Pre-enchanted armours encourage scummy behaviour

[nago]

I've recently realised that the fact pieces of armour can spawn with enchantment higher than +0 encourages a scummy behaviour: considering it's possible to gain +6 ac from just secondary armours (gloves, boots, cloak) and some other ac from body armours - which is a huge benefit in every moment of the game - players are highly encouraged to try every piece of armour until they have maxed AC.

So, I'd suggest two simple solutions:
1- make all plain, non-ego armour to spawn only with +0 enchantment. This would be a quite sensible nerf in the earlier part of the game, when ?enchant armour scrolls are quite rare, so a slightly increase of their spawn rate could be a good compensation
2- let only ego-ed armour have a base enchantment higher than 0. However, this would only partially reduce reduce scummy behaviour - e.g. I'm wearing a +1 strength gloves and I've no ?enchant armour left, I would still be encouraged to try every glowing gloves I find around.

[Psieye]

Hmm, nominally the curse system is meant to discourage this armour scumming behaviour but with the proliferation of remove curse scrolls, nobody worries about this. People learn not to do this with weapons because of unexpected Distortion brands but there is nothing scary on not-artifact armour items.

I'd rather something nasty was introduced to discourage this scummy behaviour rather than nerf all mundane armour to be +0, because one of the fun things with Ash is seeing all these unexpected boons.

[MIC132]

How is checking whether you found something better than you currently have "scummy"? It's interesting, and partly dangerous because it can be cursed.
If we applied your idea, we could as well remove from dungeon every piece of non-ego armour except for the first of each type ..

[Sandman25]

It is possible that a monster will notice you while you are trying a new armour and you will have to fight it without any armour so it is not that obvious. You still need to decide if you really want to try that new plate armour now provided it takes so much turns to (un)equip.

[nago]

How is checking whether you found something better than you currently have "scummy"? It's interesting, and partly dangerous because it can be cursed.

Because trying 10 different pairs of plain gloves, just to gain +1/+2 ac is scummy. There's nothing interesting in "oh, I've just found the forth cloak identical to mine, let's wear it just tu see if I gain another +1ac" and the danger due the possibility an item may be cursed is non-existent past the first 2/3 floor of the dungeons - except very rare game where ?remove curse is particularly scarse.

If we applied your idea, we could as well remove from dungeon every piece of non-ego armour except for the first of each type ..

After you have found/enchanted a +2 cloak, how many other plain cloak do you try to wear?

It is possible that a monster will notice you while you are trying a new armour and you will have to fight it without any armour so it is not that obvious. You still need to decide if you really want to try that new plate armour now provided it takes so much turns to (un)equip.

Disrobing can be interrupted, and the chance a monster will ambush you when trying new armour are so slim that you can't considerer wearing new armour a tactical decision.

[MIC132]

and the danger due the possibility an item may be cursed is non-existent past the first 2/3 floor of the dungeons - except very rare game where ?remove curse is particularly scarse.

You said it yourself - the problem is not that you can find better armour - that's the part of roguelike: checking items you found to see if they are better or worse - the problem is that there is not enough danger to make you consider whether you want to check this particular piece of armour.
Maybe lowering amount of remove curse scrolls generated in the dungeon (especially in the early dungeon) would make it more interesting.

Though myself I rarely check not-glowing armour pieces after I grabbed any piece of given type. And if that piece I grabbed was +2 I'm happy that I was lucky. Certainly if every non-glowing armour in dungeon was +0 it would be very dull..

[Sandman25]

Disrobing can be interrupted, and the chance a monster will ambush you when trying new armour are so slim that you can't considerer wearing new armour a tactical decision.

At least equiping armours has this drawback. Equiping weapon does not have it: it takes only 0.5aut to equip and Distortion cannot be present on non-"runed" weapon. Do you also want to make all non-branded weapons have +0,+0 modifiers?

[galehar]

Because trying 10 different pairs of plain gloves, just to gain +1/+2 ac is scummy.

