The Tavern

This has probably come up already in IRC or something but with post-level-generation spawns removed it is absolutely vital for every species to have a clock. Therefore, Mu/Vp need to either be removed or made susceptible to starvation.

I don't get it. If I understand it correctly, the point of the food and OOD clocks is to prevent scumming by forcing the player ever onwards. If post-level-generation spawning is removed, then these clocks become useless, since there's no incentive, no reward to staying on a level long (no possible farming). Am I missing something here?

1. Mummies and vampires can now spend a virtually unlimited amount of time to wait for monsters to come to them, instead of having to explore the level. In particular, you probably want to start each level by waiting for a very long time so that all the wandering monsters reach your position on the upstairs; once you've dealt with those, clearing the rest of the level's monsters becomes much safer. ("The DoomRL problem")
2. Mummies and vampires can now spend a virtually unlimited amount of time to ensure that they have killed all the monsters on a level. Since monsters can move, there is no guarantee that fully exploring the level has found all the monsters. Therefore, you want to continue wandering the level after "finishing" it to make sure you've killed every single monster, in order to get the most XP and items.
3. Mummies and vampires can now spend a virtually unlimited amount of time waiting on one level for monsters on another level to stop tracking them ("mummystabbing", although they at least do not fall asleep anymore).

Piety decay does not solve this since you don't always have a god. (And even if you do it's probably Gozag because Gozag is brokenly overpowered, and Gozag doesn't have piety decay lol)

You could mostly fix 2. by removing XP rewards and item drops from monsters, but that wouldn't help with the other problems.

Removing monster generation increased differences between hard and easy characters which is good but a better solution would be to replace those monsters with permanent summons which don't give xp and items. Then extra luring would not be as good and species like mu/vp wouldn'T need any changes

Issue 1 can be mostly solved by making monsters wander in set paths as opposed to randomly. The same change should also help with issue 2 (since monsters are wandering over a smaller area, you're less likely to miss them). A monster that loses track of the player can start wandering a different path, to avoid predictability.

Issue 3 could be solved by giving monsters a Brogue-like ability to traverse stairs (i.e. they can traverse stairs completely on their own), something Crawl should probably have anyway.

Do people do this? Do people want to do this? Is this actually a problem that needs solving?

"I was thinking about playing mummy but i didn't want to wait for tens of thousands of turns on each floor."
or
"I'm super excited to play mummy because I want to wait for tens of thousands of turns on each floor! I made a macro to help me do it!"

Edit:
I'm of the opinion that such behavior is appropriately contained by the score penalty for waiting tens of thousands of turns. In other words, this is not a real problem appropriately contained by showing the problem a picture of a penalty.

edgefigaro wrote:Do people do this? Do people want to do this? Is this actually a problem that needs solving?

I do it a lot in doomrl, it's absolutely the biggest problem with that game (it's probably a bigger problem than everything else wrong with doomrl combined). It would not be quite as extreme in crawl because crawl is not doomrl, but it would definitely be beneficial.

I don't enjoy waiting for thousands of turns in doomrl for monsters to come to me, but it is such a huge advantage that not doing so is a serious handicap.

Giving the player an advantage for waiting on the stairs for thousands of turns directly contradicts the anti-grinding philosophy in the crawl manual.

Of the problems duvessa mentions, two are arguably problems with stairs. They are marginal in my opinion anyway.

The point that you derive some advantage from re-exploring or waiting around a mostly cleared level to pick off stragglers is important and would be so even without recent spawn changes. The old spawn system made it worse really and I have never seen convincing evidence that waiting is better than reexploring for this purpose. Reexploring is fast and reliable enough that food presents no barrier to doing it. It is also quite safe to do. There are various ways to deal with the straggler problem. One would be to introduce a dungeon feature that allows the player to teleport randomly toward monsters, like teleportitis, and inform the player if the teleport attempt fails, indicating the level is clear. Another would be to show the player where monsters are after the level has been sufficiently cleared. Monsters on cleared floors are essentially free kills, so neither of these have significant balance issues. edit: The latter would certainly be more player-friendly and it could be made to work with autoexplore -- when you reach the point that monsters are revealed to you, autoexplore can automatically chase them for you.

