mild alt to abstracting weapons

[HardboiledGargoyle]

I appreciate the merits of ion frigate's recommendation to "abstract away monster weapons". At the same time, it may be somewhat too radical-sounding, and it takes away a good chunk of flavor of being able to see and play with the equipment of killed monsters. The following achieves many of the same goals, with fewer issues to work out, e.g. no need to change Tukima's Dance. I would still favor tangentially related changes, such as making monster melee more transparent (which would take half a line in x-v), and making monster melee take the same time regardless of weapon.

Make monsters not pick up unseen items.
Some dev remarked recently that the rules for jelly eating are insane. But they are almost exactly the rules for monsters picking up items. Random mooks using odd items is bad, in general. Agreed? The good side of monsters using odd items can be duplicated without letting random mooks do it - make an exception for uniques and perhaps some rare monsters: "It is capable of using new items." You can even suspend the "can't use seen items" rule for them, as long as these monsters never generate after the level is created. I'm not sure that allowing Rupert to raid stashes is bad!

Mark plain weapons and body armors as useless.
They would technically be not useless, since you could pick them up and use them. But this equipment is the foremost cause of visual clutter, when you're poring over loot - gray it out. An exception could be made for rare/top weapon types, dragon hides/armors, CPA, and maybe plate. The only time you could ever be interested in "useless" items would be in the early game, to snag a morningstar or scale/chain mail.

Standardize equipment of most monsters.
Narrow it down to 1 set for each monster. Naturally, this has to be done one monster at a time. But that's okay because it just means expanding the set of monsters that mainly use 1 weapon, like Frost Giants; one of the advantages of this proposal is that it can be rolled out gradually. This is actually more immersive, as you can more quickly and accurately imagine a monster, without x view. Mix monster types more, e.g. make all gnolls wield spears, but mix them up with hobgoblins, so the hobgoblins block your way to the gnolls. Example:
goblin -> club
hobgoblin -> short sword
kobold -> dagger
big kobold -> whip
orc -> unarmed
orc warrior -> hand axe, scale mail
orc knight -> war axe, chain mail
Some monsters may be allowed to spawn with one of a wide variety of weapons. This is generally better on monsters that are encountered very few times in any games: elite mooks and uniques. These can also be pack monsters, like wights and hell knights and reapers, in which case their diverse arsenal becomes their signature trait.

[Haelyn]

I'm still going to disagree, with all points this time. I still think it would be a bad idea to try and simplify a game that, in my opinion, thrives on the variety it offers. As it is I wish monsters were capable of MORE, not less.

I still hold that while it should be easier to understand what you're up against from monsters, and while there should be at least some use (other than Jiyva) For all the junk loot, monsters should not only keep their variety of weapons but retain the ability to pick up things on the floor.

Playing trunk today I was put into a minor panic when a hobgoblin suddenly went berserk on me. Turned out he'd been using an amulet; normally I won't wear-ID amulets, but this one had been identified for me and I very much appreciated the gift. And I still remember that; out of the scores of hobgobs i'd killed in that ill-fated run, the one who'd found something shiny on the floor proved an unexpected challenge with a reward intrinsically attached. Wights come to mind again.

[Arrhythmia]

I think, it's a little funny, that your suggestion is to give reapers, the one monster I can think of that actually has the same weapon every time, different weapons.

[HardboiledGargoyle]

Part of the proposal is making most standard equipment plain, or just 1 predictable brand. Reapers are known for unpredictable scythe brands.

There are also fire giants, spriggan riders, necromancers, centaurs, yaktaurs, and afaik javilineers and anubis guards. Ogres are close.

I don't know what your problem is, Haelyn. You don't explain anything. I don't explain some things - to avoid repeating the other thread, or the well-propagated reasoning behind certain commits.
What do you like about monster item usage that can't be done using a small number of monsters? I would not even mind letting those occasional monsters cheat and instantly apport+grab items, to make these bizarre situations more common, as long as players could not see (or reasonable deduce) that this was happening.
But there's not enough odd items to make this sufficiently interesting with the majority of monsters. This popcorn just doesn't get differentiated to the point where you need to treat them differently.
While you could argue that it can be fun to watch people occasionally get owned by (or narrowly escape) goblins with super-equipment, simply because those people do not x-view every goblin as it comes into view, that argument is not going to get much traction around here.

[Leszczynek]

This is actually more immersive, as you can more quickly and accurately imagine a monster, without x view.

Remove console and leave only webtiles so that players are forced to have immediate visual information and don't have to x the monsters.

Jokes aside, you're proposing a big nerf to orcs and orc warriors. And honestly, from the gameplay point of view, it makes more sense for uniques to have the same equipment every time while normal, far far more often encountered monsters, to have different ones. It makes them at least a bit more interesting. If it's a problem for console players, improve the damn UI instead!

And don't mark weaker basic types as useless by default, introduce new color(s) if you have to.

[yesno]

I really like monster weapons and I don't care about visual clutter and I don't think monsters dropping worthless weapons constitutes a million microdecisions to not pick up worthless items. I even like seeing piles of discarded weapons marking the site of a big battle. It's fun. Both of these proposals feel really bland to me. The game is already blander for having less monster item interaction. It's cool that a hobgoblin can still pick up an ammy of berserk and either kill you or you get to take its amulet. To me, the least interesting sources of unpredictability currently in the game are EV and swingy damage, not surprising monster behavior/equipment.

Console does need a better visual indication for monsters with reach or branded weapons though. They should be set apart from others of their type in the monster list, named "Orc (wielding a spear of distortion)" and given a special highlight on their glyph.

[Shard1697]

I even like seeing piles of discarded weapons marking the site of a big battle.

I do like this too. It's satisfying to see a big pile of gear lying around because you murdered a bunch of dudes there.

[yesno]

I do kind of like the part of this proposal that marks plain weapons as useless, though, especially if it's possible to add a "filter useless" view to ctrl-x functionality.

[Haelyn]

Part of the proposal is making most standard equipment plain, or just 1 predictable brand. Reapers are known for unpredictable scythe brands.

There are also fire giants, spriggan riders, necromancers, centaurs, yaktaurs, and afaik javilineers and anubis guards. Ogres are close.

