Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic


Although the central place for design discussion is ##crawl-dev on freenode, some may find it helpful to discuss requests and suggestions here first.

Tomb Titivator

Posts: 885

Joined: Sunday, 28th June 2015, 14:44

Post Tuesday, 4th October 2016, 18:13

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

You can reduce the effect of the spamminess by making the spell give a status that constantly drains your mp until you cancel the effect. This would let charms function like in the OP without the recasting.

Crypt Cleanser

Posts: 714

Joined: Saturday, 5th December 2015, 06:56

Post Tuesday, 4th October 2016, 18:15

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

Siegurt wrote:I suggested a long time ago that we revamp charms into spells that are only useful to cast in combat, (by actual having effects that are only useful when critters are around to fight, rather than by spending shortening the duration)

And mostly there was no response at all.

Here are some examples:

Shroud of golubria: when you move, the spell ends

Rmsl: i still think this would be more fun as the previous "wind wall" proposal, pretty much you spawn clouds in your los that have a chance to deflect missiles (and of course they disappear when they leave your los, like all clouds)

Spectral weapon: I would just have the summoned weapon not move at all, it should also be dismissable in case you summon it somewhere annoying, since you wouldn't be able to swap with it.


Of course this only solves the "it is tedious and optimal to cast these spells when you are out of combat, just in case" problem, it doesn't change the no brainer-ness of them (that the investment is nearly always worth it for low level charms at least at some point)

Probably to solve that, the effects of low level spells would need to be very low or nonexistent against higher level critters. (for example critters could get a hd-based chance of bypassing SoG)

Also, I personally think charms are better when they are powerful, but apply to less situations. More situationally useful charms that you would cast only in some circumstances would mean you wouldn't drop your entire list of memorized spells on every combat, but rather make a hopefully intelligent choice about what would be useful.

Anyway doing all of that is more work, but imho way more worthwhile than removing charms outright.


This all does sound really good, but the chief problem i see is that it is REALLY hard to design a spell that isn't still gameable without prohibitively short durations.

For example, non-moving shroud ... it's still optimal to back off when you see an enemy, shout from out of range, activate shroud along with all other relevant buffs, and lure enemy into melee range (utilizing corners if the enemy is ranged). This didn't solve the problem of out-of-combat tedium, it actually exacerbated it, assuming a player who is dedicated enough to fully abuse your spell mechanic.

Same thing applies to non-moving spectral weapon... shout or whatever to grab enemy attention, retreat behind a wall, cast in a spot adjacent to you, wait for enemy to fall into trap.

For 'wall of wind' - this spell achieves exactly the same thing as rMsl (preventing some missiles from hitting you), just on a timer. Same problem remains - the winning move is always to activate the spell pre-fight, and that means prior to almost any fight.

Conversely, with extremely short durations, there really just is no conceivable way a player can bring buffs forward into a fight using pre-fight preparations. Which means that such preparation gets eliminated.

I'm not saying it would be impossible to design Charms spells to prohibit pre-fight set up without these short durations... but at the moment, I'm not seeing how it can be done in a way that isn't highly convoluted. Perhaps if you could come up with a bulletproof example. I see loopholes in all the ones you listed thusfar.

I definitely agree with you about it being better to use Charms situationally instead of them always being optimal - that's half the reason I like this solution, because with short durations you can only pick 1, perhaps 2 at max, charms to have active at once - any more than that is a waste of turns/MP. This means you have to choose carefully.

In the end, I feel there is room to merge our two approaches. For example, if your spectral weapon doesn't move AND lasts only 4 turns, casting it before being in melee range of an enemy is inefficient. At best, you have time to prep your spectral weapon, and no other Charms, limiting the amount of prep work that can be done. And i'm sure there are situations where you'd rather have a high chance of reflecting missiles, or a few turns of running speed, or whatever the case may be, depending on the positioning, monster set, terrain, etc. in a given fight. The more situational the spells, the less likely players will simply be driven to "shroud, tab tab tab, shroud, tab tab tab".

So the end goal should be spells that are situational, short duration, and powerful enough to justify the former two caveats.
Last edited by lethediver on Tuesday, 4th October 2016, 18:20, edited 1 time in total.

For this message the author lethediver has received thanks:
VeryAngryFelid

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 6432

Joined: Tuesday, 30th October 2012, 19:06

Post Tuesday, 4th October 2016, 18:17

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

Lasty wrote:much like Siegurt's proposal for wall of wind.

Not my proposal originally, i just liked it. ;)
Spoiler: show
This high quality signature has been hidden for your protection. To unlock it's secret, send 3 easy payments of $9.99 to me, by way of your nearest theta band or ley line. Complete your transmission by midnight tonight for a special free gift!
User avatar

Barkeep

Posts: 1788

Joined: Saturday, 29th June 2013, 16:52

Post Tuesday, 4th October 2016, 18:17

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

VeryAngryFelid wrote:Edit. If we can have just a single charms spell active, we can add more decisions/spells: have higher damage, higher AC, higher EV, higher HP, RMsl etc.

If the goal is to just allow players to have one charm active at a time, why isn't that the point of the reform on its own? Why should they be spells at that point? What makes it interesting for them to be spells instead of items?

ydeve wrote:You can reduce the effect of the spamminess by making the spell give a status that constantly drains your mp until you cancel the effect. This would let charms function like in the OP without the recasting.

This just brings us back to toggleable charms, and either that mp drain is slow enough that it'd just be like current charms except you have to do more resting after the fight is over to regen MP, or it's so fast that charms are just for the first few turns of a fight and therefore are too annoying to bother learning. Maybe there's a middle ground in there where it's fun, but I'm not sure where it is.

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 6432

Joined: Tuesday, 30th October 2012, 19:06

Post Tuesday, 4th October 2016, 18:20

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

Incidentally, a lot of this ground has been covered before, see also: viewtopic.php?t=13844
viewtopic.php?t=12609
Last edited by Siegurt on Tuesday, 4th October 2016, 18:23, edited 1 time in total.
Spoiler: show
This high quality signature has been hidden for your protection. To unlock it's secret, send 3 easy payments of $9.99 to me, by way of your nearest theta band or ley line. Complete your transmission by midnight tonight for a special free gift!

