!
Have you read the endless onslaught of ideas posted here that are terrible for exactly the same reasons as yours? The reason everybody jumps on grindy ideas is that there are enough of them without making sure there are no repeat offenders. I used to try to give personal feedback and try to explain exactly why the philosophy section of the manual was so important, but I got tired after doing it around fifty times.

I can understand that you are sick of that, and I don't want to go against design philosophy.

What I don't get is why "grindy" is automatically equated to "a must do". I.E.: Playing Torchlight II, I can reroll the world and grind for levels as much as I want, but after a while it makes no sense because the tedium severely outweighs the benefits (I play elite hardcore and a bit of level grinding from time to time can mean that your character doesn't splat)

Also, I don't really get why what I suggested is so grindy, but don't worry, you don't have to explain for the umpteenth time, it's okay.

And no, I haven't read the whole thread.

Dith doesn't usually kill you for using a fiery item, so sometimes you could blast some dangerous monsters with a wand of fire. You just pay some piety for this. Once I even found myself reducing my piety to 0 and going back to Diths altar. No big deal, but gives you some flexibility.

Psiweapon wrote: {stuff}

Well obviously Dith could just make all forbidden items auto-ID, and reward sacrifice thereof. The problem is that unlike with Ely (e.g.), there is no compelling reason for why this should be the case with Dith.

The current version of DCSS didn't spawn ex nihilo, it emerged from an interesting but flawed game and evolved to have a unique (compared to other rogue-likes) design philosophy. Obviously some characteristics that are, according to the current design philsophy, somewhat misplaced or irrational, have remained in the game in a somewhat compromised form. However that's no reason to introduce *new* content that is similarly problematic!

As I understand it, a large part of Mikee's original proposal and the appeal thereof consists in Dith being a "no hassle" god. You don't have to sacrifice stuff, you don't have to keep pressing aa to get the buffs you want activated nearly all the time, you don't get random god gifts that you have to keep picking up and examining in mid-game and late game on the small off-chance they are better than what you are currently using, etc. etc. etc.

So having Dith piety be mediated through sacrificing items would go against one of the major sources of appeal of this god. I think that's part of the reason why people jumped to attack your suggestion.

In conclusion, Okawaru is awful. =P

Amnesiac wrote:
johlstei wrote:I think the corona hatred should be removed even if it makes sense thematically. This would be for quality-of-life purposes, mostly because he is a common god to play as an enchanter and sometimes I zone out a touch and think I am a blaster dude and casually cast my first spell without thinking. I postulate that I am not alone in this.

Maybe just have you forget spells that your god hates when you convert, though that's more of a can of worms.

EDIT:
I guess I would also postulate that not being able to cast corona is not exactly a game-changing conduct, which might make such inconvenience worth it. Though a simple warning would probably suffice.

How do you cast a spell without thinking? Are you using macros? You could probably change the button of corona, once you started following Dith or forget it since you'll never need it again.

I dunno I was playing sprint and forgot to do that a couple times. My first thought when I start worshipping a god is never going to be "time to unmap that pesky conduct-breaking spell". Eventually I started immediately using amnesia on it but having to remember to do that dance felt annoying I figured I'd ask if others did the same thing.

Hey, for the record:

Congrats and thanks to everybody who worked on this god, it's awesome.

The Tavern

New God: Dang, the Shadowed

Re: New God: Dang, the Shadowed

Re: New God: Dang, the Shadowed

Re: New God: Dang, the Shadowed

Re: New God: Dang, the Shadowed

Re: New God: Dang, the Shadowed

Re: New God: Dang, the Shadowed

Re: New God: Dang, the Shadowed

Re: New God: Dang, the Shadowed

Re: New God: Dang, the Shadowed

Re: New God: Dang, the Shadowed

Re: New God: Dang, the Shadowed

Re: New God: Dang, the Shadowed

Re: New God: Dang, the Shadowed

Re: New God: Dang, the Shadowed

Re: New God: Dang, the Shadowed

Re: New God: Dang, the Shadowed

Re: New God: Dang, the Shadowed

Re: New God: Dang, the Shadowed

Re: New God: Dang, the Shadowed

Re: New God: Dang, the Shadowed

Re: New God: Dang, the Shadowed

Re: New God: Dang, the Shadowed

Re: New God: Dang, the Shadowed

Re: New God: Dang, the Shadowed

Re: New God: Dang, the Shadowed

Re: New God: Dang, the Shadowed

Re: New God: Dang, the Shadowed

Re: New God: Dang, the Shadowed