I don't know what your problem is, Haelyn. You don't explain anything. I don't explain some things - to avoid repeating the other thread, or the well-propagated reasoning behind certain commits.
What do you like about monster item usage that can't be done using a small number of monsters? I would not even mind letting those occasional monsters cheat and instantly apport+grab items, to make these bizarre situations more common, as long as players could not see (or reasonable deduce) that this was happening.
But there's not enough odd items to make this sufficiently interesting with the majority of monsters. This popcorn just doesn't get differentiated to the point where you need to treat them differently.
While you could argue that it can be fun to watch people occasionally get owned by (or narrowly escape) goblins with super-equipment, simply because those people do not x-view every goblin as it comes into view, that argument is not going to get much traction around here.

Ah, I wasn't trying to have a problem, actually. If you're interpreting any hostility from me then, uh, well.. You shouldn't? I'm kinda just here to have fun.

To answer the question, partially because it makes sense to the game. I personally think it fits, given the similar chaff that litters the dungeon floor, and it makes sense for the monsters themselves. Additionally, on a personal level, I'm usually opposed to removing things; I prefer fixing or editing, and adding. So there is some personal bias. But mainly, it just makes it feel more real and dungeon-y to me. I've played many roguelikes trying to make the Crawl lightning strike twice and I've never succeeded. I do have some other favorites (FTL mainly) but none I enjoy as much.

For example, my answer to the popcorn argument is to give weapons a bit more unique features, so that not only is it more of a decision what weapon to use for players, rather than simply dividing weapons into either trash or best, but so that it does matter. Could do it with the monsters too. I think it is absolutely a good thing to view carefully whatever you're coming across; to have more decisions to make and more strategy required of you, to be more aware of your surroundings and enemies. if you're tabbing through the game then you either need to start playing with handicaps or the game isn't making you think enough.

So my argument is not that I am Xom and I find it amusing that people can't take an extra second to see what the holy floating toes is in front of them (even though that is kinda funny in a World's Dumbest way), but rather that caution, awareness, decisions, variety, and also a pretty bloody good UI, massive game in general, and excellently active development is what makes Crawl no#1.

[dpeg]

[...]my answer to the popcorn argument is to give weapons a bit more unique features, so that not only is it more of a decision what weapon to use for players, rather than simply dividing weapons into either trash or best, but so that it does matter.

We're thinking about how to do this for many years now.
The results so far are: reaching, cleaving, stabbing and, recently, riposte. It is actually very hard to make weapon type (beyond damage and brand) matter in the hands of monsters.

Actual new ideas are welcome, in separarate threads.

[duvessa]

It is actually very hard to make weapon type (beyond damage and brand) matter in the hands of monsters.

This presupposes that making weapon type matter in the hands of monsters is desirable in the first place.

[ydeve]

Please, please, PLEASE don't make weapon types matter in the hands of monsters. It's an extremely annoying way of essentially creating new monsters. Just make the new monsters instead of forcing us to use x-v even more than we already have to!

[Haelyn]

People keep mentioning x-v like they're invoking Hitler's name. This may be because I play tiles, but I have honestly NEVER felt annoyed by the UI or irritated by it being unclear what I'm up against. As I've stated, I have in fact been mildly annoyed that I DO NOT examine monsters and surroundings much at all, simply because there's no need to, especially on early dungeon and lair.

ydeve and duvessa, you both sound like you want the game to be simpler and easier. I'm not sure if there's some grand chasm between our respective experiences, but I for one want the game to be MORE complex, bigger, more challenging in those areas that are easy to tab through. I feel like there would be a great loss if the game was pruned any more; right now seems like the prime time for it to stretch and grow.

(although could we maybe not have entropy weavers in the vaults? I have to admit my loathing for corrosion X3. Don't take this seriously though, I probably just need to learn how to deal with it.)

[Shard1697]

duvessa doesn't want the game to be easier, there's a reason they've beaten the game with every mummy background. they don't want to do repetitive/tedious tasks like examining every enemy, making the player do this to know if a monster has a dangerous brand does not make the game harder, just more awkward to play. the situation you are in is just as difficult if it's an enemy with dagger of elec or an enemy type of same strength with innate elec, but in the second case you don't ever need to waste time checking the enemy to see what it has.

I can't relate at all to the feeling that the game needs to be bigger right now, to me midgame and endgame crawl still mostly feel too long. not by a huge amount, and less than it used to be, but I still would like a somewhat more focused game. moves like cutting down on lair length are a great example of good changes to current crawl length, as was the considerably older change of cutting dungeon down from 27 to 15 floors+5 depths floors.

[Siegurt]

What if the monster's name just changed based on what weapon they were wielding "goblin cutter" vs "goblin basher" maybe with some attributes for brand, a "shocking goblin slicer" and a "distorted goblin slaver" (for whips of course

[yesno]

hitler mentioned, thread over

[yesno]

This may be because I play tiles

yes, it is because you play tiles. if you're not familiar with console maybe you should try playing a few games instead of talking about hitler

[yesno]

What if the monster's name just changed based on what weapon they were wielding "goblin cutter" vs "goblin basher" maybe with some attributes for brand, a "shocking goblin slicer" and a "distorted goblin slaver" (for whips of course

this sounds good to me, but console players will still have to xv stuff if certain glyphs don't have predictable equipment associated with them. personally when i get sick of the limitations of console i play tiles. if webtiles ran as smoothly as console i would probably never play console, because i think tiles add a lot to the game. this is a situation where the game may have developed around availability of information conveyed efficiently by tiles and therefore causes a headache for console players. but those console nerds should just play tiles 8)

[HardboiledGargoyle]

And honestly, from the gameplay point of view, it makes more sense for uniques to have the same equipment every time while normal, far far more often encountered monsters, to have different ones.

Eh? I think this quote effectively posits that it's best to have all monsters be eligible for being "special", whether by being a unique or by using different equipment all the time.
But almost all monsters do not stand out anyway, in any case. Even if you let them.
And that goblin that zerked you? It's a goblin. That means neither Robin nor Natasha could have picked up and used that ammy, because a goblin already did it.
So you walk around my question: "What do you like about monster item usage that can't be done using a small number of monsters?" Because uniques, and maybe a few non-uniques, could do everything you want, by themselves. But they'd be visible warning signs, actual x-v magnets, as people tend to x-v unique and rare monsters anyway.

Jokes aside, you're proposing a big nerf to orcs and orc warriors.

Obviously, compensate nerfed weapons with buffed damage. This has to be done individually for monsters, one by one, so it cannot just slip unnoticed.

If it's a problem for console players, improve the damn UI instead!

Yeah! Improve UI! Woo!

