Shielding mechanism for spell/ability

[BBQsauce]

I was thinking there isn't a mechanism in crawl that grant temporary health, or "shields" but shield that dissipates after absorbing damage. For example, a shield that grant +6 hp. Mechanism explanation is to have a magic shield which have a durability expressed in health points, like a shield which have 6HP and absorbs health up to this ammount of HP before disapearing. Magic shields currently are more like simple boosts that absorb damage continuously.

It would be a nice starter for tweaking and give a new interest in some spells, or designing new ones. It can also works for all kind of protection that work only against a single type of damage, imagining for example a shield that only work against elemental damage, by making the shield only be affected by this kind of damage.

I was also thinking it would be an interesting innate ability for gargoyles. I was thinking about a "stone skin" trait, entirely different from current spell effect, that would give them 10% of their maximum hp in bonus if they didn't take damage in the last 100 auts for example, in replacement for some of their innate AC. Ex : gargoyle that is 40/40, get a temporary 4 hp. Then win a fight after taking 10 damage. It's health is now 34. It gain a temporary +4 after resting 100 auts.

Advantages :
-> Punish the player from getting surrounded and taking repeatedly small damage
-> Provides better protection for fighters who inherently get more AC/HP than from mages
-> Unique mechanism that differentiate their gameplay from other species

Disadvantages :
-> Encouraging all forms of dancing to get shield up
-> May need GUI display of the shield value

[sanka]

Shroud of Golubria?

Also, there are already lot of buff spells that useful for many characters in many many battle trough the game, it's already annoying to cast these. Please do not add more, instead remove/change the existing ones.

[galehar]

From You Must Read This Before Posting in GDD:

Give your thread a clear, appropriate title.
Write clearly and concisely.

I was thinking there isn't a mechanism in crawl that grant temporary health

berserk

or "shields" but shield that dissipates after absorbing damage.

Shroud of golubria. Also, condensation shield and ozo armour can be (partially) dissipated when taking fire damage.

For example, a shield that grant +6 hp.

+HP is already a randart property

I was thinking about a "stone skin" trait, entirely different from current spell effect, that would give them 10% of their maximum hp in bonus if they didn't take damage in the last 100 auts for example

What is the point of an HP bonus that is only active when you haven't taken damage? If it dissipates when you take damage, it is completely pointless. The example you gave doesn't respect the mechanism you've explained.

Advantages :
-> Punish the player from getting surrounded and taking repeatedly small damage

This is already something you always try to avoid, so a mechanism which tries to discourage it doesn't actually change how you play the game.

This proposal is very confused. The mechanism isn't clear, nor is the reasoning.

[BBQsauce]

Title changed

Mechanism explanation is to have a magic shield which have a durability expressed in health points, like a shield which have 6HP and absorbs health up to this ammount of HP before disapearing.

I'm sorry, I'm afraid I can't be more clear than this + what I've already said. Please read the explanation as a whole rather than refuting it's novelty point by point because you didn't understand in the first place. It's difficult to explain a non-existant concept precisely and concisely and explain why it is interesting all at the same time, not being native english speaker.

This is already something you always try to avoid, so a mechanism which tries to discourage it doesn't actually change how you play the game.

Let me rephrase it then :
Keeping a mechanism to sustain minor damage, without trivialising 1-to-many fights

[wheals]

For example, a shield that grant +6 hp.

+HP is already a randart property

I'm pretty sure this is only true if the randart is færie dragon armour.

For the proposal, it does seem overall similar to Shroud of Golubria. The suggestion for gargoyles seems exactly the same as increasing their maxhp by, say, 4 as you use in the example? To clarify, what would the practical difference be?

[BBQsauce]

For the proposal, it does seem overall similar to Shroud of Golubria. The suggestion for gargoyles seems exactly the same as increasing their maxhp by, say, 4 as you use in the example? To clarify, what would the practical difference be?

