The Tavern

I think it's time someone plucked up the courage to challenge God-king Trog's undisputed throne. Unfortunately for us all, you are stuck with me.

Trog/Berserkers are overpowered, I really don't think I need to explain that.

I suggest removing the berserker background as a band-aid solution until we can agree on a way to end Trog's reign of terror.

Have a nice day.

I think gods can give anything, as long as they take enough to make up for it. The problem with Trog is that, while he does take a lot, he actually creates a very nice build for low intelligence, heavy armour melee characters, who wouldn't be doing much with magic anyway, especially minotaurs.
Rage is powerful, Trog's hand is useful, book burning is silly, brother in arms is overpowered, weapon gifts variate a lot, but the antimagic brand is pretty damn powerful. Rage becomes less and less useful and more and more dangerous in the later parts of the game, where being slowed means having no rapid reaction to torment.

Trog has a LOT of abilities. Something which could be done is adding exhaustion or a similar effect to brother in arms, so that you can't have more than one or two allies at the same time. A more radical approach would be having to give up evocation as a part of magic.

In other words, I am not for making Trog and Berserker disappear, as much as for making Trog less of a "always useful, no meaningful downsides" god. I think Berserker as background also has a fun in simplicity factor that other classes lack: all that a fighter does during its first levels is some plain hitting and positioning, while a wizard can be too complex to handle because of many different options and little hp. A berserker is somewhere in between, as it starts out with one ability to spice things up. Said ability could use a nerf, no doubt. Away with bonus hp, malus to AC? Or a piety cost to limit its use?

Anyway, yes, I would keep the background for the new players (as a less frustrating way to make it through the first floors) and because it is straightforward but also mechanically doesn't resemble anything else you can start with from a playing perspective. It does need a nerf, however.

Shtopit wrote:Trog has a LOT of abilities. Something which could be done is adding exhaustion or a similar effect to brother in arms, so that you can't have more than one or two allies at the same time. A more radical approach would be having to give up evocation as a part of magic.

This would make Trog characters even more simple and boring. You literally would train nothing but fighting/weapon/armor/dodging.

I'm more in favor of making Trog abilities actually care about invocations.

What newbies like about Trog will not be the same as what veterans like about Trog. We will just have to disagree on whether it's good to give beginners an I WIN button for the early floors - they've got plenty to learn (starting with the UI), giving them some easy good-feels helps them stick around while learning everything else.

If Berserk was all Trog gave, he wouldn't be OP. It's his gifts, BiA spam and "skill-less invocations" that makes him OP, i.e. things a newbie won't notice while chain-splatting new characters.

Berserker should be removed because it misleads players into thinking spells are weak.

Well I think we can agree that Trog's abilties should depend on invocations. At least that way you have to spend some experience to use them.

As a relatively new player, let me give you a quick feedback on Berserker. As any new player, I read some guides on how Berserker where the easiest background.

At the very beginning, I tried to win with a MiBe multiple times but I could not. Now that have a bit more experience, I can see why. Going Berserk or using a BiA is a great and cheap panic button, but the issue is that as a new player you don't really know when to use it. In some case I overused it at the wrong time, got beaten to death while slow, in some other I did not. (I remember the first time I reached Lair I got 2 shot by a komodo dragon, I might have been unlucky but it was a sobering experience)

I really don't like the fact that if you fail to overcome your foe, by being slowed, you are in a worst position to escape (at least in the early dungeon)

The other issue, in my opinion, is that by ignoring totally spell book and not being able to read them, you have a very fuzzy idea of what spells can or can not do. And this is kinda frustrating.

For what it worth my first character that went somewhere (reached Zot:5) was a GrEE. (But going killed multiple time in early dungeon with a MiBe probably helped)

If I had to give an advice today, I would probably recommend a MiFi of Okawaru. (Finesse and heroism have less "downside" that going berserk, you can not really go wrong even if less powerful)

that's how everyone feels at first, and then they realize they can berserk on stairs

seren wrote:ignoring totally spell book and not being able to read them, you have a very fuzzy idea of what spells can or can not do. And this is kinda frustrating.

Two things:
1) being able to use spell books as "conjure flame" consumables is a useful ability on rare occasion. In fact, it's more useful than "conjure flame" itself as you can make the cloud on top of an enemy.

2) dabbling in spells before you're ready to go hybrid is a strategic mistake that kills. Trog protects you from being fatally distracted by bad EXP decisions.

I may be weird but I think Trog and the Be background are okay as they are. Gods and backgrounds don't need to be balanced against each other, and it's perhaps nice to have a background that is effectively a difficulty setting without changing any mechanics or numbers.

