Get rid of chaos knights (of Xom)

[Roderic]

I suggest to delete them from the background list.

I have found that there's no much difference between starting as a toy of Xom from scratch and to join Xom after finding its first altar (usually in D:2 or D:3), otherwise it's quite usual to find it in the Temple.

As a religious background, CK it is different from the rest of them because there is no piety mechanism that allows you some ability early on, but rather being mistreated randomly since the beginning. At least choosing Xom in an altar allows more diversification because of your initial role whereas starting as a CK only gives you a decent weapon and some average stats and apts, non impressive at all.

Worshipping Xom it is not progessive but fluctuating, and including a Xom follower as a starting role is meaningless. I don't choose them at all but I choose Xom as a god if I have the whim when finding some of its altars.

Agreement? disagreement ?

[nicolae]

As a religious background, CK it is different from the rest of them because there is no piety mechanism that allows you some ability early on, but rather being mistreated randomly since the beginning.

Some people like being mistreated from the beginning, though. Nobody really chooses Xom on a whim, anyway -- you have to be kind of masochistic to pick Xom, and if you are then you might as well go all the way.

[Roderic]

Nobody really chooses Xom on a whim, anyway

So do you suggest to get rid of of Xom altars in Temple as a better solution?

[evilmike]

Agreement? disagreement ?

Disagree. I think you are missing one of the major advantages of xom being a starting god. Namely, you have to deal with his randomness from the very start of the game, and not later on when you find an altar. This makes the chaos knight play very differently from any other background, which is really the main thing that a background needs. Being able to convert to xom once you reach Temple isn't really an argument, since the same applies to most gods (and if you stat as a monk you even get a piety boost).

New players also like starting chaos knights. Xom is actually something that draws people to playing this game, so it's worth keeping him as a starting god just for that. Keep in mind that a lot of players consider reaching Temple a serious achievement.

[Roderic]

Let's say then that Xom could be demoted to a minor god with vault temples early found in dungeon but not in the temple... provided that a character when arriving on Temple has better choices than it and therefore, Xom will never be picked in the Temple if it wasn't chosen from the beginning.

[mageykun]

I'd have to disagree with that as well. I have, in fact, run games where I planned from the beginning to grab Xom at the temple, just so I'd have a few levels and the certain background guaranteed tools to mitigate Xom's heavy handedness (I've had a lot of fun with warpers in particular- guaranteed blink and translocations really help).

Choosing Xom is essentially consenting to turn the RNG up to eleven. This can be fun at the beginning or the game (hoping for great luck, laughing at ridiculous bad luck) and later- when you're consciously trying to game the system by specifically gearing yourself to survive the bad and reap the benefits of the good. Xom deserves a starting background, and a place in the temple (not including Him there would just be spoilery and annoying anyways. Lucy and Jivya are only kept out of the temple for reasonable flavor reasons).

Edit: I just realized I'm arguing in favor of the God of luck in post 777. Is Xom amused?

[cjo]

Xom is for getting a good laugh. Xom is for when you try and try and still die, so you say screw it, I'll just play Xom if I'm going to die all the time anyway. And, Xom is for when you think, if I did XYZ and convert to Xom at the temple, maybe I can actually survive Xom's nonsense. So I like having the current options.

[dpeg]

Xom is currently a pathetic god [*], because the good effects are often lackluster and the bad ones too severe. But Xom has seen changes and will be modified further. Just a question of available coder time.

[*] that is, cannot compete at all power-wise with the other gods; if you play Xom, it is a deliberate challenge

[Roderic]

It shouldn't, it has great potential but nowadays it's more like a curse of jinxitis

[dpeg]

minmay: I can see how the impression comes about, but it's not really the idea. Old Xom (4b26) was about amassing mutations -- we're talking about pages of mutations. Back then, Xom was all about reliable, late game power -- not really what we want. Oh, and you could hope for an awesome gift or two early on. Nothing guaranteed, but it'd make players try the god.
After that came Zooko's patch which introduced tension into Crawl. The idea was that Xom should help with battles rather. There were some problems with it: the mechanic of keeping Xom interested was spoiler-prone and off; this bit got improved. However, the fact that Xom's negative effects are too strong and the positive, tactical effects generally too weak has not been addressed.
There is something like a plan between jpeg and me. We should probably put it on the wiki some time.