Good that there aren't that many aux armour then. Also, you'll try plain armour only as long as you haven't found an ego one. So in the end, it doesn't happen that often. Note that I changed the rule for glowing stuff a couple of version ago. Now, the rule is the same for weapons and armour, and the chance for glowing (or runed or whatever) is 1d(plus -2) / 3. Which means that glowing stuff is at least +3 and starting at +6, it's guaranteed. Ego also guarantee glowing, and cursed item has 1 chance in 3 to be glowing.

[Davion Fuxa]

I don't think it is a really big deal to be trying crap armor or weapons to get a pittance of AC (or Weapon damage or accuracy in the case of weapons). People generally like trying on new equipment, and it isn't like you can keep trying on equipment without the possibility of eventually putting on something cursed - which can be a sure way of screwing up your game.

[Bim]

As the early game can be a bit boring for even reasonably experienced players (and there is no harm in it being), I think it is a good way to spend those first few levels. You can sometimes get lucky, but as galehar said, as soon as you find an branded weapon/armour it's pretty much always better than a plain +1/+2. Also, it reallllly isn't that much.

Please please pleaseeee can we get rid of gloves and gauntlets though and just keep one. There is no difference between the two and they just serve as confusion. Perhaps gloves could be lighter but start at 0 AC (like caps) and gauntlets being +1 but heavier? That'd make sense from a word point of view, and also give some distinction.

[adozu]

i really don't see how trying out new items is scumming. roguelike spirit is to roll with what the game gives you, not "pick an item from the ground and stick with it no matter what". of course i'm going to try out the new stuff i find, scumming would be clearing D1 repeatedly until that one time you find a crystal plate armor.

[roctavian]

On the other hand, I think it would be great to have something distortion-like for armour.

Thinking about the amulets thread and the relative pointlessness of rCorr, what if there was an armour ego like "Slimy" or such: can be found on any slot, protects all other armour slots from corrosion/perhaps some other bonus if that's not enough, but then corrodes other equipment (say, -1 across 1d3 slots) on removal?

[BlackSheep]

You'd need a way to handle the player removing and dropping all of their equipment before removing the item.

[Lasty]

I'm not convinced this needs to change, but if it did change, it shouldn't be in a way that lowers the chances of finding low-enchantment items. I'm fine with these items not being "standard" -- either glowing or a level of specialness lower than glowing -- but I'm not sure that solves more problems than it creates.

[roctavian]

You'd need a way to handle the player removing and dropping all of their equipment before removing the item.

Hmm, true. Having it depend on other equipment slots would definitely encourage degenerate behavior.

[Psieye]

You'd need a way to handle the player removing and dropping all of their equipment before removing the item.

Hmm, true. Having it depend on other equipment slots would definitely encourage degenerate behavior.

That's simple enough: removing other equipment also corrodes them, on top of the mass-corrosion that removing the Slimy equipment does.

[jejorda2]

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.

Trap egos for armour sound like a useful idea.

Barbed: causes damage to the wearer and enemies when the wearer is attacked in melee. Injures upon removal, reducing max hp.

Maybe something noisy or ponderous that causes mutations when removed?
Boots that make movement have a chance to fail, then give slow movement for thousands of turns when removed?

[Fergy]

Because trying 10 different pairs of plain gloves, just to gain +1/+2 ac is scummy.

Good that there aren't that many aux armour then. Also, you'll try plain armour only as long as you haven't found an ego one. So in the end, it doesn't happen that often. Note that I changed the rule for glowing stuff a couple of version ago. Now, the rule is the same for weapons and armour, and the chance for glowing (or runed or whatever) is 1d(plus -2) / 3. Which means that glowing stuff is at least +3 and starting at +6, it's guaranteed. Ego also guarantee glowing, and cursed item has 1 chance in 3 to be glowing.

The way I interpreted the formula doesn't match your explanation of it.

1d(+6 - 2)/3 = 1d(4)/3

4/3 = 100% chance of glow
3/3 = 100% chance of glow
2/3 = 67% chance of glow
1/3 = 33% chance of glow

Overall glow chance for +6 = 75%

+0 to +2 = 0% chance of glow
+3 = 33% chance of glow
+4 = 50% chance of glow
+5 = 67% chance of glow
+6 = 75% chance of glow
+7 = 80% chance of glow
+8 = 83% chance of glow
+9 = 86% chance of glow

[galehar]

sorry, I misreported the formula. It's x_chance_in_y(item.plus - 2, 3)

[Fergy]

How about

If item is not (cursed or branded) and worn item is not cursed

Search floor and player inv for "<full item name>", if results > 0, then item becomes identified.