Thinking back to it ; not much actually, except these 4 hp would regenerate much faster and with an independent mechanism than the 40 other ones. They could however be only shielding against physical damage for example. So for example, we have 40 +4 hp and we take 10 physical damage, we are back at 34 which later become 34 +4; and against magical damage, we fall at 30 +4 directly, and can ultimately be killed while the shield is still active.

[Sar]

Never mind, "randart".

[XuaXua]

GDR from heavy armour?

[njvack]

Keeping a mechanism to sustain minor damage, without trivialising 1-to-many fights

So Guardian Spirit?

As others have said, there are already a bunch of variants of this in Crawl.

[BBQsauce]

That variant of it exist, doesn't mean it doesn't fit it's own niche, and the mechanism itself is not elegant. Guardian spirit is kind of the spirit, but the damage is repercuted on mana, so gameplay-wise it's very very different. Thinking about it : when I've read the mechanism of Golubria thing, I almost puked, because I found it unelegant, overly complex and giving unclear feedback, very disapointing in design terms considering it was added late in the game. When I think of general armor system, I think it works way way too much like an immunity to low level damage.

There is a lot of things in Crawl that are generally unelegant ; inherited from 1950s role playing games ; and in general, ill-suited to video game. That doesn't mean they have no interest. That doesn't mean cool gameplay can't arise from it.

Imho, you should stop to see suggestions as thing you must shoot down unless they are exactly what you were currently looking for to improve the game. It's more like cool stuff and gimmicks you can use on your way to it. I'm sorry, but I can't see how to make a "good proposal" if you either consider something out of philosophy, useless, ill-designed when it's new or redundant when it's not.

[nicolae]

when I've read the mechanism of Golubria thing, I almost puked, because I found it unelegant, overly complex and giving unclear feedback.

What's overly complex about Shroud of Golubria? It deflects some hits but if you get hit too hard it goes away. How much simpler does it need to be?

Imho, you should stop to see suggestions as thing you must shoot down unless they are exactly what you were currently looking for to improve the game, but more like cool stuff and gimmicks you can use on your way to it. I'm sorry, but I can't see how to make a "good proposal" if I'm not on your mind and you will basically reject anything that isn't what you are currently looking for.

Lots of suggestions get made and accepted without being what the devs are "currently looking for"; I don't think anybody on the dev team was sitting around thinking "boy we need a god for shadows" when mikee proposed the god that would eventually become Dithmengos.

[njvack]

I'm sorry, I'm afraid I can't be more clear than this + what I've already said. Please read the explanation as a whole rather than refuting it's novelty point by point because you didn't understand in the first place.

This is tricky, because I think you're proposing a bunch of things. One sounds like Golubria except it tells you its HP and doesn't expire on its own. Another sounds like Golubria except only for elemental damage. Another sounds like another HP pool for gargoyles.

So, on the first point: Golubria exists. If you have a proposal for it, cool, it probably warrants its own thread.

Elemental golubrialikes: OK, sure. Maybe. Doesn't make me jump up and down

Gargoyle thing: it's very hard to avoid ever taking damage. It sounds like this proposal would mean "every time I take damage, rest for 100 extra AUT" which sounds tedious to me.

But ultimately, "this mechanic doesn't exist in Crawl" is not going to be compelling as a sole argument for a mechanic. What problem are you seeing? How does this solve it?

[BBQsauce]

What's overly complex about Shroud of Golubria? It deflects some hits but if you get hit too hard it goes away. How much simpler does it need to be?

Imagine you look at a phone specs and it says this :
"This phone makes some short-distance calls but if it's too long it stops calling". How much simpler does it have to be ? Well, appart from using "some" and "too long", it could also stop screaming "don't buy me"

But ultimately, "this mechanic doesn't exist in Crawl" is not going to be compelling as a sole argument for a mechanic. What problem are you seeing? How does this solve it?

Ok, fine, then let's say a similar mechanism should replace complexity of Golubria because it's just unelegant.