Remove console

lol

and leave only webtiles so that players are forced to have immediate visual information and don't have to x the monsters.

oh yeah? what do you imagine? a little neck-level sprite overlayed over monsters, indicating that they're wearing an ammy? I already have to pixel-squint to tell apart some monster-held weapons.

but you misinterpreted my point about "quickly and accurately" imagining a monster
IRL you'd see the ammy or whatever, and seeing is a spontaneous and compulsive action, but x-v removes it by several steps, which is bad for immersion. Besides that, giving tiny variations to members of a monster type doesn't help, but interferes with the formation of an image of the archetypal goblin, or orc warrior, or whatever. Look at these visual representations, where members of a group make that membership memorable by, in part, wielding and wearing identical cookie-cutter garb, to the point of all looking the same:

Spoiler: show

From a gameplay standpoint, giving monsters random weapons throws fuzz into your threat assessment. It makes "getting the feel" for monsters a lot harder. We know what excessive fuzzing does, especially with draconians and demonspawn: no player knows what anything does. They got: color, profession, and equipment on top of that. As if it wouldn't be better if all their knights just used glaive

And don't mark weaker basic types as useless by default, introduce new color(s) if you have to.

oooor merge "technically useless" and "virtually useless". Mummies can kill by tossing pizza, after all.

I even like seeing piles of discarded weapons marking the site of a big battle. It's fun.

I agreed with this in the OP, pointed this out as a weakness of ion frigate's proposal, and circumvented it.

Console does need a better visual indication for monsters with reach

good idea! how about:
yellow "g" (gnoll) = has reaching
gray "g" (goblin) = does not have reaching
etc.

Ah, I wasn't trying to have a problem, actually.

You oppose the proposal. So, you have a problem with it.

To answer the question, partially because it makes sense to the game. I personally think it fits, given the similar chaff that litters the dungeon floor, and it makes sense for the monsters themselves... mainly, it just makes it feel more real and dungeon-y to me.

Crawl teeters in a semireal zone where food and all sorts of useful stuff lies, randomly strewn, and everything is out to kill you. Things need to make sense within that context. Stray too far with expectations like yours and you hit an uncomfortable Uncanny Valley, where flavor doesn't stick, like wallpaper on a vase.

For example, my answer to the popcorn argument is to give weapons a bit more unique features, so that not only is it more of a decision what weapon to use for players, rather than simply dividing weapons into either trash or best, but so that it does matter. Could do it with the monsters too.

how are you going to make plain morningstars and scimitars interesting non-trash and why would you want to do that?

I think it is absolutely a good thing to view carefully whatever you're coming across; to have more decisions to make and more strategy required of you, to be more aware of your surroundings and enemies.

There's a limit to that. You don't want to have to scan every tile of the level and every item in your inventory every turn of the game. That's beyond the limit of what the game should demand of you. Using x-v to look at every enemy is also beyond that limit. Even for a first playthrough. The difficulty of an encounter should not be determined by the equipment every random mook ends up with. It should be there, in plain sight, in the terrain, in the numbers and locations of the enemies. Imagine a strategy game where some military units occasionally get created with 5x the damage/hp stats, which would have no graphical indication, but which could be noticed by clicking on that one unit.
BTW, a game this random can and should make you over-powered, sometimes, and you should be allowed to unleash that power and suspend the x-v caution.
And I don't really follow you. Maybe you can tell us how you approach differently a club vs dagger goblin, or even a falchion vs morningstar wight or orc warrior?

You people are so bad at this. You literally say, "I don't care about [such-and-such argument]." like it should convince anyone. Let me give it a spin: I don't care that the game becomes more bland. Compelling, isn't it? further, you're cherry picking the "not good enough" reasons (the ones easiest for you to discard) behind ion frigate's proposal. We ostensibly come here to discuss, and I get so disappointed. At least we can talk before the tone police arrives.

[yesno]

[ion_frigate]

My own two cents are: I like this proposal pretty well. Marking plain weapons as useless does solve a lot of the "hundreds of meaningless decisions" problem, even if not entirely. Moreover, even from my own limited knowledge of programming, I can tell that this is a lot easier to implement on a technical level, so has a better chance of actually making it into the game. If this were implemented, it would be nice if the knowledge bots could display the damage as something like "30+15" for similarly-armed monsters.

We definitely still need variant monsters, though - mixed up melee threats are good, as long as they're clearly marked. I like the idea of monsters' names depending on their equipment, but I don't know if that's hard to implement. It seems like it'd be technically similar to implementing arbitrary variant monsters (like making a "<foo> of Lugonu" have distortion, without needing a separate entry for every possible monster that can worship Lugonu - for those who play Brogue, think of the mutated monsters you encounter deep down), and I'm guessing that's not easy to do. Any developers can feel free to correct me on this though.

FWIW I have always thought that a roguelike where monsters can have all sorts of variations like that would be really cool (like: frail = 1/2HP, angry = +20% damage + -20% EV, fleet-footed = 8 move delay, insane = 1.5x damage + 33% chance to hit self, etc). But I'm guessing Crawl isn't ever going to be that game. Still, I think it's a good way to make special weapon brands/types obvious.

[yesno]

given how often arguments here are made in the form of 'this is an issue to me, i find it annoying' (ie visual clutter, xving, whatever) followd by a fix for the issue that resembles an argument so long as you ignore that it hinges entirely on caring about the annoying thing in the first place, then responding 'on the contrary, i am subjectively fine with it, so who cares about your proposal' is prob the most appropriate response.

Mummies can kill by tossing pizza, after all.

lmao maybe i'm just not capable of addressing this argument with the seriousness it deserves

[HardboiledGargoyle]

"i personally don't mind, therefore nobody cares"
why write or even read about something you don't give a crap for
I mean, I don't feel an urge to go to every thing that doesn't concern me, to let everyone know how little I care
in this thread, you've said ways these proposals make the game worse, but I challenged how that is a downside, even for people like you, who like constant variety in every aspect of combat

[yesno]

well HardboiledGargoyle, what i think is, that mummies can kill by tossing pizza,

[yesno]

a major overhaul of monster types is being proposed to address a nonexistent problem but you don't want me to say "i don't like this overhaul that addresses a problem i don't care about" and you wanna get worked up about it

and mummies can STILL kill by throwing pizza, when is this going to be addressed

[Haelyn]

I meant the hitler thing as a joke. I understand this is text and you can't hear the tone of my voice, but in general I try to be friendly, relaxed, and non-hostile. I'm not playing shock jock here.

You oppose the proposal. So, you have a problem with it.

I meant I didn't have a personal problem with anyone, which is what I perceived as being... Well, perceived.

