Rework bad potion effects

[Gozigzag]

Bad potions were adjusted over the course of time to be less deadly during the id minigame start of the game and became more useful in general, para became lig, confusion ambrosia, yada yada.... But they just doesnt work as bad potions since blind quaffing them is still a better option than just accepting your fate. Nonetheless, its already punishing to blind quaff potions instead of playing the id minigame,its not necessary to have bad potion effects.

I propose removing the root effect of lig and calling it stoneskin(replace rn+++, torment immunity with rn+, torment resistance if needed) and removing the confusion effect of ambrosia and calling it elixir. Remove degeneration.

[Sar]

Treeform isn't a bad option.

[le_nerd]

Ambrosia+Treeform are widely hailed as very successful redesigns. The only pure!bad potion left is degeneration (arguably mutation) - we need ideas to make degeneration have a good effect balanced by a bad one so that its actually a tactical decision to quaff it.

Random idea: have !degeneration act like a triple potion, might/agility/brilliance at the time - very very good effect. To counteract, you get all your stats drained double/triple by what the potion drains now. I'd use that potion sometimes.

[Gozigzag]

Treeform isn't a bad option.

Go read the post.I didnt say they are bad, i even said their bad effects doesnt work. How many times have you actually died because you blind quaffed lig where otherwise you would have lived?

we need ideas to make degeneration have a good effect balanced by a bad one so that its actually a tactical decision to quaff it.

lig and ambrosia have no tactical decision on themselves, the only decision the player is making is "do i wanna stand here and fight till i die/win or do i have cancellation to follow up, do i wanna get confused in the middle of these enemies to recover mp then cure afterwards", as removing the side effects of these potions wont change any real decision the player makes regarding using them. Plus, lig is just a win button early on and against specific enemies, thats not what i call "tactical".

[Sar]

Treeform bad effects isn't really meant to kill you while blind quaffing as much as to add a serious tactical drawback to a very strong effect.

[Elitist]

Why not rework them by combining bad potion effects with good potion effects. Lig has its uses, and Ambrosia would be a No Brainer(TM) if it was strictly good.

[VeryAngryFelid]

I am not sure what the intention is here. Do we want to encourage quaff-id? Or do we assume that quaff-id does not work as intended and thus bad potions are meaningless? I think we might make potions work in a different way depending on them being known:
1) Unknown potions have greater duration
2) Unknown potions have less duration
3) Unknown potions of mutation would give only bad mutations
4) In every game some kinds of potions cannot be identified with scroll of identify, they must be quaff-ided. It is random, in one game you cannot id haste, heal wounds and mutation, in another you cannot id lignify and curing etc.

[Steel Neuron]

I proposed a possible change to degeneration, which after that discussion I'd re-propose like this:

Potion of Aging: Causes severe stat loss (more than current degen) but increased XP gain while the stat loss lasts.

[ion_frigate]

Or another idea: now that Haste only exists for the player as a potion, how about buffing the speed up to 2x or more, increasing the duration, removing the contam, and giving it degeneration as a side effect?

Alternately this could exist alongside the current potion. Either way, I like the idea of the player having a rare and dangerous way to go even faster than monster Haste.

[Gozigzag]

Why not rework them by combining bad potion effects with good potion effects. Lig has its uses, and Ambrosia would be a No Brainer(TM) if it was strictly good.

Because the only decision a consumable should make the player take is "do i want to CONSUME this?"

The majority of the players end their games with a stack of brillance potions on their inventory that they never had any use for.
The majority of the players leave potions of lig on the floor even though it could have saved their lives on a specific scenario or crypts.

I am not sure what the intention is here.

its already punishing to blind quaff potions instead of playing the id minigame,its not necessary to have bad potion effects.

Or another idea: now that Haste only exists for the player as a potion, how about buffing the speed up to 2x or more, increasing the duration, removing the contam, and giving it degeneration as a side effect?

I think you should follow this rabbit hole and try to come up with side effects for every existing potion, see if you realise that making potions hostile to use may not be a good goal.