This should remove the tedium but still maintain the majority of the risk.

[BlackSheep]

All cursed items would need to be "blue" for that to work.

Also, we're trying to fix something that's not broken.

[Fergy]

All cursed items would need to be "blue" for that to work.

I don't see why that matters.

Current system:A player is wearing +2 robe. He stumbles upon an unidentified non-blue robe. Would he equip identify the item?

Proposed system: A player is wearing a +2 robe (and has previously identified a +0 and +1 robe). He stumbles upon an unidentified non-blue robe. Since he already found all possible robes that are not blue, he deduces that the new robe must be cursed. Would he equip identify the item?

I would choose "no" in either system.

Also, we're trying to fix something that's not broken.

Just because something is not broken, doesn't mean it cannot be made better. The only risk is the cure is worse than the annoyance. This is a very mild annoyance.

[BlackSheep]

The 'tedium' you're referring to is, what? Trying on armor? Having to uncurse things occasionally? Upgrading your tools is part of the game. Upgrading armor works differently from upgrading weapons which works differently from upgrading your consumables and spells. The notion that looking for a better hat is "scummy" is absurd.

[yogaFLAME]

Another vote for this not being a problem. Having to upgrade gear is no more scummy than having to press tab a lot.

[Fergy]

The 'tedium' you're referring to is, what? Trying on armor? Having to uncurse things occasionally? Upgrading your tools is part of the game. Upgrading armor works differently from upgrading weapons which works differently from upgrading your consumables and spells. The notion that looking for a better hat is "scummy" is absurd.

Doing things that are repetitive with 0 gain / loss is "scummy". The proposal I put forth effectively 'tries on' every piece of armor that would be a waste of time to try on (i.e. items that are less good, and do not have a risk associated with trying them on). My proposal removes the unnecessary steps.

Example: Player is wearing a +1 robe (and they started the game with a +0 robe). The player has found 6+ robes.

Robe a: +0
Robe b: +0
Robe c: cursed
Robe d: +1
Robe e: +0
Robe f: +2
Robe g+: Doesn't matter because the player found what he was looking for with the previous robe.

Current system:
Try on robe a,
Try on robe b,
Try on robe c,
Use remove curse scroll,
Try on robe d,
Try on robe e,
Try on robe f, rejoice.

Proposed system:
Ignore robes a, b, d, e, etc.
Try on robe c,
Use remove curse scroll
Try on robe f, rejoice.

You would still need just as many remove curse scrolls. The proposed system does nearly the same thing as the current system, but without the extra steps.

[BlackSheep]

So you're saying wear-identifying armour is annoying. That's a far cry from "scummy." (Seriously, by that definition killing rats is scummy.)

[ebarrett]

fr robes of distortion

[Fergy]

So you're saying wear-identifying armour is annoying. That's a far cry from "scummy." (Seriously, by that definition killing rats is scummy.)

It's only annoying to wear-id items that provide neither a bonus, nor a penalty for doing so. The goal of my proposal is to limit wear-iding items to those that may provide either a benefit, or a cost.

Btw, killing rats is not scummy. Rats are movable walls. Killing them opens up the map. Rats can deal damage which makes it a risk to attack them. When rats die, there is a chance that they will spawn food.

[BlackSheep]

Rats have practically zero chance of killing you, and the "dangers" of fighting them is about the same as the dangers of wear-IDing armor.

I'm sorry that the game makes you work for gear upgrades. If cursed armor didn't exist, what you're proposing might make sense. Since it does, there's a non-zero risk to trying on things. If you want to know what everything is without having to wear it, worship Ashenzari.

[adozu]

i suggest the ability to decide which skills to focus on is remvoed too, it's pretty scummy. and gaining piety is scummy as well, we should just gain powers when we pick up a rune or something.

[Davion Fuxa]

i suggest the ability to decide which skills to focus on is remvoed too, it's pretty scummy. and gaining piety is scummy as well, we should just gain powers when we pick up a rune or something.

