Scroll of acquirement and negative enchantment

[Psiweapon]

I know this will probably be disregarded by everyone, but:

Could we please have scrolls of acquirement stop giving artifact armor with negative total AC?

Artifacts can't be improved, and it's all too common, it feels quite stupid to burn a scroll to get an artifact which has decent properties but that also means shooting yourself in the foot in defensive terms. I already got a -2 artifact cloak and a -2 artifact helmet which kinda good properties, which I almost for sure won't be using.

Or at least, make it so that the total AC contribution from acquirement items isn't negative. It just sucks. If they need to be crappier so be it, but getting a negative AC item from ?acquirement sucks, mostly because if you're asking for armor, it's for a reason. It defeats the whole purpose of it.

Rant off.

Edit: In fact, the cloak was -4.

[johlstei]

I was thinking you were gonna talk about body armours, I would definitely use -2 cloaks and helmets if they have good enough properties on them. I don't think people always acquire armour for AC, and getting a good randart with resists in a slot where I didn't have one is awesome even if it does drop my AC a point or two. (-4 is a bit much and any worse than that and you are probably right. I'm not sure what the lowest enchantment piece I've worn was but it is probably -3 or -4.)

I would much sooner use something with -AC than say, *tele, *rage, -cast, -tele, etc.

[duvessa]

3051 online games, 134 wins. I haven't once used a negatively enchanted body armour randart, and I can only think of one occasion where I used a negatively enchanted non-randart body armour (-1 pearl dragon armour on D:6). I'd like it if low-enchantment randart body armour just didn't generate, it's quite annoying to try so many items on and the curse isn't meaningful because you'd have to be downright insane to try it without remove curse.
Also:
- getting -1 non-randart boots/cloak/helmet/gloves is completely useless, except maybe if it's -1 boots of running, which it never is. Armour acquirement shouldn't do this, it is already very unattractive compared to weapon/wand for that part of the game.
- I don't think I have ever used a negatively enchanted non-body armour randart either, outside of Slime, but I can at least think of some theoretical circumstances where I would (on *some* characters I would use -2 gloves with dam+6, or -4 gloves with rF++ int+6 dex+6 dam+6).
- A badly enchanted randart weapon is never useful for hitting things unless it is a quick blade of elec/pain/distortion, so I'd like to get rid of those too.

[twelwe]

In my current game DEFE I am using -1 gloves with +3 int +5acc sInv. We call these concepts tradeoffs and the consideration that goes into using such an item can be called an interesting decision

[TeshiAlair]

Seems to me that a relatively easy solution to this problem is the higher the negative, the higher the bonuses, with at least one guaranteed one (for acquirement scrolls at least).

[WalkerBoh]

I just want to point out that the intent of acquirement isn't purely to benefit your character. It's called "acquirement", not scroll of "guaranteed upgrade". You should consider it lucky that acquirement is weighted towards good items at all.

If you want to talk about not letting artifacts generate with negative enchants period, that's a different discussion.

[Baldu3]

In my current game DEFE I am using -1 gloves with +3 int +5acc sInv. We call these concepts tradeoffs and the consideration that goes into using such an item can be called an interesting decision

I believe the point being made is that for every one such decision that is interesting there are at least dozens where there are no choices and it's uninteresting.

Also, from a sillier perspective, I always wonder why the master crafter made that piece of crap. I'm guessing it's like: " Hey it's that guy that sleeps with my wife while I'm working on his armor, and now he needs to fight a fire dragon? I know, I'll make him the most beautiful -142 plate armor of rf+++++, that will show him!!".

[Amnesiac]

Think of it this way - next time you'll have more luck. One bad acq and one good is better than two medioce, since you won't use either. Well, I wouldn't mind if acquirement would not at least give +13-1 dagger of RNG's generousity{drain,-1int} or -4 chain mail "xomlolz"{+1int-1dex}

[moocowmoocow]

My last scroll of acquirement gave me unenchanted animal skin.