[njvack]

if it was a level 2 charms/tloc phone and I was going to get those anyhow and had two spare phone slots in my phones list and had found a store that carried this phone then yes.

[BBQsauce]

But if you had choice between this fking dumb phone and a level 2 barbecue that fries everything that can be fried. Well I can't know for you, but the barbecue is way more appealing to me

[WalkerBoh]

You're grasping at straws now BBQ. If there's a specific proposal you'd like to make to improve shroud, then do that. Otherwise I'd wave the white flag and acknowledge that your idea has been considered and rejected.

[nicolae]

Imagine you look at a phone specs and it says this :
"This phone makes some short-distance calls but if it's too long it stops calling". How much simpler does it have to be ? Well, appart from using "some" and "too long", it could also stop screaming "don't buy me"

Video games aren't real life. In real life, the goal is convenience. In video games, the goal is a challenging experience. That's why the Orb of Zot is 27 levels down instead of being on the shelves at your local Wal-Mart. If there were no downsides to some element of Crawl, there'd be no choice to have to make. That's not what Crawl is supposed to be about.

[DracheReborn]

I was thinking there isn't a mechanism in crawl that grant temporary health, or "shields" but shield that dissipates after absorbing damage. For example, a shield that grant +6 hp. Mechanism explanation is to have a magic shield which have a durability expressed in health points, like a shield which have 6HP and absorbs health up to this ammount of HP before disapearing.

Well, Shroud is kind of like this already. Every time it blocks something, it basically gives +hp (since you don't get damaged). The difference from your proposal is that Shroud is duration based, instead of blocking a set amount of hp.

Maybe Shroud should be changed so that it's more like OP's description. Instead of having a duration, maybe have it block a set number of attacks. This would make it similar to the proposed change in Repel Missiles which is still sitting on Mantis, I think. Of course, a sufficiently strong attack can still disrupt it prematurely.

[BBQsauce]

Considering it's current mechanic :
- Provide more protection against weak blows
- Isn't affected by player EV, AC, or SH
- Have chances to wear off on being hit, especially by a strong attack, or by being attacked too much
- Is powerful since affecting all attacks, but unreliable

I'd suggest this :
- Starts with a hidden strength of 6+1d18
- Explicitely shrug off 50% of damage taken up to a threshold, like 6-7, and loosing it's strength in the process
- Destroys once hidden strength is gone

* The "charge" stuff is similar to battlesphere and behaves well in the mind of the player, he quickly gets a feel about how much it lasts and at what time it starts to be unreliable
* Guaranteed damage reduction over dodge chance feels much more reliable protection (although it isn't that much really)
* The dps is absorbs is almost completely unchanged, so the spell strength is roughly the same although the description and feel of it is completely altered
* Description can be changed by making blows move slower toward you and hitting you at weaker strength.

It's not exactly what I had in mind in my original suggestion, but feels more appropriate for addressing specifically this spell

e/

Video games aren't real life. In real life, the goal is convenience. In video games, the goal is a challenging experience. That's why the Orb of Zot is 27 levels down instead of being on the shelves at your local Wal-Mart. If there were no downsides to some element of Crawl, there'd be no choice to have to make. That's not what Crawl is supposed to be about.

The problem is not that the effect have no downside, the problem is the player have no **** idea what he is getting with this spell and how that will affect the way he plays. It would be like buying a luck charm in a game where there is never any explicit luck mechanism. Or buying it in real life fwiw

[njvack]

- Does not stack with EV, AC, or SH

It does.

[BBQsauce]

I meant additively, like +x ev bonus. That would have too much implications on what ev the caster cast from, while currently there isn't any which is good

[njvack]

If you have a shroud that takes damage over time, you'd be incentivized to recast it whenever it's blocked anything and you won't be attacked next turn. And if you say "don't let recasting fix the shroud" then you're incentivized to let that weak monster that got a hit on you to take your whole shroud down so you can recast it.

Or are you mainly taking issue with the spell's description?