[Siegurt]

Why not rework them by combining bad potion effects with good potion effects. Lig has its uses, and Ambrosia would be a No Brainer(TM) if it was strictly good.

Because the only decision a consumable should make the player take is "do i want to CONSUME this?"

The majority of the players end their games with a stack of brillance potions on their inventory that they never had any use for.
The majority of the players leave potions of lig on the floor even though it could have saved their lives on a specific scenario or crypts.

I am not sure what the intention is here.

its already punishing to blind quaff potions instead of playing the id minigame,its not necessary to have bad potion effects.

Or another idea: now that Haste only exists for the player as a potion, how about buffing the speed up to 2x or more, increasing the duration, removing the contam, and giving it degeneration as a side effect?

I think you should follow this rabbit hole and try to come up with side effects for every existing potion, see if you realise that making potions hostile to use may not be a good goal.

I disagree with your goal here, having some potions be a mixed bag means they are useful in some, but not all situations, this gives the player a more varied and more nuanced set of choices than simply "am i in danger and do i have a potion"

Fwiw, lignification and ambrosia aren't actually hostile, they are actually net positive effects, which have drawbacks that create tension on how and when they should be used. If they were actually hostile (net negative) you would just drop them once idd.

[Gozigzag]

Fwiw, lignification and ambrosia aren't actually hostile

NOBODY is saying they are, thats the whole point of this post, they dont work as hostile potions because the ARE NOT.

I disagree with your goal here, having some potions be a mixed bag means they are useful in some, but not all situations,

then do so by making potions have more distinct positive effects, or just dont because they already have.

this gives the player a more varied and more nuanced set of choices than simply "am i in danger and do i have a potion"

This is exactly what current lig and rage potions do, every other potion has a long duration positive effect that the player will use before the situation turns dangerous. As the game progresses these two potions end up discarded because the side effect is not worth the situational use they have, and thats not good.

[kuniqs]

I wish all the 'tactical' consumables to vanish, because after d:5 or so they're delegated into "puts you into too much unecessary risk" category, and thus never used again.

[VeryAngryFelid]

I wish all the 'tactical' consumables to vanish, because after d:5 or so they're delegated into "puts you into too much unecessary risk" category, and thus never used again.

I use lignify/ambrosia/rage in situations when not using them is MORE dangerous than using them. If I don't need them, I don't use them because then it's unnecessary risk indeed. I think it is working as intended.

[Siegurt]

Fwiw, lignification and ambrosia aren't actually hostile

NOBODY is saying they are, thats the whole point of this post, they dont work as hostile potions because the ARE NOT.

Then i am really not sure what you're point is, "don't make potions hostile" and "these potions are not hostile" seem to be contradictory.

I am honestly confused by what you are trying to say here.

I disagree with your goal here, having some potions be a mixed bag means they are useful in some, but not all situations,

then do so by making potions have more distinct positive effects, or just dont because they already have.

Do you have a suggestion for a drawbackless potion that is only useful in some situations that is neither overpowered without a drawback nor a duplicate of an existing potion? If so that would be pretty cool and you should suggest it.

this gives the player a more varied and more nuanced set of choices than simply "am i in danger and do i have a potion"

This is exactly what current lig and rage potions do, every other potion has a long duration positive effect that the player will use before the situation turns dangerous. As the game progresses these two potions end up discarded because the side effect is not worth the situational use they have, and thats not good.

If you are discarding these potions, then i might suggest you either haven't yet learned when it is good to use them, or you so rigerously avoid using consumables that you end up so chock full of them that no matter what your selection of potions was, you would only keep the best ones. If any potions are are in any way different, some will be better and some will be worse, and if pressed for space you will select the best of them regardless of whether that bestness is because of a drawback or not.

Fwiw lignification has "long duration positive effect that the player will use before the situation turns dangerous" or at least as much so as resistance, for a comparison.

Both rage and lig are fantastic when used properly, amazingly so in fact.

[Gozigzag]

Then i am really not sure what you're point is, "don't make potions hostile" and "these potions are not hostile" seem to be contradictory.

