The Tavern

all before wrote:I assume the point of spreading out altars across the dungeon is to create the sense of a strategic choice. Do you want this god now, or will you hold out for a more suitable god later? That would be ok if the gods were better balanced, or the game placed better gods at lower depths, or in some other way were designed around this kind of strategic religious choice. But it isn’t. If a player comes across a d:2 trog altar, it’s always in their best interest to take it if they want to win. Maybe this is just a matter of how the game communicates its design to players, but it doesn’t seem good that a feature developers have essentially made a choice between easier and harder modes is presented as if it were a strategic choice to be made in the game.

I think you overestimate the difference in difficulty between taking the better and the middle gods, yes, the difference between Trog and Xom is pretty drastic, but when presented with the choice of Fedhas early (Or Makhelb, or Hep, or any of the other reasonably powerful gods), and waiting for Trog it's pretty reasonable to select a non-trog early god.

"You should always select Trog if you want to win" is a meme, but not a basis for arguing that selecting a god is a difficulty selection not a strategic choice.

Spreading out altars is not intended to be a strategic consideration, as far as I can see; after all, you're just as likely to get a strong god early as a weak god (if it was intended to be a strategic choice, you would arrange it so the weak gods were always found earlier than the strong gods, as minmay suggested earlier).

I like random altars because I enjoy a large number of crawl's gods and getting some variety by taking the first suitable altar that I find increases my enjoyment of crawl. This doesn't really work the same way if I always have access to all altars when I'm making a god choice. I'm not going to argue that random altars is definitely better (other than it's less work, because it is the status quo) but I haven't yet seen an argument that the alternative is clearly better either.

crate: Huh. I can’t see how choosing the first altar you find increases variability any more than worshipping at one of those random-god altars once you got to an all-inclusive Temple, or choosing random god at the start screen, would. The current situation certainly decreases choice, though, since it pushes you to take the first altar, even if you’re a book background and it’s Trog.

all before wrote:crate: Huh. I can’t see how choosing the first altar you find increases variability any more than worshipping at one of those random-god altars once you got to an all-inclusive Temple, or choosing random god at the start screen, would. The current situation certainly decreases choice, though, since it pushes you to take the first altar, even if you’re a book background and it’s Trog.

You get some choice in the matter compared to a strictly random god choice.. If crate fucking hates Qaz, he doesn't have to pick Qaz like a random start-screen would or the faded alters do.

i mean, that's not really the point, but you can re-roll random selections at the start screen, where it doesn't have any in-game consequences, unlike waiting another few floors for a non-annoying god.

Ok so the thing is the truth is between the two extremes. While I think gods are closer to race/class than to something you choose just based on power level, the fact is that power level matters (and, heck, it matters for race/class choice too).

So let's ignore the pre-game-choice part for a moment and examine how fixed-depth altars affect god choice for a player who wants to win a particular race/class combo above anything else. I'll use HuFi as the example.

If all altars are at the same depth, this HuFi player will pick Trog every single game (this actually might not be true if you make the altars sufficiently deep in the dungeon; it will always be true if you can choose on or before turn 0). That's one million HuFis, and one million Trogs. You actually cannot get less variety.

If altars are not at the same depth, in some game that HuFi player will run into a d:2 Okawaru, or even a d:1 Okawaru. It's actually pretty darn likely that in that particular game, Okawaru is better than Trog. Of course, in some games he finds a d:2 Trog, and yeah, you take Trog there. But you can see that in these one million HuFi games, there are not one million Trogs. So we've increased variety. You must look at this on a multiple-game basis, since yes of course there is one best choice within each individual game (though I would also suggest that figuring out whether something like d:2 Elyvilon or whatever is better than undetermined-location Trog is difficult).

You could suggest to just use an out-of-game randomizer, or to have them as a randomizable choice on the character selection screen, and this still gives some sort of variety (if you start from the point of "I want to win X god" then this is possibly better, though I don't think most players do that). I personally would not find that nearly as enjoyable for several reasons (I really hate out-of-game conducts, and this would fall into that category for me, and even if you tell me this is irrational it doesn't matter since my brain will continue to not enjoy it).