Causing Trog's powers to use invo is not actually, I think, a straight nerf. As the success rates and power of the abilities depend on piety, it means your third brother is harder to use (and likely weaker) than the first one. If you could train Invo to make that not true (and it's not like Be is lacking for experience) you could get a top-tier bro with the minimal piety to activate the ability.

But it denies people the important part of the game where you pick up a god while playing! Or, to put it another way, any reason to have BE is a reason to have Pr, or DK, and yet those things are removed, so by the exact same logic, BE should be removed.

I think more backgrounds with various kits, including with all the different gods, would be a good thing, but the devs obviously don't feel that way, so having BE available doesn't really mesh with their other recent actions.

Well, yeah. If you take take zealot removals to the purely logical conclusion, you should remove Be and AK* and CK. What I'm saying is "I think the benefits of having a zealot start that is not Xom outweighs the purity of not having any." I think that having a bunch of zealot starts would be worse than the status quo (I agree with removing... what, DK, CK^Mak, Pr, He, Pa, probably others), but I think having none would also be bad.

* I do think the game might be better if Lugonu got the same sort of treatment as Beogh -- say, an abyss portal that spawns at altar depths giving access to a very nearby Lucy altar. But that's a topic for another thread...

njvack wrote:I may be weird but I think Trog and the Be background are okay as they are. Gods and backgrounds don't need to be balanced against each other, and it's perhaps nice to have a background that is effectively a difficulty setting without changing any mechanics or numbers.

Causing Trog's powers to use invo is not actually, I think, a straight nerf. As the success rates and power of the abilities depend on piety, it means your third brother is harder to use (and likely weaker) than the first one. If you could train Invo to make that not true (and it's not like Be is lacking for experience) you could get a top-tier bro with the minimal piety to activate the ability.

No, you're not weird here. I agree with you completely.
I don't see any reason why gods and backgrounds should be balanced against each other, and frankly I think trying to do so would be close to insanity, just because it really is so objective.
I tend to look at them more along the lines of difficulty settings, more than whether or not they're "OP", as well. It's for this reason that I think Berserker should stay as a background. If you're going to have an "easy" difficulty setting, you have to start somewhere, and Trog is a great place due to simplicity of design. The other zealot backgrounds can't really make that same claim. (Yes, technically Xom is "simple" but there is a lot more thinking involved with Xom when you literally don't know if you'll find yourself in the middle of a pack of 8 headed hydras next turn...)

Furthermore, I think putting Trog's powers in Invo would actually be a buff, not a nerf at all. Getting invo relatively high (and when you're not concerned with training spell schools, you've more XP leeway to work with), wouldn't bee too much trouble. It would make spamming BiA a lot easier, with less concern for the potential failure.

dowan wrote:But it denies people the important part of the game where you pick up a god while playing! Or, to put it another way, any reason to have BE is a reason to have Pr, or DK, and yet those things are removed, so by the exact same logic, BE should be removed.

I think more backgrounds with various kits, including with all the different gods, would be a good thing, but the devs obviously don't feel that way, so having BE available doesn't really mesh with their other recent actions.

Trog would be much worse as a "difficulty setting" for new players if worshiping him required that they survive to Temple.

berserkers are good for new players and such so they can get a grip of the game. come on dont make this game so hostile to new players

njvack wrote:I may be weird but I think Trog and the Be background are okay as they are. Gods and backgrounds don't need to be balanced against each other, and it's perhaps nice to have a background that is effectively a difficulty setting without changing any mechanics or numbers.

Causing Trog's powers to use invo is not actually, I think, a straight nerf. As the success rates and power of the abilities depend on piety, it means your third brother is harder to use (and likely weaker) than the first one. If you could train Invo to make that not true (and it's not like Be is lacking for experience) you could get a top-tier bro with the minimal piety to activate the ability.

Why make any balance adjustments at all, then? I realize this is no competitive player-versus-player game but if the only real reason not to use a (overpowered) background/god/item/whatever is to deliberately ban yourself from using them even if the game hands them to you "because I'm tired of easy wins", something doesn't fly well with me. And yes I'm being hyperbolic. I think even a single-player game needs at least somewhat balanced options, otherwise why not use the invincible guy with the infinity plus one sword every game.

And the reason to pick something else should be "I want to try something new", which may be stronger or weaker inherently, that is fine, but it should not be "I shoot myself in the foot" unless it is crystal clear it was intended as a "challenge race" or whatever. I have the strange feeling we had this before...