[AtT]

Perhaps he should continue to random, but his effect's shouldn't be so extreme. That means no D1 rod of destruction and also not nearly such a high chance of being surrounded by impossibly OOD demons for no reason. He could be still be random and exciting without being as ridiculous with some of his abilities. As it is I think he encourages scummy play too much and is really not a viable option. My image of Xom is a more generalist type god, instead of an extreme random god of fuck you over eventually.

Still, Chaos Knights should stay regardless of how Xom works. Who doesn't love a quick (usually) joke/fun game after a particularly painful YASD or a nice YAVP? There's a reason Chaos Knights are grayed out for every species.

[pratamawirya]

I don't really like the image of Xom playing his toys and not caring about what they would turn up. For example, the demons. What is their purpose? I think it would make much more sense if they give experience. AND/OR if they drop demon whips/tridents/whatever.

[molari]

[quote="AtT"]Perhaps he should continue to random, but his effect's shouldn't be so extreme. That means no D1 rod of destruction and also not nearly such a high chance of being surrounded by impossibly OOD demons for no reason. He could be still be random and exciting without being as ridiculous with some of his abilities. As it is I think he encourages scummy play too much and is really not a viable option. My image of Xom is a more generalist type god, instead of an extreme random god of fuck you over eventually.
quote]

This has actually rarely been my Xom experience - I think he is not extreme enough. In particular, as mentioned, his battle effects are pretty wimpy - he should be turning a horde of death yacks into a swarm of butterflies and so on to really have a chaotic influence. At the moment he seems more the God of occasionally turning things invisible and making sure you always have 2 weapons in your inventory.

And to reiterate what others have said, even in his current neutered state he has to stay as a starting God - he's a chance for players who routinely die on the early levels to see cool things they don't otherwise get to experience, as well as being just downright iconic.

[dondy]

hmm, all arguments in favour of NOT removing chaos knight could be applied to mostly any god really D:

"he's a chance for players who routinely die on the early levels to see cool things they don't otherwise get to experience, as well as being just downright iconic."

"Still, Chaos Knights should stay regardless of how Xom works. Who doesn't love a quick (usually) joke/fun game after a particularly painful YASD or a nice YAVP? There's a reason Chaos Knights are grayed out for every species."
that's what i usually pick DsWn of Xom for - but not quite going for Chaos Knight :p

"Disagree. I think you are missing one of the major advantages of xom being a starting god. Namely, you have to deal with his randomness from the very start of the game, and not later on when you find an altar."
this game is pretty much random, nemlex is also "quite random" in that the decks are "quite random" etc. D:

if you argue like that there's nearly no reason to not include <Insert God> to the list of pickable starting gods - or am i totally off? D:

[nicolae]

if you argue like that there's nearly no reason to not include <Insert God> to the list of pickable starting gods - or am i totally off? D:

Not all gods are iconic or show you cool things you otherwise don't get to see, not all gods are goofy and whimsical, and not all gods have such a unique playstyle that you would want to start out worshipping them.

[dondy]

if you argue like that there's nearly no reason to not include <Insert God> to the list of pickable starting gods - or am i totally off? D:

Not all gods are iconic or show you cool things you otherwise don't get to see, not all gods are goofy and whimsical, and not all gods have such a unique playstyle that you would want to start out worshipping them.

meh, come on - that's totally a personal taste (all gods are somewhat unique),

f.e. i could say i find Zin totally goofy (recite is so pointless, random and dangerous) - or TSO totally goofy (his conduct is a major PITA early game) - etc. Jivja (Jelly Knight - come on! )

[nicolae]

f.e. i could say i find Zin totally goofy (recite is so pointless, random and dangerous) - or TSO totally goofy (his conduct is a major PITA early game) - etc. Jivja (Jelly Knight - come on! )

I'm not quite sure you're using "goofy" in the same way I am.

TSO and Jiyva aren't starting gods because they're mostly useful for end game characters.

[dondy]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/goofy i applied the definition i found there, to random other gods :p

and it still works, as i tried to explain D:

and besides, there's quite a more unique option to chaos knight - that is going for (Ds)Wn of Xom which is even more random... (esp. if you get a D1 xom altar)

[Zelkelion]

O_O Jelly Knight! XD!