[Psiweapon]

The thing is, if I'm asking for armor, I'm not counting on some fancy property because there are tons of them, I'm counting on some sort of PROTECTION, otherwise, I wouldn't even be acquiring armor. I'd try for a rod, jewelry, whatever, but not armor.

Out of three acquirements:

a +1 bucler with rC+, this was ok and I'm still using it.

a -4 cloak with +4 int and +3 dex (or the other way around) that was promptly left lying in the dungeon floor

a -2 helmet with invis and blink, which would be awesome if I hadn't invis and blink SPELLS and nearly untrained evocations. This one I was kind of torn over, and left it in my stash. I can't even wear it anymore because I've grown horns (that's entirely my fault though) This is more of a "wrong character for the item" rather than actually bad.


Compare with entirely forsaking spellcasting with fighter/berserker with evocations and asking for a staff...

Edit: Maybe those two particular scrolls were defective, because I bought both of them in an odds-and-ends shop for 38 gold pieces each (yes, you've read that properly, and I haven't missed any numbers)

[Amnesiac]

This one I was kind of torn over

Nah, throw in the garbage.

[johlstei]

I wore a -1 cloak {MR++} for awhile in a game where I never found preservation. I chose that over darkness.

EDIT:vvv Yeah I was a gargoyle who can tolerate -AC more.

[Sar]

I would chose that over preservation on a MR-starved character with other sources of AC.

[reaver]

I think negative enchantments are a bit of a red herring. The real, more general, problem is that the acquirement/randart algorithms are poor at creating items which are:

A) Powerful enough to play with (if this was fixed the number of randarts would be tuned down, this is just to stop garbage from generating)

B) Interesting (Did you know the reason +/-Stat is so common is that the randart algorithm adds it when it decides a potential randart has too few properties?)

Creating useless items with negative enchantments is just a subset of this.

[Kismet]

Reward salience increases when negative outcomes occur. While the suck tipping point may be a mystery/moving target depending on the individual, if acq didn't have the potential to be totally useless, it might not be as fun to find.

[Psiweapon]

I wore a -1 cloak {MR++} for awhile in a game where I never found preservation. I chose that over darkness.

EDIT:vvv Yeah I was a gargoyle who can tolerate -AC more.

Yes, but that cloak isn't a net negative to AC, it provides exactly 0 AC, while at the same time providing MR++: It actually protects. What I'm griping against is armor items that HURT your defensive statistics while only providing misc bonuses (however good they are) I'd consider wearing that cloak too.

[johlstei]

I wore a -1 cloak {MR++} for awhile in a game where I never found preservation. I chose that over darkness.

EDIT:vvv Yeah I was a gargoyle who can tolerate -AC more.

Yes, but that cloak isn't a net negative to AC, it provides exactly 0 AC, while at the same time providing MR++: It actually protects. What I'm griping against is armor items that HURT your defensive statistics while only providing misc bonuses (however good they are) I'd consider wearing that cloak too.

I'd have still worn it at -3 and, yes, it does hurt defensive stats because of opportunity cost. If I didn't wear it I'd have worn a +2 cloak instead and had (at least) 3 more AC.

[reaver]

opportunity cost.

There should be a link to an article on opportunity cost in the "must read before posting in GDD" thread. It's one of the most common misunderstandings around here.

[Psiweapon]

opportunity cost.

There should be a link to an article on opportunity cost in the "must read before posting in GDD" thread. It's one of the most common misunderstandings around here.

I wore a -1 cloak {MR++} for awhile in a game where I never found preservation. I chose that over darkness.

EDIT:vvv Yeah I was a gargoyle who can tolerate -AC more.

Yes, but that cloak isn't a net negative to AC, it provides exactly 0 AC, while at the same time providing MR++: It actually protects. What I'm griping against is armor items that HURT your defensive statistics while only providing misc bonuses (however good they are) I'd consider wearing that cloak too.

