MR

[dck]

Numbers that high are actually out of context in crawl when compared with the numbers it does provide you and do not by themselves give any actual information until you bother to read a spoiler on them. They are thus inferior to the current adjective display and shouldn't be displayed as they're basically just confusing and useless.

Incidentally, another reason I'd like for the bar to remain rather small is to keep a sense of proportion with the other resistance bars.

[galehar]

The reason why many of us prefer numbers is because AC / EV / SH are all numbers, and none of us would like to see that converted to a bar.

Would you also like to see your exact XP instead of percentage progression to the next level? We try to use a display which is appropriate to the information. The fact that sometimes a number is more appropriate doesn't mean that it's always the case.

But I hope you can understand why we like numbers.

I do, and at this point, I have no hope that you understand why I don't. If you really like spreadsheet games, try tome4.

[skyspire]

Would you also like to see your exact XP instead of percentage progression to the next level?

No. Why would I want that?

I do, and at this point, I have no hope that you understand why I don't. If you really like spreadsheet games, try tome4.

Now you are really overgeneralizing. Listen, I was a manager at a game company and we developed RPG games. The fact is that modern RPG games that have good graphics, also display detailed stats, not hiding them. Even WoW (which obviously has better graphics and sound than DCSS) has more statistical detail when it comes to equipment. So trying to say I should play a spreadsheet game because I like to actually see the true Magic Resistant number instead of "somewhat" or "quite" is bordering on lunacy.

For millions of people around the world, not just me, stats are important. Especially for a game like DCSS when your equipment choices can be life or death.

[johlstei]

Most mmos are spreadsheet games. He's talking about the gameplay/gearing not the graphics, no one is talking about a game literally played in excel. The number is pretty meaningless unless the formulas are all going to be explicitly listed in game, which maybe I'd be okay with but it doesn't really gel with the design.

[nicolae]

The fact is that modern RPG games that have good graphics, also display detailed stats, not hiding them. Even WoW (which obviously has better graphics and sound than DCSS) has more statistical detail when it comes to equipment.

WoW also intentionally caters to a playerbase that will happily crunch every number and formula in order to get every last point of damage out of their build. DCSS intentionally doesn't. The intent of Crawl is that you shouldn't have to min-max every statistic in order to succeed or be good at the game.

[galehar]

Would you also like to see your exact XP instead of percentage progression to the next level?

No. Why would I want that?

You've been arguing that MR should be numerical because AC/EV are numerical. Yet, this reasoning doesn't apply to XP. Because it's flawed.

The fact is that modern RPG games that have good graphics, also display detailed stats, not hiding them.

This has nothing to do with graphics.

Even WoW (which obviously has better graphics and sound than DCSS) has more statistical detail when it comes to equipment.

Wow design is completely opposite to crawl, so I don't think how they do thing is relevant.

For millions of people around the world, not just me, stats are important. Especially for a game like DCSS when your equipment choices can be life or death.

As it been already explained countless times in many threads (you must be new here), we try to only show data which we think is relevant. We think drowning players in a sea of detailed information is not a good way to design interface.

[pubby]

without a scale a number is meaningless

MR intrinsically has a scale because it's a unit. There are references to exact MR values all over the learndb and badwiki which are clearly not meaningless. Even if a bar does get added, people are still going to describe MR in terms of these values.

They (AC/EV) work completely differently, so that might be a reason

Can you explain? I don't see how they're different. MR seems more similar to EV than to rF.

If you really like spreadsheet games, try tome4.

Nobody powergames MR and nobody ever will. This is because it's indirect and random, not because the value is fuzzed.

You've been arguing that MR should be numerical because AC/EV are numerical. Yet, this reasoning doesn't apply to XP. Because it's flawed.

You've been arguing that MR should be a bar because other resistances are bars. Yet, this reasoning doesn't apply to AC/EV. Because it's flawed.

Anyway, this whole discussion is just one big subjective bikeshed. It's really just user opinion what display is better, and it's no different than arguing over hkjl vs numpad or console vs tiles.

[evilmike]

Indeed, armour MR ego gives 30 MR (almost another pip in a five dots display) iirc, which would work well with XL bonuses to add up for another + when you put on a MR item that isn't a randart or MR ring. And randarts give 35+ at bare minimum, so putting on a MR item and not seeing any improvement wouldn't be very common and when it would happen it'd be because you were barely over the threshold of the last dot.
Making it mimic the adjectives system can work, but even cutting out the unnecessarily high ones you have an eight dots display, that to me seems a bit much.