Crawl teeters in a semireal zone where food and all sorts of useful stuff lies, randomly strewn, and everything is out to kill you. Things need to make sense within that context. Stray too far with expectations like yours and you hit an uncomfortable Uncanny Valley, where flavor doesn't stick, like wallpaper on a vase.

It's very hard to qualify in any serious sense things like this, regarding context and flavor since they're largely subjective. For example, I don't understand what the nuts you're on about. I wouldn't suggest something if I thought it would break context, and I don't get the point of your analogy.

how are you going to make plain morningstars and scimitars interesting non-trash and why would you want to do that?

If you really want I'll make a post giving more depth to each weapon type. I've got the free time for it. And why would I want to do that? Same reason I'd, oh, try to make all the different spells unique and useful or at least have some application. Or the monsters. Potions. Scrolls. Banches. When something is boring, isn't working right, isn't fulfilling, is bland or unuseful, I don't like the response of 'get rid of it'. If I had applied such a strategy to much of my previous work it would be pretty sad. My first response is and will always be "What went wrong here and how can I make it better?" So yes, my response to junk weapons is "what could make each of these special somehow? Which ones are just too copy-pasted and I might need to remove; or tweak so they offer the same as another weapons, but one plays to strength and one to speed, perhaps?"

I think I've remarked before I feel similarly about some monsters. Early dungeon levels never catch my attention, with exceptions where a monster has a piece of equipment that catches me off guard or something OOD, or a dangerous unique. Those are all fairly rare though. So my FIRST answer is "What can I do to give each monster more personality?" A good example of this is the differences between goblins, kobolds, and orcs. Early on the difference is immediately recognizable; goblins are largely nonthreatening, edible, and generally carry small weapons. Oh, but if there are too many, watch for Robin. Kobolds are even weaker but are often using blowguns with nasty needles and it feels to me like they show up with enchanted things more often. Orcs are tougher, often coming with throwing weapons and better normal weapons, and carry the threat of wizards and priests.

For example, there's no immediate difference between a giant newt, a giant gecko, and an iguana, say, except that you're vaguely aware there's a strength ladder in there; but usually by the time you encounter each they're just as difficult as the prior so it likely won't register.

So part of the reason I oppose weapon abstraction is because it would further muddy the lines between monsters. On top of that, it would for me take away a lot of the enjoyment the variety and strategy brings; not just strategy in how do I deal with this, but in should I take that drop.

Incidentally,

There's a limit to that. You don't want to have to scan every tile of the level and every item in your inventory every turn of the game. That's beyond the limit of what the game should demand of you. Using x-v to look at every enemy is also beyond that limit. Even for a first playthrough. The difficulty of an encounter should not be determined by the equipment every random mook ends up with. It should be there, in plain sight, in the terrain, in the numbers and locations of the enemies. Imagine a strategy game where some military units occasionally get created with 5x the damage/hp stats, which would have no graphical indication, but which could be noticed by clicking on that one unit.
BTW, a game this random can and should make you over-powered, sometimes, and you should be allowed to unleash that power and suspend the x-v caution.
And I don't really follow you. Maybe you can tell us how you approach differently a club vs dagger goblin, or even a falchion vs morningstar wight or orc warrior?

Everything in moderation, of course there's a limit. But why are you telling me of the bane of x-v (which, by the way, you're exaggerating; it doesn't compare to practicing the omniscience over the game you mentioned and it doesn't even apply to every monster, and the sheer number of things on screen doesn't compare to an RTS), and in the next paragraph acting as though the weapon difference doesn't matter. Now, I understand you meant x-v in order to check for enchanted things (which doesn't apply to tiles, a facet that Crawl has specialized in to great success), in which case, your argument seems to be more "Stop giving monsters things I have to worry about and let me cut through them." You made an example of the demonspawn and draconions; color, profession, and weapon. I actually agree with this one, albeit just halfway. There shouldn't be TOO much. Admittedly I actually like the idea of all that difference, however. But again, I'm the type who actually enjoys FTL Infinite and games like scrabble and Minecraft, so I have a lot of patience and a love for any game requiring me to be at heightened awareness or that offers me an incredible level of freedom, choices, variety, and/or decisions to make.

A game this random can and should also make other things more threatening and require you to be more aware if you want to play optimally.

And BECAUSE they can carry weapons, I do approach some monsters differently, depending on factors like reaching, what brand they're using, how big a weapon is that and how much is it going to hurt, and of course monsters (Goblins, centaurs, orcs, etc.) that can switch between ranged and melee.

given how often arguments here are made in the form of 'this is an issue to me, i find it annoying' (ie visual clutter, xving, whatever) followd by a fix for the issue that resembles an argument so long as you ignore that it hinges entirely on caring about the annoying thing in the first place, then responding 'on the contrary, i am subjectively fine with it, so who cares about your proposal' is prob the most appropriate response

That's probably most of the problem, subjectivity. As illustrated, I actually love the game as it is and would see it grow bigger. That to me is fun. I would be happier. Obviously, other people feel very, very differently. I'm inclined to say Crawl should have config options at this rate.'

I can't relate at all to the feeling that the game needs to be bigger right now, to me midgame and endgame crawl still mostly feel too long. not by a huge amount, and less than it used to be, but I still would like a somewhat more focused game. moves like cutting down on lair length are a great example of good changes to current crawl length, as was the considerably older change of cutting dungeon down from 27 to 15 floors+5 depths floors.

And actually, let me clarify. When I say bigger, I don't mean filler-bigger. I'm not going for a McDonalds here. from 27 to 15+5 depths sounds really good to me. The depths are a neat way to illustrate how deep you've gone and they offer a different environment, and frankly fifteen floors of one type of branch is probably on the edge of too much. But it probably is fine since it's the 'main' thing. I'm pretty happy with the lengths of the branches I'm familiar with(except Orc. Two floors? Only two? It was neat going up and down stairs to explore the whole thing. At least give me three), and as mentioned in another thread, my thoughts have strayed more to how to make those branches more fun now. If I was hypothetically in charge, my next step after doing that would be to fine tune everything a while and then look at how to expand the game next, like a well-cared-for garden.

EDIT: real quick actually, if anyone has actually played this game so many times they've cleared every background with a rather difficult species, then of course all the little things that aren't offending anyone but are just one more keystroke for you are going to niggle you more and more. Playing anything to excess will invariably cause you to have problems with it, both rational and irrational. I'm not saying Duvessa is out of her mind, but I would suggest there's a difference between someone who's played it only about fifty or a hundred times and someone who's played it somewhere around a million. Minecraft comes to mind, and with it again the concept that maybe config options are in order here.