The potion has a drawback that will kill you if you misuse it. Thats not good and i already pointed out why, most players discard those potions instead of using them because manipulating the game in order to benefit from said potions is tedious.

Do you have a suggestion for a drawbackless potion that is only useful in some situations that is neither overpowered without a drawback nor a duplicate of an existing potion? If so that would be pretty cool and you should suggest it.

I already did, go read the op.

If you are discarding these potions, then i might suggest you either haven't yet learned when it is good to use them, or you so rigerously avoid using consumables that you end up so chock full of them that no matter what your selection of potions was, you would only keep the best ones. If any potions are are in any way different, some will be better and some will be worse, and if pressed for space you will select the best of them regardless of whether that bestness is because of a drawback or not.

I am the majority of the players, so i dont care about your tips and tricks, the fact is that the majority is not going to manipulate every scenario in order to benefit from a potion because if they can do so they can win without that potion effect and its less tedious. You seem to not be able to understand that potions are supposed to be buffs without drawbacks that are limited.
If a player has a hard time figuring how to use a potion your game has a problem.

Both rage and lig are fantastic when used properly, amazingly so in fact.

By properly you mean kite enemies then use it or just choke on it because you have no other option. Very interesting decisions. I love how you are totally fine with a potion having a overpowered effect because it has a drawback that you know how to mitigate or completely ignore, you didnt even realise that these 2 potions dont have specific buffes, they are just win buttoms regardless of what you are fighting against. Also, dont you wanna talk about ambrosia now?

[VeryAngryFelid]

The potion has a drawback that will kill you if you misuse it. Thats not good and i already pointed out why, most players discard those potions instead of using them because manipulating the game in order to benefit from said potions is tedious.

That's like saying "decision-making is tedious". I would be happy if we replaced might/agility/brilliance with something like lignify or rage. Quaffing might is a no-brainer vs orb of fire, for example, that's what I would call tedious/boring.

[bel]

You don't seem to appreciate that your original post was very unclear and people don't really know what you are talking about. It's simpler to stop yelling at people that they can't read and try to write better in the first place. Here's a tip: using phrases like "yada yada" doesn't help in communicating.

From what I can tell, you are talking about two separate things: the id minigame and potions having drawbacks as well as benefits. They are related, but they aren't the same thing. Half the time in the thread, you are talking about blind quaffing a potion, and half the time, you are talking about quaffing an idenitfied potion (you can't easily mitigate the effects of quaffing an unidentified potion; it's possible, but much harder).

I don't like the ID minigame, so I will not comment on that at all. If you don't like the ID minigame, I suggest playing hellcrawl.

As for identified potions, you have a preference for potions only having beneficial effects because they are naturally limited. That's a valid argument - it's totally ok to only have beneficial potions. But it doesn't really invalidate the argument for potions having both positive and negative effects. Of course, it's often possible to kite enemies or otherwise manipulate the situation to mitigate the negative effect; that doesn't mean it's always possible; many enemies are faster than you and/or have ranged attacks.

I'll give an example of a recent game where I died after quaffing lignification. I encountered a hydra and was running away from it when I was boxed in by a pack of some monster (don't recall now). I quaffed lignification to survive the hydra but was still dying. So I spammed Heal Other and managed to pacify the hydra in a few turns. Problem was that the hydra had to pass me to leave the level, so it still kept attacking me and I couldn't move to give way because of lignification.

[Sprucery]

I would be happy if we replaced might/agility/brilliance with something like lignify or rage. Quaffing might is a no-brainer vs orb of fire, for example, that's what I would call tedious/boring.

Personally, I don't think the good potions need bad side effects. They are limited in quantity anyway. For example, often when I go to Zot I only have a couple of might potions left. So it is not a no-brainer to quaff one when I see the first OoF. I have to consider whether I want to use the potion now, when there are probably several more OoFs to come etc.

I would be happy if !degeneration would get some good effect. How about giving it MR+ :)

[Croases]

Suggestion for degeneration: Might + Agility + Brilliance for a considerable number of turns, big hit to all three stats after the potion runs out.