I think that duvessa raised a very good point - either choosing a god is a strategic decision, and then they should be somewhat balanced, or they are - like race and class - distinguish hard and easy games.

I am however not convinced that they can't be both, because you can simply divide the gods clearly into two category:

1. Balance the majority of gods against each other. Choose a reference god, and try to evaluate every other god in reference to that one - buff or nerf if necessary.
2. Create a class of gods clearly marked as "challenge gods". The game should be very clear that they are classified differently - for example it should give you a big warning if you want to worship them. The requirement for a god to be included in this category is to worship them should be worse than atheist. I currently would put Xom, Chei and Quazal into this category.
3. Challenge gods should not be balanced against each other.
4. Random altars should not give you challenge gods.
5. Optionally make them easier to worship from the start: either create classes like Chaos knight for them, or generate altars for them on D1. If there are challenge gods it would be good to start with them.

I think we basically agree; I just don't think religion has to be categorically different than race/background. Obviously, if everyone wanted the highest chance to win every game, they'd just choose Tr/Mi/GrBe every time. But the game finds ways to communicate that choosing race/background isn't part of trying to win in the same way that making good tactical and strategic choices is. Given the fact that religions are currently quite unbalanced, I think it would be good for the game to do the same with religion. (Notice I've never said that I think this solution is better than trying to balance religions; I don't think that's the case. But it's certainly easier to move religion away from being a strategic choice than it is to balance all the gods.)

crate wrote:Ok so the thing is the truth is between the two extremes. While I think gods are closer to race/class than to something you choose just based on power level, the fact is that power level matters (and, heck, it matters for race/class choice too).

So let's ignore the pre-game-choice part for a moment and examine how fixed-depth altars affect god choice for a player who wants to win a particular race/class combo above anything else. I'll use HuFi as the example.

If all altars are at the same depth, this HuFi player will pick Trog every single game (this actually might not be true if you make the altars sufficiently deep in the dungeon; it will always be true if you can choose on or before turn 0). That's one million HuFis, and one million Trogs. You actually cannot get less variety.

If altars are not at the same depth, in some game that HuFi player will run into a d:2 Okawaru, or even a d:1 Okawaru. It's actually pretty darn likely that in that particular game, Okawaru is better than Trog. Of course, in some games he finds a d:2 Trog, and yeah, you take Trog there. But you can see that in these one million HuFi games, there are not one million Trogs. So we've increased variety. You must look at this on a multiple-game basis, since yes of course there is one best choice within each individual game (though I would also suggest that figuring out whether something like d:2 Elyvilon or whatever is better than undetermined-location Trog is difficult).

You could suggest to just use an out-of-game randomizer, or to have them as a randomizable choice on the character selection screen, and this still gives some sort of variety (if you start from the point of "I want to win X god" then this is possibly better, though I don't think most players do that). I personally would not find that nearly as enjoyable for several reasons (I really hate out-of-game conducts, and this would fall into that category for me, and even if you tell me this is irrational it doesn't matter since my brain will continue to not enjoy it).

It doesn't matter how much variety there is with respect to a single player. They'll play the game however they want and there's nothing wrong with that.

If you want variety, then vary your choices. It's not like everyone is going to pick the most optimal god in a situation where they can choose all of them from the start. They don't do that for class right now. Instead they pick what they want to use and there's nothing wrong with that.

PowerOfKaishin wrote:
crate wrote:[quote snipped]

It doesn't matter how much variety there is with respect to a single player. They'll play the game however they want and there's nothing wrong with that.

If you want variety, then vary your choices. It's not like everyone is going to pick the most optimal god in a situation where they can choose all of them from the start. They don't do that for class right now. Instead they pick what they want to use and there's nothing wrong with that.

My post was explicitly saying to ignore the pre-game-selection aspect except for one parenthetical near the end. Am I really this hard to understand?