[Amphouse]

Clearly the solution here is to nerf pizza.

[HardboiledGargoyle]

It's very hard to qualify in any serious sense things like this, regarding context and flavor since they're largely subjective. For example, I don't understand what the nuts you're on about. I wouldn't suggest something if I thought it would break context, and I don't get the point of your analogy.

The game operates on videogame logic, and that's the level on which it must operate because we cannot do better. It is better to let some absurdities (eg: most monsters never trade up their weapon) lie in plain view, because they actively enforce expectations of videogame logic. If you try to make it realworld-y, you raise the bar for what players should expect of the game, in which case they'll be inevitably disappointed. EG, why is every creature in the dungeon dormant, like you're prince charming barging into sleeping beauty's castle? Our tool for fleshing out the game's world is like wallpaper - it will sit neatly and nicely only on a boxy, videogamey world. See: Nethack.

If you really want I'll make a post giving more depth to each weapon type.

Mediocre weapons have a defined place - you use them early on until you find something nice, so you can feel a little badass when it finally happens. That's why most games start you off with a wrench or a peashooter. I don't see why you want to destroy that and, um, well I don't know what you want to do instead.

So part of the reason I oppose weapon abstraction is because it would further muddy the lines between monsters.

I don't know what you mean. Standardizing weapons across all appearances of each kind of monster would create sharp contrast between monsters, the opposite of muddying the lines.

From time to time, some guy comes here to speak out against removal, like this chicken guy. If you think you have a strong argument that removal is bad, feel free to start a thread.

[yesno]

It is better to let some absurdities (eg: most monsters never trade up their weapon) lie in plain view, because they actively enforce expectations of videogame logic.

monsters used to trade up weapons and it was fine and cool

[Hurkyl]

monsters used to trade up weapons and it was fine and cool

Except, of course, that it was a good idea to hoover up all of the dangerous weapons so that Wiglaf doesn't perforate you with that crossbow the yaktaurs left behind (ranged weapons back then were incredibly powerful in the hands of monsters like that) and that red imp doesn't suddenly become the most dangerous monster in the upper dungeon by picking up that scythe of distortion you didn't want.

[HardboiledGargoyle]

-_- monsters still trade up weapons

e: even your snappy comebacks are fail

[Haelyn]

The game operates on videogame logic, and that's the level on which it must operate because we cannot do better. It is better to let some absurdities (eg: most monsters never trade up their weapon) lie in plain view, because they actively enforce expectations of videogame logic. If you try to make it realworld-y, you raise the bar for what players should expect of the game, in which case they'll be inevitably disappointed. EG, why is every creature in the dungeon dormant, like you're prince charming barging into sleeping beauty's castle? Our tool for fleshing out the game's world is like wallpaper - it will sit neatly and nicely only on a boxy, videogamey world. See: Nethack.

Aye. That's what I meant by subjective. What breaks reality for you is probably not the same thing that breaks it for me. I'm also not sure how this relates to the discussion at hand; it would take a loooooooot more than not removing something to make it real world-y. And honestly, I don't think removing or not removing, either one, makes it more or less so. ...Except for myself personally, which is again where subjective comes in. It would take me out of it quite a lot to have abstracted weapons because to me, that clashes hard with the pseudoreality Crawl has.

Mediocre weapons have a defined place - you use them early on until you find something nice, so you can feel a little badass when it finally happens. That's why most games start you off with a wrench or a peashooter. I don't see why you want to destroy that and, um, well I don't know what you want to do instead.

Yet there's clearly complaint about it. I'm not suggesting all weapons become equal; certainly a rare triple sword is a find worth a jig, and you ARE correct that you should start with one of those common things and search for something awesome. But there's a difference between a game starting you with one or two bad weapons, and this game. There's a collection of weapons found early on that tend to blur together or get ignored, and there are some weapons (scythes for example) that are just considered unusable. Despite this, all these weapons will continue to show up and all should technically be viable; certainly a longsword should never be made equal to a double sword, and a hand axe is obviously not as good as a war axe. However, they should at least have enough going for them that they aren't akin to decoration on the floor. Perhaps the hand axe is better for weaker, faster characters? There are like three mace/flail things, those could use some differentiation.

THAT is what I consider worth improving.

I don't know what you mean. Standardizing weapons across all appearances of each kind of monster would create sharp contrast between monsters, the opposite of muddying the lines.

It would take away some of the capabilities and possible variations that wielding monsters have as opposed to non-wielding. It would also remove a degree of threat and spice from monsters that come in packs and have a variety to bear, often having at least one enchanted weapon; this applies doubly to wights and probably some other monster packs. If weapons were standardized/abstracted, not only do you turn goblins into essentially giant newts, and so on for other monsters, not only do you lose a degree of variation and possibility (that could probably use some expansion to make it sharper), but you're proposing removal of what I think to be one of the essential facets of Crawl, or any roguelike for that matter; the enemy has RNG too. Not just in who you encounter, but what they have. FTL would die if it had standardized enemies. Even BoI implemented champion versions of monsters and clever room designs to make sure you couldn't get completely bored.

From time to time, some guy comes here to speak out against removal, like this chicken guy. If you think you have a strong argument that removal is bad, feel free to start a thread.

I... Um... I'm sorry, are you suggesting that removal is always good and it's bad to speak against it? If you were talking about this thread specifically it would be really really weird to say that, but it sounds like you're speaking for ALL removal, which is... I don't want to be insulting, but that seems poorly thought through. If on the other hand you're saying that people are arguing against the *concept* of removal, well. That's slightly different but still kind of odd to say. For one, I didn't say I oppose the mere concept of it, and even if I did, that wouldn't really be relevant to the discussion; that would certainly be a philosophy I held, but it wouldn't somehow stain every word that comes out of me.

In general, I think removal should be the last option; like I said earlier, fixing or improving should be the first option. Removal to me is lazy; but again, that's personal belief. I'm not going to shove it down your throat and unless you and I are discussing a game I made, it doesn't apply to the situation. It's merely an indication what you can generally expect me to say. So... Yeah. Not sure why ya said that.

I would like to remind that I'm not hostile to you; nor am I angry, irritated, bitter, whatever. I'm pretty happy and relaxed actually, now and in general, and I'd like that to be the tone taken. Little good would come of being enemies, so I felt it was worth saying this.