I take it you really didn't like Diablo III?

[Fergy]

Rats have practically zero chance of killing you, and the "dangers" of fighting them is about the same as the dangers of wear-IDing armor.

Rats by themselves have nearly a zero chance of killing you (note this is still not zero), however when grouped with other monsters, the moving wall behavior of rats can make them quite dangerous (or they could mitigate the danger of the other monsters by 'rat dancing').

I'm sorry that the game makes you work for gear upgrades. If cursed armor didn't exist, what you're proposing might make sense. Since it does, there's a non-zero risk to trying on things. If you want to know what everything is without having to wear it, worship Ashenzari.

I do not understand how cursed armor changes my proposal in any way. The risk of trying things on remains the same.

i suggest the ability to decide which skills to focus on is remvoed too, it's pretty scummy. and gaining piety is scummy as well, we should just gain powers when we pick up a rune or something.

Please try another reductio ad absurdum.

[BlackSheep]

I do not understand how cursed armor changes my proposal in any way. The risk of trying things on remains the same.

You're proposing giving the player knowledge about armor pieces for free. Right now, that knowledge is not free because of cursed equipment.

[BountyHunterSAx]

I have never had any issue with trying on armours if i had a nice stack of remove curse resource available. That said, if cursed armours get axed or there's a sensation that the penalty for wear-ID'ing needs to be higher, then many mild-contamination can be added as a *rare* random effect on blue robes/armours?



-AHMAD

[TwilightPhoenix]

Really? This is hardly scummy. What do I do when I come across ten random, mundane robes? I ignore them. Why? Because I'd much rather look for a branded robe and, because I'm not wasting time trying on every robe, I've probably already gone and found one.

Seriously, this is a solution in search of a problem. Once you get branded gear, you ignore non-branded gear unless that piece is just that much of an upgrade (aka +0 Chain Mail of magic resistance vs vanilla +0 Plate Mail when your goal is heavy armor). I don't care about those ten pairs of mundane gloves because I have a pair that gives me +3 Strength or something. I'll just drop them on the floor rather than messing around with them. Or, if I'm feeling particularly contrary, I'll feed them to jellies or throw them into lava because they don't have any other use once I have branded gloves.

Also, they can be cursed, so wasting my time IDing them either wastes ID scrolls or wastes Remove Curse scrolls which would both be better used for trying out potentially branded gear.

If it really bugs you that you have to min/max your armor that badly, then just worship Ash and save yourself a headache. Crawl might be about removing tedium and scumming, but the developers should not waste their time protecting you from your own OCD.

[TwilightPhoenix]

I don't, but I also don't value the potential of 1 or 2 extra AC to be worth the hassle of trying on every mundane armor ever once I have at least a half decent ego (aka, something useful, not Strength when I'm playing a Troll, for example). A robe of rFire is worth more than a +2 robe to me, especially when I can enchant the former and can have both if I need the 2 AC that badly. Meanwhile, it's impossible to brand mundane armor.

And no, I don't go burning all my enchant armor scrolls on the first rFire robe I find either, before anyone brings that up, unless I have excessive amounts of scrolls or, more likely, can't find a better robe.

[Fergy]

I do not understand how cursed armor changes my proposal in any way. The risk of trying things on remains the same.

You're proposing giving the player knowledge about armor pieces for free. Right now, that knowledge is not free because of cursed equipment.

No. I'll explain it with a much easier argument. Imagine we were playing a game of chance.

Roll 1d6.
If 1, I win.
elseif 2, you win.
else roll again.

What are the odds of winning per a roll?
What are the overall odds of winning?
How would the odds change if we used a 1d2?
What if we used a 1d(2+C)?

The only thing that matters is the ratio of winning (better items) to losing (cursed), everything else can be removed with balance intact. My suggestion is to remove 'C' from the roll. This proposal does not change the overall risk of equipping a cursed item, it simply reduces the number of rolls that needed to be done.

[BountyHunterSAx]

@Fergy let me posit you a scenario:

Your patch:
1.) You have 6 white armours.
2.) They're all auto-id'd (or all default to '0').
3.) Net resources used: zero. Net gain: +0 armour.