  Code:

This spell bends space along a shroud covering your body, protecting you from some blows by redirecting their force to the air around you. Ranged attacks move too quickly to be diverted in this way. The shroud is highly unstable and may fall apart unexpectedly under stress.

[BBQsauce]

you'd be incentivized to recast it whenever it's blocked anything and you won't be attacked next turn.

I don't see it as a problem at all. You could recast it for duration in the exact same fashion. Similar spells function the same way such as battlesphere. And last argument, it's not a very likely abuse scenario, if a monster hits your shrould in melee, chances are he is still in melee next turn and will attack you again if you recast, since it can't block more than 50% damage you would die dancing like this

Or are you mainly taking issue with the spell's description?

The description is totally unapealing but since it kind of describe what's happening. Can't see it improved in terms of empathising it's guaranteed return, since there isn't by design

[galehar]

Imho, you should stop to see suggestions as thing you must shoot down unless they are exactly what you were currently looking for to improve the game.

when I've read the mechanism of Golubria thing, I almost puked, because I found it unelegant, overly complex and giving unclear feedback, very disapointing in design terms considering it was added late in the game.

Imho, you should stop shoot down existing design mechanisms because they don't fit your idea of what should be in the game. But that's just opinions, let's see what's so bad about shroud's design.

The problem is not that the effect have no downside, the problem is the player have no **** idea what he is getting with this spell and how that will affect the way he plays.

The player gets a reduction in incoming damage, that's pretty obvious. Why does it needs to be guaranteed to be something? It's a roguelike, more things are random than not.
And there's a reason it's been designed that way. The author (elliptic, which knows a thing or two about the game), wanted to avoid the trap of many low level charm spells which are good throughout the game and almost always worth casting. By being much less reliable as monster damage increases, the spell looses its effectiveness as you go deeper in the dungeon. This allows it be good early (it's in 2 starting books) on but no so much in the late game. It's probably still too good in the mid-game, but in that regard, it's better balanced than rMsl or ozo's armour.

So I find it much more elegantly design than your proposal which (by your own admission) doesn't even try to avoid this pitfall.

[Azrael]

I don't know if anyone here other than minvessa has played TOME 4, but the shielding mechanic there is essentially what BBQ is suggesting. I've posted similar spell ideas here before, but the community doesn't seem to be particularly supportive of them. Even a boost to Shroud would be great--frankly, it sucks-- but we're not devs. Crawl is not the same as TOME, the essential difference being that if you want to protect your character, you should focus less on defense and more on cutting your attacker in half.

[galehar]

I've played enough of it to see that it has a completely opposite design to crawl's. In TOME4, your constantly juggling with your buffs and their countdown in every single fight. It's even partially automated. I don't think we want crawl's buffs to be designed this way.

[duvessa]

Crawl already has a shield that works like tome4 shields, but we usually just call it HP.

[BBQsauce]

Imho, you should stop shoot down existing design mechanisms because they don't fit your idea of what should be in the game. But that's just opinions, let's see what's so bad about shroud's design.

Following lines after quote are also important, you have this bad habit of taking everything out of context.

Why does it needs to be guaranteed to be something? It's a roguelike, more things are random than not.

Do you know what is good randomness vs what is simply frustrating ?

Play Brogue, play DoomRL, this is what a good game design look like. Randomness isn't spammed everywhere. It has to serve a purpose.

So I find it much more elegantly design than your proposal which (by your own admission) doesn't even try to avoid this pitfall.

* The dps is absorbs is almost completely unchanged

i.e absorbing 6 damage or 10% dodge chance over a 60 damage blow is the same, and having it guaranteed to disrupt after 2 attacks, or having it to disrupt by 50% chance, is roughly equivalent
i.e. your claim two versions differ in power as game progress is wrong, not to mention, it could be easily fixed, and isn't the real reason you reject this design

Point of this whole argument :

I think you don't truely think of implications of your designs. You only have a very rough base and take whatever look good fitting in. There is 0 thing a suggestor can do to prove his point as the interest of property he exposes are totally arbitrary values to you. Ultimately, if there isn't anything philosophical to cast, you will just use the argument that you "find current version more elegant", that "change is unecessary". Thus what I've earlier said about proposals hitting at random, depending of what you are currently looking for.