Short-term benefits in exchange for long-term costs, though it may cause some undesirable optimalations like people saving some easy monsters to get back their stats after a tough spot (but then, these easy monsters won't give enough experience to offset the stat loss).

[Gozigzag]

From what I can tell, you are talking about two separate things: the id minigame and potions having drawbacks as well as benefits. They are related, but they aren't the same thing. Half the time in the thread, you are talking about blind quaffing a potion, and half the time, you are talking about quaffing an idenitfied potion (you can't easily mitigate the effects of quaffing an unidentified potion; it's possible, but much harder).

The only way to be affected by lig's drawback is by blind quaffing it, in case you havent figured that out, otherwise you are just making a bad decision and if its possible for the player to die due to quaffing a potion that is supposed to give him a buff you are creating a hostile potion. Again, that is not good.

Of course, it's often possible to kite enemies or otherwise manipulate the situation to mitigate the negative effect; that doesn't mean it's always possible; many enemies are faster than you and/or have ranged attacks.

Let me ask you, do you like lig because of the win buttom scenario it offers you or because you have to check all the existing enemies on the current level before you use it, double check if you have a cancel potion, triple check if you have blink scroll and so on... Overcomplicating something as simple as using a potion is not good.

I'll give an example of a recent game where I died after quaffing lignification. I encountered a hydra and was running away from it when I was boxed in by a pack of some monster (don't recall now). I quaffed lignification to survive the hydra but was still dying. So I spammed Heal Other and managed to pacify the hydra in a few turns. Problem was that the hydra had to pass me to leave the level, so it still kept attacking me and I couldn't move to give way because of lignification.

And thats good? You genuinely like the idea that you died because you used something that you expected to do the opposite of that?

That's like saying "decision-making is tedious". I would be happy if we replaced might/agility/brilliance with something like lignify or rage. Quaffing might is a no-brainer vs orb of fire, for example, that's what I would call tedious/boring.

Potions are not unlimited, so you are always making a decision when quaffing one, no matter how much you want it to be a no-brainer, it just isnt.

[Siegurt]

The potion has a drawback that will kill you if you misuse it. Thats not good and i already pointed out why, most players discard those potions instead of using them because manipulating the game in order to benefit from said potions is tedious.

So this seems to be the crux of your argument, "Potions shouldn't have bad effects" I don't see a "why" in your OP, here's what I see that might be sort of justifications:

But they just doesnt work as bad potions since blind quaffing them is still a better option than just accepting your fate.

But we also say "they aren't supposed to be bad potions, they are good potions with drawbacks" and you say:

NOBODY is saying they are, thats the whole point of this post, they dont work as hostile potions because the ARE NOT.

Ok, that slightly clarifies, you don't think they are hostile potions (neither does anyone else), maybe you think that the devs think they are supposed to be bad, but they aren't actually(?) that's unclear, however it's not really related to the point, we are all settled that lig, ambrosia, berserk are not actually bad potions, nor are they supposed to be.

Maybe that statement wasn't intended to justify why it was bad for potions to have drawbacks, maybe it was just a related point, let's look at some of the other statements you've made in this thread:
From the OP:

Nonetheless, its already punishing to blind quaff potions instead of playing the id minigame,its not necessary to have bad potion effects.

So here's a blanket statement against having bad potions, generally, if we accept that lig, berserk, and ambrosia aren't bad, then it doesn't apply to them (blind quaffing a potion of for example lig is as likely to save your life as say, curing is) however your point here seems to be that "you lose potions and may not help yourself out of danger if you blind quaff a potion, regardless of whether there are any negative effects from potions in the game or not" that's probably true, although if you simply removed the bad effects and left only good behind, you would certainly improve the chances that blind quaffing would help you out of danger, giving the player a very large power increase in the early game, unless you watered the good effects down with more "strictly good, but highly situational" buffs, you hadn't suggested any of *those* but I'd be interested if you had them, the "good" effects from lig, berserk, and ambrosia are all incredibly good, and without drawbacks, those potions would be unilaterally helpful in any situation, so 'those potions, but without the drawbacks' don't qualify as 'situational'

If you want to argue "the early game player should get a really large power buff" then go ahead and do so, I don't think you'll get many backers, but that's certainly an opinion that it's valid to have. If you actually want to propose replacing the bad effects with more varied, highly specialized potions, that'd be fine, but you hadn't done so, and I personally don't know what those specialized effects might be.