For this message the author Siegurt has received thanks: 3
archaeo, Brannock, Lasty

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 4426

Joined: Friday, 8th May 2015, 17:51

Post Tuesday, 4th October 2016, 18:22

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

archaeo wrote:If the goal is to just allow players to have one charm active at a time, why isn't that the point of the reform on its own? Why should they be spells at that point? What makes it interesting for them to be spells instead of items?


Decisions:
1) Should I cast ANY buff before fight?
2) Which buff should I cast?
3) Should I cast a buff after current one expires during fight and which one?
4) Should I spend XP to be able to use those buffs?

Also items are bad because they can be used in heavy armour and take inventory slots. I don't want to replace boots of RMsl with boots of Spectral Weapon before opening a door.
Underestimated: cleaving, Deep Elf, Formicid, Vehumet, EV
Overestimated: AC, GDS
Twin account of Sandman25

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 6432

Joined: Tuesday, 30th October 2012, 19:06

Post Tuesday, 4th October 2016, 18:33

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

lethediver wrote:
Siegurt wrote:I suggested a long time ago that we revamp charms into spells that are only useful to cast in combat, (by actual having effects that are only useful when critters are around to fight, rather than by spending shortening the duration)

And mostly there was no response at all.

Here are some examples:

Shroud of golubria: when you move, the spell ends

Rmsl: i still think this would be more fun as the previous "wind wall" proposal, pretty much you spawn clouds in your los that have a chance to deflect missiles (and of course they disappear when they leave your los, like all clouds)

Spectral weapon: I would just have the summoned weapon not move at all, it should also be dismissable in case you summon it somewhere annoying, since you wouldn't be able to swap with it.


Of course this only solves the "it is tedious and optimal to cast these spells when you are out of combat, just in case" problem, it doesn't change the no brainer-ness of them (that the investment is nearly always worth it for low level charms at least at some point)

Probably to solve that, the effects of low level spells would need to be very low or nonexistent against higher level critters. (for example critters could get a hd-based chance of bypassing SoG)

Also, I personally think charms are better when they are powerful, but apply to less situations. More situationally useful charms that you would cast only in some circumstances would mean you wouldn't drop your entire list of memorized spells on every combat, but rather make a hopefully intelligent choice about what would be useful.

Anyway doing all of that is more work, but imho way more worthwhile than removing charms outright.


This all does sound really good, but the chief problem i see is that it is REALLY hard to design a spell that isn't still gameable without prohibitively short durations.

For example, non-moving shroud ... it's still optimal to back off when you see an enemy, shout from out of range, activate shroud along with all other relevant buffs, and lure enemy into melee range (utilizing corners if the enemy is ranged). This didn't solve the problem of out-of-combat tedium, it actually exacerbated it, assuming a player who is dedicated enough to fully abuse your spell mechanic.

Same thing applies to non-moving spectral weapon... shout or whatever to grab enemy attention, retreat behind a wall, cast in a spot adjacent to you, wait for enemy to fall into trap.

For 'wall of wind' - this spell achieves exactly the same thing as rMsl (preventing some missiles from hitting you), just on a timer. Same problem remains - the winning move is always to activate the spell pre-fight, and that means prior to almost any fight.

Conversely, with extremely short durations, there really just is no conceivable way a player can bring buffs forward into a fight using pre-fight preparations. Which means that such preparation gets eliminated.

I'm not saying it would be impossible to design Charms spells to prohibit pre-fight set up without these short durations... but at the moment, I'm not seeing how it can be done in a way that isn't highly convoluted. Perhaps if you could come up with a bulletproof example. I see loopholes in all the ones you listed thusfar.

I definitely agree with you about it being better to use Charms situationally instead of them always being optimal - that's half the reason I like this solution, because with short durations you can only pick 1, perhaps 2 at max, charms to have active at once - any more than that is a waste of turns/MP. This means you have to choose carefully.

In the end, I feel there is room to merge our two approaches. For example, if your spectral weapon doesn't move AND lasts only 4 turns, casting it before being in melee range of an enemy is inefficient. At best, you have time to prep your spectral weapon, and no other Charms, limiting the amount of prep work that can be done. And i'm sure there are situations where you'd rather have a high chance of reflecting missiles, or a few turns of running speed, or whatever the case may be, depending on the positioning, monster set, terrain, etc. in a given fight. The more situational the spells, the less likely players will simply be driven to "shroud, tab tab tab, shroud, tab tab tab".

So the end goal should be spells that are situational, short duration, and powerful enough to justify the former two caveats.


You misunderstand the problem I am trying to solve, i think it is a *good* (or at least charms neutral) thing if you discover critters, back off and fight them in a way that is to your advantage, this is true whether charms are involved or not, if you back off and shout around a corner then pelt things with conjurations instead of buffing yourself with charms as they approach, is that any better?

The problem i am proposing to solve is that it is technically optimal to cast all your charms and have them up at all times while exploring or even traveling, on the off chance you should stumble across something that wants to fight you.

That is a whole additional *level* of tediousness.

Sure super short durations also eliminate pre-buffing, but they also make you do a whole lot more in-combat buffing, i would argue that from a strictly tedium perspective, it is at best a wash.
Last edited by Siegurt on Tuesday, 4th October 2016, 18:34, edited 1 time in total.
Spoiler: show
This high quality signature has been hidden for your protection. To unlock it's secret, send 3 easy payments of $9.99 to me, by way of your nearest theta band or ley line. Complete your transmission by midnight tonight for a special free gift!

Crypt Cleanser

Posts: 714

Joined: Saturday, 5th December 2015, 06:56

Post Tuesday, 4th October 2016, 18:34

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

archaeo wrote:If the goal is to just allow players to have one charm active at a time, why isn't that the point of the reform on its own? Why should they be spells at that point? What makes it interesting for them to be spells instead of items?


