Monster Constriction

[snow]

Monster constriction is ridiculous.

A few issues:

1. Nagas cast teleport on you then constrict you. Constriction stops teleporting... so what's the point?
2. Constriction killed me in my last 2 games. Does it really have to stop you from teleporting? You're forced to kill an enemy or die and in many cases this is a death sentence.
3. The Snake Pit is now harder than Shoals.

I don't think it should stop teleporting. Or... is there something I'm missing? Some way to break out of it?

[snow]

Third death now to constriction... and I was being super careful to stay out of melee range. One managed to get me, and, dead.

[cerebovssquire]

Some way to break out of it?

Just try to step away a couple times. I've always succeeded after 2-3 tries.

I agree that it's a very severe status effect but it's also interesting.I was very surprised when I almost lost an XL 23 SpEn to a tentacled monstrosity (these things are horrid now) but the Snake Pit and boring enemies like said tentacled monstrosity are actually tense and tactical nowadays, where before they was a little too easy.
The fact that you can't teleport or blink away makes the effect unique and as said above, just step away.

3. The Snake Pit is now harder than Shoals.

This is not only incorrect on most characters (constriction is less likely to kill you (if you're not making tactical mistakes) than WHAM 10 JAVELINS TO THE FACE AND HERE'S SOME ICICLES OH AND DTRIDENTS OF REACHING), barring stuff like SpEn, but if it was, where's the problem?
The Lair branches are already places many people just laugh their way through at XL 20, and even at XL 15-16, where I do them myself sometimes, there is often not much of a challenge involved.

Things that kill you are not ridiculous as long as they're not inevitable.

[KoboldLord]

Just try to step away a couple times. I've always succeeded after 2-3 tries.

They're complaining specifically about anacondas, which are faster than most player species. It's more sensible to simply be prepared to vaporize any anaconda that shows its face than it is to be prepared to repeatedly break out of constriction, and I don't know that players need more incentive to put off the Lair branches.

This is not only incorrect on most characters (constriction is less likely to kill you (if you're not making tactical mistakes) than WHAM 10 JAVELINS TO THE FACE AND HERE'S SOME ICICLES OH AND DTRIDENTS OF REACHING), barring stuff like SpEn, but if it was, where's the problem?

Shoals is nothing like that. Shoals 5 doesn't even get that bad. Shoals 1-4 is easily manageable by any character immediately after Lair 8/Orc 4 who has a reusable source of levitation and a reasonable stock of consumables, barring troublesome uniques. Perhaps Shoals was obviously the hardest of those three branches for a little while after it was introduced, but this is no longer the case regardless of its lingering reputation.

[cerebovssquire]

They're complaining specifically about anacondas, which are faster than most player species. It's more sensible to simply be prepared to vaporize any anaconda that shows its face than it is to be prepared to repeatedly break out of constriction, and I don't know that players need more incentive to put off the Lair branches.

If you had read the post you would have seen that the word "naga" is in one of the sentences while "anaconda" is non-existent.

This isn't an incentive to put off Lair branches - above all it's a change that makes the Snake Pit more interesting when you actually do put it off.

Shoals is nothing like that. Shoals 5 doesn't even get that bad.

The rune room has multiple javelineers, aquamancers, impalers, and sometimes a siren to ensure that you don't make it a bit easier by stepping around the corner. If you're really unlucky, Ilsiuw or some other pack will join the party. I don't know if you only play casters that can drop a Freezing Cloud in and close the door or similar builds, but for many character types Shoals:5 is the only threatening branch end around XL 20.

A character who has beaten Lair and Orc can (usually) take hydrae, death yaks and the more dangerous types of orcs, including the casters and priests, without near-death situations every time. This does not mean that they're prepared for impalers, krakens and (alligator) snapping turtles in water. In addition, Shoals has a very open layout with terrain problems because you really don't want to fight some of the creatures (including turtles) in water because of their speed boosts. Perhaps you don't play enough weak character types or something, but this really smells of Freezing Cloud, etc. again.