I'd have still worn it at -3 and, yes, it does hurt defensive stats because of opportunity cost. If I didn't wear it I'd have worn a +2 cloak instead and had (at least) 3 more AC.

Sure, but that's about alternatives, choices, and strategy; I was talking about items that actually, positively, by themselves, hurt defensive stats when compared to not using it or any other mutually exclusive item; and their pointlessness as an acquirement, not about so-called losses of potential benefits that actually stem from an incompatible alternative I didn't take to begin with.

If I can afford 50 gold pieces for dinner and I choose to go to a pizza parlor instead of a burger joint, of course I can't have the burger, but that doesn't mean that one of the frozen burgers in the back of my fridge mysteriously disappears. Thus, I haven't lost anything. I merely missed out on something.

I mean, if you think it's relevant, by all means discuss it; but in my eyes it's an entirely different kettle of fish. What I was talking about were actions (in this case donning a particular item) that are worse than an omission when following a particular criterion (in this case, AC)

[reaver]

What I was talking about were actions (in this case donning a particular item) that are worse than an omission when following a particular criterion (in this case, AC)

Well if you have +2 gloves and put on randart {autocurse +0} gloves, it's the same as if you had no gloves and put on randart {autocurse -2 }

[johlstei]

Sure, but that's about alternatives, choices, and strategy; I was talking about items that actually, positively, by themselves, hurt defensive stats when compared to not using it or any other mutually exclusive item; and their pointlessness as an acquirement, not about so-called losses of potential benefits that actually stem from an incompatible alternative I didn't take to begin with.

If I can afford 50 gold pieces for dinner and I choose to go to a pizza parlor instead of a burger joint, of course I can't have the burger, but that doesn't mean that one of the frozen burgers in the back of my fridge mysteriously disappears. Thus, I haven't lost anything. I merely missed out on something.

I mean, if you think it's relevant, by all means discuss it; but in my eyes it's an entirely different kettle of fish. What I was talking about were actions (in this case donning a particular item) that are worse than an omission when following a particular criterion (in this case, AC)

Nah, it's about that stuff either way. A choice that lowers your AC but improves other choices. Say a cloak is -3 and gives rF++. You can choose to wear it and have 30 AC and rF++, or wear a +2 one and have 35 AC and no rF. You are making a choice between the outcomes of putting your set of items on as a whole. It's hard to claim that it truly hurts your defense in terms of surviving the threats to the dungeon, and it's a very similar choice to choosing between a +0 cloak {rF++} and a +5 cloak{stealth+}. The fact that you know that your AC is going down a little by choosing to get the rF++ is the same either way, it's just a choice.

Your argument applies to all negative mods. Fire dragon armour with rF++ rC- is worse than omission if your criterion is rC+, but neither AC nor rC+ is the only reason one would acquire armour, especially if you have good body armour. Body armour is kind of different but for side pieces the mods can really make it.

Watching a game now where someone is wearing -2 boots {rF+, some other stuff I forget}. That player has 75 AC though, I think they can afford the hit.

[Psiweapon]

What I was talking about were actions (in this case donning a particular item) that are worse than an omission when following a particular criterion (in this case, AC)

Well if you have +2 gloves and put on randart {autocurse +0} gloves, it's the same as if you had no gloves and put on randart {autocurse -2 }

What?

The difference between the two items in the first pair, and the two items in the second pair, in both cases amounts to two; but the net result of the particular actions is completely different.

If I have +2 gloves and decide to try a randart in case it's better, and turns out to be +0 autocurse, it's the difference between +3 AC and +1 AC. The item still provides a positive net gain to my AC even if it sucks.

If I have no gloves and decide to try a randart, and turns out to be -2 autocurse, it´s the difference between +1 AC and -1 AC. The item provides a net negative to AC.

[(x - y = 2) and (w - z = 2)] != [(x = w) or (y = z)]

Yes, such things as opportunity costs exist and are relevant to crawl. This doesn't prevent items for contributing a net negative amount to AC.

