The Tavern

Kind of in line with the old item destruction discussion, I got to thinking about corrosion -- armour in particular. Right now, it's a little odd for two reasons:

* It's annoying to avoid, but important enough over the long term that it's worth the annoyance.
* The consequences are almost never tactically relevant -- losing 1-2 AC in a fight is not generally going to swing that particular fight.

So! I'm wondering if it might make more sense as a temporary effect. Acid attacks could reduce item enchantment more than they do now (multiple points per hit); your item would then regain its enchantment over time (or, preferably IMO, over gained EXP). Maybe enchant scrolls would clear all current corrosion, or maybe that's an ugly idea.

I'd imagine that enchantment level would no longer guard against this temporary corrosion, but still imagine artefacts would be immune.

Just thinking about making yellow dracs and Slime less annoying... thoughts?

isn't the short term tactical effect of acid that it hurts a lot if you run around in your undergarments?

It might make sense to make it temporary - maybe make it so that Acid acts a lot like Sticky Flame but without the ability to reduce the damage in anyway. Combine it in with different levels much like Poison does and it makes it into an attack where if you have several layers of it you'll probably end up taking a lot of damage. It would make things interesting because you would want to avoid acid being splashed on you in large amounts.

An "Acid" effect is temporary, and if you take off all your armor immediately, it won't degrade. However, if you leave your armor on, then it gets gradually damaged, moreso than it would be with the current Acid mechanic. This would nerf Acid, but make the Slime Pits significantly more difficult.

So, this is some kind of magic acid that corrode stuff but when it wears off, corrosion disappear? Doesn't make much sense to me. And don't tell me "it's magic", magic has its own internal logic and this isn't logical. Don't tell me either that grid based movement or healing by resting don't make sense either. Some elements of crawl are abstracted, acid corroding items is not an abstraction.

some semi-permanent things like corrosion and rotting need to chip away the character's stats one point at a time because they can stack very quickly and painfully to an unprepared character.
a smart man once said, yesterday, "As the continuous changes in game design is very important for dealing such problems in game."

minmay wrote:You have cited this in multiple places yet never explained what that internal logic is. I strongly suspect that it does not exist, and this is not your actual reason for dismissing the idea. Making arguments that appear transparently dishonest is never a good strategy. You could remedy that, of course, by explaining this fabled internal logic.

I assume that since Magic is usually based on some substance, it must act in some correlated way with said substance. IE, Fire Magic burns, does Fire Damage, and so forth. Therefore Acid must work the same way and have an effect that is 'Acid-like' (IE, it doesn't temporarily corrode stuff, it just corrodes).

It would also make little sense if the player could take off all his equipment instantly too (where the game automatically takes it all off) and taking it off manually would just keep the annoyance Xuaxua was mentioning about.

minmay wrote:ToME4, World of Warcraft, and many other games have temporary corrosion. I don't see the big deal here.

How about adding lightsabers? Slash'em has them, so I don't see the big deal here. No wait... ToME4 and WoW has many features we don't want in crawl. What makes temporary corrosion ok and other features not okay? "Some other game has it" is not a valid argument.

We have temporary magical enchantments like slow and corona, why can't this be one?

Because those are magical effects, acid isn't. If it were, you'd have to ask yourself "can yellow drac worship Trog?, Are they affected by antimagic? What about acid blobs?", etc...

Also,
galehar wrote:And don't tell me "it's magic", magic has its own internal logic and this isn't logical.
You have cited this in multiple places yet never explained what that internal logic is.

Here it is. I'm not saying it's without flaws, there are a few. Because gameplay is more important, so we had to concede a few inconsistencies in the enchantment split.
But we do try to have a logic. Whenever we add a new feature, we ask ourselves: how does it work? Is it divine? From which god? Is it magical? Which schools are involved? Crawl takes place in a universe with its own rules and laws, we try to keep them consistent.

Also, I disagree with the OP's premises. How is it annoying? How is it any more annoying to avoid it than any other monster ranged attack? Why the fact that it has a strategic effect instead of a tactical one a bad thing?