We have to see this. Octopode Jelly Knight for maximum monster traumatization.

[dondy]

O_O Jelly Knight! XD!

We have to see this. Octopode Jelly Knight for maximum monster traumatization.

PeanutButter the Octopode Jelly Knight of Jiyva -
Now with own Theme Song! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8MDNFaGfT4
Including a BRAND NEW food type: http://www.ehow.com/video_1323_make-peanut-butter.html

Beats "Chaos Knights" every day ;p

...

how do i resize images with the img tag? :s
it doesn't seem to be implemented accordingly to http://www.bbcode.org/examples/?id=10 :/

[MyOtheHedgeFox]

[pratamawirya]

You just killed this thread. YOU FRIKKIN' KILLED IT.

[Stormfox]

Back on topic, since my playstyle with Xom is I Just Don't Freakin' Care, it's very cathartic for me to roll up a CK or two after dying with a hard-played character. And no matter how the game ends up killing me, nine times out of ten I can just shrug it off as "Xom did it, not me, so why get worked up about it?"

Having to find that Xom altar means I have to work at being able to turn off the give-a-damn switch. When I really need to have that switch turned off for a while for whatever reason, I want it available from turn 1.

[dondy]

Back on topic, since my playstyle with Xom is I Just Don't Freakin' Care, it's very cathartic for me to roll up a CK or two after dying with a hard-played character. And no matter how the game ends up killing me, nine times out of ten I can just shrug it off as "Xom did it, not me, so why get worked up about it?"

Having to find that Xom altar means I have to work at being able to turn off the give-a-damn switch. When I really need to have that switch turned off for a while for whatever reason, I want it available from turn 1.

On the other hand you can just choose a Wn and have the same argumentation - Wn's can have completely absurd combinations which are more or less unplayable (or pretty good); Ds can have similar effects and if you'd make it to a Xom Altar - you'd simply increase the probability of "death by RNG".

While you could have a reasonable plan for a game starting with Jiyva, at least from the looks of it (just got ONE early altar so far). I actually really like the Jelly Knight idea, while Jiyva seems weaker than other gods - it seems more flavourfull (and after eventual playtesting and buffs) and might also be more usefull overall than a "Chaos Knight" - which is not that unique anyways.

[nicolae]

On the other hand you can just choose a Wn and have the same argumentation - Wn's can have completely absurd combinations which are more or less unplayable (or pretty good); Ds can have similar effects and if you'd make it to a Xom Altar - you'd simply increase the probability of "death by RNG".

I'm not entirely sure you really get the argumentation for why people play Xom.

While you could have a reasonable plan for a game starting with Jiyva, at least from the looks of it (just got ONE early altar so far).

The usual consensus of people who play Jiyva is that Jiyva is an end-game deity who's not all that useful to a starting character. This is one of the reasons why TSO isn't a starting god anymore either.

it seems more flavourfull (and after eventual playtesting and buffs)

In my experience, handwaving away "eventual playtesting" as a minor task that can be easily worked out later usually indicates that the person didn't really put much thought into the suggestion at all.

[dondy]

blergh, all people here argued with a "xom is cool because he gives me deaths due to RNG - and to get that from the D1 is mandatory", at least that's what i understood from it. i merely suggested that you can have the same effect by choosing a different background that already exists AND has more of a unique playstyle (IIRC redundancy is bad - RIP MD).

i'm also not too sure about why jiyva should be limited to be a end-game deity, the abilities seem generally somewhat usefull for any melee build, aquiring piety early with dungeon trash isn't too hard either - much more so than xom at least... and i think TSO might not be a starting god because it's quite hard to get piety early combined with the conduct and the glowing effect?

(proof through peer pressure is a really weird way of arguing, isn't it? how about formulating your own opinion instead of repeating what others say and accusing other people of not putting much thought into *whatever* - mr. parrot ;p *grmbl*)

meh, playtesting is mandatory - i merely mentioned it for the sake of completeness, similarly with the expectancy of buffs for the god - at the moment jiyva is merely a gimmick god to get the slime rune (quickly) instead of going through the whole vault (unsure if that really is faster...); on the other hand one could ask how xom could get to such a "useless" state - did someone playtest him? did someone put alot of thought into the design? guess not... etc.

and as has been argued before, keeping something which seems to be there purely because of flavour is redundancy - which is considered bad...