I was saying that the current situation promotes variety because Trog is not the best god every single game. With turn 0 god choices, Trog is the best god every single game for HuFi (among others). I am not claiming that the current situation is better (read the parenthetical I mentioned earlier again), though I do enjoy it more.

all before wrote:I think we basically agree; I just don't think religion has to be categorically different than race/background. Obviously, if everyone wanted the highest chance to win every game, they'd just choose Tr/Mi/GrBe every time. But the game finds ways to communicate that choosing race/background isn't part of trying to win in the same way that making good tactical and strategic choices is. Given the fact that religions are currently quite unbalanced, I think it would be good for the game to do the same with religion. (Notice I've never said that I think this solution is better than trying to balance religions; I don't think that's the case. But it's certainly easier to move religion away from being a strategic choice than it is to balance all the gods.)

I agree that there is no reason it must be different, but I don't see a game design reason that it must be the same (in the sense of selected before turn 0), either. Unless you remove god-switching it will remain categorically different in at least one way anyway: you can change religion after the game begins.

You are somewhat hard to understand and I am not the brightest light in the harbor.

Your argument about the bad variety of god choice really only works with regards to optimal play, where players choosing melee starts would, yes, almost always pick Trog. But the vast, vast majority of people who play the game do not want solely optimal play. Whether or not Trog is the best god every game doesn't matter because people will play what they want. The variety of god choice is influenced by the fact that almost every god is interesting.

We already see this in action with people who choose Abyssal Knights. Though Lugonu is a good god, they are not an optimal god, and Abyssal Knight is not an optimal class (no book, inferior melee to melee starts, god notwithstanding). People play that class because Lugonu has fun and interesting options.

I suppose you could argue it matter does since this game is in fact designed for people who play optimally, but even with that design aspect in mind it still only further supports choosing gods in character select (or with the D:0 Ecumenical Temple suggestion). That's because, just like with Race and Class, it would then be one of the few areas designed not to be chosen optimally. It's then relegated to the choice of "what challenge do I want to attempt today?"

crate wrote:I agree that there is no reason it must be different, but I don't see a game design reason that it must be the same (in the sense of selected before turn 0), either. Unless you remove god-switching it will remain categorically different in at least one way anyway: you can change religion after the game begins.

God changing makes turn 0 God choice different than Race or Class selection, yes. Why is that a problem? Race and Class are not the same thing either. God changing is just a part of the game. Please elaborate further.

crate wrote:this HuFi player will pick Trog every single game (this actually might not be true if you make the altars sufficiently deep in the dungeon; it will always be true if you can choose on or before turn 0). That's one million HuFis, and one million Trogs. You actually cannot get less variety.

Thats the current reality. If a HuFi wants to pick trog every game he will and theres nothing you can do about it, you can say "he might die before that" yeah, he might die before he finds any altars aswell.

crate wrote:If altars are not at the same depth, in some game that HuFi player will run into a d:2 Okawaru, or even a d:1 Okawaru. It's actually pretty darn likely that in that particular game, Okawaru is better than Trog. Of course, in some games he finds a d:2 Trog, and yeah, you take Trog there. But you can see that in these one million HuFi games, there are not one million Trogs. So we've increased variety.

Do you really think it works that way? When i started playing crawl i dont remember circulating through every existing god based on when they showed up. I was diving to the temple looking for that one god that was fun to play with. You wanna talk about players who are trying to win? you still wrong. Dont believe? go look at my page.
I love that you picked HuFi for your example, why not --Ne or --Tm? Those backgrounds that actually lead the player to make a strategical god decision between all existing gods in the game.

I just want to be clear that i like the idea of not being able to tell when altars will show up, i genuinely believe that spawning the temple between d:1-11 containing all gods would lead to more interesting decisions than whatever we have at the moment.

Rast wrote:It would certainly make the game a lot easier.

But it can't make the game easier, as BE is selectable already. If you want the easiest game possible, you pick BE, which starts you with a god. So the difficulty issue is a red herring, you already can start with the best god. This isn't really a meme, although I suppose it plays off a common one.