It wasn't my goal, but it is an unavoidable consequence of short duration Charms that you can only really get the benefit of one or two at any given time. I guess fortunately for me, it's a side effect I rather like, in the wake of the bad old days of having 4-5 charms spells active (dMsl, stoneskin, phase shift, haste, warp weapon/e wounds, regen, etc etc) in any serious fight. At some point being able to cast all your charms at once just feels like "ok... well why SHOULDN'T i have all these active... guess there's nothing stopping me really..." and you don't really think about which ones to cast, because there's no real downside to casting most of them, especially given that you can do so prior to the fight.

If anything, it's the current system that overlaps with items. Items allow you to quaff might, agi, invis, haste, lignification, berserk, and whatever else you want, all at the same time, and charms allows you to have whatever charms you want up at the same time. Also, the more interesting (though underused) charms effects like spectral weapon, song of slaying, ring of flames are interesting in and of themselves.
User avatar

Barkeep

Posts: 1788

Joined: Saturday, 29th June 2013, 16:52

Post Tuesday, 4th October 2016, 18:41

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

VeryAngryFelid wrote:Decisions:
1) Should I cast ANY buff before fight?
2) Which buff should I cast?
3) Should I cast a buff after current one expires during fight and which one?
4) Should I spend XP to be able to use those buffs?

The only one of these decisions specific to spellcasting is the skills question, and I personally find that strategic decision to be the least interesting by far. It's very rarely an actual decision the player makes, because there is only a single correct choice in most circumstances and the player has made that choice long before it becomes necessary to make a decision about whether or not to learn buffs. Either you're wearing heavy armour, in which case you're better off waiting to learn buffs until extended, or you're wearing light armour, in which case you should start learning buffs whenever they become available. None of this seems so compelling as to encourage us to keep buffs as spells.

Also items are bad because they can be used in heavy armour and take inventory slots. I don't want to replace boots of RMsl with boots of Spectral Weapon before opening a door.

The heavy armour objection is pointless; there aren't any buff spells that are better than equipment/consumables that already exist. Likewise, we have plenty of existing mechanics that discourage tactical swapping in most equipment slots, and there's no reason we can't come up with more, whereas figurng out this kind of thing for spells is going to be real dicey.

Crypt Cleanser

Posts: 714

Joined: Saturday, 5th December 2015, 06:56

Post Tuesday, 4th October 2016, 18:49

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

Siegurt wrote:You misunderstand the problem I am trying to solve, i think it is a *good* (or at least charms neutral) thing if you discover critters, back off and fight them in a way that is to your advantage, this is true whether charms are involved or not, if you back off and shout around a corner then pelt things with conjurations instead of buffing yourself with charms as they approach, is that any better?


Gonna disagree here - I think it's absolutely more tedious to make sure you have as many Charms as possible up, carefully checking and recasting the specific one that failed after any spell failure, while a monster bears down on you... rather than simply mashing your magic missile/stone arrow/iron shot hotkey 5 times as a monster bears down on you. And I'm gonna posit that most people agree. Why? Because there are many complaints here about possibly having to cast charms multiple times in battle, but no one chimes in with "but you already have to cast conjurations multiple times in a given battle, so isn't this pretty much the same thing?"

That tells me that players do find activation and monitoring of charms, each with their individual timers, more tedious to manage than simply shooting at stuff. Perhaps due to the cognitive load of having to pay attention to each charm's duration, or the need to cast the specific one that failed in the event of any spell failure, or the fact that charms are somewhat more complex with how they interact with a given battle scenario than direct damage spells... not sure, but whatever the case, players sure don't mind casting conjurations the way they mind casting charms.


Siegurt wrote:The problem i am proposing to solve is that it is technically optimal to cast all your charms and have them up at all times while exploring or even traveling, on the off chance you should stumble across something that wants to fight you.

That is a whole additional *level* of tediousness.


Agreed. I do want to point out that ultra-short duration Charms solves that problem as well though.

For this message the author lethediver has received thanks: 3
Brannock, Hurkyl, VeryAngryFelid

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 4426

Joined: Friday, 8th May 2015, 17:51

Post Tuesday, 4th October 2016, 18:54

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

archaeo wrote:
VeryAngryFelid wrote:Decisions:
1) Should I cast ANY buff before fight?
2) Which buff should I cast?
3) Should I cast a buff after current one expires during fight and which one?
4) Should I spend XP to be able to use those buffs?

The only one of these decisions specific to spellcasting is the skills question, and I personally find that strategic decision to be the least interesting by far. It's very rarely an actual decision the player makes, because there is only a single correct choice in most circumstances and the player has made that choice long before it becomes necessary to make a decision about whether or not to learn buffs. Either you're wearing heavy armour, in which case you're better off waiting to learn buffs until extended, or you're wearing light armour, in which case you should start learning buffs whenever they become available. None of this seems so compelling as to encourage us to keep buffs as spells.


I was assuming that character can have many buff spells and only a few buff items:
  Code:
 Your Spells              Type           Power        Failure   Level  Hunger
g - Regeneration          Chrm/Necr      ######....   1%          3    None
h - Death Channel         Necr           ######....   2%          6    ##.....
i - Song of Slaying       Chrm           #####...     1%          2    None
r - Repel Missiles        Chrm/Air       ######       1%          2    None
M - Swiftness             Chrm/Air       ######..     1%          2    None
O - Invisibility          Hex            ######..     2%          6    ##.....
S - Silence               Hex/Air        ######....   1%          5    None


People don't start training for Haste or Deflect Missiles as soon as they are available even in light armour. Some low level buff spells are OP and should be moved higher.

The heavy armour objection is pointless; there aren't any buff spells that are better than equipment/consumables that already exist.


Consumables are fine, they are spent. Even then I don't know any equipment/consumable that can almost double melee output or give +18 slaying.

Likewise, we have plenty of existing mechanics that discourage tactical swapping in most equipment slots, and there's no reason we can't come up with more, whereas figurng out this kind of thing for spells is going to be real dicey.