It's true that Shoals is no longer as bad as it was in comparison, especially considering the new Snake ending and constriction thing, but it's still way behind Swamp and harder than Snake if you're not some kind of flying invisstabber. In addition, the reaching change somewhat compensates for Snake's rise in difficulty.

[KoboldLord]

If you had read the post you would have seen that the word "naga" is in one of the sentences while "anaconda" is non-existent.

… Huh.

You're right. I must have conflated this thread with another one. I shouldn't post at 4:00am, I suppose.

[dpeg]

Constriction (especially monster constriction) is far from perfect. What you see is the first, raw mechanic. That said, the idea that you cannot teleport (at all or that well, depending on size) is something I want to keep. It may necessitate further changes to constricting monsters (less health, for example) but it will shake up combat in a completely different manner. Also, I don't believe it is as lopsided against melee fighters than sometimes claimed. While you'll get it more often as a melee fighter, it can easily be more troublesome for a caster. (Note that right now there are no vaults to take advantage of constriction. This will definitely change over time, and that can create interesting problems for any kind of character.)

That said, many aspects about constriction can be changed (e.g. who does it, for how long, how to escape etc.) Thanks for the feedback and keep telling us how you fare in Snake with various builds.

[Blade]

I recently played a standard UC troll that did Snake around XL:16; it really stood out how dangerous Snake:5 is now as compared to in the past. The trapping effect from constriction was not the most noticeable bit for me; what really stood out was just how much damage it deals. I got very close to death twice against lone greater nagas due to their sudden jump in deadliness. Later, tentacled monstrosities presented the same danger; what was a popcorn monster has become a very significant threat.

Now, is this a bad thing? I don't think so. There may need to be some tweaking here and there, but really, the monsters that got constriction needed a buff. Snake with rPois used to be very straightforward and easy; now, you actually have to treat Snake:5 like a branch end. That's a pretty big deal. Was the buff too big? Maybe a little bit, but it's perfectly possible to adjust. Was the buff a good idea? Yes. It adds a lot.

[snow]

I'm not even sure exactly what constriction does other than kill me.

If someone could explain the exact mechanics of it that would be nice... so far it seems to stop movement, translocation, and I think it stops some of your attacks or something. I'm not sure if attacking can break it or what... and I really don't feel like dying a few more times while trying to figure out how it works mechanically.

Also do you take constant damage while constricted?

[Happylisk]

Linking to my win using a spellless Naga fighter

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=3464

In this game, being on the receiving end of constriction was never an issue - stuff died fast against this beefy character. This character on the other hand was dishing out constriction. Does anyone know the formula for constriction? Cause it did a lot of damage. I hope the formula involves strength, cause this guy had 34 str and since my defensive stats were so good I wanted to see if i could kill St Roka using just constriction. I could, and easily. But again, this was a beefy monster of character.

Also, until I found the lightning scales I had +22 slaying and even after I had + 16. Does slaying affect constriction? If so that might explain the sick amounts of damage it was doing.

[greepish]

+...22.. slaying I'd say it was the slaying lol.

[o_O]

For what its worth I just played through snake as a lvl 17-18 heavy armored horc of okawaru with rP. I was never really in any serious danger, although I had to spend a tele and a couple healing potions. The extra constriction damage was pretty large, but only from things that survived more then 2 turns next to me, which wasn't much. I'd say andacondas are by far the most dangerous thing in that entire branch, to the point of being 'bosses'. If I had met two, or one and some nagas in the open, I could have been in trouble.

It seems like snake is nasty for casters and shoals is nasty for melee, which might be a good way to balance them out. Overall I'd say it is a solid improvement.

[snow]

Anacondas apparently have low MR and can be poisoned... so it might be worth it to carry around wands of paralysis. Would meph cloud or the confusion spell be better to confuse them? They have 11 HD but I have no idea what that means.