Regarding bros in arms, I think there is any number of options to make it less spammable, whether or not it uses invocations, some already mentionned in this thread - personally I'd keep it simple and just go with a steep piety price and limit how many you can have out at once.

BiA has a steep piety cost, and its success/power depends on piety, you actually do get diminishing returns kind of quickly if you spam it. I think it is fairly well balanced; if anything the problem is that you get piety like crazy with Trog later on, as spell-casting enemies become extremely common. (You also get a big boost in the Orcish Mines thanks to the high density of wizard orcs and vanilla orcs which are popcorn to a berserker by that point.) But before that, in my experience, you do have to be a bit thoughtful about when and how often to call in a brother.

I agree with other posters who pointed out that making BiA dependent upon invocations for success and power would be a significant buff.

removeelyvilon wrote: Why make any balance adjustments at all, then?

In terms of why Be is allowed to fly, I think the reasoning is, it gives an option that is newb-friendly in two distinct but important respects: a strong ability that can make up for poor positioning in the early game, and a path that is very narrow/focused strategically so you don't have to fret with skills, spells, etc.

Because there is already one background like this, Crawl doesn't need others that specifically fill that niche.

Anyway, because strength of Trog was brought up as a related matter, I would say that Berserker is a very strong background, arguably overpowered, but it does not follow that Trog is overpowered. I would say he is very strong, but roughly in line with other strong gods. There just isn't a background that starts off with, e.g., Fedhas...

How about no? The whole point of it is to be an overpowered easy mode and/or a speedrun start. If you want a challenge, play Arcane Marksman.

FR:

- Trog piety does not decreases over time.
- Trog grants piety only for killing spell casters and burning books (piety gain could be adjusted a bit for that).

genericpseudonym wrote:
dowan wrote:But it denies people the important part of the game where you pick up a god while playing! Or, to put it another way, any reason to have BE is a reason to have Pr, or DK, and yet those things are removed, so by the exact same logic, BE should be removed.

I think more backgrounds with various kits, including with all the different gods, would be a good thing, but the devs obviously don't feel that way, so having BE available doesn't really mesh with their other recent actions.

Trog would be much worse as a "difficulty setting" for new players if worshiping him required that they survive to Temple.

What about Death Knights as a "difficulty setting"? If BE is very easy mode, then DK was easy mode, and also let you play baby's first necromancer, and let you actually try out spells.
What about easy mode for mages? Starting with 2* of sif piety and a decent book would be nice to introduce people to play with magic, something BEs completely leave out.
Also, it would be awesome to have a slime knight background, starting with jiyva, as that's as hard as worshipping lugonu...

I actually think it makes great sense to have BE, but by that same logic removing DK made no sense. This topic is asking for consistency, if zealot = bad then BE = bad, if zealot != bad then why were all those zealots removed? It wasn't specific complaints about the backgrounds themselves, it was the fact that they start with a god.

dowan wrote:I actually think it makes great sense to have BE

It doesnt, though. You could just remove all zealots backgrounds and the next viable background would receive the "easy mode" title. It would just be more balanced then.

dowan wrote:This topic is asking for consistency, if zealot = bad then BE = bad, if zealot != bad then why were all those zealots removed?

Because having too many zealots = bad.

dynast wrote:
dowan wrote:I actually think it makes great sense to have BE

It doesnt, though. You could just remove all zealots backgrounds and the next viable background would receive the "easy mode" title. It would just be more balanced then.
dowan wrote:This topic is asking for consistency, if zealot = bad then BE = bad, if zealot != bad then why were all those zealots removed?

Because having too many zealots = bad.

That may be true, but that's not the reason the devs keep giving. I suppose I agree that having 27 more backgrounds just to have a zealot for each god (maybe more than one for some gods) gets pretty ridiculous.

dowan: That's very much the reason we gave. We consider the diety system of the game to be more interesting if you don't start with a god (which makes looking for the temple, and overflow altars, all pointless). This is why god backgrounds have been cut one by one. The three that remain were left on purpose (and are also contested but that's where we are right now).

dpeg wrote:dowan: That's very much the reason we gave. We consider the diety system of the game to be more interesting if you don't start with a god (which makes looking for the temple, and overflow altars, all pointless). This is why god backgrounds have been cut one by one. The three that remain were left on purpose (and are also contested but that's where we are right now).

That's dowan's entire point. Why are these three left in on purpose when starting with a god is bad?

duvessa wrote:That's dowan's entire point. Why are these three left in on purpose when starting with a god is bad?

dpeg wrote:The three that remain were left on purpose (and are also contested but that's where we are right now).