I have mixed feelings about it. I like specialized characters (if you have Spectral Weapon, you cannot have Regeneration), yet I like decisions (do I want Spectral Weapon or Regeneration for this fight).
Underestimated: cleaving, Deep Elf, Formicid, Vehumet, EV
Overestimated: AC, GDS
Twin account of Sandman25
User avatar

Barkeep

Posts: 1788

Joined: Saturday, 29th June 2013, 16:52

Post Tuesday, 4th October 2016, 18:59

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

lethediver, I completely agree w/r/t the annoyance of having to cast a half-dozen buffs before any midgame fight starts, but I'm not sure how that's meaningfully changed by making it so I can only cast one or two buffs, but I have to cast them several times a fight. If fights turn into something like "tab tab buff, tab tab tab buff, tab tab buff," I can't say it would be any more fun than the status quo.

In other words, while this definitely solves the "keep this buff up all the time" problem, it doesn't solve the button-mashing-tedium problem or the boring-numerical-advantage-spell problem, or a bunch of other things that Siegurt's linked threads point out.

(Shorter duration would solve most of the problems with summons and necromancy, however, imo)

e:
VeryAngryFelid wrote:Consumables are fine, they are spent. Even then I don't know any equipment/consumable that can almost double melee output or give +18 slaying.

Amulet of Rage? Amulet of Faith + a good god? Either way, assuming that you're talking about Spectral Weapon (you are, right?), there's an argument to be made that it should be part of a god instead of a spell or a piece of equipment; I think "Amulet of Spectral Weapon" would still usually be worse than Rage or Faith, but Hepblahblahblah is already basically a Spectral Weapon god.

Dungeon Master

Posts: 3160

Joined: Sunday, 5th August 2012, 14:52

Post Tuesday, 4th October 2016, 19:07

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

dowan wrote:I think the people complaining about the tedium are forgetting how spells work in this game. If you want to kill a guy with fire bolts, you keep casting fire bolt until he's dead. If you want to confuse an enemy before you stab him, you cast confuse on him till he's confused.

Now, if you want to have a +3 to damage and guarantee to hit on your next x attacks, you cast infusion. What exactly is the difference here? You literally can't just cast all your charms before each fight, because they don't last long enough. It's less tedium, every time you cast a charm, it's because it was a meaningful thing to do, not just a "just in case" like it is now.

Which is a less spammy Infusion:

Version 1: lasts 10-30 turns, adds up to 1d3 damage that's independently resisted by AC (current version, give or take)
Version 2: Guarantees your attacks will not miss for the duration and do +3 flat dmg. 3-6 turns depending on spellpower (effectively increases damage output by ~33% per swing (assuming 75% base accuracy), then then adds 3 to it).

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 4426

Joined: Friday, 8th May 2015, 17:51

Post Tuesday, 4th October 2016, 19:10

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

archaeo wrote:Amulet of Rage? Amulet of Faith + a good god? Either way, assuming that you're talking about Spectral Weapon (you are, right?), there's an argument to be made that it should be part of a god instead of a spell or a piece of equipment; I think "Amulet of Spectral Weapon" would still usually be worse than Rage or Faith, but Hepblahblahblah is already basically a Spectral Weapon god.


Amulet of rage does not give a buff. It gives a "buff" making you more vulnerable later (slowed or even paralyzed). I don't see how we compare amulet of faith to spells (and to buffs in particular).
Underestimated: cleaving, Deep Elf, Formicid, Vehumet, EV
Overestimated: AC, GDS
Twin account of Sandman25

Shoals Surfer

Posts: 270

Joined: Sunday, 23rd March 2014, 23:51

Post Tuesday, 4th October 2016, 19:19

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

Short duration Charms just encourage setting yourself up at the beginning of every fight the exact same way (unless there is a legitimate downside to doing so), even if it lowers recasting while walking around. The proposal of permanent Charms with a max MP loss just keeps bringing up how easily abusable the system becomes for minimal to zero MP reliant builds versus the spellcasters the buff spells are mostly intended for.

I personally think that most Charms would work better as equipment enchantments than as spells, with the potential suggestion of having them replace the more boring armor egos and weapon brands like +stats. The more unique ones (like Spectral Weapon) could be reworked into unrandarts, replacing/reworking the ones that people feel are useless or boring.

Tomb Titivator

Posts: 909

Joined: Thursday, 3rd January 2013, 20:32

Post Tuesday, 4th October 2016, 20:04

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

It is obvious to me that Swiftness is the best-designed charm spell in the game right now: It's a powerful short-duration buff immediately followed by a powerful short-duration debuff. You can't have it up all the time (non-passive), you can't cast it multiple times in a row (non-spammy), and you have to be careful about when/how you use it (tactically interesting).

Follow this model for other spells, e.g.:

- Regen: Buffs your regen rate significantly for a handful of turns, then gives -Regen status for equal number of turns (so you regenerate a bunch right now, but then stop regenerating for a while). You might cast it during combat to give yourself a chance to finish a fight or escape, but you don't want to have it up going into the fight in case it runs out too soon. You might choose to cast it once after combat ends if you're very low on HP, but there's no benefit to repeated casting because it will take you just as long to hit full health as if you pressed 5.

- Haste: Like swiftness, but the Slow following it affects all your actions (not just move speed).

- Song of Slaying: When the song ends, gives Fear status for a while.

- Repel Missiles: Makes you less likely to be hit by missiles for a while, then more likely for a while.

- Shroud of Golubria: Like rMsl, but for melee.

- Infusion: Already has the slight drawback of -1 MP for each attack, but maybe it prevents MP regen for a few turns after ending.

etc.