[cerebovssquire]

Xom isn't just unique from a flavour point of view, but also from gameplay. Noone here is or should be arguing against CK removal with just flavour to back this up.
Xom also isn't just about dying on D:1, he's about demons (both friendly and hostile), great gifts on D:1, mutations on non-undead, vitrified levels, weird gifts, etc. - while he's connected with a very high degree of risk and it's so rare that you get that rod/demon weapon/?acq/wand of healing/CPM/boots of running on D:1 that you basically have to scum for it, he's still a better fit for a starting god than Jiyva.

Jiyva is crippling as a starting god. You get much less experience on very early levels, some rather weak effects early on (basically all good amulets, which you don't need right now) and while Slimify is strong at all stages it isn't a long-term solution, and in addition you get basically no loot to buff your crappy starting gear up a bit.

[dondy]

so xom is about d1 scumming or just flavour? :s either have repeatedly been considered a bad argument/design :/

also not sure why jiyva (god i hate writing that name, gives me brain cramps) would give you much less experience early?
i should really just test it in wiz mode... the no-loot part can't be THAT horrible imho, i mean noone complains that felids can't use most stuffs and noone complains that fedhas isn't a decent all-runer god either, similarly the-god-that-should-stop-beeing-annoying-to-write is a 3-rune thingy (2 rune if you don't count slime)...

also i didn't deny that ji-nargh isn't too weak at the moment (i implied that buffs could be necessary), it's really easy to see if you compare it to any of the generally considered decent ones.

of course you could alternatively try to fix Xom or simply do both... i just thought the Jelly Knight was a interesting idea that could be discussed (much unlike chaos knights which are "meh" - design wise and somesuch) :p

[TwilightPhoenix]

The problem with Chaos Knights are that they're not random enough. They should be more like wanderers in terms of gear and starting skill levels.

[nicolae]

(proof through peer pressure is a really weird way of arguing, isn't it? how about formulating your own opinion instead of repeating what others say and accusing other people of not putting much thought into *whatever* - mr. parrot ;p *grmbl*)

I'm not sure how you get peer pressure out of pointing out that most players I've seen talk about Jiyva, as well as most of the devs, all agree that Jiyva's not a very good starting god. But if you really really want to push for it anyway, maybe you can propose Jelly Knights here: https://crawl.develz.org/wiki/doku.php? ... ackgrounds

[varsovie]

The problem with Chaos Knights are that they're not random enough. They should be more like wanderers in terms of gear and starting skill levels.

The problem with wanderers is that they encourage scumming. I think only one class with a so boring gimmik is enough. (but would be fun a demonspawn of xom with randum gear XD)

[TwilightPhoenix]

If you're scumming a Wanderer, you'd be better off just picking a different background that comes with what you want.

[greepish]

Well the point is stats are randomized, so a wanderer in the right condition is superior to any class. But really people overestimate stats' contribution.

[Tiber]

Also, wanderer allows combinations that aren't possible, such as an enchanter who starts with the sting spell memorized.

[cerebovssquire]

so xom is about d1 scumming or just flavour? :s either have repeatedly been considered a bad argument/design :/

also not sure why jiyva (god i hate writing that name, gives me brain cramps) would give you much less experience early?
i should really just test it in wiz mode... the no-loot part can't be THAT horrible imho, i mean noone complains that felids can't use most stuffs and noone complains that fedhas isn't a decent all-runer god either, similarly the-god-that-should-stop-beeing-annoying-to-write is a 3-rune thingy (2 rune if you don't count slime)...

also i didn't deny that ji-nargh isn't too weak at the moment (i implied that buffs could be necessary), it's really easy to see if you compare it to any of the generally considered decent ones.

of course you could alternatively try to fix Xom or simply do both... i just thought the Jelly Knight was a interesting idea that could be discussed (much unlike chaos knights which are "meh" - design wise and somesuch) :p

1) Besides scumming D:1 which is really only possible for Mu and to a certain extent Sp, I named other effects, mutations, etc. If you've ever won with Xom or at least played him for a long time you'll know that there is a lot more to Xom than that: what I named, divine lightning, tactical effects, experience gifts, permanent buddies, dungeon modifation including water and altars, etc etc etc pp.
I assume you have played Xom, so please don't reduce him to two things because you know better yourself.
2) You lose experience because hordes of jellies will basically kill everything pre-Lair, and these hordes of jellies will inhabit basically the whole levels.