I am totally fine with this. Guiding changes with intuition have also fair chances to give a good game in the end. But you shouldn't have a complex process of decision, carefully weighted arguments, if your arguments are partial and driven by hidden concerns. By acknowledging you drive the suggestion process, you will get more efficient cooperation. For ex : if you need a new god, then launch a contest. If you need to iron out frustrating aspects, ask for players about them. If you need inspiration, then don't ask anything specific, encourage what seem interesting, and don't waste time arguing.

[galehar]

Do you know what is good randomness vs what is simply frustrating ?

Play Brogue, play DoomRL, this is what a good game design look like. Randomness isn't spammed everywhere. It has to serve a purpose.

I've played both and I have no idea what you are talking about. In what way are those games less random than crawl?

i.e absorbing 6 damage or 10% dodge chance over a 60 damage blow is the same, and having it guaranteed to disrupt after 2 attacks, or having it to disrupt by 50% chance, is roughly equivalent

The chance for shroud to be taken down by an attack depends on the attack damage. This makes it efficient against many low damage attacks and not so much against a single powerful attacks. So no, it's not equivalent.

But you shouldn't have a complex process of decision, carefully weighted arguments, if your arguments are partial and driven by hidden concerns.

Hidden concerns? What are you talking about? Crawl's design couldn't be more transparent?

By acknowledging you drive the suggestion process, you will get more efficient cooperation.

I don't drive anything, I'm just giving my opinion. If I'm not convinced, that doesn't mean that the idea has been rejected. You can convince other devs, or the community.

[BBQsauce]

I've played both and I have no idea what you are talking about. In what way are those games less random than crawl?

In Brogue, there is no post-hit armor to roll and the damage dice aren't extremely variable. Generation of a few items is metered, and their distribution in levels isn't very random. More important almost no single spell effect or status effect in Brogue have dice variable going in. Brogue have clear returns out of every staff zapped (they cant miss), most wands/charms/rings (list of ~20), with exception of polymorph, reflection, stealth. Polymorph behavior is meant to be partially predictable. Stealth have been reworked toward simplicity. Reflection random behavior has been pointed out as an issue.

Doomrl haven't spells, but their combat system is also fairly clear with very few values going in. Doomrl armor is guaranteed. Doomrl traits give straight single point stat improvements. Doomrl weapons distinction is drastic, with some weapons being guaranteed to hit and other firing 5 times faster and so on - something that can also be found in Brogue.

Both these games are very fun to play because at any time, the player know what he has done wrong. He can't blame the dice for dying in most cases. Both these games have pretty open mechanics you can learn from game interface, and something as obscure as Shroud of Golubria would be aweful in both of them.

The chance for shroud to be taken down by an attack depends on the attack damage. This makes it efficient against many low damage attacks and not so much against a single powerful attacks. So no, it's not equivalent.

Since repeated damage reduction will absorb more, and since chance of being taken down off adds in each weak attack in the current system, it is very similar if not equivalent, I'm sorry

Hidden concerns? What are you talking about? Crawl's design couldn't be more transparent?

How a dev can point me a mechanic i found in an existent spell as source of abuse ? What is transparent in terms of philosophy if everybody have a different interpretation of it ?

I don't drive anything, I'm just giving my opinion. If I'm not convinced, that doesn't mean that the idea has been rejected. You can convince other devs, or the community.

If we are in an open system where everybody's contribution is at any time potentially appliable, then I can't see the point of posting a negative opinion. Posting it is driving.

[WalkerBoh]

Sounds to me like you should go back to Brogue or Doomrl…

If we are in an open system where everybody's contribution is at any time potentially appliable, then I can't see the point of posting a negative opinion.