Because it will always be bad to have the buff end at the wrong moment, there is no incentive to buff up out of combat -- you need to know what you're facing before you can make a smart decision about which charms to activate (and if there's no drawback that achieves this, the spell should be removed). Durations can then be adjusted so that you have to think even harder about when to.......turn on the charm :ugeek:
Wins (Does not include my GrEE^Veh 15-runer...stupid experimental branch)

For this message the author tedric has received thanks:
Brannock

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 4426

Joined: Friday, 8th May 2015, 17:51

Post Tuesday, 4th October 2016, 20:15

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

tedric wrote:Because it will always be bad to have the buff end at the wrong moment, there is no incentive to buff up out of combat -- you need to know what you're facing before you can make a smart decision about which charms to activate (and if there's no drawback that achieves this, the spell should be removed). Durations can then be adjusted so that you have to think even harder about when to.......turn on the charm :ugeek:


This is an interesting idea, yet it will result in more annoying gameplay as long as luring into explored territory is possible IMHO. Personally I just don't train Charms/Air for new Swiftness if I don't have RMsl somewhere. And then I learn Swiftness and almost never cast it because it is optimal to avoid casting it if you have choice.
Underestimated: cleaving, Deep Elf, Formicid, Vehumet, EV
Overestimated: AC, GDS
Twin account of Sandman25

Vestibule Violator

Posts: 1601

Joined: Sunday, 14th July 2013, 16:36

Post Tuesday, 4th October 2016, 20:22

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

tedric wrote:It is obvious to me that Swiftness is the best-designed charm spell in the game right now: It's a powerful short-duration buff immediately followed by a powerful short-duration debuff. You can't have it up all the time (non-passive), you can't cast it multiple times in a row (non-spammy), and you have to be careful about when/how you use it (tactically interesting).

It does, however, have one enormous flaw -- it's basically useless for killing things. It cannot serve as a model for how to design charms that are useful in combat -- the design is about how not to be useful in combat!

Also, in my opinion, none of the features you list are actually reasons to justify having the flaw -- the justification for the flaw is that without it, players would be encouraged to kite everything.
User avatar

Tartarus Sorceror

Posts: 1762

Joined: Monday, 14th October 2013, 01:05

Post Tuesday, 4th October 2016, 21:12

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

VeryAngryFelid wrote:
goodcoolguy wrote:"You should win the game before getting charms. They are also OP."


You win the game because charms (and some other support spells and wands) are OP. Remove them and see how easy depths/vaults 5/zot will be. This is off topic in this thread probably
I already usually do depths/vaults 5/zot without charms(or summons, etc-melee characters with some invo/evo), so I don't think I'll notice much of a difference.

Dungeon Master

Posts: 3160

Joined: Sunday, 5th August 2012, 14:52

Post Tuesday, 4th October 2016, 21:14

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

tedric wrote:It is obvious to me that Swiftness is the best-designed charm spell in the game right now: It's a powerful short-duration buff immediately followed by a powerful short-duration debuff. You can't have it up all the time (non-passive), you can't cast it multiple times in a row (non-spammy), and you have to be careful about when/how you use it (tactically interesting).

I like the premise of your suggestion, but not some of the actual suggestions:

* Regen: this doesn't really change when you'd cast the spell, since it's still front-loading the healing. Unless the net healing is smaller than not casting regen, this design wouldn't improve how regen is used, and if it's net smaller, you'd almost never want to use it.
* Song of Slaying: Fear needs a target that you're Feared away from. IMO Song of Slaying already has mostly fine drawbacks.
* Infusion: The drawback you add is more irritating than meaningful; it mostly just means more resting. Infusion already has some drawbacks (limited usefulness, MP drain) that, well, kind of work. The added drawback doesn't make it work better.

For this message the author Lasty has received thanks: 2
Brannock, tedric

Vestibule Violator

Posts: 1601

Joined: Sunday, 14th July 2013, 16:36

Post Tuesday, 4th October 2016, 22:45

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

For non-permanent charms that augment melee damage, at first glance there are two viable main categories:

  • Charms that ultimately outdamage a single casting of a comparable conjuration, but this is balanced by the fact you only get the damage if you spend the next X turns doing melee
  • Charms that outdamage a melee swing but do less damage than a comparable conjuration, which serve as a consolation prize for a character who did not find any conjurations or want to take advantage of existing Charms training

I believe the first sort is a better design. On another axis, there are two categories:

  • Tactical usage is balanced around the MP cost and other constraints, like comparable conjurations
  • Spells balanced by compensating penalties in the future

I believe only the first is viable -- the second sort results in "only cast this spell if you think you can kill the monster quickly" and will lead gameplay in ways unsuitable for crawl.

---

I've actually suggested spells like these before, but in the guise of filling out the roster of conjurations. But maybe people will be more receptive in the guise of charm reform?

Here's a fairly plain one:

Ice Strike. Lvl 7. Charms/Ice.

Your next three melee attacks will do extra cold damage that ignores AC. Duration 3.0 aut. The average damage added will be 4 + (Power / 6).

Design notes:

  • The level of damage makes the total damage roughly comparable to a single casting of LCS. That's probably too low and should be turned up a bit.
  • "Wasted" charges on missed attacks is not an essential part of the design; they could be saved for attacks that actually hit.
  • Being based on number of hits is meant to prevent combos with fast weapons or haste from doing enormous damage.
  • The choice of level is part of my general programme to try and flesh out the roster of higher level spells. Lower level version could, of course, exist instead or in addition to.
  • The short duration ensures that your next turns will have to mostly be melee to get the full effect.
Last edited by Hurkyl on Tuesday, 4th October 2016, 23:20, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar

Abyss Ambulator

Posts: 1194

Joined: Friday, 18th April 2014, 01:41

Post Tuesday, 4th October 2016, 22:52

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

VeryAngryFelid wrote:
goodcoolguy wrote:"You should win the game before getting charms. They are also OP."


You win the game because charms (and some other support spells and wands) are OP. Remove them and see how easy depths/vaults 5/zot will be. This is off topic in this thread probably

Pretty easy I think even with a weaker god...
remove food

For this message the author tabstorm has received thanks:
duvessa

Tartarus Sorceror

Posts: 1694

Joined: Tuesday, 31st March 2015, 20:34

Post Wednesday, 5th October 2016, 12:58

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

lethediver wrote: And I'm gonna posit that most people agree. Why? Because there are many complaints here about possibly having to cast charms multiple times in battle, but no one chimes in with "but you already have to cast conjurations multiple times in a given battle, so isn't this pretty much the same thing?"


dowan wrote:I think the people complaining about the tedium are forgetting how spells work in this game. If you want to kill a guy with fire bolts, you keep casting fire bolt until he's dead. If you want to confuse an enemy before you stab him, you cast confuse on him till he's confused.