[Roderic]

Should all gods be suitable for a 15-runes game ? So is Xom or is it more intended as a comic relief god?

[XuaXua]

Should all gods be suitable for a 15-runes game?

Sentence deserves its own thread.

[rebthor]

Sounds to me like OP hasn't played much with Xom. While it's not a starting background, play a Vm or Wz, get Meph Cloud castable, worship Xom and enjoy. Xom loves when confused things walk around bopping each other.

I 100% agree with the other posters though, Xom is for when I'm a little burned out and feel like just seeing random silliness. It also increases the pressure to keep diving, much more than OOD spawns do because seeing Xom is BORED! is way worse than OOD.

[XuaXua]

I am playing a Demonspawn Chaos Knight (always pick spear!) and loving it right now; hit Lair:8 at D:12 at the moment and conquered Labyrinth and a Spider Nest.

Xom keeps giving me crap and also is screwing with my mutations, but my Demonspawn heritage is helping me out. I may consider dropping him for later on or keep him around.

He has stopped surprising me so far though, except recently when he transformed a snail into an AZURE JELLY.

One thing I think he should do is re-arrange player-dropped items on the floor (f--- with that stash!).

[dondy]

finally got some free time on my hands - still didn't manage to test the Jelly Knight idea, but...

(proof through peer pressure is a really weird way of arguing, isn't it? how about formulating your own opinion instead of repeating what others say and accusing other people of not putting much thought into *whatever* - mr. parrot ;p *grmbl*)

I'm not sure how you get peer pressure out of pointing out that most players I've seen talk about Jiyva, as well as most of the devs, all agree that Jiyva's not a very good starting god. But if you really really want to push for it anyway, maybe you can propose Jelly Knights here: https://crawl.develz.org/wiki/doku.php? ... ackgrounds

meh, it's commonly called "proof through peer pressure" if people argue in a way like: A sez B so B is true. It's a meaningless argument because it lacks any value.

so xom is about d1 scumming or just flavour? :s either have repeatedly been considered a bad argument/design :/

also not sure why jiyva (god i hate writing that name, gives me brain cramps) would give you much less experience early?
i should really just test it in wiz mode... the no-loot part can't be THAT horrible imho, i mean noone complains that felids can't use most stuffs and noone complains that fedhas isn't a decent all-runer god either, similarly the-god-that-should-stop-beeing-annoying-to-write is a 3-rune thingy (2 rune if you don't count slime)...

also i didn't deny that ji-nargh isn't too weak at the moment (i implied that buffs could be necessary), it's really easy to see if you compare it to any of the generally considered decent ones.

of course you could alternatively try to fix Xom or simply do both... i just thought the Jelly Knight was a interesting idea that could be discussed (much unlike chaos knights which are "meh" - design wise and somesuch) :p

1) Besides scumming D:1 which is really only possible for Mu and to a certain extent Sp, I named other effects, mutations, etc. If you've ever won with Xom or at least played him for a long time you'll know that there is a lot more to Xom than that: what I named, divine lightning, tactical effects, experience gifts, permanent buddies, dungeon modifation including water and altars, etc etc etc pp.
I assume you have played Xom, so please don't reduce him to two things because you know better yourself.
2) You lose experience because hordes of jellies will basically kill everything pre-Lair, and these hordes of jellies will inhabit basically the whole levels.

i just took the justifications for xom, as starting god, from people and applied it to the design rules of this game (the few i know of). sounds pretty much like beeing a asshat but i just tried to realize if there's a reasonable choice to playing xom as starting god. and most arguments where pretty weak :/

i myself usually just play my DsWn of Xom when i don't know what combination to play but want to play around a little... so xom usually annoyed me instead of suprising me with something good except one time he gave me a neat mutation he took back a few rounds later :p

the no-loot part can't be THAT horrible imho, i mean noone complains that felids can't use most stuffs and noone complains that fedhas isn't a decent all-runer god either, similarly the-god-that-should-stop-beeing-annoying-to-write is a 3-rune thingy (2 rune if you don't count slime)...