Something a little more radical to push the player out would be to upgrade monsters on level, e.g. polymorph with a HD bonus, and give the player a status equivalent to mark that expires on leaving the level after either a certain percentage of clearing has been achieved or after a certain number of turns on level. These polymorphed monsters can be revealed to be something weaker on kill and give the usual amount of experience, so that it is clear what has happened and that the player is not going to get an advantage by waiting out any timers.

In any case, this is an issue in hellcrawl and something should be done about it.

is crawl so hard that you have to purposefully do ridiculous things in the name of optimal play? Tavern consensus is probably that its not. So why are we so worried about degenerate behavior? Just because someone could use such methods doesnt mean they should or would.

Bad players should not be worried about some obscure and unfun way to gain a marginal advantage. They should work on threat assessment, tactics, etc. Good players will not want to do boring things to win because they can win without waiting 10k turns by the stairs.

Is waiting on the stairs for monsters to come to you really a good idea? It means you're giving the monsters more time to pick crap up off the floor and potentially use it against you, or to set of alarm traps and get the entire floor doing this.

pretty rare for monsters picking up things to make a difference

sometimes it can make them less dangerous, even(because they can pick up slower weapons)

Waiting for thousands of turns will kill your score.

Of course, one could take the position that score doesn't matter. But one could turn the argument around to say that winrate doesn't matter.

Doesnt wrote:It means you're giving the monsters more time to pick crap up off the floor and potentially use it against you.

Monsters stopped picking up stuff some versions ago.

Majang wrote:
Doesnt wrote:It means you're giving the monsters more time to pick crap up off the floor and potentially use it against you.

Monsters stopped picking up stuff some versions ago.

Actually monsters stopped picking up *seen* items, so if you don't explore the level first critters could pick up unseen items and potentially use them against you. Not that that's important or a big deal.

Here's the (first) relevant commit:
https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/7 ... 7116e69670

edgefigaro wrote:Do people do this? Do people want to do this? Is this actually a problem that needs solving?

When has that ever mattered

Siegurt wrote:Actually monsters stopped picking up *seen* items, so if you don't explore the level first critters could pick up unseen items and potentially use them against you. Not that that's important or a big deal.

Unless you kill them over deep water or lava, I guess :mrgreen:

Was just thinking about this reexploration stuff and wanted to ask: Does anyone have a reasonable estimate of the number of monsters typically left wandering after a normal first-pass clear of a level?

edit: A bit of experimentation reveals that you get one monster this way every five or so floors. I don't know why I'm surprised that this instance of handwringing about scumming turns out to be mostly about nothing.

duvessa wrote:Gozag doesn't have piety decay lol)

Feature request: Implement Gozag piety decay. Every n turns, Gozag taxes one of your gold pieces. Failure to pay counts as abandonment. Increase gold drop rate to compensate.

edgefigaro wrote:Do people do this? Do people want to do this? Is this actually a problem that needs solving?

"I was thinking about playing mummy but i didn't want to wait for tens of thousands of turns on each floor."
or
"I'm super excited to play mummy because I want to wait for tens of thousands of turns on each floor! I made a macro to help me do it!"

Edit:
I'm of the opinion that such behavior is appropriately contained by the score penalty for waiting tens of thousands of turns. In other words, this is not a real problem appropriately contained by showing the problem a picture of a penalty.

bel wrote:Waiting for thousands of turns will kill your score.

Of course, one could take the position that score doesn't matter. But one could turn the argument around to say that winrate doesn't matter.

I hate this line of thinking because I don't play for score. Playing for score sucks in crawl. You have to breadswing, swap into troll armor to heal, abandon a majority of your games, explore in such a way that minimizes backtracking, and make a greater # of trivial cost-benefit-analyses than you would have to in a typical game of crawl (do i walk 12 tiles to pick up some javelins i might not use etc). Even if you enjoy 'playing for score,' why would you want to make 'playing to win' less fun?

Re. edgefigaro, how about: "well I guess I'll never play mummy because when I start a game my goal is winning and I know that if I play mummy I have to stand on a staircase and wait for a billion turns if I want to do the thing that most likely leads to the achievement of my goal?"

Just remove food. For God's sake.

I'm of the opinion that if your one and only fixation above all other things including entertainment and sanity is to win such that you will resort to "degenerate" and "unfun" behavior to even slightly increase your chances of doing so, that is your problem and not Crawl's.