I feel so ignored...

For this message the author dowan has received thanks:
ydeve

Crypt Cleanser

Posts: 714

Joined: Saturday, 5th December 2015, 06:56

Post Wednesday, 5th October 2016, 15:11

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

so does anyone else have any input? Duvessa? dpeg?

Huh. Feel like im forgetting someone. Some other person whose name starts with D. But eh. Prolly not important.

For this message the author lethediver has received thanks: 3
dowan, Lasty, ydeve

Mines Malingerer

Posts: 36

Joined: Thursday, 6th October 2016, 15:14

Post Thursday, 6th October 2016, 15:17

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

I think there can be different types of charms. I think some, like transmutations, can be semi-permanent with max mp decrease. You can prevent heavy armour guys from always having charms on by making spell failure meaningful for these toggles. Taking damage can have a chance to disrupt your concentration and dispel a charm, so you're incentivized to keep training to better spell failure rates. The benefit of long lasting charms can be accounted for by the cost of them possibly being dispelled, requiring you to recast them.

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 4426

Joined: Friday, 8th May 2015, 17:51

Post Thursday, 6th October 2016, 15:21

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

sooheon wrote:I think there can be different types of charms. I think some, like transmutations, can be semi-permanent with max mp decrease. You can prevent heavy armour guys from always having charms on by making spell failure meaningful for these toggles. Taking damage can have a chance to disrupt your concentration and dispel a charm, so you're incentivized to keep training to better spell failure rates. The benefit of long lasting charms can be accounted for by the cost of them possibly being dispelled, requiring you to recast them.


Something like that was implemented in circus animals fork. There you could cast Spider Form just once and hit autoexplore, when you get any damage the spell has a chance to expire based on your failure rate and spell power. It made lichform in extended extremely enjoyable. Also mana cost for the transmutation spells was increased by 4 times so recasting the spell in fight was a big deal.
Underestimated: cleaving, Deep Elf, Formicid, Vehumet, EV
Overestimated: AC, GDS
Twin account of Sandman25

Crypt Cleanser

Posts: 746

Joined: Thursday, 5th December 2013, 04:01

Post Thursday, 6th October 2016, 15:55

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

I feel like a lot of the issues being discussed are solved by discouraging or disabling charms from being cast many times in the same fight. We've got some solutions on some buffs already - contamination (haste), debuff after the buff wears off (berserk, swiftness), and exhaustion (berserk) all accomplish this. And note that all three of those buffs are ones where you need to consider the right time to use them, because using them at the wrong time when you don't need them leaves you vulnerable if you do encounter danger before the drawbacks wear off.

I feel like a similar thing could work with powerful, short-duration buffs. 90% chance to dodge for 3 turns is tedious and broken if there's no reason not to recast it every 4 turns. Buff to damage for 3 turns is either useless or tedious depending on whether it's a net damage boost or not. But what if both gave contamination? Now you can't just recast them every 4 turns. This creates a "do I really need this buff?" decision similar to bersker/haste/swiftness, but also creates the decision of when to use them in the fight. A 3-5 turn buff that you can only afford to use once per fight could create a lot of different decisions in longer fights.

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 4426

Joined: Friday, 8th May 2015, 17:51

Post Thursday, 6th October 2016, 15:59

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

I dislike contamination as penalty as it means lots of retreating and resting. Draining + Exh is much better IMHO, it works great for Ru.
Underestimated: cleaving, Deep Elf, Formicid, Vehumet, EV
Overestimated: AC, GDS
Twin account of Sandman25

For this message the author VeryAngryFelid has received thanks:
Cimanyd
User avatar

Barkeep

Posts: 1788

Joined: Saturday, 29th June 2013, 16:52

Post Thursday, 6th October 2016, 16:23

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

And anecdotally, I've seen swiftness cast hardly at all in the time since its nerf; I imagine a more systematic approach would find that its usage is now fairly low. If a sweet spot exists between "spell rendered unusable by post-buff penalties" and "spell you spam before every non-trivial fight," I don't know that it exists anywhere in Crawl, with the exception of deliberately game-y abilities like Corrupt and escape abilities.

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 8784

Joined: Sunday, 5th May 2013, 08:25

Post Thursday, 6th October 2016, 16:25

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

Swiftness is still really overpowered and you should be casting it all the time, it's just that most people (myself included) don't want to play that way. It is not a good example of a successful charms fix.

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 4426

Joined: Friday, 8th May 2015, 17:51

Post Thursday, 6th October 2016, 16:28

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

Swiftness used to be permanently casted during exploration, this is fixed now.
Underestimated: cleaving, Deep Elf, Formicid, Vehumet, EV
Overestimated: AC, GDS
Twin account of Sandman25
User avatar

Blades Runner

Posts: 546

Joined: Friday, 2nd October 2015, 14:42

Post Thursday, 6th October 2016, 16:40

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

Just want to agree that swiftness is incredibly powerful and that the reason people don't use it more is that it's annoying, not that the drawback is hard to overcome or accomplishes something balance-wise.
The Original Discourse Respecter
User avatar

Barkeep

Posts: 1788

Joined: Saturday, 29th June 2013, 16:52

Post Thursday, 6th October 2016, 17:02

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

Yeah, "rendered unusable" was a bad way to put it, because my impression is that duvessa and goodcoolguy are correct. Nerfing a spell without making it annoying is hard; Haste and Invis, with the annoying wait-off-contam-so-you-can-go-back-to-playing mechanic, were/are essentially only tolerated because the effect merits the annoyance.
User avatar

Halls Hopper

Posts: 85

Joined: Monday, 9th February 2015, 01:57

Location: Limberry Castle

Post Thursday, 6th October 2016, 17:42

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

I guess I am one of the few weirdos who is mostly fine with how current charms work. Isn't tedious play its own punishment? Do we ever actually see anyone casting every single charm before every single fight or is this just a Hypothetically Optimal behavior that is theoretically possible and therefore must be prevented to make sure no one has the wrong kind of fun?