As it is:
1.) You have 6 white armours.
2.) You wear the first, cursed: use a remove curse.
3.) You wear the second, +1 leather, cursed.
Do you: a.) Use a remove curse? b.) Decide to stick it out with this one?
If a: you've made a choice, and used two remove curses to get a +1 AC.
if b,
4.) You wear the third, +0, leather.
5.) You wear the fourth, +0, leather.
6.) You wear the fifth, +2 leather.
7.) You wear the sixth, +3 leather.
NetEffect: 2 remove curse scrolls used, a +3 leather armour, and 3-5 decisions made.

Now the fun part . 8.) A mummy comes by and your ring gets cursed on. You now are down to one remove-curse scroll. Make your choice!

-AHMAD

[some12fat2move]

As it is:
1.) You have 6 white armours.
2.) You wear the first, cursed: use a remove curse.
3.) You wear the second, +1 leather, cursed.
Do you: a.) Use a remove curse? b.) Decide to stick it out with this one?
If a: you've made a choice, and used two remove curses to get a +1 AC.
if b,
4.) You wear the third, +0, leather.
5.) You wear the fourth, +0, leather.
6.) You wear the fifth, +2 leather.
7.) You wear the sixth, +3 leather.
NetEffect: 2 remove curse scrolls used, a +3 leather armour, and 3-5 decisions made.

Now the fun part . 8.) A mummy comes by and your ring gets cursed on. You now are down to one remove-curse scroll. Make your choice!

-AHMAD

I'm pretty sure fergy's proposal was to make stuff auto-ID only if you're wearing an equivalent armour of equal or greater enchantment, which make the above scenario the same thing except without steps 4 and 5 (those two +0 leathers would be identified by the +1 leather you're wearing).

[Fergy]

I'm pretty sure fergy's proposal was to make stuff auto-ID only if you're wearing an equivalent armour of equal or greater enchantment, which make the above scenario the same thing except without steps 4 and 5 (those two +0 leathers would be identified by the +1 leather you're wearing).

Your assessment is correct (I'll add that the +0 armors will only be identified after a remove curse scroll is used on the +1 leather).

My proposal went one step further. Instead of comparing the the unidentified item with the worn item, it would compare it to all currently identified items (worn, inventory & dungeon floor). This would be most useful with named prefixes (orcish, elven, dwarven).

In hindsight, its better if it only compares vs currently worn armor, and armor in the inventory. Accessing armor on the dungeon floor involves a travel time of the character that has to be considered.

Example of why dungeon floor ID is bad:

Found 2 +2 leathers. Wear 1, drop 1.
Travel several floors down and a jelly corrodes the leather into a +1.
Find another leather.
If the armor is a +2, having it auto ID based on an armor that is far away removes a possible decision (travel back up, or risk the new armor).

Therefore, its better if this proposal only applies to items that the player currently has immediate control over (inv & worn).

[BountyHunterSAx]

So - again - I'm not seeing where this makes you the player make a choice as to how to use your limited remove curse scrolls. Or if you have na excess of remove curse scrolls, how this lets you use those to your benefit. I mean, even using the example I gave without any alterations you have to make the choice to risk getting a cursed negative armour if you're just wear-testing everything. So 3-6 are nontrivial steps. They're a way tospend remove curse scrolls (possibly a small investment) for a (possibly small) benefit.

-AHMAD

[some12fat2move]

So - again - I'm not seeing where this makes you the player make a choice as to how to use your limited remove curse scrolls. Or if you have na excess of remove curse scrolls, how this lets you use those to your benefit. I mean, even using the example I gave without any alterations you have to make the choice to risk getting a cursed negative armour if you're just wear-testing everything. So 3-6 are nontrivial steps. They're a way tospend remove curse scrolls (possibly a small investment) for a (possibly small) benefit.

-AHMAD

Very simple - if you put on something cursed and you want to identify more stuff, you'll have to spend that remove curse in order to learn what the other stuff is. Just like current system except with less clicks.

[BlackSheep]

You're still proposing giving the player information for free. The current system requires that you risk your ?remove curse to find out the enchantment level of armor. Six robes, six chances to have to burn a scroll.