Unfortunately we aren't in an open system. Welcome to life.

[BBQsauce]

I don't pretend it is. Galehar does.

[cerebovssquire]

Doomrl haven't spells, but their combat system is also fairly clear with very few values going in. Doomrl armor is guaranteed. Doomrl traits give straight single point stat improvements. Doomrl weapons distinction is drastic, with some weapons being guaranteed to hit and other firing 5 times faster and so on - something that can also be found in Brogue.

Both these games are very fun to play because at any time, the player know what he has done wrong. He can't blame the dice for dying in most cases. Both these games have pretty open mechanics you can learn from game interface, and something as obscure as Shroud of Golubria would be aweful in both of them.

DoomRL does not have "open mechanics". It does away with a lot of annoying things in crawl (monster spawning beyond initial generation, food, easier interface, combat is quicker, etc.), but at the same time it has stuff like cornershooting and assemblies, both of which are non-obvious and incredibly important. And then there are things like Dragonslayer where the game not even give you a hint about what to do and the community keeps that a secret.

[tasonir]

I don't know if anyone here other than minvessa has played TOME 4, but the shielding mechanic there is essentially what BBQ is suggesting. I've posted similar spell ideas here before, but the community doesn't seem to be particularly supportive of them. Even a boost to Shroud would be great--frankly, it sucks-- but we're not devs. Crawl is not the same as TOME, the essential difference being that if you want to protect your character, you should focus less on defense and more on cutting your attacker in half.

I tried it for a couple of days, and got through the first few areas, up to around character level 10 or so I think. I felt like it had way too many abilities and buffs, basically the same as dpeg mentioned. Also you have additional lives, but all that really did was make me unsure of when I would actually die...Maybe I'll give it more of a shot some other time, but the learning curve seemed a bit steep. Maybe I just don't remember how much learning I had to do in crawl, but crawl does seem a lot more straight forward to learn.

[BBQsauce]

DoomRL does not have "open mechanics". It does away with a lot of annoying things in crawl (monster spawning beyond initial generation, food, easier interface, combat is quicker, etc.), but at the same time it has stuff like cornershooting and assemblies, both of which are non-obvious and incredibly important. And then there are things like Dragonslayer where the game not even give you a hint about what to do and the community keeps that a secret.

It has fairly open mechanic in the sense that lot of numbers are open to the player. Crawl doesn't give away the formula of Magic Dart. A few things in each of these game are spoilery, but it's not the opposition I wanted to make. In neither Brogue or Doomrl, it would be acceptable to cast a protection buff that have no visible influence + stochastic duration + variable strength depending of opponent, because they focus on providing simple, transparent and limited-randomness options to their players.

I cite them because they are the best examples I know of RLs which success is solely explained by their clever design. They are both limited in content and dev force. What would make a Tome or Adom or Angband more interesting, is all the content they have to discover.

[nicolae]

In neither Brogue or Doomrl

Why does it matter at all what two other roguelikes do, when the design goals and principles of Crawl are distinct from those of Brogue or DoomRL? You personally might like Crawl more if it were more like Brogue or DoomRL, but Crawl development is its own thing, and you're probably not going to gain much traction with the devs if you keep insisting that Crawl's entire design be changed to be more similar to games you like more.

[BBQsauce]

I edited to explain why i take them as example

Again, I think "Crawl have it's own design" is a very good excuse to be arbitrary about game design decision. Dpeg also cite Brogue as example for cleaving mechanic, strangely...

[duvessa]

I strongly disagree about current DoomRL. It is loaded with hidden mechanics, and knowledge of several is basically required to win the game consistently on the difficulty levels that aren't trivial in the first place.

[galehar]

Since repeated damage reduction will absorb more, and since chance of being taken down off adds in each weak attack in the current system, it is very similar if not equivalent, I'm sorry

No it doesn't, where did you get that? I've taken the time to explain why this little detail is actually important for this spell, and you've just ignored it.