That said, if the perceived problem is that charms are too much of a no-brainer, here are a few ideas to make the choice to use them more interesting:

  • Increase the level and MP cost of most charms. Rmsl is absurdly good for a second level spell. Merge it and dmsl into a single spell of level 4 or 5. Spectral Weapon should become level 4 or 5 too. Song of Slaying would be level 3. Higher level spells are harder for straight tabby fighters to justify casting.
  • The game currently lacks a high-level charm, add one. Suggestion: Time Stitch, costs 8 or 9 MP to get 2 subsequent, uninterruptible actions (similar to delayed fireball). Gives big contamination and has a cooldown of 10 turns or so.
  • Concurrently running charms drain your mana as they stack. The first charm is free after the initial casting cost, the second charm you cast on top of it drains 1 MP per turn as long as two spells are active, the third charm is 2 mp per turn on top of that. In other words, make concurrent charms have an upkeep cost as the more charms you have running, the more a caster needs to focus on. Once you run out of MP the effects end. This would be a pretty significant nerf to Skald but otoh they would benefit from higher power charms. Plus if some of the posters in this thread get their way Skalds will soon have no reason to exist at all and I would like them to remain in the game.
<Sequell> elmdor is a greaterplayer!

Tartarus Sorceror

Posts: 1694

Joined: Tuesday, 31st March 2015, 20:34

Post Thursday, 6th October 2016, 18:10

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

elmdor wrote:I guess I am one of the few weirdos who is mostly fine with how current charms work. Isn't tedious play its own punishment?


That is 100% against the crawl design philosophy, and let me try to explain more clearly why.

It creates a struggle between "having fun" and "trying your hardest to win". If you have to choose between doing better at the game or having fun at the game, the game has failed, because ideally the best way to play the game (i.e. win the most) would be as fun, or more fun than playing the game poorly. The supposed issue with charms is that when trying your hardest to win, you should have them on all the time. This means a lot of spellcasting for no reason, because there's a chance you might run into some enemies, and it's better to run into them while all buffed up than not.

To show a more extreme example, look at Tome 4. There's a spell you can cast with no real cost aside from your time, which allows you to see enemies in a certain range. If you don't cast it every couple steps, you might wander into LOS of something nasty and get one shotted. If you do cast if every couple steps you'll see those guys and not get one shotted, but you'll also be doing something extremely tedious and repetitive. Your choice becomes either be bored, or have fun until you die from not doing the boring thing. And every time you die you'll know you could have avoided it by being bored.

In crawl, I don't think there's anything quite so horrible as that, but there are still lesser versions of the same thing, and ideally they would all not exist. For example, traps and making a path of exclusions to avoid as many as possible. Or back in the item destruction days, throwing your scroll stacks before fighting orc wizards when they were no threat to your lvl 27 character, because they might burn a scroll with their 0 damage throw flame. Or old swiftness, which was a 2mp boost to speed that you were stupid not to have on all the time.

For this message the author dowan has received thanks: 5
Brannock, duvessa, Hurkyl, Lasty, VeryAngryFelid

Temple Termagant

Posts: 11

Joined: Sunday, 29th May 2016, 17:58

Post Thursday, 6th October 2016, 18:32

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

lethediver wrote:Charms are currently the one type of spell you can cast pre-battle to gain a long lasting strategic advantage, instead of having an instantaneous tactical effect. This places them in a weird position, balance wise, rendering their spell power (insofar as it is tied to duration) and failure rate largely irrelevant. It also makes them tedious to use since it is never not optimal to have charms active, but doing so requires frequent casting. Finally it steps on the toes of equipment and consumables by giving your character a (theoretically) continuous advantage at the cost of mere spell slots.

My proposal is this: change the duration of Charms to be quite short (around 4 turns), and increase their effects dramatically. This will necessitate frequent casting during combat, which will make failure rate and spell power meaningful, as well as introduce some degree of tactical uncertainty as to when to use a Charms spell, which one to use, and when to use your valuable combat turns on something else. This will also make constant out-of-combat activation suboptimal and/or impossible (due to much higher MP cost vs. turns active).

Example of what im talking about:

Infusion - Guarantees your attacks will not miss for the duration and do +3 flat dmg. 3-6 turns depending on spellpower.

Repel Missiles - 90% chance to repel missile attacks against you for the duration. 3-6 turns depending on spellpower. (Deflect missiles becomes reflect missiles)

Shroud of Golubria - 90% chance to absorb melee attacks against you the duration. 3-5 turns depending on spellpower.

Song of slaying - Any time you kill an enemy, the damage you dealt will also be inflicted on other hostile monsters in LoS. 4-8 turns depending on spellpower.

Etc. Note that these are just examples, numbers can certainly be tweaked so long as the MP cost / turn ratio on all spells remains higher, or at least quite close to, maximum potential non CBoE based mana regeneration.

While an extreme rework, I believe this solves all current and theoretical future problems with Charms in one fell swoop, aligning the sphere with how all other magic in Crawl works (cast during combat). As well as making the spells more impactful, meaningful, and I'd guess fun to use.


An interesting option. I would prefer going the full opposite way : charms have a permanent MP cost and stay active until forgotten. MP cost might be "Spell lvl + 1/already active charm", or "10% of base mana pool". The former makes charms a good deal for all magic users, the latter orients them towards "non troggy melee-guys". Both can be valid deisgn paths.

Anyways, deciding is up to devs
User avatar

Halls Hopper

Posts: 85

Joined: Monday, 9th February 2015, 01:57

Location: Limberry Castle

Post Thursday, 6th October 2016, 19:22

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

dowan wrote:It creates a struggle between "having fun" and "trying your hardest to win". If you have to choose between doing better at the game or having fun at the game, the game has failed, because ideally the best way to play the game (i.e. win the most) would be as fun, or more fun than playing the game poorly.


The tension between these two things is always going to be there because one's subjective and the other's objective. I personally find playing centaurs interminably boring due to the constant kiting and ammo retrieval, but I accept that they are objectively a powerful race. I'd rather think of this as a difference in taste rather than a failure in game design.

The situation with charms is a little different in that I agree they are a bit of a no-brainer, but I consider them a fun no-brainer rather than a tedious no-brainer. My proposed change would be to make charms more powerful but more costly.