The no-loot part is that horrible, it's one of the primary reasons felids are so unpopular, Fedhas is near-useless as a 15-rune god and draws complaints about it all the time, and Jiyva is probably more suited to 15-rune games than 3-rune ones.

as i said before i can't argue much about jiyva as starting god, i didn't try it but a few times :/

off topic:
aren't the felids so unpopular because they're rather boring to play because of their limited item choices? at least that's my opinion D:
fedhas is kinda fine imho, the god lacks some minor tweaks - but generally it's quite decent (depending on your class choice) for a 3 rune game; and i'm fine with gods beeing more or less suited for here and there, i dislike gods beeing mostly useless or even harmfull throughout the game tho D:

[dondy]

When something is unanimously agreed by good players to be weak/strong, it probably is. You aren't giving in to "peer pressure" if you acknowledge that 0.6 heavy armour was underpowered.

it's still a silly argument, compared to forming your own opinion on a somewhat reasonable basis.
http://school.maths.uwa.edu.au/~berwin/ ... roofs.html, probably my bad translation
into english was the cause of confusion, it's listed as "proof by lalala authority" :p

[nicolae]

When something is unanimously agreed by good players to be weak/strong, it probably is. You aren't giving in to "peer pressure" if you acknowledge that 0.6 heavy armour was underpowered.

it's still a silly argument, compared to forming your own opinion on a somewhat reasonable basis.
http://school.maths.uwa.edu.au/~berwin/ ... roofs.html, probably my bad translation
into english was the cause of confusion, it's listed as "proof by lalala authority" :p

Proof by authority isn't a logical fallacy if the people you're using as authorities actually have a claim to being a legitimate authority... otherwise it'd be impossible to claim that Stephen Hawking knows more about theoretical physics than the guy behind the counter at the convenience store.

[greepish]

Well it's true, it is impossible to prove stephen hawkings is more knowledgeable than the guy behind the convenient store.

However, those of us living in the real world use heuristics for problems that don't need 100% certainty If you strictly only use mathematical proofs, you technically speaking cannot prove anything physical.

So minmay is totally correct.

[dondy]

When something is unanimously agreed by good players to be weak/strong, it probably is. You aren't giving in to "peer pressure" if you acknowledge that 0.6 heavy armour was underpowered.

it's still a silly argument, compared to forming your own opinion on a somewhat reasonable basis.
http://school.maths.uwa.edu.au/~berwin/ ... roofs.html, probably my bad translation
into english was the cause of confusion, it's listed as "proof by lalala authority" :p

Proof by authority isn't a logical fallacy if the people you're using as authorities actually have a claim to being a legitimate authority... otherwise it'd be impossible to claim that Stephen Hawking knows more about theoretical physics than the guy behind the counter at the convenience store.

Totally Offtopic but still:

that is assuming the guy behind the convenience store isn't a theoretical physics major and implying that there isn't anyone who knows more about the subject than stephen hawking. citing a authority, as proof, would need to include a proof in the citation (or at least at the source of the citation); depending on the context ofc some explicit citations may be ommitted as common knowledge among recipients. this is still considered bad style, obviously, since it limits the recipients.

if there is no proof available, you can't really claim to be "right" - thus you need to weaken your argument as in thesis -> hypothesis

at least that's how i learned it :p

ofc, discussing a game this is all totally over the top, it's still kinda interresting (and tedious) -- despite all that, it's still ugly to throw around: "my opinion is this because he sez that and he must be right", which is entirely different to: "i agree with him, because lalalala"

Well it's true, it is impossible to prove stephen hawkings is more knowledgeable than the guy behind the convenient store.

However, those of us living in the real world use heuristics for problems that don't need 100% certainty If you strictly only use mathematical proofs, you technically speaking cannot prove anything physical.

So minmay is totally correct.

implying games are physical, PFF *proof by wildly waving hands*

[Blade]

There is no reason for this thread to continue existing. It was resolved ages ago, and has degenerated into an entirely off-topic "discussion" about things better spoken of in debate class. At this point, I see no reason to keep it unlocked.

[njvack]

Seconded and locked.