And if we really wanted to have a temporary effect which disable the magic properties of items, maybe we could flavour it differently than "magic temporary corrosion". Oh, but we already have one, it's called suppression.

For what it's worth, some of us have been thinking about making curses give temporary, bad effects.

In Starcraft1 Devourer acid spit worked like this. It would splash on stuff and reduce their armor by 1 per effect for a while.

I like this idea, but it could also work as an effect totally separate from acid. I feel like permanent corrosion might be more interesting if monsters with it were more likely to appear in groups: do I kill the more dangerous dudes first or the blob that will cost me a couple enchant scrolls? I guess this is true of most monsters though.

The Acid Effect Corrodes Equipment, which is comparable to Rot. Unlike Rot however: there is no 'quick & easy fix' to the permanent damage inflicted, you can't fully protect non-randart gear that isn't in the body armour slot, and it Acid-based attacks are far more common then things that inflict Rot. The damage inflicted by Rot as well is also generally less severe in constrast too, and Zin can even let you completely avoid Rot Damage in the first place.

I think adding temporary corrosion on top of currently implemented permanent corrosion could solve both problems described in OP: 1) character can die from corrosion if there are some monsters around 2) permanent corrsion is not felt annoying because character is busy trying to survive (compare with torment, nobody calls it annoying)

galehar wrote:So, this is some kind of magic acid that corrode stuff but when it wears off, corrosion disappear?

The acid is mundane. The equipment is magical. Currently, anything over +5 enchantment is immune to corrosion; I don't see how "enchanted items can only temporarily be corroded" is fundamentally different.

I mean, the narrative can likely be worked out. Is this a bad idea gameplay-wise?

I wouldn't say it's objectively bad gameplay-wise, but the thing is I'm not convinced there's a problem with the current gameplay. Equipment enchantment is a unique strategical mechanism requiring decisions over strategical resources to manipulate it. If corrosion were temporary then it'd be like so many other temporary maluses that repair over time (or with exp gain, which is better for gameplay purposes than waiting something out, but is sometimes hard to explain from a realism point of view; why would your corroded weapon repair itself as you get more experienced?)

I know a lot of people find item destruction one of the more annoying things in the game ... but something being annoying doesn't actually mean it's bad. I like item destruction, it creates a unique tension precisely because items are so precious to the player. Yes I get something of a sinking feeling any time it happens, I can get a similar feeling when riding a terrifying rollercoaster though ...

galehar wrote:Why the fact that it has a strategic effect instead of a tactical one a bad thing?

It's caused primarily by tactical mistakes as opposed to poor strategic choices? I'd kind of thought that "tactical choices have primarily tactical consequences; strategic choices have primarily strategic consequences" was kind of a crawl trope. The manual is not explicit about it and I'm no dev, so I could be totally wrong about this

I'm happy either way, so long as this is clear.

And if we really wanted to have a temporary effect which disable the magic properties of items, maybe we could flavour it differently than "magic temporary corrosion". Oh, but we already have one, it's called suppression.

That's cool. I've fairly-recently toured all the branches and have never actually seen a moth of suppression. Maybe they're occasional Spider bosses? I've only been there a few times.

This discussion strikes me as very similar to the discussion about reforming item destruction by cold/fire. Ideas were thrown about like preventing use of a new status effect that temporarily prevents using some or all of your consumables. If such a feature were added to the game, njvack's acid proposal would appear extremely symmetrical.

njvack wrote:It's caused primarily by tactical mistakes as opposed to poor strategic choices? I'd kind of thought that "tactical choices have primarily tactical consequences; strategic choices have primarily strategic consequences" was kind of a crawl trope.

What are tropes made for if not subverting?

Anyway I don't think it's very accurate: strategic choices can and do have tactical consequences in that wearing certain items or choosing a certain god or building your skills a certain way will lead you to use different tactics. So I don't think there's anything wrong with the reverse being true sometimes. It does make the game clear and understandable if there's something of a dividing line but it would make design much harder if a rule like this was followed rigorously.