A game in which 'best play' involves exploiting a tactic that is unfun and doesn't require skill to abuse is a bad game. Is stairdancing also ok because if you stairdance that's a personal problem, not a game design problem? Seems like an argument designed to brazenly ignore a game's flaws.

Blomdor wrote:Just remove food. For God's sake.

I'm of the opinion that if your one and only fixation above all other things including entertainment and sanity is to win such that you will resort to "degenerate" and "unfun" behavior to even slightly increase your chances of doing so, that is your problem and not Crawl's.

To be fair, while I think removing food is a wonderful idea, it wouldn't actually solve any of these Hypothetically Optimal Behaviors. As far as I can tell, there are exactly three kinds of fixes:

1) Remove upstairs, which would satisfy the demands of most of the Hypothetically Optimal Players anyway and would eliminate most of these problems; it would no longer be strictly safe to stand around and wait for thousands of turns as there would be no method of escape except downward. It might still be optimal to wait endlessly after grabbing a bunch of scrolls and potions, however. Part of me honestly feels like I'll see a version of DCSS without upstairs before I see the game without food.

2) Add a new form of non-food timer, like Spelunky's ghosts, or a shaft timer, or a short trip to the abyss, or something. I personally favor timers that last for a single level as opposed to timers, like food, that last the whole game.

3) Change monster AI behavior to prevent players from benefitting from standing still. Perhaps after X number of turns since the last kill, monsters will no longer willingly enter your LOS, and the longer you spend off the level, the likelier it is that the game will place a large number of monsters around the stairs you come in on as an ambush. This is the most technically complex solution and therefore the least likely to be implemented.

Of course, there's also option 4, where you make mummies and vampires subject to the food clock. I think this is objectively the worst solution, but it's also the easiest by far, and therefore the most likely to be implemented if the devs really feel that this Hypothetical Optimal Tactic is a problem that must be solved.

e: oh, I forgot one more, which is that you could bring back OOD spawns but make them durable summons which give no XP or items. Given that said OOD spawns were just removed, tho, I figured it was unlikely.

what if Mu and Vp just got hunrgy like any other species?

Archaeo, you may not be aware that hellcrawl implements your suggestions #1 & #3, as well as removing food. If you wanted to test those changes.

Siegurt wrote:Actually monsters stopped picking up *seen* items, so if you don't explore the level first critters could pick up unseen items and potentially use them against you. Not that that's important or a big deal.

Maybe monsters should start waking up and go around randomly picking up stuff and destroying them after X turns after first visiting the level.

chequers wrote:Archaeo, you may not be aware that hellcrawl implements your suggestions #1 & #3, as well as removing food. If you wanted to test those changes.

Do you mean 1 and 2? I am not aware of any change to prevent monsters walking into the camping player's LoS, but I would feel somewhat vindicated by such a move.

Anyway, yeah, once you get rid of upstairs, you can just put a clock on each level and fuck the player up if they violate it. After a recent commit, hellcrawl just summons 3-6 monsters that are likely to kill or beat consumables out of the player if they stay around for more than about 2.5k turns and keeps doing it every so often thereafter. The player is appropriately warned as the moment of reckoning approaches.

A suggestion I've made for hellcrawl, which probably isn't of interest for dcss, is the idea of a stair-kill mechanic where after you've sufficiently explored a level, say 95% of walkable floor space, you can kill the remaining monsters by walking over a down staircase. I thought a variation on this where you have to kill all but something like twice the average number of monsters left unkilled on a normal first-pass level clear was a kind of clever way to deal with re-explore scumming, until I realized that the number of monsters that are left behind this way is like .2 or something on average. The exploration based version has the virtue of enabling a stealth-exploration playstyle though even if the scumming issue it solves is mostly imaginary.

Another solution could be lowering the max game time limit to somewhere around 300k turns. I'm pretty suboptimal in terms of both exploration and backtracking, and most of my games still finish within 150k turns (even 15 runes + multiple zigs); the only exception is ~350k turns for a Xomscumming->Gozag 3 rune mummy. Thus, 300k seems like a sufficient amount of time for slower/more casual players to finish within, while discouraging significant amount of wait-scumming.