The optimal strategy when constricted is to stop attacking and try to break out of it, right? I might force a more message when constricted.

[cerebovssquire]

Player constriction is far from being just a melee damage boost. It's great against imps, blinking summoners and many other blinkers really, monsters with Teleport Self, hilariously fun with distortion weapons, and can be used to damage one monster while hitting another (I think, I haven't really tried it yet). I think it's a really fun and tactically interesting effect that differentiates Na and Op further from the rest without overcomplicating either.

[dpeg]

I made the constriction rules but I forgot the numbers already. Thankfully they're available here:
https://crawl.develz.org/wiki/doku.php?id=dcss:brainstorm:effect:constriction#numbers
Yes, strength plays a major role. I explicitly wanted that a Str 34 NaFi plays noticeably differently than a Str 14 NaWz.

minmay: Yes, it's a absolutely valid point. I couldn't get myself to propose far-reaching constriction attacks. One way to keep the current ("thematic" if you want) mechanic while reducing the problems is by making nagas (or some nagas) blink -- only next to you. If that's too bad or doesn't solve the problem, we can think of constriction at a distance (I'd call that "leashing").

Thanks for the reports!

[Blade]

Actually, greater nagas are such a threat now -because- they can go quickly and constrict. They have haste and use it frequently; unless you have haste yourself (which, especially for heavy-armour players, is not guaranteed), they will generally be outspeeding you.

[Moose]

Constriction seems like a major nerf to melee characters, who are already much gimpier than their nuking controlled-blinking hasting Lich-forming revivificating counterpart: the caster.

Is this intentional? Does pure melee need it tougher than it already is?

[snow]

I disagree. In my experience constriction hurts casters more.

[Moose]

Can you not cast while being constricted? Are constrictors immune to ranged damage? I haven't played casters recently, so I haven't experienced the dynamic yet...

[snow]

Fast enemies (anacondas for example) can mange to constrict you fairly easily. Slower enemies can too if they come in groups. Constriction does damage over time and melee characters generally can take more damage than casters before dying. This is just my experience though... if your games played differently then I could just have had a different experience with it than you.

[jejorda2]

I just saw the message, "While you don't manage to break free from DEAD MONSTER, you feel that another
_attempt might be more successful" in 0.10-a0-3001-g3855d30 on CAO in a sewer after fighting ball pythons and adders. I've killed all the snakes, but I still have Constr in the status bar and am losing hp.

Eventually, I see:" _You escape DEAD MONSTER's grasp."

[greepish]

Haven't played with contriction, but I think this really has an obvious solution. Make it possible to break free of the contriction, with strength as an influencing factor. There, now melees don't have it so bad. And more importantly, it just makes physical sense.

[Blade]

...You can already break free of constriction.

It still has quite a few bugs, obviously, but that DEAD MONSTER thing should be fixed soon.

[greepish]

Yeah but is it based off strength? If so I don't get the whole "its a melee nerf", I'll have to try it out myself I guess.

[dpeg]

I've linked the wiki page upthread but here's the relevant bit for constriction damage if a player constricts a monster:
initial damage = (Str - d(3))/3, damage increase = d(duration)
(This assumes there have been no modifications to the design -- but I am confident that the structure is like this.)

The question of whether constriction is a melee nerf or not concerns monsters constricting players, as far as I understand. It is true that constriction is a melee range effect, so anyone with ranged damage has a better chance to kill them before they come close. However, *if* you end up being constricted, it might be not so nice being a caster: less Health to sustain the constriction damage and a meleeist can definitely damage that monster (a caster has to manage MP on top of HP).
By the way, the chance to avoid a constriction attempt depends on EV (and size): you evade successfully if
d(monster_HD*size) > d(player_EV*size)

[Stormfox]

you evade successfully if d(monster_HD*size) > d(player_EV*size)

So if I'm reading this right, the player benefits from having low EV? (And being smaller, but you can't change that once you pick your race.)