Fine, OK, It makes all the roles except one easier. Still not a good thing.

dynast wrote:
crate wrote:this HuFi player will pick Trog every single game (this actually might not be true if you make the altars sufficiently deep in the dungeon; it will always be true if you can choose on or before turn 0). That's one million HuFis, and one million Trogs. You actually cannot get less variety.

Thats the current reality. If a HuFi wants to pick trog every game he will and theres nothing you can do about it, you can say "he might die before that" yeah, he might die before he finds any altars aswell.

It isnt about the variety in what the player chooses, it is about variety in *what the best choice is for a given game and combo*

For any given non zealot, non demigod background, there are several "similarly powerful" god choices, trog might be a bit better than oka, or evy, but an early evy might be a *better* choice than a late trog (regardless of what the player actually chooses to do) moving all the choice to one spot removes that variation.

Fwiw i agree that a no-temple, overflow-altar-only game would be more interesting from a god picking point of view, but "making to the temple" stopped being a significant milestone for me a very long time ago, and i understand that it constitutes an early play reward which is significant particularly for newer players, which is a completely different, and not irrelevant, motivation from god choice.

Siegurt wrote:It isnt about the variety in what the player chooses, it is about variety in *what the best choice is for a given game and combo*

For any given non zealot, non demigod background, there are several "similarly powerful" god choices, trog might be a bit better than oka, or evy, but an early evy might be a *better* choice than a late trog (regardless of what the player actually chooses to do) moving all the choice to one spot removes that variation.

And im back to saying thats not a choice. Seriously, how is that a choice? Its like starting a game unarmed with no skill, coming across a dagger and saying "the dagger is my choice of weapon". You either let player choose god variation for his games or you dont call it a choice.

dynast wrote:And im back to saying thats not a choice. Seriously, how is that a choice? Its like starting a game unarmed with no skill, coming across a dagger and saying "the dagger is my choice of weapon". You either let player choose god variation for his games or you dont call it a choice.

The argument was more about variety of god picked over many games, and not choice. Even if currently the choice of god was obvious and therefore not a real choice (and it's absolutely not obvious), there is still variety in what god you pick every game if you're trying to win. Which is good and should be maintained.

If the temple had every god in it, why would that be better, given that you would always pick Trog in the temple (with HuFi)? This would result in less variety and no benefit. If you're saying that the HuFi players will not pick Trog every time, then read the next part below.

PowerOfKaishin wrote:Your argument about the bad variety of god choice really only works with regards to optimal play...

Players who are set on a specific god before the game starts are not relevant in this conversation. There's no point in discussing god choice and variation for players who ignore the existence of every god except one. Players who aren't trying to pick the best god to win fall into this category too. If we're going to talk about choices and variety then we have to be talking about players who make rational decisions. The players who pick whatever they feel like can keep doing that, that's fine, but it's pointless to discuss that since it amounts to "yep, some players will pick whatever they feel like picking".

dowan wrote:
Rast wrote:It would certainly make the game a lot easier.

But it can't make the game easier, as BE is selectable already. If you want the easiest game possible, you pick BE, which starts you with a god. So the difficulty issue is a red herring, you already can start with the best god. This isn't really a meme, although I suppose it plays off a common one.

When someone talks about the difficulty of the game, they're talking about the difficulty after the character select screen, regardless of the character choice. In this case it would make the game easier for everyone regardless of character choice. Race and class choice is excluded from balance decisions. This was explained at least once in this thread. Maybe this should be added to a sticky in GDD or something, though it should be obvious.

Wahaha wrote:The argument was more about variety of god picked over many games, and not choice. Even if currently the choice of god was obvious and therefore not a real choice (and it's absolutely not obvious)

Funny how you contradict yourself later on with "Trog is the best choice for HuFi".

Wahaha wrote:there is still variety in what god you pick every game if you're trying to win.

There is not. If you really believe that i hope you can show me something other than a vague claim.

Wahaha wrote:Which is good and should be maintained.