Emphasis mine. It's contested, duvessa. Some devs are on your very principled side, whereas other devs think those backgrounds have particular merit, probably for the reasons already seen in this thread. e: which is to say that the devs don't have consensus, and nobody cares enough about removing these backgrounds to try to forge one, and at this point I should add I'm explaining this more to anyone else still reading this thread because I have to imagine duvessa asked this question rhetorically or something.

I for one like the zealots we have. AK offers a cute starting map and access to a non-temple god, Be is easy mode, and CK is hard mode. I find them to be fun, and I find it hard to imagine why they impact other players' fun except insofar as they add to the mental clutter of being a thing in the game.

archaeo: Excellently summed up, many thanks!

Guess I should have used a colon instead of a period.

So... I guess what this thread is really saying is... we should think up more zealot backgrounds with interesting enough reasons to exist. Fair enough!

I say implement the slime knight! Starts with jiyva, neutral stats, a melee weapon of choice, and a terror of the word "slurp".

Also, the AK starting in a fake abyss really adds nothing whatsoever except a fake choice, or a small chance at bad luck and less starting piety than usual. It would be just as good without starting in the fake abyss.

dowan wrote:So... I guess what this thread is really saying is... we should think up more zealot backgrounds with interesting enough reasons to exist. Fair enough!

I say implement the slime knight! Starts with jiyva, neutral stats, a melee weapon of choice, and a terror of the word "slurp".

Also, the AK starting in a fake abyss really adds nothing whatsoever except a fake choice, or a small chance at bad luck and less starting piety than usual. It would be just as good without starting in the fake abyss.

But flaaaavour... Also, it gives very, very new players a chance to feel the Abyss, which the probably would need to reach the Elven Halls to visit.

I find the Jivvy idea fun, I never got why it is so difficult to worship her. It's not like she is game-breaking.

I don't think it's obvious that a zealot is bad in the first place.

In practice, when you load up a character, you tend to either have a particular god in mind, or don't much care what god you choose, or are playing a character so bad that god choice is of the utmost importance, by which I mean you are going Trog or Fedhas. If you want to preserve the altar-search experience, just pick a background that dosen't start with a god. A zealot should at least offer something substantially different than atheism on the early floors while not having awkward interactions with other parts of the early game (see: Jiyva), and shouldn't overlap with other backgrounds too much. This pretty much narrows your set of gods down to:

Trog - Berserk
One of Fedhas, Hep - Ally
Chei - Movespeed
Sif - casting ability
One of Nemelex, Makhleb, Qazlal - ranged damage via destruction, cards, and so on
Xom - Xom

To me it's not even clear why Lugonu isn't a temple god.

What do you mean by ak starting in fake abyss?

The abyss you start in as an AK has special rules that don't exist in the abyss you get sent to at any other point, I think to prevent you from getting a better item than would normally be available on D1. The idea that you get to explore the abyss as an AK is especially silly, because there's nothing to explore in the abyss anyway. And even if you could, all you're going to experience is a quick death, because you're level 1!

Jiyva would certainly cause some issues early game, just like any other point in the game. That's... sort of the point.

Lugonu is not temple because FLAVOUR

Shtopit wrote:Also, it gives very, very new players a chance to feel the Abyss

But it doesn't. That's the problem. AK begins in a heavily modified Abyss that differs from the real Abyss in several important ways, and if your post is any indication, apparently it fools a lot of players into thinking it's like the standard Abyss, even though it isn't. Which in turn fuels myths about Abyss item/monster generation among unspoiled players.

Why is that desirable, anyway? Offhand it seems fine to me if some areas of the game have to be "unlocked" by becoming good enough to get there. We don't think that new players should get a chance to feel Pan, Vaults, or Zot before getting there the hard way.

Also, I wonder how many new players actually experience the abyss for the first time this way. --AK isn't really what gets recommended to newer players. I am sure I experienced the abyss by getting abyssed well before experiencing it as AK. You don't have to get very far in the game to encounter Sonja, Psyche, wizards, etc.

duvessa wrote:
Shtopit wrote:Also, it gives very, very new players a chance to feel the Abyss
But it doesn't. That's the problem. AK begins in a heavily modified Abyss that differs from the real Abyss in several important ways, and if your post is any indication, apparently it fools a lot of players into thinking it's like the standard Abyss, even though it isn't. Which in turn fuels myths about Abyss item/monster generation among unspoiled players.

I was talking about general layout and map rot.