What I particularly like about a five dots display is that it conveys well how resistant you are; with three pluses you are at what currently is extremely resistant and in fact do a lot of hexes very often, with four you are 10 MR over what currently is extraordinarily and resist basically anything in any realistic scenario, then the last one just full immunity.
What I also like is that every plus in that display is a big improvement, with noticeable effects on how often hostile enchantments affect you.

This sounds like a good idea to me.

[monty]

While we're on the subject, is there any reason not to do this for stealth as well?

[Sar]

we developed RPG games

Games where you play as a player playing an rpg game?

[johlstei]

we developed RPG games

Games where you play as a player playing an rpg game?

You laugh but these games exist. I assume they are pretty boring!

[Sar]

I can imagine. Guess that's why he's talking in past tense.

[Cedor]

Working on it (comments waited) :

• adding MR to the resist collum
• 5 consecutives dots (no space)
• one plus represent 40MR (full MR starting 200)
• no colouring

Should I do the same for stealth?

Related thought, if we consider MR as a five level resist, should we do the same in monster descriptions (reduce to 5 adjectives (6 with immune?)?

[dck]

Hm, I am not convinced on how stealth display would work on a system like this and it'd certainly need to be higher than five dots since else you have to make each dot mean like 100+ stealth to account for all possible levels (and you miss a lot of important differentiation status inbetween each 100+ dot).

What I had in mind when I made the proposal was to leave the adjective system as it is and add this to the resistances list on the % screen, perhaps later cutting the post-incredibly adjectives if the idea of making player MR "officially" be capped around 200 goes in.
Monster MR could maybe use better display as well but since the bar representation of MR makes the player familiarize himself with the relation between actual resistance and adjective I think this problem is alleviated somewhat already.

[Wahaha]

MR intrinsically has a scale because it's a unit. There are references to exact MR values all over the learndb and badwiki which are clearly not meaningless. Even if a bar does get added, people are still going to describe MR in terms of these values.

Usually people describe things that give MR as "it gives MR" or "I have an MR item", not as "it gives 30 MR" or "I have 78 MR". Sometimes "it gives a lot of MR" for Trog's Hand. That's because the exact MR value doesn't matter. MR is better represented on a coarse scale.

A bar is more useful than a number because it shows how resistant you are, relative to a maximum MR value, using a coarse scale. Instead of showing a number that doesn't mean anything unless you look up spoilers.

The difference between MR and EV is that EV can't be represented on a bar. There's no maximum EV. EV and MR are also completely different in how they're relevant, in which situations, how often, scale, and their mechanics. It would also be horrible for players and the UI if AC and EV were represented with bars. This comes down to game design and UI design. EV works better as a number. MR works better as a bar. This is the correct subjective opinion.

[galehar]

Can you explain?

I already have. Try to pay attention.

Anyway, this whole discussion is just one big subjective bikeshed.

No it's not, there's a reason for how each information is displayed. We try to only show relevant information. If you show more, it tells the player that the detail is important when it isn't. This has been explained countless times, does every thread about interface has to degenerate into this argument? I guess this should be added to the philosophy section of the manual so I can just link to it instead of wasting my time explaining the same thing over and over.

Working on it (comments waited) :

• adding MR to the resist collum
• 5 consecutives dots (no space)
• one plus represent 40MR (full MR starting 200)
• no colouring

Awesome, thanks!

Should I do the same for stealth?

Yes!

Related thought, if we consider MR as a five level resist, should we do the same in monster descriptions (reduce to 5 adjectives (6 with immune?)?

I agree with dck, if we display both bars and adjectives, we can keep the adjectives for monsters.

[dck]

  Code:

You are alive.
You are flying.
Your actions are hasted.
You are very lightly contaminated with residual magic.
You are quite resistant to punches to the face.
You are extremely capable of evading punches to the face.

[johlstei]

You forgot "Your weapon is at mindelay".

[dck]

No but, thinking about it, how would one really display stealth as a bar?
It goes up to easily 600 on some characters and should indeed show that to said characters, but it also has to be helpful for the guy wearing a huge armour who's trying not to wake up the neighborhood with every step, and to show that you'd need to have each dot representing what, about 30 stealth?
That would be a ridiculously long bar. Although again if adjectives are kept then it becomes a lot more reasonable and you have have like ten dots each being 60 stealth.

Perhaps this would be the case where a non-lineal bar like the ones spellpower use would work best, although myself I don't see the presence of a stealth bar being anywhere as beneficial as a MR bar; that said it'll still be a good addition. Ten dots, each being 60 sounds good if adjectives are kept.