How is "do you like Fedhas? no? Too bad" a good thing? The game trying to determinate how the player should play it is just silly.

Wahaha wrote:If the temple had every god in it, why would that be better, given that you would always pick Trog in the temple (with HuFi)? This would result in less variety and no benefit.

For the same reason you pick your background/race/starting gear. Its fun to be able to choose something that will affect how you play the game.

Wahaha wrote:If you're saying that the HuFi players will not pick Trog every time, then read the next part below.

I dont care what the players will pick, thats their choice.

duvessa's dichotomy is interesting, but I think it's overemphasising the point. God choice is strategic in the sense that it's a one-time decision with long-term consequences. Gods are much less a difficulty setting than species. For example, there have been various god power tweaks, all the time. It is true that we put much more emphasis on spell balance, say, but there's also a good reason for that. Then, the existence of some gods with strong conducts does not invalidate the strategic decision: you're playing a handicap game, for everyone to see. Like I said, the dichotomy sounds good, but I don't think it is as strong as claimed.

One more point why I'd always object to god choice on game start: when you fire up a new character, you have to select one species, and one background, each from a list of about two dozen. (By the way, this is why there's a limit of 27 gods: experience has shown that players can differentiate that many species and backgrounds fine.) Having a third choice of that type creates a cost (for example, for new players). It is possible to postpone god selection into the game, so this is what we do.

dynast wrote:
Wahaha wrote:The argument was more about variety of god picked over many games, and not choice. Even if currently the choice of god was obvious and therefore not a real choice (and it's absolutely not obvious)

Funny how you contradict yourself later on with "Trog is the best choice for HuFi".
Wahaha wrote:there is still variety in what god you pick every game if you're trying to win.

There is not. If you really believe that i hope you can show me something other than a vague claim.
Wahaha wrote:Which is good and should be maintained.

How is "do you like Fedhas? no? Too bad" a good thing? The game trying to determinate how the player should play it is just silly.
Wahaha wrote:If the temple had every god in it, why would that be better, given that you would always pick Trog in the temple (with HuFi)? This would result in less variety and no benefit.

For the same reason you pick your background/race/starting gear. Its fun to be able to choose something that will affect how you play the game.
Wahaha wrote:If you're saying that the HuFi players will not pick Trog every time, then read the next part below.

I dont care what the players will pick, thats their choice.

You did not understand every single thing you replied to, and I believe I was clear enough, so I cannot reply to your post, other than providing support for my claim that currently picking a god optimally results in variety and not just Trog or Fedhas. My evidence is the 15+ win streaks from good players. Those win streaks contain a good variety of gods, and it is reasonable to assume that they picked the best god to win most of the time.

Aside from the long win streaks, it is quite obvious that picking one of the stronger gods early is better than waiting for Trog, hence variety. Even if you have a counterargument for the win streaks, please address this statement too.

Wahaha wrote:currently picking a god optimally results in variety and not just Trog or Fedhas.

yeah sometimes you pick kiku instead

Wahaha wrote:You did not understand every single thing you replied to, and I believe I was clear enough, so I cannot reply to your post, other than providing support for my claim that currently picking a god optimally results in variety and not just Trog or Fedhas. My evidence is the 15+ win streaks from good players. Those win streaks contain a good variety of gods, and it is reasonable to assume that they picked the best god to win most of the time.

I think its you who dont understand what you are talking about. Also, the evidence to your claim is just another claim, at least show some morgue or some player's name.

Wahaha wrote:Aside from the long win streaks, it is quite obvious that picking one of the stronger gods early is better than waiting for Trog, hence variety. Even if you have a counterargument for the win streaks, please address this statement too.

Sure, lets take a look at elliptic's 43 win streak.