Let's move on...

lig and ambrosia have no tactical decision on themselves, the only decision the player is making is "do i wanna stand here and fight till i die/win or do i have cancellation to follow up, do i wanna get confused in the middle of these enemies to recover mp then cure afterwards", as removing the side effects of these potions wont change any real decision the player makes regarding using them. Plus, lig is just a win button early on and against specific enemies, thats not what i call "tactical".

Well, technically drinking *any* potion is technically a "tactic" in the sense that it's a decision made in combat to effect the outcome, but it's true that lignification and ambrosia aren't any more "tactical" than any other potion. I'm not sure what you're point here is, you call lignification a 'win button' but "lignification is too powerful in certain situations" seems to imply that it should either be toned down, or that it needs to have additional drawbacks. "do i wanna stand here and fight till i die/win or do i have cancellation to follow up, do i wanna get confused in the middle of these enemies to recover mp then cure afterwards" seems like a fairly non-straightforward decision, you have to do all sorts of looking at how many creatures are around, what you think their threat level is, and evaluate how that would compare to the threat level after using the potion.

Nevertheless, you haven't given us a 'why it's bad to have negative effects for potions' here, at best you've made a statement that 'the negative effects of some potions don't mean anything in certain situations.

Let's keep looking:

Because the only decision a consumable should make the player take is "do i want to CONSUME this?"

The majority of the players end their games with a stack of brillance potions on their inventory that they never had any use for.
The majority of the players leave potions of lig on the floor even though it could have saved their lives on a specific scenario or crypts.

Ok, you state your opinion that the potion-consuming decision should be simplified, maybe you mean it's too complicated, maybe you just mean that "negative effects are bad" either way that first statement doesn't give us a 'why'

The latter two statements claim that the majority of players don't know when to use those potions, or never play characters that need them, I'm not sure how that supports or refutes your argument, or even how it relates, if those statements are in fact true.

I think you should follow this rabbit hole and try to come up with side effects for every existing potion, see if you realise that making potions hostile to use may not be a good goal.

So even if we came up with drawbacks for every potion (not every potion needs them, because not every potion is as powerful as the ones that have them) *if we had come up with them* I don't know why it would "not be a good goal" other than it being complicated, and taking a bunch of time to develop test, and balance all that, if they already existed, I don't see a problem, at least not yet, let's keep looking:

Siegurt wrote:
this gives the player a more varied and more nuanced set of choices than simply "am i in danger and do i have a potion"

This is exactly what current lig and rage potions do, every other potion has a long duration positive effect that the player will use before the situation turns dangerous. As the game progresses these two potions end up discarded because the side effect is not worth the situational use they have, and thats not good.

That's incorrect, the side effect *is* worth the situational use they have. Also you reiterate your claim that it's "not good" but haven't given us a 'why' yet.

And finally:

Siegurt wrote:
Then i am really not sure what you're point is, "don't make potions hostile" and "these potions are not hostile" seem to be contradictory.

The potion has a drawback that will kill you if you misuse it. Thats not good and i already pointed out why, most players discard those potions instead of using them because manipulating the game in order to benefit from said potions is tedious.

No you didn't point out why, also, you are not most players, you are one player, and you have an opinion, you also haven't explicitly stated a rationale for your opinion, although you think you did.

Siegurt wrote:
Do you have a suggestion for a drawbackless potion that is only useful in some situations that is neither overpowered without a drawback nor a duplicate of an existing potion? If so that would be pretty cool and you should suggest it.

I already did, go read the op.