[Zammy]

You've been arguing that MR should be numerical because AC/EV are numerical. Yet, this reasoning doesn't apply to XP. Because it's flawed.

Well you really can't compare all values in the game and argue that if value A is reasonable to represent as a bar/numer/whatever then value B should too.
When playing I really don't need to know in detail how much exp I need for the next level. However I would like to know my MR way more often in clearer value.

It doesn't go like this "crap, the banishing unique. Wonder how much exp I got?".
But is most certainly goes like this "crap, the banishing unique, Wonder If i got enough MR to avoid trip to abyss"

[dpeg]

Zammy: But you want is not "Your precise MR value is 35" but rather "The Ogre Mage's banishment has a 35% chance to succeed." The latter information is definitely valuable, the former not at all without further knowledge. (Of course, I am against either number, but the percentage at least makes sense.)

[Zammy]

Zammy: But you want is not "Your precise MR value is 35" but rather "The Ogre Mage's banishment has a 35% chance to succeed." The latter information is definitely valuable, the former not at all without further knowledge. (Of course, I am against either number, but the percentage at least makes sense.)

True, just a number and nothing to compare it is useless.
And no, I don't want "there is 35% chance of this and that".

But I do feel that a bar showing how far you are between min and max values of MR is more usefull in making someking of quess than just adjectives. Especially if the bar/value doesn't require checking it from character page but would be constantly showing.
Of course it might not be wise to cramp too much info about everyting on the playscreen.

[jejorda2]

One idea is to fill the bar more than once, with progressively bigger symbols: .-+# gives four bars full. The empty space stays full of the last symbol.

  Code:

Stealth.....
Stealth--...
Stealth-----
Stealth+----
Stealth+++--
Stealth###++
Stealth#####


Another idea is to progressively fill each space with a different symbol:

  Code:

Stealth.....
Stealth-....
Stealth+....
Stealth#....
Stealth#-...
Stealth#+...
Stealth##...


Of course, using numbers instead of unintelligible symbols makes more sense than that; most humans read base 10 in arabic numerals more easily than base 4 in arbitrary punctuation.

Then again, you could use a number that shows how many times the bar has been filled, or fill the bar with numbers.

  Code:

Stealth11...
Stealth1111.
Stealth11111
Stealth2....
Stealth22...
Stealth2222.
Stealth3,,,,


  Code:

Stealth###..(1)
Stealth#....(2)
Stealth###..(3)


None of these are as clear as a number.

[dck]

I hadn't thought about showing the bar with some - at negative stealth, that actually allows for the bar to be a lot more sane in size.
Although I wouldn't make zero stealth be the bar full of minuses, this is going to be displayed every time a player checks his % screen and seeing a red bar with a lot of minuses in it sends the message it is terribly wrong and a huge weakness (and it is to some degree) but I think making making Stealth--... be the lowest possible is enough. Then 120 (normal) would be Stealth..... and from then on you can fill the bar twice at 60 stealth per dot. This also leaves enough room for overkill stealth boosts on really stealthy guys to be displayed.
Now one problem arises from this, the information this stealth bar can be filled more than once unlike all of the resistance ones has to be conveyed clearly.

I like progressively filling each dot first with minuses and then with pluses too, but it sends a strange message because all minuses in that screen imply something negative.

[Galefury]

I thought x was the negative symbol?

[dck]

Whoops.

[Quazifuji]

You've been arguing that MR should be numerical because AC/EV are numerical. Yet, this reasoning doesn't apply to XP. Because it's flawed.

The difference us that MR is a defensive stat, while XP is something completely unrelated.

The way I see it like this (and I hope my understanding here of the game's defensive mechanics is correct, if not feel free to correct me and ignore me if it renders my point invalid):

Dungeon crawl has a bunch of different defensive stats that determine your ability to resist/survive various effects. From an internal representation standpoint, they can be measured in onAe of three ways:

-A scale of "no resistance", "resistant", "immune" (e.g. poison)

-A scale of 0-3 (e.g. Fire Resistance)

-An integer (e.g. Armor)

For most of these stats, the player is given complete information. I know my exact armor value, fire resistance, HP, etc. all from the game's UI. Aside from the UI not distinguishing between "resistance" and "immune" in the first category, it tells me the exact values of each of my defensive stats.

Except MR. MR is the only defensive stat for which the representation in the UI does not match the internal representation. So that's why I, personally, like the idea of MR being shown as a number. It feels weird that there are five integer defensive stats (HP, AC, EV, SH, and MR), and four of them have their exact value shown on the right side of the screen. A bar system as people are discussing would make MR a bit more intuitive and transparent, but still be inconsistent with other defensive stats.