Code:: 1st game 6199 | Temple | Entered the Ecumenical Temple 6216 | Temple | Became a worshipper of Vehumet 2nd 4524 | Temple | Entered the Ecumenical Temple 4574 | Temple | Became a worshipper of Dithmenos the Shadowed 3rd 1543 | D:3 | Found a white marble altar of Elyvilon. 1552 | D:3 | Became a worshipper of Elyvilon the Healer 4th 2392 | D:3 | Found an opulent altar of Gozag. 2397 | D:3 | Became a worshipper of Gozag Ym Sagoz the Greedy 5th 3848 | Temple | Entered the Ecumenical Temple 3877 | Temple | Became a worshipper of Elyvilon the Healer 6th 5733 | Temple | Entered the Ecumenical Temple 5772 | Temple | Became a worshipper of Vehumet 7th 6893 | Temple | Entered the Ecumenical Temple 6920 | Temple | Became a worshipper of Warmaster Okawaru

I havent checked the rest, but i already see a pattern. Elliptic picked what he assumed to be the best god for his game, which for the majority of those games was going to the temple where the option was. It doesnt seem like he picked them based on earlyness. It is also very obvious that the god variety on these streaks comes from playing different combos, not whatever you think it is that you havent even showed yet.

Maybe I'm weird but I think god selection is one of the least broken things in Crawl. I might make it so altars aren't guaranteed, or maybe rework AK or something but right now this works pretty well.

dpeg wrote:duvessa's dichotomy is interesting, but I think it's overemphasising the point. God choice is strategic in the sense that it's a one-time decision with long-term consequences. Gods are much less a difficulty setting than species. For example, there have been various god power tweaks, all the time. It is true that we put much more emphasis on spell balance, say, but there's also a good reason for that. Then, the existence of some gods with strong conducts does not invalidate the strategic decision: you're playing a handicap game, for everyone to see. Like I said, the dichotomy sounds good, but I don't think it is as strong as claimed.

One more point why I'd always object to god choice on game start: when you fire up a new character, you have to select one species, and one background, each from a list of about two dozen. (By the way, this is why there's a limit of 27 gods: experience has shown that players can differentiate that many species and backgrounds fine.) Having a third choice of that type creates a cost (for example, for new players). It is possible to postpone god selection into the game, so this is what we do.

Sure, it creates a cost to new players if they're shown with a list similar to weapon selection. My suggestion was not that, but a D:0 temple. However, I can see why it could still be overwhelming and why you would want to ease players into it. In that case, why not make the ecumenical temple spawn in D:2 to D:3 and with all the gods?

PowerOfKaishin wrote:My suggestion was not [god selection like weapon choice], but a D:0 temple. However, I can see why it could still be overwhelming and why you would want to ease players into it. In that case, why not make the ecumenical temple spawn in D:2 to D:3 and with all the gods?

My (personal) aim as a designer is to create many, meaningful decisions (and to remove pointless decisions).

Compare: all gods available in a very early temple (D:0 or D:2, matters little) -vs- gods only come through overflow altars, generated in D:2-15.

In both cases, you have to actually select a god. That's a decision. In the second case, however, there can be many more decisions: will you use or ignore that D:3 Ru altar?

This has been very nicely explained upthread with the HuFi example. It's not really helpful to point at Trog: at any given time, there will be a god that's (perceived to be) the best one for some combination.

I am eager to hear how to improve decision-making in Crawl. Like I told you in my brusque first reply, upfront god choice does not help in this regard.

dynast wrote:Sure, lets take a look at elliptic's 43 win streak.

wow Vehumet really, that elliptic guy needs to learn to play

You know, it's funny. People use elliptic as the gold standard of optimal play incarnate, but I don't think he's trying that hard and his morgues tend to show that in my opinion. There's a lot of space between winning nearly all the time and making the best possible play on every turn of the game given your knowledge of the game's state.

e: To give a specific example mentioned above, I doubt elliptic thought taking .16a Gozag on d:3 for NaNe was the best play. Rather, I think he thought he would win anyway and that he wanted to try it.

That streak is also a sample size on one. It's useful data, to be sure, but trying to extrapolate the perfect way to play the game from it is a little silly.

dpeg wrote:will you use or ignore that D:3 Ru altar?