Nah, it's about that stuff either way. A choice that lowers your AC but improves other choices. Say a cloak is -3 and gives rF++. You can choose to wear it and have 30 AC and rF++, or wear a +2 one and have 35 AC and no rF. You are making a choice between the outcomes of putting your set of items on as a whole. It's hard to claim that it truly hurts your defense in terms of surviving the threats to the dungeon, and it's a very similar choice to choosing between a +0 cloak {rF++} and a +5 cloak{stealth+}. The fact that you know that your AC is going down a little by choosing to get the rF++ is the same either way, it's just a choice.

A -3 cloak with rF++ becomes garbage as soon as you have another source of rF++ that doesn't take two slots. A +0 cloak with rF++ can't become garbage as much or as easily.

Your argument applies to all negative mods. Fire dragon armour with rF++ rC- is worse than omission if your criterion is rC+, but neither AC nor rC+ is the only reason one would acquire armour, especially if you have good body armour. Body armour is kind of different but for side pieces the mods can really make it.

Watching a game now where someone is wearing -2 boots {rF+, some other stuff I forget}. That player has 75 AC though, I think they can afford the hit.

Man... 35 AC, 75 AC.

AC is probably not the main reason one would acquire armor in those circumstances. Positive AC in non-body slots is THE reason one acquires armor with a 0-20 AC character.

[varsovie]

[(x - y = 2) and (w - z = 2)] != [(x = w) or (y = z)]

But (x - y) = (w-z) ! In both case you loose the same amount of AC, not matter the exterior factors.

[Psiweapon]

[(x - y = 2) and (w - z = 2)] != [(x = w) or (y = z)]

But (x - y) = (w-z) ! In both case you loose the same amount of AC, not matter the exterior factors.

if z is negative we're talking about going below baseline AC

[johlstei]

I give up. Opportunity cost is the same as real cost, but I don't think I can express myself well enough here to make you get it, so...

[Psiweapon]

I give up. Opportunity cost is the same as real cost, but I don't think I can express myself well enough here to make you get it, so...

Sorry

You expressed yourself quite well, it's just that I refuse to believe that. See the hamburger example

You did just call the other kind of cost "real cost", after all.

[johlstei]

Trying once more.

Pretend I said something like "cost in a vacuum", the cost where you are playing a game where you try to make you AC number the highest. I was using your term because it is perfectly comparable to opportunity cost - the effect on your character is the same. Missing out on something is the same as losing something. After all, if you buy a pizza, you are really losing is whatever else you could have bought with those 50 gold pieces. What you already have is a nebulous concept if the things you have can be traded - eventually your fridge burgers will run out and you could buy more with your 50 gold, but now you can't because you spent it on pizza.

It is just strange to refer to baseline (the amount of AC that you have with nothing in the slot) as if that's a number that matters - it isn't. Like I understand what you are saying, but you are the one making the conversation about the baseline, which isn't a measureable value. Nothing in the game operates on your baseline AC - just the net total AC from all your gear. All that matters is the AC values and other values you have total with all your equipment on - that's what you are compromising between. The fact that you could take it off and make your AC go up doesn't matter, since whatever other stats you get go down, and there is still slack to do even better and make the tradeoff even more apparent with the +2 cloak that 80% of characters have access to.

I agree it is frustrating to acquire when you want AC and end up with lower total AC, but there's a reason you acquire slots and not modifiers, and it definitely isn't the only reason I acquire armour. I don't think AC is an inherently special property of armour which is not to be messed with, side armour pieces may as well just have their AC in the mods list like anything else. This cloak is {-1 AC, rF++, MR+}, this one is {+3 AC, rF-, rC++}, both are decent items and I'm trading off which one I want to wear.

If you want to always give me artefacts that have positive AC bonuses, I won't really complain, I just don't see this change as necessary to make acquiring armour useful - it is already quite a good choice if you have all the good wands, and I'm willing to wear nice artefacts even with negative AC as a tradeoff on them.