Example: for a hypothetical monster with 10 HD and size 3, the left side of that equation is d(30). Take a size 3 player (boring ol' human, if I'm remembering the definitions right). I'd rather have EV 5 (making the right side of the equation d(15)) than EV 20 (for d(60)), if I want a d(30) result to be greater than mine.

[Galefury]

He probably meant chance to successfully constrict, not to avoid.

[greepish]

Yeah pretty much. Most people mean it as where their primary form of damage comes from.

[KoboldLord]

well apparently i AM the only person to use "melee character" to mean "character which melees" or "caster" to mean "character which casts spells"

This is because nearly all successful characters go into melee at least a little bit, and nearly all successful characters use some sort of spellcasting or spellcasting-like ability. The terms are entirely useless as descriptors in a discussion for purposes of either comparison or contrast if both terms describe almost everybody. I, personally, don't care to waste time saying things that are vacuously tautological by definition.

I prefer a milder but more useful definition. A 'melee character' is a character that uses melee combat for the majority of significant combats. Using divine abilities, evocations, ranged combat, or even spells in place of melee for especially dangerous combats does not disqualify a character, but in general melee is the character's first resort and strategic backbone.

Similarly, a 'caster' is a character that uses offensive magic for the majority of significant combats. This might not be specific enough to be useful in a discussion, so it might be better to use a more specific type of caster like 'conjuror', 'foo elementalist', 'summoner', etc. depending on the topic at hand. Similar to the other example, a caster is not disqualified as such if they use other forms of combat in certain situations, so long as casting spells is their first resort and strategic backbone.

My peeve is people who decide that 'melee characters' cannot be allowed to use anything but melee or be disqualified, and therefore reject advice that they should try picking up a sling or crossbow for their melee character, or even choosing Makhleb or Yredelemnul over Okawaru. Insanely over-narrow tactics is not worth enabling in the design process.

[snow]

For me a melee character is one who fights using melee and sometimes evocations to kill enemies as they run away. A caster is someone who uses conjurations to kill things and a hybrid is like... spen or ddne.

[cerebovssquire]

because summoners and zombiemancers are quite clearly not casters and melee characters are not allowed to throw javelins, and people who use conjurations to kill things never use swords a lot

I don't see a reason why one even has to use these terms; one can just say that a specific enemy is more dangerous "in melee" or "at ranged" or a specific change "favours melee combat" or "makes ranged combat even safer" and nobody will misunderstand you because they have a different personal definition.

[KoboldLord]

I don't see a reason why one even has to use these terms; one can just say that a specific enemy is more dangerous "in melee" or "at ranged" or a specific change "favours melee combat" or "makes ranged combat even safer" and nobody will misunderstand you because they have a different personal definition.

To a certain extent, sure. But nailing down an absolutely unambiguous definition every time is going to be overly cumbersome for discussion. Sometimes a point will be clearer if you use a single paragraph to explain it, even if there is some level of ambiguity remaining, rather than using a massive multi-page wall of text that rarely even touches on the topic at hand because you're clarifying the definition of so many ancillary terms.

[cerebovssquire]

"Casters have an easier time in extended."
"Melee chars have a hard time in Snake now."

These are both non-specific (there are many spells and many forms of melee) and subjective (regardless of which spells are used, some people mean "pure caster" when they say "caster", others mean "primary caster" and a third party refer to "characters who use spells" with that term).
On the other hand,

"It's safer to have some form of ranged or AoE attack in extended" or "Being in melee range is often risky in Snake now" are specific and objective, and don't require any ancillary explanation or unambigious definition, only the capability to read. If anything's ancillary it's adding another paragraph because you're using a generalising and subjective register and need to clarify because people might misunderstand you.
This barely has any limits. Of course nobody is going to object to "Trog isn't a god for casters" but as soon as things get a little less obvious it helps to use the wordings I propose over terms like "caster", "melee char" and "hybrid". It's easier for yourself (because you don't need to add extra definitions or even a whole paragraph so you're not misunderstood) and others (because they don't need to read a lot of unnecessary text and will understand what you are saying if they can read).
I don't quite understand what're you're accusing my wordings of; they don't contain any definitions or cumbersome ancillary terms. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. Give me some context where saying "caster" and writing an extra paragraph is going to be easier and clearer. "being in melee range" isn't really multi-page text spam, nor is anything similar even going to be assuming basic writing skills.