Armour skill increases AC, presumably because you learn to move better to use the equipment to your advantage. Replace some acid attacks with sticky goop that makes it harder to move, and reduce AC until the stuff wears off. Maybe just remove the AC gained by armour skill, maybe remove some other amount.

Of all the things to complain about... corrosion...? Really? What corrodes you... Jellies? Just use a wand. Corrosion is so rare that you MIGHT see in the corrosion based branch if you're lucky. Plus the one time it does pass your dozen resistance checks while you spam tab in slime your +2 cloak just becomes a +1 cloak. I mean God forbid right?

Also it's not really permanent. You'll probably find another enchantment scroll down the road or a +2 cloak just lying around in Zot or even just on the ground. To be honest any temporary effects just promote grinding as you grind them off.

snow wrote:Plus the one time it does pass your dozen resistance checks while you spam tab in slime your +2 cloak just becomes a +1 cloak. I mean God forbid right?

One of his points was that making it temporary would allow you to make it more severe.

njvack wrote:
galehar wrote:Why the fact that it has a strategic effect instead of a tactical one a bad thing?

It's caused primarily by tactical mistakes as opposed to poor strategic choices? I'd kind of thought that "tactical choices have primarily tactical consequences; strategic choices have primarily strategic consequences" was kind of a crawl trope. The manual is not explicit about it and I'm no dev, so I could be totally wrong about this I'm happy either way, so long as this is clear.

As blacksheep pointed out, item destruction is similar. There's mutating monsters too. I don't know why people think it's a bad thing for monsters to have attacks with strategic consequences to the player. Note that the 3 types of "strategic attacks" are all countered by amulets. So maybe in zot you sometimes you have to choose against which one you want to protect yourself. Trying to avoid or counter those attacks, you might end up neglecting more pressing tactical concerns and end up dying

It should be noted that if corrosion got made temporary then enchant scrolls would have to be made rarer to compensate. Net result would be the same.

jejorda2 wrote:Armour skill increases AC, presumably because you learn to move better to use the equipment to your advantage. Replace some acid attacks with sticky goop that makes it harder to move, and reduce AC until the stuff wears off. Maybe just remove the AC gained by armour skill, maybe remove some other amount.

Some kind of "slime" effect could be interesting as an entirely new effect, but I'd rather see it given to currently boring monsters (e.g. slugs/snails) rather than replace any of the extremely rare (as snow points out) sources of acid. Gives a temporary reduction in armour and/or weapon enchantment (perhaps affects artifacts too).

Just to throw another idea out there, what if acid were more like stat drain/mutation? That is, make acid more common and/or severe, but add an uncommon scroll that could reverse all or a large amount of acid damage.

Tiber wrote:Just to throw another idea out there, what if acid were more like stat drain/mutation? That is, make acid more common and/or severe, but add an uncommon scroll that could reverse all or a large amount of acid damage.

As soon as someone is saying "what if {foo} were more like {bar}" then alarm bells ring - if we wanted to make acid more like other effects then why not just remove acid and make those other effects more common ...?

mumra wrote:It should be noted that if corrosion got made temporary then enchant scrolls would have to be made rarer to compensate. Net result would be the same.

An idea for this might be to roll Enchant Weapon Scrolls all into one scroll, and make Enchant Weapon and Enchant Armor very rare. The new scrolls would essentially cause a dramatic spike in the enchantment level(s) of the item it was used on. To go back to the improving Vorpalize Weapon idea, you might even roll the above idea with Enchant Weapon or even Enchant Armor into them and let the player create Artefacts out of a base type of item they would like to see an Artefact from.

Though the above idea would need consideration with Cursed Equipment since you would limit Curse Removal to one Scroll.

mumra wrote:
Tiber wrote:Just to throw another idea out there, what if acid were more like stat drain/mutation? That is, make acid more common and/or severe, but add an uncommon scroll that could reverse all or a large amount of acid damage.

As soon as someone is saying "what if {foo} were more like {bar}" then alarm bells ring - if we wanted to make acid more like other effects then why not just remove acid and make those other effects more common ...?