Funny example because it is always correct to join Ru if you find the altar and don't have a god yet.

dpeg wrote:My (personal) aim as a designer is to create many, meaningful decisions (and to remove pointless decisions).

Compare: all gods available in a very early temple (D:0 or D:2, matters little) -vs- gods only come through overflow altars, generated in D:2-15.

In both cases, you have to actually select a god. That's a decision. In the second case, however, there can be many more decisions: will you use or ignore that D:3 Ru altar?

I'll ignore it, because I don't want to play Ru. The big issue is when temple spawns on D:7 instead of D:4. That's 3 floors worth of piety that I'm not getting, which is incredibly important in a game that doesn't give you the ability to just go and grind and instead forces you along. Back to the Ru issue, I don't want to play a 20+ hour game with a god I don't like but I also don't want to die in lair because my god is useless at low piety. That's an awful decision to force the player to make. What does this add to the game?

More decisions don't make the game better. It's the quality of each decision, like you said.

It's true that you can change gods if you don't like yours, but most people don't do that until extended and for good reason, because that's when your character is strong enough to stand on its own. Let's run on the assumption that most players are going to use the same god throughout the main game (which, really, is what the game is balanced around; extended is just shenanigans). Changing gods resets piety and makes you incur wrath (in almost all cases). Ru is an especially bad example to use, since there is almost no incentive to swap from him.

This has been very nicely explained upthread with the HuFi example. It's not really helpful to point at Trog: at any given time, there will be a god that's (perceived to be) the best one for some combination.

No one in this topic was railing Trog for being too good. We used him as an example of optimal choice and I pointed him out in the first post because he is selectable at the start screen.

I am eager to hear how to improve decision-making in Crawl. Like I told you in my brusque first reply, upfront god choice does not help in this regard.

um... maybe more options for early game runes that aren't stupendously difficult? Kinda a discussion for another topic.

PowerOfKaishin wrote: The big issue is when temple spawns on D:7 instead of D:4. That's 3 floors worth of piety that I'm not getting, which is incredibly important in a game that doesn't give you the ability to just go and grind and instead forces you along. Back to the Ru issue, I don't want to play a 20+ hour game with a god I don't like but I also don't want to die in lair because my god is useless at low piety. That's an awful decision to force the player to make. What does this add to the game?

IMO it's a good thing that the RNG sometimes denies you something that you 'want' or 'expect to have.' Having to make strategic/tactical decisions based on what spawns is part of what makes DCSS so replayable. I agree that it stinks to take a powerful god that you don't like to play because you find it early and you (presumably) care about win % or whatever, but the cost of passing up on an altar is usually not critical. Likewise, you can choose not to use polearms because you hate pressing v, but I don't think it is a bad thing that sometimes a powerful polearm shows up far earlier than any other powerful weapons.

I think the 20+ hour tedium point is valid, but the problem there lies in the overall length of DCSS (and perhaps the tediousness of certain mechanics/strategies).

amaril wrote:
dpeg wrote:will you use or ignore that D:3 Ru altar?

Funny example because it is always correct to join Ru if you find the altar and don't have a god yet.

It wastes your monk bonus.

dynast wrote:How is "do you like Fedhas? no? Too bad" a good thing? The game trying to determinate how the player should play it is just silly.

I'm confused. How is this different from literally almost every other strategic choice in the entire game besides species, background, and branch order? Do you want to use this randart battleax? Too bad. Do you want D2 fire dragon armour? Too bad. Do you want a Necronomicon? Too bad.

Strategy in DCSS is all about adapting to what the game gives you. In my opinion, one of the most fundamental and interesting decisions in DCSS is deciding whether to take an opportunity given to your character that doesn't fit with the way you're currently developing them. Usually, this happens when you find a powerful item that uses a skill you haven't trained, and you have to decide if its worth the investment to use that item. But it also happens when you find an early altar for a god you hadn't planned to worship, and have to decide if you want to worship them.