If we are in an open system where everybody's contribution is at any time potentially appliable, then I can't see the point of posting a negative opinion. Posting it is driving.

The name of the forum is game design discussion. It's not just a place to post ideas and maybe devs pick some. We're here to discuss the ideas. If I see flaws in your proposals, I'll point them out so you (or others) can improve the idea, and maybe you understand better the design goals and make better proposals.
If you're not interested in discussing your own ideas, then I'll just ignore the ones I don't like.

[Tiktacy]

BBQ, a dev has pretty much shot down your idea several times, trying to defend it is doing more harm than good. Take what you have learned in this thread, and go back to the drawing board. Improve your idea, give more detail, study other successful suggestions, then come back and try again. Trust me, if you have to defend a suggestion on an uneven field(way more people are against rather than for) then I can guarantee you nothing good will come of holding your ground.

[BBQsauce]

No it doesn't, where did you get that?

Wiki curves. Demo :

With a 4 damage blow the current shroud have ~20% chance to fall appart, so it would be gone in 5 blows in average.
In my proposal, 6+1d18 would be 15 average, so it would be gone in 15/2 = 7.5 blows in average

With a 20 damage blow the current shroud have 45% chance to fall appart, so it's gone in 2.2 blows in average
In my proposal, anything higher than 12 would be gone in 15/6 = 2.5 blows in average

So if anything, my shroud is respecting original spec in that regard.

If I see flaws in your proposals, I'll point them out so you (or others) can improve the idea, and maybe you understand better the design goals and make better proposals.

Concentrating on flaws is not going to be any productive at sorting proposals. Absolute shit on balance point of view, but good in philosophy, can be a good proposal. Then reworking numbers will make it solid.
Shooting down a proposal for non-philosophic reasons is not going to improve philosophy of future proposals.

BBQ, a dev has pretty much shot down your idea several times, trying to defend it is doing more harm than good. Take what you have learned in this thread, and go back to the drawing board. Improve your idea, give more detail, study other successful suggestions, then come back and try again. Trust me, if you have to defend a suggestion on an uneven field(way more people are against rather than for) then I can guarantee you nothing good will come of holding your ground.

I will do this after I obtained one of this two things :
- A strongly valid point my proposal is against philosophy or flawed in its core.
- An acknoledgment my idea can be valid yet unapealing for non-philosophic reasons. E.g. not liking it because not liking it ; current projects differ ; too minor to worth attention.

Depending, my approach to a next proposal would be radically different.

[nicolae]

I will do this after I obtained one of this two things :
- A strongly valid point my proposal is against philosophy.

Does "A member of the devteam, the group whose duty it is to dictate what the game's philosophy is and to decide what aligns with that philosophy, said your idea was bad." count?

The devs don't like your idea, you're not going to convince them otherwise, just let it go, man. Do you walk into Italian restaurants and start arguing with the manager that they should serve more food in tortillas with guacamole and sour cream because the Mexican place you like down the street does?

[BBQsauce]

The devs don't like your idea, you're not going to convince them otherwise, just let it go, man. Do you walk into Italian restaurants and start arguing with the manager that they should serve more food in tortillas with guacamole and sour cream because the Mexican place you like down the street does?

If that was an italian pretending he is open to any suggestion and discussing it : fuck yea I would give a try to make him serve tortillas. If he refused for it being italian restaurant and tortillas not being italian, which is a valid point ; or because he doesn't like my face, which is an honnest reason not to do me a favor ; then I'd walk away. If he told me he can't because the Bible says it's a sin, I may or may not take time to explain him the Bible never said such thing, whatever chances of success my tortilla proposal have.

[WalkerBoh]

This thread reminds me of a great comedy sketch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMpHF2a-IJY.

Just imagine the two dudes are Galehar and BBQsauce.

[Arrhythmia]

Excuse me, BBQsauce, your idea is bad. Sorry.

[One-Eyed Jack]

If we are in an open system where everybody's contribution is at any time potentially appliable, then I can't see the point of posting a negative opinion. Posting it is driving.