Not that I'm going to defend this all that much, because it was just a random thought that I thought might lead to discussion, but this is just giving an already unique effect (making an already existing piece of equipment worse) a behavior model that already exists within the game.

To me, it's like asking, "Why have ice damage destroy potions when we already have fire damage destroy scrolls?" or, "Why have acid damage at all; it's just like HP rot but with items!" (And yes, I'm aware that these aren't perfect analogies)

Well the point is acid is a unique and rare effect, why does it need to work like anything else?

Just to weigh in quickly:

I find acid/rCorr to be absolutely brilliant the way it is currently. I am always incentivized to keep a source of rCorr handy, as it will help with both the damage and the corrosion-risk. But at the same time, the set of enemies capable of dealing acid damage to me is narrow enough that I don't NEED to have it on constnatly, which allows for amulet-swapping, which (again) is an interesting thing to do.

-AHMAD

mumra wrote:Well the point is acid is a unique and rare effect, why does it need to work like anything else?

Symmetry leads to discoverability and clarity, and clarity is good. But the way it works now isn't unclear.

Restoring equipment to zero enchantment seems a lot less overpowered than restoring equipment to its highest ever enchantment. It sounds easier to code, too. This would allow you to recover from a new, more effective corrosion attack that took your GDA to -11, but it wouldn't guarantee that you can keep your equipment at some high positive enchantment. More effective and more common corrosion attacks would make rCorr more attractive.

jejorda2 wrote:
mumra wrote:Well the point is acid is a unique and rare effect, why does it need to work like anything else?

Symmetry leads to discoverability and clarity, and clarity is good. But the way it works now isn't unclear.

On the other hand diversity leads to more mechanics and more content, therefore a more interesting game so long as those mechanics/content are good.

I do like the idea of a new "sticky goo" effect that acts as a temporary negative enchantment. Something like this was discussed during the "how to improve boring monsters discussion" when it came to slugs/snails. This effect could be given to some other creatures as well, maybe some new monsters/uniques (Slimer ghost, anyone?). And maybe another use for rSticky! I still don't see any compelling reason to change acid as it currently stands though ...

mumra wrote:On the other hand diversity leads to more mechanics and more content, therefore a more interesting game so long as those mechanics/content are good.

This isn't generally true. Boardgames show this quite well, for example explaining a complex game to a new player takes a lot of time and effort. More is not always better, even if it's more of a good thing.

Galefury wrote:
mumra wrote:On the other hand diversity leads to more mechanics and more content, therefore a more interesting game so long as those mechanics/content are good.

This isn't generally true. Boardgames show this quite well, for example explaining a complex game to a new player takes a lot of time and effort. More is not always better, even if it's more of a good thing.

I definitely agree, although my definition of "good" would probably include "clear and easy to learn". In the specific case we're discussing, it's not like the mechanics of acid take a long time to understand, despite the fact that they work a bit differently to other effects. (In terms of board/card games ... I've introduced a number of new players to Illuminati and that is pretty much the most convoluted and complex "casual" game I've ever encountered ... it can take hours to get everyone up to speed ... but it's still totally worth it in the end).

mumra wrote:It should be noted that if corrosion got made temporary then enchant scrolls would have to be made rarer to compensate. Net result would be the same.

I am curious. How much corrosion do you think happens in the average 3 rune game? It is probably some number less than 2 unless lemuel_acid_fuckyou is placed.

Corrosion is a boring mechanic because it doesn't add any counterplay. First of all, it is almost completely mitigated by wearing an amulet which is neither counterplay nor an interesting decision, it's just swapping a piece of jewellery. Second of all, you minimize the effect of corrosion otherwise by using good tactics that you would use against any enemy anyway. You don't pump and roll against the yellow drac pack the same way you don't pump and roll against yaktaur packs. You don't get surrounded by brown ugly things the same way you don't get surrounded by any pack of enemies. Except the other enemies can actually kill you while brown ugly things will just make you feel bad. Corrosion makes fights that would otherwise be completely unnoteworthy slightly more annoying.

galehar wrote:So maybe in zot you sometimes you have to choose against which one you want to protect yourself. Trying to avoid or counter those attacks, you might end up neglecting more pressing tactical concerns and end up dying

You are seriously exaggerating how much harder Zot is without those three amulets.

mumra wrote:I know a lot of people find item destruction one of the more annoying things in the game ... but something being annoying doesn't actually mean it's bad. I like item destruction, it creates a unique tension precisely because items are so precious to the player.