No you didn't, you suggested that lig, ambrosia, and berserk should have the benefits with no drawbacks, those would be neither 'only useful in some situations' nor would they be 'not overpowered'

Siegurt wrote:
If you are discarding these potions, then i might suggest you either haven't yet learned when it is good to use them, or you so rigerously avoid using consumables that you end up so chock full of them that no matter what your selection of potions was, you would only keep the best ones. If any potions are are in any way different, some will be better and some will be worse, and if pressed for space you will select the best of them regardless of whether that bestness is because of a drawback or not.

I am the majority of the players, so i dont care about your tips and tricks, the fact is that the majority is not going to manipulate every scenario in order to benefit from a potion because if they can do so they can win without that potion effect and its less tedious. You seem to not be able to understand that potions are supposed to be buffs without drawbacks that are limited.
If a player has a hard time figuring how to use a potion your game has a problem.

You know what else people who are new at a game have trouble figuring out how to use? Knights in chess, does that mean that Knights are badly designed or should be removed? No, it just means the game is more complicated and has a long learning curve. "Players have to figure out non-trivial problems" is not a game design problem.

You don't seem to be able to understand that "potions are supposed to be buffs without drawbacks that are limited" is one opinion, yours. I might even be persuaded to agree with you if you explained or backed up your opinion with sufficiently strong logical arguments, which you haven't. Hint: If your only argument devolves to "Because that's how I expect it to be" it's not going to be very effective, and maybe you should consider having a more open mind about your expectations.

Siegurt wrote:
Both rage and lig are fantastic when used properly, amazingly so in fact.

By properly you mean kite enemies then use it or just choke on it because you have no other option. Very interesting decisions. I love how you are totally fine with a potion having a overpowered effect because it has a drawback that you know how to mitigate or completely ignore, you didnt even realise that these 2 potions dont have specific buffes, they are just win buttoms regardless of what you are fighting against. Also, dont you wanna talk about ambrosia now?

So part of playing this game means to some degree controlling monster's access to you, sometimes that means walking around and picking advantageous terrain, maybe that's kiting (the definition is slightly nebulous) however "doing what you need to do to win the game anyway" doesn't really change how you decide to use any potion.

You seem to have a lot of negative focus on these potions particularly, rather than "choking on it because you have no other option" you could just not have nothing in that slot, would that be better? would that give you more or less decisions to make about what to do?

Something can't simultaneously be 'win buttons regardless of what you are fighting against' and 'unable to be used effectively'.

These do have specific buffs, lignification gives you a large boost to AC and some resistances and HP, that's specific, drinking lignification doesn't just autokill all monsters on the screen (or level) those specific effects would be fairly overpowered if the potion had no drawbacks, with the drawbacks, it's about on par with the other strictly beneficial potions.

Ambroisia recovers a fairly large chunk of HP and MP, again, very specific benefits, which would be overpowered without the drawback of being confused for a very short time.

Berserk gives you a large offensive boost (in the form of speed and a direct bump to your damage output) which again, would be overpowered without a drawback.

All specific buffs, all very specific effects, all useful, all of them would be overly powerful without any drawbacks.

[Gozigzag]

although if you simply removed the bad effects and left only good behind, you would certainly improve the chances that blind quaffing would help you out of danger, giving the player a very large power increase in the early game

Lig and ambrosia are far better than half of the other potions as far as blind quaffing to save your life goes, removing their side effects is a very insignificant increase in the early game, and that doesnt matter considering the early game is already as hard as it gets.

unless you watered the good effects down with more "strictly good, but highly situational" buffs, you hadn't suggested any of *those* but I'd be interested if you had them, the "good" effects from lig, berserk, and ambrosia are all incredibly good, and without drawbacks, those potions would be unilaterally helpful in any situation, so 'those potions, but without the drawbacks' don't qualify as 'situational'

I have no interest in making a consumable "situational", because they already are due to being limited, also i dont want to have to discard all my potions as i progress through the game and they all start turning into death traps because, in case you havent noticed, potions dont scale with your power, nor does their side effects, which is why lig is goes from win button to death trap.

Of course, i have no idea what it is to play the game where all potions have side effects, but once i drop lig and zerk in the floor i know what its like when potions dont have side effects, and i enjoy that.