Lameador2 wrote: I would prefer going the full opposite way : charms have a permanent MP cost and stay active until forgotten. MP cost might be "Spell lvl + 1/already active charm", or "10% of base mana pool". The former makes charms a good deal for all magic users, the latter orients them towards "non troggy melee-guys". Both can be valid deisgn paths.


This would make a lot of sense for charms like rmsl, but the limited duration is part of the design for other such as Song of Slaying and (at low level) infusion, where a skald on D1 tends to run out of mp constantly.
<Sequell> elmdor is a greaterplayer!

For this message the author elmdor has received thanks:
dowan

Vestibule Violator

Posts: 1601

Joined: Sunday, 14th July 2013, 16:36

Post Friday, 7th October 2016, 03:56

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

elmdor wrote:I personally find playing centaurs interminably boring due to the constant kiting and ammo retrieval, but I accept that they are objectively a powerful race. I'd rather think of this as a difference in taste rather than a failure in game design.

It's not really the same thing. Choosing a game variant you like better (e.g. "play races other than centaur") is very different from intentionally making bad choices because you don't enjoy the consequences of good ones.

For this message the author Hurkyl has received thanks: 2
dowan, Seven Deadly Sins

Crypt Cleanser

Posts: 724

Joined: Tuesday, 29th November 2011, 11:04

Post Monday, 10th October 2016, 10:28

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

Remove Charms. Add "Alchemy" skill that functions as a crafting system, and strew aroud herbs in the dungeon that PC can collect. This way we'll have a truly strategic buff system.
"Damned, damned be the legions of the damned..."

Cocytus Succeeder

Posts: 2297

Joined: Saturday, 14th April 2012, 21:35

Post Monday, 10th October 2016, 11:09

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

Siegurt wrote:The problem i am proposing to solve is that it is technically optimal to cast all your charms and have them up at all times while exploring or even traveling, on the off chance you should stumble across something that wants to fight you.

Sure super short durations also eliminate pre-buffing, but they also make you do a whole lot more in-combat buffing, i would argue that from a strictly tedium perspective, it is at best a wash.


lethediver wrote:I think it's absolutely more tedious to make sure you have as many Charms as possible up

there are many complaints here about possibly having to cast charms multiple times in battle, but no one chimes in with "but you already have to cast conjurations multiple times in a given battle, so isn't this pretty much the same thing?"

players sure don't mind casting conjurations the way they mind casting charms.

New idea, off these sentences:
- All charms require a (non-plant) target in range to be castable.
- All charms deal damage to the target.
- Some charms only give the buff upon killing (non-popcorn hostiles) with said damage.
- All charms have super-short duration (perhaps with exception of RMsl/DMsl).
- All charms can stack (even if it's just extending the buff duration).


In short, make charms just conjurations with some upside side effect and possibly some downside aftermath. Apply whatever tweaks are necessary to prevent grinding with e.g. Summon Butterfly.
User avatar

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 4370

Joined: Wednesday, 23rd October 2013, 07:56

Post Monday, 10th October 2016, 11:19

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

kuniqs wrote:Remove Charms. Add "Alchemy" skill that functions as a crafting system, and strew aroud herbs in the dungeon that PC can collect. This way we'll have a truly strategic buff system.

And introduce herb seeds and Gardening skill and make herb growth follow the rules of Conway's Game of Life...
DCSS: 80: ...MfBeMiSk}DrEE{GrFiFoGl}DgEnFeNe{OpGlHuSu}DDArHaCKSpAEGrTm
DgFEDsCjGhMoHuVM{HaAMBaEn}{HuMoHOWn}DsWzDDHu{DgWnGnBe}FeIE{MiEnMfCj}
SpNeBaEEGrFE{HaAKTrCK}DsFESpHu{FoArNaBe}FeEE{HOIEMiAE}GrGlHuWrGnWrNaAK{BaFi
Bloat: 6: RaRoPrPh{GuStGnCa}{ArEtZoNb}

For this message the author Sprucery has received thanks: 3
elmdor, kuniqs, Sar

Vestibule Violator

Posts: 1601

Joined: Sunday, 14th July 2013, 16:36

Post Monday, 10th October 2016, 11:22

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

Sprucery wrote:
kuniqs wrote:Remove Charms. Add "Alchemy" skill that functions as a crafting system, and strew aroud herbs in the dungeon that PC can collect. This way we'll have a truly strategic buff system.

And introduce herb seeds and Gardening skill and make herb growth follow the rules of Conway's Game of Life...

Ugh, then we'll be luring all the monsters into a killzone where we've prepared glider guns.

Tomb Titivator

Posts: 832

Joined: Wednesday, 17th April 2013, 13:28

Post Monday, 10th October 2016, 15:55

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

Psieye wrote:- Some charms only give the buff upon killing (non-popcorn hostiles) with said damage.


Ooh, killing hostiles gives a chance to drop power-ups

Cocytus Succeeder

Posts: 2297

Joined: Saturday, 14th April 2012, 21:35

Post Monday, 10th October 2016, 16:02

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

DracheReborn wrote:
Psieye wrote:- Some charms only give the buff upon killing (non-popcorn hostiles) with said damage.


Ooh, killing hostiles gives a chance to drop power-ups

'Drop' implies you have to move to pick it up. I said 'give', meaning the buff is immediately awarded for achieving the kill with the specific spell.

Tomb Titivator

Posts: 832

Joined: Wednesday, 17th April 2013, 13:28

Post Monday, 10th October 2016, 16:09

Re: Idea: Make charms tactical rather than strategic

Psieye wrote:
DracheReborn wrote:
Psieye wrote:- Some charms only give the buff upon killing (non-popcorn hostiles) with said damage.


Ooh, killing hostiles gives a chance to drop power-ups

'Drop' implies you have to move to pick it up. I said 'give', meaning the buff is immediately awarded for achieving the kill with the specific spell.


Sorry, I was riffing off your idea :) Very videogamey and maybe doesn't fit crawl :oops:
Previous

Return to Game Design Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by ST Software for PTF.