The same logic doesn't necessarily apply to things like XP because it's not a defensive stat. There's no inconsistency in not displaying the exact value. But not displaying the exact value of MR when we're given full transparency on other defensive stats is awkward.

If the resistances column shows a scale of 0-5 for MR just like is shows 0-3 for fire resistance, then most players will assume MR operates on a scale of 0-5. Why should that assumption, which works for all other defensive stats, be inaccurate for MR?

[duvessa]

Actually rPois has three levels of resistance like the others. Players just aren't allowed to get the second two (the immunity to the poison status that player undead have is completely different).

[and into]

The difference us that MR is a defensive stat, while XP is something completely unrelated. [...]

While some of what you describe is true, I think the reasons you ascribe to it are not really accurate. The real difference isn't about defense vs. offense, which isn't always a clear cut distinction anyway (spell power and success have "defense" and "offense"-related considerations). The real difference has to do with the nature of how these things are calculated, what sort of scale they exist on, and how they play out in-game. How they are represented in game is determined based on those things—which is essentially what galehar said earlier.

MR exists on a scale of 0 to 300, and it tends to be a relatively stable value in terms of tactics—that is, from turn-to-turn—because only ?vulnerability, switching equipment, and gaining levels change it. (And... maybe some things I'm forgetting, but the general point is true.) How MR is used in game involves a simple check with a yes (spell affects you) or no (spell is blocked) effect. So, with such a large scale, it makes sense to give coarser reference points. Plus or minus 5 MR points is barely noticeable, if you displayed MR as a numerical value it would (falsely) give people the impression that every point counts. Items with MR+ add at least 30 points—to give some indication of the amount of numerical difference that actually matters and can be noticed in-game. By comparison, plus or minus 5 points of EV or AC (or even less variation) can have a noticeable impact on your damage mitigation. (Also your level of AC and EV are mediated by an interaction between skill training AND item use AND buffs, so for this reason too, it makes sense to have more precise sense of where they are and how much benefit you are getting from your skill training and how that is interacting with your equipment and spells, etc.)

At the risk of beating a dead horse: To take a third example, HP exists (by late game) on a relatively large scale—for some species, with max HP and/or mutations or ring of vitality, it can be as large as the MR scale, 0 to 300+. However, even putting aside the fact that HP is more critical in general, your HP value varies greatly turn-to-turn in combat, so you need an exact number in order to plan your next move(s), rather than just "you feel healthy/slightly injured/moderately injured/highly injured/near death."

So... How things are displayed in Crawl currently makes a lot of sense, in general, and gives you the information you need in a fairly intuitive display, without misleading you into thinking that one or two points' difference in MR matters. Not to say that the display is perfect, however, and in fact dck's suggestion is good. The problem he points out, and suggests a fix for, has nothing to do with the coarseness of the information displayed, but concerns the fact that the descriptive reference system is arbitrary and unclear, even relatively speaking. (That is, which descriptor is higher than another.) So, it makes sense that dck suggested a small change in the display, so you get a ##----- bar in addition to / in lieu of the written descriptions for MR and/or stealth. None of the other suggestions (like suggesting a display like "MR: 231") really make sense, however.

[cbkazl]

If Magic Resistance is going on the resistances page, I would propose that it gets renamed to Hex Resistance as it's current name implies that it provides resistance to all spells.

[sanka]

But it does provide resistance against non-hex spells, like teleport other, so the new name would be even more confusing.

[galehar]

If Magic Resistance is going on the resistances page, I would propose that it gets renamed to Hex Resistance as it's current name implies that it provides resistance to all spells.

Magic resistance is already on the resistances screen. It says you are xxx resistant to hostile enchantments. Indeed, the label we put in front of the bar can be discussed. In Cedor's patch, he just put MR, I think it's fine. The ring is called "protection from magic" and its description says that it protects against hostile enchantments. I don't think many players will think that MR means protection against all magic including a bolt of fire in the face.

[duvessa]

I don't think many players will think that MR means protection against all magic including a bolt of fire in the face.

Actually, this is very common. I had to correct someone on it in IRC just yesterday.

[Quazifuji]

If Magic Resistance is going on the resistances page, I would propose that it gets renamed to Hex Resistance as it's current name implies that it provides resistance to all spells.

Magic resistance is already on the resistances screen. It says you are xxx resistant to hostile enchantments. Indeed, the label we put in front of the bar can be discussed. In Cedor's patch, he just put MR, I think it's fine. The ring is called "protection from magic" and its description says that it protects against hostile enchantments. I don't think many players will think that MR means protection against all magic including a bolt of fire in the face.