This is really the core of DCSS in my opinion. It's a game that gives you just the right amount of control so that you can attempt to create a plan, but will be punished for failing to adapt to what you get. There are decisions like that all over the place. And deciding whether to take that D2 Fedhas altar, or hold out for the god you wanted, is one of those decisions. The game won't stop you from holding out for the god you wanted, it just might make you wait a while, and you're taking that risk.

Rast wrote:
amaril wrote:
dpeg wrote:will you use or ignore that D:3 Ru altar?

Funny example because it is always correct to join Ru if you find the altar and don't have a god yet.

It wastes your monk bonus.

You get an inmmediate sacrifice, which depending on the available choices could be a huge boon.

that's if you stick with Ru; if you abandon for Trog 100 turns later, your monk bonus is wasted

Quazifuji wrote:I'm confused. How is this different from literally almost every other strategic choice in the entire game besides species, background, and branch order? Do you want to use this randart battleax? Too bad. Do you want D2 fire dragon armour? Too bad. Do you want a Necronomicon? Too bad.

They dont have a heavy impact on how you play the game.

dynast wrote:
Quazifuji wrote:I'm confused. How is this different from literally almost every other strategic choice in the entire game besides species, background, and branch order? Do you want to use this randart battleax? Too bad. Do you want D2 fire dragon armour? Too bad. Do you want a Necronomicon? Too bad.

They dont have a heavy impact on how you play the game.

This so much. God worship can't be equated to weapon or magic choice.

I would strongly disagree with the statement that finding a strong item can't have a heavy impact on the way you play the game, especially early in the game (in the same period you're finding altars). Finding a really nice book or weapon that doesn't match your background can change the entire direction you decide to develop your character.

But even if you're right, and finding an item never has a heavy impact on the game, should choices between continuing with your intended path of character development or changing course only be limited to low-impact ones? It seems to me that objecting to high-impact decisions that encourage you to reconsider the development of your character is a good way to create an incredibly strategically boring game.

Quazifuji wrote:I would strongly disagree with the statement that finding a strong item can't have a heavy impact on the way you play the game, especially early in the game (in the same period you're finding altars). Finding a really nice book or weapon that doesn't match your background can change the entire direction you decide to develop your character.

But even if you're right, and finding an item never has a heavy impact on the game, should choices between continuing with your intended path of character development or changing course only be limited to low-impact ones? It seems to me that objecting to high-impact decisions that encourage you to reconsider the development of your character is a good way to create an incredibly strategically boring game.

Let me give you that then, finding a extremely good weapon changes completely how you play, say, a HuCj, which part of finding a awesome weapon is adaptability and which part is just luck? If the weapon is so awesome that it is a bad choice to ignore it, is it really you adapting to something? So now you have a badass weapon and are no longer playing a Cj(somehow) and one of the two happens: You already have a god that may or not support your skill transition or you have to bank on the game giving a god that supports it. Instead of having the strategical choice of a god to supports your skill transition you have to rely on more luck for that to happen, but what is luck really, it all about adapting.

dynast wrote:
Wahaha wrote:If the temple had every god in it, why would that be better, given that you would always pick Trog in the temple (with HuFi)? This would result in less variety and no benefit.
For the same reason you pick your background/race/starting gear. Its fun to be able to choose something that will affect how you play the game.

"Fun" for you does not equate "fun" for everyone. I hope it's clear by now that upfront god selection will not come; some of us tried to explain why.

I dont care what the players will pick, thats their choice.

I'm sure this is not a good way to do, or discuss, design. Adding/removing/weighting player options is everything design is about. (Think in terms of the rules of a (board)game.)

dpeg wrote:"Fun" for you does not equate "fun" for everyone.

I know that too well.

dpeg wrote:I hope it's clear by now that upfront god selection will not come;

If by upfront you mean start of the game then yes, i agree that its a bad idea, if by upfront you mean let the player have in mind which god he will choose at the temple then you can lock this thread. If anyone wants to debate whether having all gods available at the same time expands or narrows the player's god choice or crawl's adaptability just pm me and i will try to answer that politely. Sorry for the outrage, Wahaha.

The Tavern

Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start

Re: Let us choose gods from the start