[yesno]

-_- monsters still trade up weapons

e: even your snappy comebacks are fail

whoa, 'are fail'? let's try to keep it civil here

[yesno]

monsters used to trade up weapons and it was fine and cool

Except, of course, that it was a good idea to hoover up all of the dangerous weapons so that Wiglaf doesn't perforate you with that crossbow the yaktaurs left behind (ranged weapons back then were incredibly powerful in the hands of monsters like that) and that red imp doesn't suddenly become the most dangerous monster in the upper dungeon by picking up that scythe of distortion you didn't want.

yeah i remember when crimson imps had a chance to actually become a threat. it was fine, and also (did i mention this?) cool

[duvessa]

they could only become a threat if you didn't move weapons, which was the opposite of fine and the opposite of cool

[yesno]

well ok but imps should at least spawn with a chance of having a random weapon because i'm just saying imps used to be cool

[Shard1697]

they didn't

Also monsters can still pick up weapons before you see them and there are things like vaults with imps carrying chaos daggers

[dpeg]

a major overhaul of monster types is being proposed to address a nonexistent problem

(Emphasis mine.) This is your personal opinion, it is clearly not the opinion of the Hardboiledgargoyle or ion_frigate, and it isn't my opinion either.

I think both proposals address an actual concern. The variety you defend is more visual than real; it belongs more to a simulation/sandbox game than a roguelike, in my opinion. The OP has a pretty realistic proposal how to address something I (and I know I'm not along among developers) consider an actual problem. It's not nearly Crawl's biggest problem, in my opinion, but addressing it would be an immediate gain.

And one more: all this nonsense about pizzas, x-v, Hitler, imps and console only detracts from discussion. This is GDD, for Trog's sake.

[yesno]

how are xv and console not relevant to the discussion

[HardboiledGargoyle]

@Haelyn
Mediocre weapon types are interesting for being faster, requiring less XP, or simply having their mediocrity overwhelmed by other reasons: consider +11 trident vs +0 demon trident. Plain morningstars, though? Much of the time, you will have approximately 1 good weapon and up to thousands of other weapons; it's inevitable that they'll be useless. It's the hundreds of universally undesirable weapons I'd rather gray out that you apparently want to make interesting.

essential facets of Crawl, or any roguelike for that matter; the enemy has RNG too. Not just in who you encounter, but what they have.

These are two ways of looking at the same thing. Is it a goblin that has a sword, or a swordsgoblin? Both answers are right. You could replace armed hobgoblins with unarmed gnolls and it would play the same. There's a gap between variety and perception of variety.

[it's personal belief] So... Yeah. Not sure why ya said that.

Problem is that I don't think it's a matter of personal belief. You come with the thesis "removal should be the last option; like I said earlier, fixing or improving should be the first option", which is a sentiment that is problematically common, but AFAIK, unsupportable.

champion versions of monsters

Crawl kinda has that, with randomized monster HP

[Hurkyl]

In general, I think removal should be the last option;

"Make the game terrible and unfun" is an option. If you think removal should be the last option, that means you are putting "terrible and unfun" ahead of "removing things".

[Laraso]

These are two ways of looking at the same thing. Is it a goblin that has a sword, or a swordsgoblin? Both answers are right. You could replace armed hobgoblins with unarmed gnolls and it would play the same. There's a gap between variety and perception of variety.

Perception is everything. If you perceive that there is variety when there is only a little, then it doesn't matter if there's not much variety because it feels like there really is. Similarly, if you perceive that there is little variety, then it doesn't matter how much variety there actually is. I'm personally opposed to changing the way monster equipment works. In fact, I'd rather monsters be able to pick up seen equipment again. You guys have good reasons for wanting these changes, so I don't actually have many good arguments against it; It's just a shame that the game has to be simplified so much because of a problem that is only cared about and only affects a certain portion of the playerbase. These changes that have been suggested recently of removing monster equipment / reducing variety of equipment / preventing monsters from picking up new equipment will only make the game less interesting for me, personally.

I know the proposal in the OP is about an alternative to straight up removing monster equipment, but it seems all the discussion of changing the way monster equipment works has shifted to this thread, so I'm going to post this here.The one argument I do have against removing monster equipment is that it obfuscates the differences between enemy types. Currently, different versions of the same enemy make it clear what the differences between them are. An orc is health 6-8, while an orc warrior is considerably beefier with a health of 23 - 32. An orc will always have the same health regardless of whether it's wielding a short sword or a flail, and an orc warrior will always have the same health whether it's wielding a battleaxe or a glaive. Similarly, it's easy to see a basic orc wielding a dagger of distortion and do the math; weapon is potentially scary, enemy is not - if you can kill it from range it doesn't pose any threat. An orc warrior with a glaive of distortion, however, is considerably scarier. It's easy to get a feel for how strong a certain enemy is with the way equipment currently works. An orc warrior with a flail is much less scary than an orc warrior with a bardiche. These things are obvious because with a little bit of experience a player will know approximately how strong each weapon is and how strong each enemy is, and can put the two together to get a rough estimate on how strong something is. The only thing I would say needs to be more obvious is enemy armor.

Now, going back to having 300 different enemies. What is the difference between a goblin and a swordgoblin? Does the swordgoblin have more health? Do axe orcs and a mace orcs do different damage? Do greatsword wights and battleaxe wights have different HD? When you introduce more enemies there is more cognitive load and a lot more memorization required of the player. And, if all of those are the same, then why even have different enemy types? Currently, the only difference between an orc wielding a mace and an orc wielding a flail is the damage of the weapon. The orcs will still have the same HD, the same health, the same AC/EV, and give the same amount of XP. This is much more obvious with the way the game currently works.

[Haelyn]

@Haelyn
Mediocre weapon types are interesting for being faster, requiring less XP, or simply having their mediocrity overwhelmed by other reasons: consider +11 trident vs +0 demon trident. Plain morningstars, though? Much of the time, you will have approximately 1 good weapon and up to thousands of other weapons; it's inevitable that they'll be useless. It's the hundreds of universally undesirable weapons I'd rather gray out that you apparently want to make interesting.

Oh, no, of course not. Like I said earlier, I believe it's also worth considering what to do about all those things strewn about the dungeon floor. That's going to happen regardless whether monsters carry them or not and right now only Jiyva gets any use out of it. It's just that, when all things are equal, weapons should have the capability to be interesting so your eyes don't glaze over (at least not totally) whether it's a flail, whip, or mace, either in your hands or swinging at your head.