If losing superzigs is an issue, the time limit can be lifted (or raised to the current maximum) if the player manages to successfully exit Zig:27, which should be sufficient enough proof that they have no real need to wait scum at that point. If I'm an outlier and the average player is faster/slower than I am, the max turn limit could be raised or lowered to fit.

Edit: If it needs to be more granular, make the max time limit start much lower (around 50k) and get raised whenever a rune or a (new) zigfig is obtained.

Arrhythmia wrote:what if Mu and Vp just got hunrgy like any other species?

I mean it might surprise you to learn that I'm not a big hunger fan, arrhy, so I'd like to prevent its spread.

chequers wrote:Archaeo, you may not be aware that hellcrawl implements your suggestions #1 & #3, as well as removing food. If you wanted to test those changes.

I personally like upstairs and the sense of scale and geography it provides to DCSS. I would prefer to see an actual implementation of #3 along with #2 (if, as WTRL says, there's no real change to monster behavior), as I think it would solve many of the problems with upstairs and save a part of the game I think is worth saving. For the purposes of hellcrawl, removing upstairs is def. a good idea, but I would miss them in vanilla crawl.

amaril wrote:I hate this line of thinking because I don't play for score. Playing for score sucks in crawl. You have to breadswing, swap into troll armor to heal, abandon a majority of your games, explore in such a way that minimizes backtracking, and make a greater # of trivial cost-benefit-analyses than you would have to in a typical game of crawl (do i walk 12 tiles to pick up some javelins i might not use etc). Even if you enjoy 'playing for score,' why would you want to make 'playing to win' less fun?

This is a misunderstanding. "Playing for score" need not mean "playing for your highest score": that is speedrunning. A winrate is an average, so the corresponding measure would be to take an average of your score over, say, 10 or 20 games. In particular, "abandon[ing] a majority of your games" will not give you a high average score. Besides, winning gives you a large boost to score, so a strategy designed to maximize expected score would likely lead to a high winrate anyway.

I'm pretty sure that "playing to get a high expected winrate" is about as tedious as "playing to get a high expected score". Have you seen some of Berder's hints for streaking, for instance? In practice, people cut corners here and there to spare themselves the pain of playing "optimally".

The problem with score is that it is rather badly designed. But it can be improved, and can have much more granularity than winrate. Besides, Crawl is a single-player game. You can choose whatever metric you like which pleases you. The point I was making is that it is a choice, and a rather arbitrary one at that, to focus on winrate. Few or no people actually play the game that way.

All forms of optimal crawl play are rather degenerate. A vast majority of users use the buttons o and tab a lot. Yet we keep having conversations about what the optimal winrate player (always winrate, never score) would or should do.

Bring back the ood timer and monsters, with two differences.
1. They can't traverse stairs
2. They spawn with and pick up no items
3. They can't be killed. I think this would require them to not surround the player which is weird but yeah.

Durable summons that you get no XP for would work as well I think?

The issue is a bit too narrowly formulated in the OP. There are several "clocks" in crawl. The main one, food, doesn't work. Piety decay is another one. Another one is the spawning of monsters over time. The latter has been removed for reasons not clear to me and which nobody seems to care to defend.

My point about score only deals with the narrow case of "waiting for thousands of turns". Somewhat degenerate play would be increased for all characters with this change. The basic point is that you can allow monsters to come to you, instead of going to meet them. With the removal of the monster generation timer, this kind of behavior would only increase. One does not have to be a Mummy or Vampire to exploit this: there is plenty of food in the game.

As a related point: similar to Gozag's lack of piety decay, Uskayaw's piety decay mechanisms also cannot serve as a clock.

There are many good reasons to remove spawns. They make the number of monsters in the game and therefore the amount of experience unnecessarily difficult to predict and analyze, they reward players for going slowly by feeding them additional experience, they don't achieve any of their supposed design goals but produce serious externalities, for example interruptions to autotravel. As has been noted many times, including in the commit message, spawns enable a form of scumming far more useful than the one they're supposed to, but fail to, prevent.