I thought that for quite a while until I looked up how MR worked, actually. I also assumed that when an enemy's description said they were "immune to hostile enchantments" it means they were immune to all spells. There are certainly RPGs out there that include a "magic resistance" stat that affects the damage spells do to you. I don't see how it's in any way obvious that a ring of "protection from magic" doesn't protect you from a magic dart? I would actually say that's directly unintuitive.

The term "resistant to hostile enchantment" implies resistance to status effects inflicted by enemy spells to some extent, but I don't think "magic resistance" does at all. Maybe rename it to "enchantment resistance"?

[Mulzaro]

Maybe rename it to "enchantment resistance"?

What about magic effect resistance?

[skyspire]

If Magic Resistance is going on the resistances page, I would propose that it gets renamed to Hex Resistance as it's current name implies that it provides resistance to all spells.

Very good point cbkazl, I agree 100%. Hex Resistance is much more clear than Magic Resistance. Since what it actually protects you from are all classified as Hexes. Confuse, Paralyze, Banishment, Polymorph, Sleep, etc.

[Sar]

Teleport Other is not a Hex, Mesmerize is not a Hex.

[Sprucery]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a level 13 human (with no other MR sources) has MR 39 (13*3). So this would show as "-----" in the display. After gaining a level, the display will show "+----" (14*3=42). The player will feel that MR just went from 0% to 20%, which is not the case. If the verbal description is still visible, it will remain as "somewhat resistant". I don't know if this is a problem, just wanted to point it out as a possible source of confusion to the player.

The manual (http://crawl.develz.org/other/manual.html) says:
"Magic Resistance
Affects your ability to resist the effects of enchantments and similar magic directed at you. Has no effect on direct damage dealt by magic, just on more subtle effects. Although your magic resistance increases with your level to an extent determined by your character's species, the creatures you will meet deeper in the dungeon are better at casting spells, and are more likely to be able to affect you. You can get a rough idea of your current MR by pressing '@' or '%'."

So the effect of experience level on MR is there. Also it should be clear that MR doesn't affect spell damage.

[Sar]

According to the proposal, you still get the wordy estimate of your MR by pressing @.

[skyspire]

Teleport Other is not a Hex, Mesmerize is not a Hex.

If Mesmerize was a player spell, I'm sure it would be in the Hex school. The only exception would be Teleport Other. Because of this, Hex Resistance is still a better description than Magic Resistance.

Magic Resistance would imply all the schools of magic are resisted, Fire, Earth, Air, Ice, Translocations, Necromancy.

At least Hex Resistance is more specific to what it actually protects against. But if you want to get anal about it, because Teleport Other is not a hex, then Enchantment Resistance is a better solution.

[Hirsch I]

also, becoming Hexproof eventually looks nice. sounds better than uncannily resistant.

[bisonbisonbison]

"Hex resistance" would actually have clarified things a lot for me. Part of my brain still thinks "Magic resistance" would at least offer damage shaving against all schools.

Also, for partial values on these many-point scales:

  Code:

-----
=----
+----
+=---
and so on


With + green, = yellow and - gray

[Sar]

Interesting that you mentioned Necromancy, as monster Agony checks MR too (and I assume monster Pain).

[johlstei]

Effects resisted by the resistance formerly known as magic resistance resistance

[galehar]

Also, note that what we need is an abbreviated name. There's no room to fit Hexes Resistance before the bar. So, rHexes or rMagic I'd say, and I think the latter is better.

[bisonbisonbison]

How about rSpells?

When spells are cast on me, I resist them. When magic fire hits me, I am effed.

Otherwise, my vote's for rHexes

[dck]

rSpells sounds fairly stupid and it'd make me somewhat embarrassed to look at my % screen.

[nicolae]

rSpells sounds fairly stupid and it'd make me somewhat embarrassed to look at my % screen.

resistance to spelling, as you get more of it, more typos appear in your message window

[dpeg]

When I suggested displaying MR as a bar on ##crawl-dev, I also mentioned the label. "Magic Resistance" is quite unfortunate, but I don't have something better to offer. I believe that "Hex resistance" is a bit better (because a newbie will get a much better rough idea of what's going, I am certain that "MR" does create confusion); however, I am not sure if it so much better as to justify confusing current players with the rename.

Otherwise, many thanks to contributors in this thread, and to Cedor for patch.

[dck]

Oh he finished it?
This is great, thanks Cedor.