These are two ways of looking at the same thing. Is it a goblin that has a sword, or a swordsgoblin? Both answers are right. You could replace armed hobgoblins with unarmed gnolls and it would play the same. There's a gap between variety and perception of variety.

I would have responded but Laraso did it for me. Thanks man~

Problem is that I don't think it's a matter of personal belief. You come with the thesis "removal should be the last option; like I said earlier, fixing or improving should be the first option", which is a sentiment that is problematically common, but AFAIK, unsupportable.

Unsupportable? Eh?

"Make the game terrible and unfun" is an option. If you think removal should be the last option, that means you are putting "terrible and unfun" ahead of "removing things".

I see you've tangled my words somewhat. Or a lot, rather. 'Making the game terrible' IS NOT AN OPTION. It doesn't even register on the list.

Huh. Alright, maybe this'll help. Let me lay it out a little more clearly;

When making a game or an asset for one, as I do rather often, there are a few steps I go through when I'm working on anything. Naturally the first thing is the rough draft; pound it out real quick and just get it together. Let's pretend for sake of argument I'm making a new poke'mon or something. We'll call it Goopymon and pretend Digimon never existed and we're totally not ripping them off.

So first I just slam it together from whatever wild ideas I had in my head. Now, obviously it's going to go through a lot before I'm ever okay with it; I'm very perfectionist. First I'm going to test and rework it to make sure it's balanced in regards to the rest of the game. It has to make sense, have at least a little context depending on realism levels and what kind of game it is, and of course it has to be technically sound.

Next I have to make it shine. There has to be *something* about it that sets it apart. Not so that every thousand Goopymon are all useful, but that, when all things are equal (For example, level one/+0) there are plausible reasons it might be chosen. Certainly other pokemon (or triple swords) are legendary or whatever and may always be more preferable, but since it was plausible at base then if you find a good (+10) Goopymon? The point is not to make it so that it is always relevant. The point is that it should be capable of being relevant. There shouldn't be useless chaff in a game; everything should serve to make the game better or more fun, even if it's as simple as a decoration helping the aesthetic. And that extends to the player; they shouldn't FEEL like there's anything useless either.

Of course, I'm not done with Goopymon. Is it fun to use? If yes, great. I'm now going to gather people who I know think differently than I do, who I tend to fight with, and vet it by them. Why? BECAUSE they think different and have different ideas of fun. And they'll see problems and have perceptions that I never will.

But if it's not fun to ME, in my game no less, then I have a lot of work to do. Now, at some point during this development cycle, is it plausible that the idea was just plain bad and it's garbage? Yes, absolutely. I will of course try to salvage anything good about it and remake THOSE ideas later, but if I just can't redeem something I was working on and I can even see that it's clearly not worth it, then I'm not going to put it in the game anyway. That's what I mean by removal is the last tool. It's like working with anything. You do your absolute best before you sigh, give up, and figure out a better way to do it. Making a shoddy, annoying product is NEVER an option for someone with pride in their work.

Oh, and if Goopymon gets through that earlier vetting process, which, by the way, is pretty harsh... Other people do have different ideas of fun but I'm under no illusion that I can please everyone, much as I'd really like that. I'm perfectionist so of course my review of Goopymon will tend to be the most critical, but I want other eyes on it pointing out every tiny little flaw, including ones that don't count as flaws in my view of fun, so I can at least consider them. Provided it makes it through that satisfactorily, or it needs work and I'm happy with the fix, it has one last hurdle. Now it has to be vetted by the player base. Naturally the player base will have a similar idea to me about what fun is, since I made the game, but in broad, varied, and/or creatively rich games, there can often be varied playerbases, like the one we have here.

Remember when I said I know I can't please everyone? That doesn't mean I won't try my bloody hardest to do exactly that. My philosophy has no room for a bad game because it's a matter of personal ideal that I want to make things that my friends and the rest of the world can enjoy and have fun with, and add some more happiness and joy back into the world, cheesy as that sounds.

Right, let's bring this back to ground a little. In short, I think Laraso's hit it nearly on the nail. There have been a lot of strong arguments for and against this, mostly Gargoyle's effort there, which I applaud, and I think I helped at least. But this isn't one of those things that can be too strictly called bad or good because, as I mentioned to Gargoyle earlier and also again now, we Crawl players have differing ideas of fun. What pleases some of us may ruin the game for the others. If anything, I'd say "making the game terrible and unfun" would in this case be what happens to those players; anywhere from just a little to I can't play it anymore.

Now, that makes it sound like Crawl should suddenly freeze and not change. Well, no, that's bad too. I love how well-developed the game is and how it continues to be cared for and grown. But my point is that any idea, be it from a dev or a fan, needs to be thoroughly thought through; not only that, but you need to make an effort; even just a little one; to please all of your players. It is, at least for me, a matter of honor and ideals as a developer to do so. Luckily, that's kind of what we have going on here; a discussion, and a pretty good one. Largely civil and mostly productive, impressive considering there are different philosophies at war here. Basically, if I were to make a proposal, it would not be from the standpoint of "this would be more fun for me personally." True, that's where it STARTS. But it has to END with "I think this would be more fun for everyone else, too." And again, I'm going to pretty self-critical about that first.

I mentioned config options earlier. That's the kind of thing I'm trying to come up with; some form of compromise, flexibility, or co-existence. I'm sad to say I haven't figured it out yet, but hell if i'm not trying.

(Holy Galapagos that's a lot of typing for the bloody morning on no sleep.)

[HardboiledGargoyle]

Yes, eh. Unsupportable, groundless. It's a bad idea.
oh geez, you went on so many tangents.
I told you to start a thread but maybe you need to start a blog.
Bad ideas can help a developer create good ideas, or get a project started, sure. But then you're talking about the creative process, not the game's design per se.
The only relevant question is whether the game is better with or without something. It doesn't matter how much effort it took or what the original intentions were. Every moment of attention diverted to a feature that is "good enough" is not spent on anything better.
With Crawl development, one may need to be careful with changes that remove (or add), just because it takes either a day or forever to revert an intentional change, but that's a flaw of Crawl development*, in a similar way that it may be good to let a diabetic eat chocolate when they'd otherwise gorge on plain sugar.

* - or a self-fulfilling cycle of developmental reluctance to change and adapt? By forecasting slow development, current development becomes excessively sheepish and slows, setting up further expectations of slowness? hmm...