There is really no reason not to just outright kill a player that is doing this doomRL style nonsense. What is needed is a mechanism that cleanly and conveniently wipes a level that's almost cleared, to prevent the reexplore silliness without punishing the player for not tracking down misbehaving monsters, so that it makes sense to talk about a "cleared level" without bringing in other kinds of scumming. I posted a suggestion for this upthread, but I'm sure other people can think of other ways to go. Then once a level is clear in this sense, you can turn off the kill-clock so that the player can engage in cherished dcss fun, like traveling through cleared levels to reach items, shops, and dungeon branches, without fear of reprisal.

watertreatmentRL wrote:...feeding them additional experience...

There's an easy way to fix this problem. Since it has been mentioned about 100 times before, I won't do it here.

watertreatmentRL wrote:...serious externalities, for example interruptions to autotravel...

You and I probably differ about what is "serious".

More importantly, this is not the thread to discuss whether spawns should have been removed or not. There is already another thread for that.

About "outright killing" people based on whether they engage in "DoomRL nonsense": to outright kill people you need to identify such situations with high accuracy, and it would be a relatively discontinuous mechanism. In other words, it would introduce more "breakpoints", which people are always railing against here. What I suggested above is that such situations need not be extreme for them to be exploitable, so such kinds of breakpoints are neither desirable nor useful. Also, some floors are naturally harder, which makes a hard breakpoint bad. For instance, I looked at some of my morgues in Hellcrawl, and I spent almost 2500 turns on Snake:3 even when I was not "scumming". This is because Snake:3 often has layouts with huge vaults where one needs to lure monsters out to deal with them.

Hellcrawl got rid of OOD monsters(and spawns generally) and now introduced "super-OOD" monsters with an arbitrary breakpoint to prevent scumming. It doesn't make any sense to me.

You asked for defenses of spawn removal in your last post. If you don't consider the way autotravel is interrupted by spawns (and hunger) in dcss a serious externality, you have no standard for bad game behavior at all, in my opinion.

As for your talk about breakpoints, breakpoints are actually good, especially when they're well communicated to the player. What dcss shows abundantly is that passively needling the player consistently fails to produce results (see food, formerly spawns, piety decay). I know some people think breakpoints are bad in the abstract, but the argument I see more of and that I find more persuasive is that breakpoints that you have to look up or remember are a problem. I'd also say that systems in crawl that are supposed to avert hard breakpoints are complex as hell (for example spell failrates, formulas that govern the effects of skills like dodging, armor, etc.) or are at best not widely understood by players at the level of specifics (e.g. the effect of fighting on combat damage), so the cure is usually worse than the disease in the examples readily at hand. Hellcrawl tells you that you're about to get your ass handed to you if you don't clear out and it's not like you have to take the snake rune to win.

I'd like to note that if autotravel cannot be interrupted, it does not make any sense - just instantly teleport the character from Lair:6 to entrance to Orc:1 or that shop on D:3

You have misread my post; I am willing to take the blame for not being clear. I did not ask for defenses of spawn removal in my post. I said that, in my opinion, the defenses offered are flimsy. I do not want to import arguments about the topic here; those belong in the other thread. Of course, I can't control what people choose to discuss.

About hard breakpoints, very few things in Crawl outright kill you. I assume this is by design. I think this is a sensible design, which doesn't say to the player "my way or the highway". The other point here, which I made above, is that to create a hard breakpoint, especially things which can "outright kill" you, the game needs to identify such situations with very high accuracy. And everything below that breakpoint is exploitable. I don't see how this is good design.

VAF: Indeed, this is why some people have pushed for no upstairs for a long time. The dungeon geography of crawl is not charming at all, it's just an increasingly large and empty game world there for people to romanticize but which serves no real purpose. If the purpose of autotravel is to be interrupted by encounters with imps and hunger messages, this really underscores the nature of the inaugural half-measures of the dcss era: Autotravel and autoexplore. What was really called for was more structured, manually explorable levels and overall dungeon structure optimized for gameplay rather than roleplaying.

bel: As long as you aren't willing to put your foot down on particular bad player options, those player options will remain viable and the game will suffer accordingly. I don't believe that there's much scope for doomRL style scumming in current hellcrawl and to the extent that people try it, they know they're playing with fire. This is good in my opinion. It's fine to allow a certain degree of brinksmanship. We are not trying to make the players into boy or girlscouts here. We are just making sure that certain well-known issues are addressed in a comprehensive way.