Offhand, it seems obvious to me that reporting a negative opinion, even with no supporting argumentation, a.) allows the reporter to provide testimonial evidence for others in the collaborative community to consider when evaluating the claim themselves and b.) gives the receiver access to an accurate datum regarding the reception of the idea in question; most people should and do care about how the community feels about their potential contributions. These are both pretty obvious points; I'm not sure why you're apparently discounting them.

If this is based on the notion of criticism-free brainstorm-style exchange of ideas, that process has been consistently shown in research to be pretty shitty

[and into]

BBQsauce:

I think something like what you describe might make sense on a new species, or as part of a new god proposal, etc. But just proposing it as a general mechanism means that it bears, so to speak, the full weight of responsibility for being new. Think of it as a "burden of proof." You need to show that it is

1.) novel—that is, sufficiently distinct from other stuff in Crawl
2.) balanced (or reasonably balance-able)
3.) will not encourage or reward bad or tedious behavior
4.) interesting enough that it might be worth the trouble of adding

Now if this HP shield idea were one component of a proposal for a new god or a new item (or set of items) that had other interesting things going for it, I don't think there would be so much of a problem. But if the proposal is just "hey this kind of thing would be neat," then even if you have thought out the mechanics a lot, there is still not a lot of substance there for people to really dig into and get excited about.


Here's an example of a more fleshed out proposal:

A rare "spectral" armor type (along lines of elven, dwarven, orcish) that could only spawn on non-hide, non-robe armor for your torso. Spectral armor gives no GDR and only has a base AC of 3 no matter what the type, but also gives a special boost to HP that scales up with encumbrance. All spectral armor can be enchanted to +5, is guaranteed to spawn at 0 enchantment, and cannot be corroded. The amount of enchantment affects the % boost to HP rather than giving extra AC (+20% more HP than the base boost, 40%, 60%, 80%, 100%). However, over time (as measured by experience gain), the armor degrades until it reaches -5, at which point its HP boost is negated entirely. (-20%, -40%, -60%, -80%, -100%.)

[BBQsauce]

Are you implying it's easier to propose new content over proposing modifying existant, because people get more excited about it and can't blame you for hating existant mechanics ? Are the two kind of suggestions processed differently ?

I have to admit my 1st proposal is very sketchy but once going into Shroud specifics, I thought I was precise and arguing it fairly well its interest. Do you think I could do better on something, if we imagine it had it's own thread ? Should I be more lengthy on points like dpses and mathematical stuff, or stay with the general idea ?

[galehar]

Concentrating on flaws is not going to be any productive at sorting proposals. Absolute shit on balance point of view, but good in philosophy, can be a good proposal. Then reworking numbers will make it solid.
Shooting down a proposal for non-philosophic reasons is not going to improve philosophy of future proposals.

I agree that numbers and balance are secondary concerns, first we need a good design. Which is why I'm criticizing your design. You've taken shroud and taken off the one feature that prevented it from being yet another good low level defense buff that's almost always worth learning and casting all game long. I don't see what good it is bringing.
Leaving aside the comparison with shroud, why do we need another defense spell? We have ozo's armour, condensation shield, stone skin, rmsl. What is yours bringing? How does it differentiate from the rest? It doesn't really have a theme or a concept, just a very basic mechanism, and this mechanism doesn't even change anything about gameplay.
Buff spells aren't very exciting, and they can also be problematic, so we're not adding them just for the sake of it.

Should I be more lengthy on points like dpses and mathematical stuff, or stay with the general idea ?

There's really no need to go in too specific balance details so early in the design process. This can be adjusted later.

[BBQsauce]

Well, Shroud is still currently worth casting all game long as long as you've learned it, simply because the cost of casting buffs is so low and it still provides dodge chance no matter what. My design didn't break anything in that regard, it was already broken.

So maybe some buffs do need a rework, but now I have a better direction on what's considered prioritary in them. Thank you for your patience.