For a new player, the advantage of AK start, compared to being banished in there, is that you can move around a bit with relative safety, as you can just leave if things go wrong. It also adds a starting game decision which isn't a no brainer: use up some piety and zap out, or look for a portal? (BTW, in my last games there always was a portal nearby, but I don't know if that was blind luck or programmed. I don't remember it happening like that in earlier versions).

My main problem with Zealots are the mean stats in everything, anyway.

That's another odd thing about the AK abyss, a nearby portal is guaranteed. And I think it's pretty well set up that taking that portal is the only sensible thing to do.

My reasons for AK and Lugonu: For flavour reasons, Lugonu will not be a temple deity. AK is a background that allows players to get an idea of how the Abyss works, for example, after being banished and having no clue what went on. It is true that the starting Abyss has some changes, but (1) you get to see the terrain changes, (2) you see that exits exist, (3) later on you can safely enter the Abyss (and leave it again).

Apart from Pandemonium, a completely optional area, Abyss is the only place you cannot leave right away. All other areas you can methodically explore. Hence AK.

I got banished a lot when i started playing the game(mainly by crazy yiuf) and, though i couldnt understand what was happening around me, one thing i knew: i was screwed. I dont think you need a specific background to introduce players to anything(like jiyva and mutations), though its cute to have one.

Trog doesn't need to be powerful to be newbie-friendly. Imagine a permanently berserk species with no special abilities, and imagine that veterans consider it a medium-strength species. This race would be very recommendable to beginners, because of its focus, but it does not need to be easy mode.

I sometimes want an easy early game but I'm tired of Trog. Is this what you want, to have people play more Trog? I don't see why it's great to give players an "easy" option on the condition that they abide with restricting themselves to 4% of the pantheon.

As far as I can see, the main issue or quirk with having Lugonu be a temple god is that it changes the meaning of wielding a weapon of distortion, especially if you haven't joined a non-Xom god yet. It gives a sure way of avoiding the unwield effect, if only you go Lucy.

BTW, by what rationale is a Fedhas altar allowed to spawn before Lair in more than 10% of games?

HardboiledGargoyle wrote:Trog doesn't need to be powerful to be newbie-friendly. Imagine a permanently berserk species with no special abilities, and imagine that veterans consider it a medium-strength species. This race would be very recommendable to beginners, because of its focus, but it does not need to be easy mode.

Like Tr or Mi?

HardboiledGargoyle wrote:I sometimes want an easy early game but I'm tired of Trog. Is this what you want, to have people play more Trog? I don't see why it's great to give players an "easy" option on the condition that they abide with restricting themselves to 4% of the pantheon.

How does removing Be gives you more alternatives for easy early games? There are plenty of alternatives out there already. Im not sure if you want the other alternatives to be as good as Be, or if you just expect the game to be easier after getting rid of Be.

HardboiledGargoyle wrote:As far as I can see, the main issue or quirk with having Lugonu be a temple god is that it changes the meaning of wielding a weapon of distortion, especially if you haven't joined a non-Xom god yet. It gives a sure way of avoiding the unwield effect, if only you go Lucy.

I personally dont consider that a issue, based on how rare and unlikely the scenario where the player accidentaly wielded a distortion weapon is. But carrying a identified disto weapon on inventory(that you took off a enemy) creates the possibility of the player worshipping lugonu, one that he did not start the game with and it would be interesting if lugonu was a temple god then(instead of having the player self banish and risk dying).

HardboiledGargoyle wrote:BTW, by what rationale is a Fedhas altar allowed to spawn before Lair in more than 10% of games?

I dont even know what you mean, or where you want to get with that, please elaborate.

I'm pretty sure I'm the biggest anti-zealot zealot on the dev team, and I removed all the zealots that I felt I could. Personally, I'd happy remove berserkers, but I understand why others (including other devs) want them to stay.

I confess I have a bit of a soft spot in my heart for abyss knights (the truncated introduction to abyss mechanics, as others have suggested), but if they were removed I would be fine with simply increasing the number of Abyssal overflow vaults. I like chaos knights only for metagame reasons: they allow tournament organizers access to harder challenge conditions. I could get behind removing them too. In both cases, I believe the team consensus is in favor of keeping them, so I don't think they'll be leaving any time soon.

The important thing to recognize here is that the dev team is a collection of individuals with personal (but mostly overlapping) visions for the game. We each do what we can to make the game better as we see it, while using one another as guideposts to try to stay within a rough consensus area. As a result, we rarely make a dramatic shift in any direction all at once. So maybe the dev consensus will drift towards fewer zealots, or maybe it will drift towards more, but whichever direction we end up going in, we're unlikely to do it overnight.

The Tavern

Remove Berserker Background

Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background

Re: Remove Berserker Background