I think most players who want upstairs removed want it as a way to remove stairdancing. Personally I never play rogue-likes which don't have autoexplore and autopickup, I have a better way to spend my life than pressing arrow buttons all the time.

but autotravel is instant without teleportation as well

VeryAngryFelid wrote:I'd like to note that if autotravel cannot be interrupted, it does not make any sense - just instantly teleport the character from Lair:6 to entrance to Orc:1 or that shop on D:3

I'm confused as to what you're getting at here. Yes, this is what autotravel does currently if there are no interruptions. It's nice when it works and I don't have to thoughtlessly fiddle with the ui a few times to get my teleport to work. Are you talking about the fact that it adds to your aut count still, keeping it as a measure of your conservation of movement than actual discrete moves?

Playing locally, you get to watch the whole trip, although there probably is a setting to have it work like in web.

Generally speaking, I do think that simply writing S and appearing in swamp would be a better experience. As would a different version of the current way in which you interact with stuff you left behind.

I find the online experience of uninterrupted autotravel to be unnerving and too abrupt. It really is just a teleport, and this takes away from the "feel" of walking, which is an important game design aspect. For example, you want to communicate to your player that walking back to D2 to buy that scroll of blinking takes time and is impinging on the (hopefully useful) food clock.

The loss of information has further implications: without the intermediate communication, the player needs to remember the nearby areas or risk being thrown into confusion about their new surroundings. This rewards the player into manually searching for the area to "teleport-walk" to in the X screen, which is more tedious and circular with respect to the fundamental problem.

Regarding the OP: I agree entirely.

crawlnoob wrote:I find the online experience of uninterrupted autotravel to be unnerving and too abrupt. It really is just a teleport, and this takes away from the "feel" of walking, which is an important game design aspect. For example, you want to communicate to your player that walking back to D2 to buy that scroll of blinking takes time and is impinging on the (hopefully useful) food clock.

Why can't we have the item cost X gold, Y piety and Z food then? The price even might be increasing over time (gold becomes less meaningful the deeper you are into the game).
I really dislike that optimal play consists in buying all useful items before entering Zot 5 because you can be forced to steal the orb and you don't know how many and which monsters you will meet during orb run.

Perhaps we should have an rc option that makes the game play five minutes of dwarf fortress music and display procedurally generated epic poetry every time you use autotravel across more than three dungeon levels for players who are unnerved by clean game mechanics.

If you want the feel of walking, I suggest you go outside and walk. It's good and it's good for you.

You could be facetious, or you could understand that a lot of careful thought goes into things like exactly how many milliseconds there are between when the player pushes the jump button, and when Mario actually jumps, because this kind of action/reaction feedback cycle is part of fundamental video game design and important for player satisfaction.

As for multi-resource costs, there's no reason you cant do this (and a lot of games do exactly that, for instance Heroes of Might and Magic 3), but you might trip on the flavor explanation, and actually balancing the sources and drains on those resources (including item cost), is far more difficult. But we do already have some hidden hunger+piety cost in crawl when it comes to large backtracking to buy an item you couldnt afford the gold on earlier, its just that for the most part, its ineffectual, especially concerning hunger.

crawlnoob wrote:I find the online experience of uninterrupted autotravel to be unnerving and too abrupt. It really is just a teleport, and this takes away from the "feel" of walking, which is an important game design aspect. For example, you want to communicate to your player that walking back to D2 to buy that scroll of blinking takes time and is impinging on the (hopefully useful) food clock.

The loss of information has further implications: without the intermediate communication, the player needs to remember the nearby areas or risk being thrown into confusion about their new surroundings. This rewards the player into manually searching for the area to "teleport-walk" to in the X screen, which is more tedious and circular with respect to the fundamental problem.

Regarding the OP: I agree entirely.

You can disable the teleporting and get back the walking by adding

Code:: travel_delay=20

to your rcfile

Not sure how well this would work, but there could be the option (I believe mentioned in here once) of using a Mark system to force monsters to find players after a certain point.

The idea that a handful of random monsters still stuck on a level will be a good thing is lost to me -- let players kill them and get it over with. At the same time, have the Mark appear after an inordinate amount of time on a given level.

why do people so desperately want to kill every straggling monster on the floor though?

The Tavern

remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)

Re: remove mummies and vampires (or let them starve)