[KoboldLord]

The topic of digression is not really worth the effort you're putting into it. I will continue to do things the easy way, and if by chance I find I need to explain things further due to the ambiguities involved I will do so. I will trust most readers to use common sense whenever possible. I will not systematically consider every possible interpretation of an informal forum post that I write from every possible angle, lest I confuse someone who is clearly looking for an excuse to misunderstand.

[greepish]

So back to constriction -.- does breaking free stun the constrictor for a turn? That would be an interesting way to make the monster version less lethal, and possibly the player version somewhat risky. And bum, turns out having strength influence breaking out of constricting is already on the wiki :/

[cerebovssquire]

So back to constriction -.- does breaking free stun the constrictor for a turn? That would be an interesting way to make the monster version less lethal, and possibly the player version somewhat risky. And bum, turns out having strength influence breaking out of constricting is already on the wiki :/

The problem is that player constriction is a passive ability (upon attacking) so you would not take the risk in constricting the monster, but attacking it at all (when attacking it normally might be safer). Making it an active (ability) is going to be tedious because constriction is strong enough that you would want to use it in most fights. If you can think a way around it I'm not opposed to the idea but don't see any necessity... perhaps giving people who broke free of constriction 1-2 turns of constriction immunity would be a cheap but effective way of preventing it being too strong and unfair.

The topic of digression is not really worth the effort you're putting into it.

"did you really just waste three minutes of your life replying to my post"

I will trust most readers to use common sense whenever possible.

""common sense" totally governs your opinion of what a "caster" is"

I will not systematically consider every possible interpretation of an informal forum post that I write from every possible angle, lest I confuse someone who is clearly looking for an excuse to misunderstand.

"1) if you are going to avoid the terms "caster", "melee character" and "hybrid", you need to pedantically consider every possible interpretation of them every time you don't use them"
2) if you have a different understanding of a "melee character" than me you are obviously just looking for an excuse to troll me"

[Jeremiah]

Well, I've just dared to visit Snake for the first time since this constriction was introduced - the only reason I went there was because I've yet to find any source of rF+ and late Vaults and Dungeon are beginning to seem a bit too dangerous thanks to all the dragons and yaktaurs with flaming bolts.

I'm playing a DsAE with fairly good AC & HP thanks to the brown scales mutation, and my first impression is "ouch."

I haven't met any greater nagas yet, but my overall impression is that while an individual naga isn't a great threat, a pack of them can well be, especially if one or more have reaching weapons, and an anaconda is possibly a greater threat than a "standard" dragon due to its speed.

I certainly had more problems and felt in greater danger on Snake:1 than Vault:4-6 or Dungeon:20-22, though this was partly down to Aizul in Snake, while Vaults have so far been curiously empty of dangerous uniques

[Grimm]

Constriction is an excellent addition to the game.

[smock]

I look forward to playing with constriction!

Re constriction and teleporting: it might be fun if both the constrictor and constrictee had a chance of teleported. Maybe randomize the teleportation outcome over (1) teleport fails, (2) target teleports alone, (3) target teleports with constrictior/constrictee, perhaps weighted by the power of the teleport or the weight of the actors.

[varsovie]

I like it, but it seems a little bit overpowered in early game for the player. You can nearly one shot anything from D1 to D3.

[nicolae]

I like it, but it seems a little bit overpowered in early game for the player. You can nearly one shot anything from D1 to D3.