[galehar]

Another design goal which isn't stated in the philosophy section is simplicity and clarity. We experienced some serious drawbacks by adding some stuff which were much more convoluted than necessary: food reform and constriction. The former was reverted, the later simplified.
It's important that new features are simple, both for gameplay and code maintenance. Your proposal is complicated and completely non-intuitive for very little gain.

[Fergy]

So - again - I'm not seeing where this makes you the player make a choice as to how to use your limited remove curse scrolls.

Because wear-identifying worthless armor falls outside the decision making portion of wear-id. It is a nested loop inside the overall loop, but in itself it does not affect the decision.

Pseudo Code of a decision making tree: (it's been a while since I wrote any code, so please bear with me if I made a mistake)

  Code:

unidentifiedArmor = X      Number of pieces that are unID
wornEnchant = 0         armor that is currently worn
wornCursed = False      
maxEnchant = 0         best identified armor in inv
desiredEnchant = 2      
removeCurseScrolls = 5

Do While ( ((wornCursed = False) AND (removeCurseScrolls > 0) AND (maxEnchant < desiredEnchant) AND (unidentifiedArmor > 0))
        OR ((wornCursed = True) AND (removeCurseScrolls > 1) AND (maxEnchant < desiredEnchant)  AND (unidentifiedArmor > 0))
   OR ((wornCursed = True) AND (removeCurseScrolls > 0) AND (wornEnchant < maxEnchant)) )
   
   IF (wornCursed = True)
      wornCursed = False
      removeCurseScrolls += -1
      wornEnchant = maxEnchant


   Else While ((wornCursed = false) AND (maxEnchant < desiredEnchant))   
      wear armor
      unidentifiedArmor += -1
      wornEnchant = (random)
      wornCursed = (random)
      
      If ( wornEnchant > maxEnchant )
         maxEnchant = wornEnchant
      Else If ( wornCursed = False)
         wornEnchant = maxEnchant

This proposal changes the "Else While ((wornCursed = false) AND (maxEnchant < desiredEnchant))" to just an "else". The loop dissappears because the unid armor must either be cursed or better than the current best enchantment.

[adozu]

that looks pretty messy, if it's just suppsoed to represent the decision making tree there is no point in writing it in pseudocode.

all of that could be summed up with:

if you have un-ID armor, your current armor isn't as good as you'd like it to be and you still have remove curse scrolls equip-ID one of those armors.
you like the result? no? un-curse if necessary, rinse, repeat.

[Fergy]

You're still proposing giving the player information for free.

The information the proposal gives out for free is the same information that is given out for free when trying on armor. This free information is not involved in the decision making process whatsoever.

The current system requires that you risk your ?remove curse to find out the enchantment level of armor. Six robes, six chances to have to burn a scroll.

The proposed system still requires you to risk the exact same amount of remove curse scrolls. The exact reason why is not intuitive, but I will continue to try to make it easier to comprehend.

Another design goal which isn't stated in the philosophy section is simplicity and clarity. We experienced some serious drawbacks by adding some stuff which were much more convoluted than necessary: food reform and constriction. The former was reverted, the later simplified.
It's important that new features are simple, both for gameplay and code maintenance. Your proposal is complicated and completely non-intuitive for very little gain.

Gameplay: Very simple and intuitive to understand "The armor was identified because it is weaker than what the player currently has". This is a boon for the player because the player has to do less tedious actions that do not affect gameplay.

Game Balance: This idea is not intuitive at all. However, I assure you that game balance remains the same. I will try my best to make this point clear.

Code maintenance & little gain: This may be of concern, and is the only portion of the proposal I can't effectively rebut. I can only ask questions to see if it would be easier for you to code.

• What if this only applied to armors that the player is currently standing over, or in the inventory?
• What if it only applied to armors in the inventory?
  This would make it less useful for the player, but still preferable to wear IDing armor (2 actions instead of 4.
• What if it only compared the armor to the currently worn armor (and not the all armor in the player inventory)?
  Again, less useful for the player, but still better than the current system.

I did not start this thread, I only created a solution to a (very minor) problem. I'll let others argue on how big of a problem it actually is, and whether or not it's worth the time to code. I will only argue on the game balance of this proposal (because in my mind, it's balance neutral).