As for Laraso's point, I think we can just have fragile-yet-damaging monsters instead of plain orcs with dangerous weapons. If we wanted to randomize monster damage, decouple it from other parameters such as HP, and also show exactly how damaging those particular monsters are (which is a tall order) then we could standardize UC damage for all monsters and make them more weapon-dependent, basically making species=defense and weapon=offense, but that's worse for interface and flavor. So many games have a dedicated shotgun monster, a dedicated uzi monster, a dedicated minigun monster, and so on, and they play great. I see how you point out that a player can get used to Crawl's monster-weapon system, but not why it's better. Seriously, why would so many monsters need a fully visible and fine dial for how much damage they can dish out?

all the discussion of changing the way monster equipment works has shifted to this thread

true; i think i was right to start a new thread, but at this point, the two threads can be merged for better future reference

[Haelyn]

Yes, eh. Unsupportable, groundless. It's a bad idea

It's a bad idea to try to improve or fix features instead of simply removing whatever might be flawed. A bad idea to consider simple out-the-door to be the last tool (as it should be, since it's the trash can) to any given facet of a game, during development or not. ...Yeah no that's bloody backwards.

oh geez, you went on so many tangents.
I told you to start a thread but maybe you need to start a blog.

Sorry about that. Just trying to be exceedingly clear since my words were being taken in odd directions, and to explain my standpoint.

The only relevant question is whether the game is better with or without something. It doesn't matter how much effort it took or what the original intentions were. Every moment of attention diverted to a feature that is "good enough" is not spent on anything better.

I'd say that's a pretty narrow view if that's the only relevant question. Especially since 'better' is subjective. Your second sentence is at least mostly correct, but I'm not sure what your point is with the third.

or a self-fulfilling cycle of developmental reluctance to change and adapt?

Uh. Ya do know that not all games need to change all the time, right? There's a reason people still enjoy things called classics. Not to say you don't have a point; you do; but a reluctance to 'change and adapt' (which is a bit vague) is not necessarily a flaw.

player can get used to Crawl's monster-weapon system, but not why it's better

For someone who complained about my tangents you don't seem to have actually been listening. Again, better is subjective, and I applied that to myself too. I was going on about why I felt the way I do, why both weapons and non-weapons can be bad depending on who's playing, the varied playerbase, and how to make a compromise; or an OPTION, which I really like the sound of as this thread continues; to make everyone happy. Fun being the prime directive.

So many games have a dedicated shotgun monster, a dedicated uzi monster, a dedicated minigun monster, and so on, and they play great

Be like the crowd is not flatly a good thing. Also there are a great many games that don't do that and instead use the system currently in place and they also play great. All you've done is demonstrate standardized weapons CAN BE good, which I was never contesting to begin with.

Seriously, why would so many monsters need a fully visible and fine dial for how much damage they can dish out?

And THIS is why I was going on about weapon and monster relevancy. A perfectly acceptable way to fix an issue is to fix the things that are making it an issue. And a better way, I might add. Also, why would so many monsters need to become even more predictable and mow-the-lawn? For I think the fifth time, better is subjective and it would be highly preferable to create an option or some kind of compromise that fixes the annoying issues; like what I started this sentence with, as a vague example.

[HardboiledGargoyle]

I should have been more descriptive; if it helps, I meant "every moment of a player's attention which is diverted to a feature that is "good enough" is not spent on anything better." Crawl is not the only game in the world, but competes with hundreds of better games. It is better to more consistently hit the 8s and 9s than draw out the experience with 6s and 7s that we fear removing.

It's a bad idea to try to improve or fix features instead of simply removing whatever might be flawed. A bad idea to consider simple out-the-door to be the last tool (as it should be, since it's the trash can) to any given facet of a game, during development or not. ...Yeah no that's bloody backwards.

No, what's bloody backwards is putting features up on a bloody pedestal just because they plain exist.
You got people bending over backwards to make certain spells work.
Trying to rescue features binds you to their service - a perversion of their purpose, which is to serve you.
Think of the sheer expense that goes into rescuing bad mechanics.
Imagine if all that energy wasn't tethered to retaining any given facet, at all.
If a prop detriments the show, get it off the set. If it's useful in the workshop, keep it there.
As with worldly possessions, it is often best to toss the crap - without deliberation - and (perhaps) to get new stuff.
Removal is painful (even to just see it happening, let alone doing it yourself) and can cloud reasoning; a cloud of "that's just wrong" goes poof and settles.
It's easy to want moar features moar options but the drawbacks can be so easy to ignore, because: moar.
Options have a cost and Crawl's devs know it: the only non-UI option they give you is ironman/explore/wizard mode.

Uh. Ya do know that not all games need to change all the time, right? There's a reason people still enjoy things called classics. Not to say you don't have a point; you do; but a reluctance to 'change and adapt' (which is a bit vague) is not necessarily a flaw.

That's not quite what I was talking about. There are things that need to change and things that devs want to change. Normally, you could just experiment, rework, start over. But if you accidentally get something even terrible into Crawl, then... too bad! it's in for at least a version. And then if it gets removed... good luck getting it back in! even if the circumstances change. That's a reason removals can be dangerous to Crawl's future - they tend to have permanence. You may be too new to know or to have noticed this about Crawl's development.

For I think the fifth time, better is subjective

okay, I see that, but I don't see you building your case. I don't like to repeat myself, so above, I said only once that I think these things are objective.

Problem is that I don't think it's a matter of personal belief.

see? I did say it.

[jwoodward48ss]

1. Stop begging the question. "It is unsupportable!", without any justification, is a useless statement.

2. Why the hell would you make DCSS simpler? UI improvements are fine, but making every monster of a kind identical is a bloody boring crawl. Why would you even want to remove monster equipment? I like how monsters are similar to the player.

3. An Orc with a Morningstar is much more dangerous than an Orc with a mace or a goblin with a Morningstar. This is good. It keeps players on their toes, and keeps popcorn from being completely trivial.

[HardboiledGargoyle]

ah so you want me to justify how Haelyn's assertion has no evidence behind it? (note: I said "AFAIK, unsupportable" - change my mind)

[Arrhythmia]

3. An Orc with a Morningstar is much more dangerous than an Orc with a mace or a goblin with a Morningstar. This is good. It keeps players on their toes, and keeps popcorn from being completely trivial.

The only time this is true in practice is if the orc/goblin/foo has a disproportionately powerful brand like distortion or electricty. An orc with a morningstar is precisely as dangerous as an orc with his bare fists (read: isn't).

[Sar]

well an orc can be dangerous at its lowest point of spawn

later they become less dangerous but that's Crawl monsters for you