Ha ha, oh varsovie, you joker! *sneaks up behind varsovie, covers their mouth* Shhh, don't say anything or you'll ruin it for every naga and octopode! Nope! It's definitely not overpowered, just fine how it is.

[snow]

I think Nagas and Octopodes needed the help to be honest. Both species have large drawbacks and this helps make them more playable.

If you don't look at the whole picture it's easy to label for example trbe as overpowered because you can just steamroll everything until you reach the vaults. But it's clear that they have a harder time i the vaults and past that than, for example, a hofi or dewz... so being good in the early game doesn't really make something overpowered.

[dpeg]

As character development goes, I like it much better if a species (or combo) starts easy and becomes harder. Berserkers are the best example: you could say their early game is trivialised (although rage has to be operated properly, does cost food, and Trog comes with a conduct) but there is a point where rage, while still strong, is not the strongest tool in the box anymore. That's good.

For comparison with constriction, the questions are:
Does it trivialise the early game completely? (Note that constriction comes with almost no drawbacks compared to rage.)
Does it peter out some time? (Note that for optimal constriction effect, you want high strength.)
Does it create choices?

If the answers are yes,no,no, we're in deep trouble. But if it is yes,yes,yes, for example, we just have to change numbers.

[cerebovssquire]

1) No. Ogres and centaurs can't be constricted (I think centaurs can't be constricted? Even if they can constriction can't help you if they're way across at the edge of LoS). Ogres are a problem for nagas early on, I think, since they are strong speed 10 melee monsters. Poison Spit helps though. The current problem with Na is that it has two perks (spit, constriction) that can clear early game all by themself, and nagas are famous for their late-game strength. I don't think they really needed a buff. It's absolutely fine on Op though.
2) It's useful all game, especially due to the high amount of blinkers (some with ranged attacks) late on. It becomes a bit weaker though because the damage isn't as hilariously good, though. So "sort of yes".
3) There are a couple of choices regarding attacking while teleporting, distortion weapons, and blinking away if a fight becomes dangerous. I'd never go STR just for constricting people though. I'd say there are some choices attachted but not to a great extent.
Is it currently hindered by shields or two-handers?

The best things about constriction is that it's great fun (distortion weapons, for instance, removes tedium (blinking enemies, monsters can usually not flee), and is a tactically interesting effect when used against you. Maybe number adjustions regarding damage are adequate but please don't change the effects on teleport/blinking/moving.

[Bim]

I love constriction, although I agree Na have a two perks, they also both make sense and they're not ridiculously over powered either (ogres still being annoying).

Monster side constriction, how about if teleport occasionally worked (possibly depending on SP?) or monsters not always using constriction? I think anaconda's and the like are a bit too difficult at the moment, especially for some combo's and I would love to see it toned down a notch or two.

Other than that, great addition!

[cerebovssquire]

If we seperate constriction from anti-translocation effects it really is just a lame extra melee damage effect. It also more or less returns tentacled monstrosities to their old state.
Also what's the problem with flavour? They're just holding on to you as you travel through space. Crawl has various other stuff that defies the laws of physics to at least the same extent. "The flavour is bad" isn't really an argument against a good gameplay effect.

Its's kind of in the nature of magical rings that they have to be on your finger so you can use them. If you add this you'll want the same for every other ring or at least for +Inv and +Lev and +Rage rings, and this is not only confusing but totally unneccesary. If you want to teleport, put the ring on, evoke it, and take it off. If this is too tedious for you I suggest macoing P(ring of teleport)v(teleportation)P(old ring) or something. It's not like you need to do this in any fight, anyway.

[KoboldLord]

It's been mentioned before, but early-game player constriction deals far too much damage after a turn or two. The octopode wizard I took out was taking out orc warriors in melee without too much trouble, as long as I separated them from their retinue. Normally I would expect to need spells for that.

Does a speed weapon increase the rate at which constriction procs, or was that my imagination?