[Psiweapon]

@johlstei:

On the subject of artifact AC:

Maybe I wasn't clear, I wasn't speaking about restricting artifact armour enchantment to positive values, I was speaking about restricting negative enchantments on acquired randart misc armor so that it doesn't surpass the base AC of the item. Maybe that'd be too easy, but sometimes the game thinks up a randart for exactly nothing which is a shame too. Probably I was generalizing too much from the specific situation I was in at the moment (That character kicked the bucket already thanks to Sojobo, and for the record, another armor acquirement got me the +3 spider boots, so in the end it evened out)

Yes, speaking about baseline AC is weird. Negative enchantment is bearable a lot of times. Negative enchantment together with redundant other properties totally sucks, you'll agree with me on that. Most elemental resistances are stackable so they only become redundant once you have hit rWhatever+++, but different sources of rElec or rPois are redundant; a source of evokable flight on a naturally flying species or on a wizard with the Fly spell ar redundant (except in the case of formicids for rPois and silence for the wizard, not even sure about that last one, but if it works that way it would maybe make it NOT redundant when it actually matters)

On the subject of opportunity costs:

If I refuse to take a pixel art job offer that pays 300 gold doubloons, and instead take a different one that only pays 150 but means contributing to a game I love, the opportunity cost is 150 gold doubloons, but this is not the same as shelling out 150 gold doubloons from my pirate treasure chest. If I feel economically rational and in fact go with the 300 gold doubloons offer, my "opportunity cost" is not working on a game I love, which is not even goldoubloonically quantifiable - unless I come up with an equivalence between reward chemicals released by my nervous system when working on a game I love and gold doubloons.

Opportunity costs are not real costs because they don't entitle me to note "-150 goud doubloons" down in my pirate balance in the first case, much less "-1 awesome game game I worked on". They would entitle me to note "150 gold doubloons less than expected" in income expectations if I had previously noted down an expected income of 300 gold doubloons, but that's a different aspect of plundering, and up to a point expectations are entirely in the mind of the person who has them.

I'm not saying that opportunity costs don't exist, that they're not relevant, or that they aren't routinely taken into account when making all sorts of choices, I'm saying they're different from real costs. It's the difference between losing something and not gaining something, between paying and not earning, between letting go and not taking, etc.

[Amnesiac]

What the minimum enchantment would be set to 0 for acquirements? I think 0 is bad enough, since we can't improve it, unlike the usual armour. In fact I would make -1 or 0 minimum for anything apart from body armour and for body armour I would set it to something like +1 at least or 33-50% of the base value, since no one wants a body armour that doesn't give protection.

[varsovie]

Maybe I wasn't clear, I wasn't speaking about restricting artifact armour enchantment to positive values, I was speaking about restricting negative enchantments on acquired randart misc armor so that it doesn't surpass the base AC of the item.

So you're complaining only against randart items that lower your total amount of AC if nothing was in the item slot instead?

It would be inconsistent with the fact that lots of items in crawl can be bad, normal items (armor and misc included) can have total negative AC, other propriety like resistance can have minus total values.

Even the buckler you gave as an example of an ok item (1+ rC+) can be a bad item if you have no shield skills or have access to a good two-handed weapon.

And in crawl the stats are clearly shown and explained (except MR and ranged combat ) so the player knows what is the exact effect an (identified) item will have.

Plus as other stated, AC isn't the most important stat, and I would value GDR or MR and elemental resist way over it in most characters.

If scroll of acquirement would need a change, IMHO it would be the make wands randomized instead of screwed toward those you haven't identified, it makes choosing wand or not a no-brainer after taking a look at "|".

The fact that items "wished" can be bad, less good than your actual stuff or simply useless in your setup is fine, it's the RNGod.

[Sandman25]

Plus as other stated, AC isn't the most important stat, and I would value GDR or MR and elemental resist way over it in most characters

GDR is useless with low AC. It's better to have AC 20 and 0 GDR than AC 10 and GDR 50. Basically you can ignore GDR completely unless you compare two armours with the same AC but different GDR.