Actually, what happens with item destruction is that all the common consumables like !curing and !heal wounds are generated in such hideously large quantities that it doesn't matter if you lose half of them to destruction, because you still have tons left over. What happens with rare consumables like ?holy word is that you carry them around for thousands of turns and they get burned up long before a situation appropriate for their use comes up. Unless you have conservation or jiyva. I was curious what the actual impact of item destruction was, so for one game I played as a troll without conservation and without playing floor-inventory management simulator and recorded what I lost and what I used. It turned out that consumable destruction hardly even mattered because the game gives you so many. Probably it just makes the game less interesting because consumables that are used the least have the highest chance of being destroyed, but those consumables are also the ones you use in more interesting situations. Go figure.

The log is here, if anyone is curious.

snow wrote:Of all the things to complain about... corrosion...? Really? What corrodes you... Jellies? Just use a wand. Corrosion is so rare that you MIGHT see in the corrosion based branch if you're lucky. Plus the one time it does pass your dozen resistance checks while you spam tab in slime your +2 cloak just becomes a +1 cloak. I mean God forbid right?

Also it's not really permanent. You'll probably find another enchantment scroll down the road or a +2 cloak just lying around in Zot or even just on the ground. To be honest any temporary effects just promote grinding as you grind them off.

Two words. Yellow Draconians. Or if you prefer, d. I have had them degrade my armour so much in Zot that I lost literally 10 AC which isn't trivial IMO.

you don't understand, item destruction is literally as bad as almost dying
my rcfile proves it
there are two messages in lightmagenta: low hp warning, and item destruction

I must say I like permanent corrosion. It makes some places worth planning, not just to go there with the best armor you have and beat things to death.

But maybe there could be a bit more danger from the corrosion. What about acid brand, having chance to disenchant your armor with every hit, some acid spells (I think there were some proposals on this, weren't there?) or dezintegartion could also 'corrode' your armor, but more strongly than acid?

FWIW stronger, temporary corrosion effect sounds good to me, regardless if the permanent effect stays or not. I've toyed with the idea of such an effect on natural AC (player yellow drac boost), including any AC would be fine in my opinion.

--Eino

snow wrote:Of all the things to complain about... corrosion...? Really? What corrodes you... Jellies? Just use a wand. Corrosion is so rare that you MIGHT see in the corrosion based branch if you're lucky. Plus the one time it does pass your dozen resistance checks while you spam tab in slime your +2 cloak just becomes a +1 cloak. I mean God forbid right?

Also it's not really permanent. You'll probably find another enchantment scroll down the road or a +2 cloak just lying around in Zot or even just on the ground. To be honest any temporary effects just promote grinding as you grind them off.

This is so weird for me to read, given that you get corroded even more often than most other players I've seen (your characters that die in zot often have -1 and -2 pieces of armour, and you rarely have all armour pieces fully enchanted, even while wearing preservation). Also, I think you might be forgetting that one of the game's most common enemies can have an acid branded melee attack. I don't have a strong opinion on this subject, but it's certainly not the case that corrosion functionally does not exist.

I'm fine with the current system, though like everyone else I prefer that my armor not get corroded. That said, let me throw out a thought about acid damage to equipment could change in an interesting way that keeps acid threatening but which makes it less long-term frustrating:

Corrosion is applied to base AC of an armor instead of enchantment. It can be fixed partly (or completely) with an uncommon item (potion of grease? scroll of mending?).

Let me unpack the implications a little and add some details.

* Armor enchantment would still protect against the effect to some degree.
* Since the base AC is impacted, the AC gained through the Armour skill would be impacted, making the damage more severe than it currently is during combat.
* If the base AC hits 0 (or goes negative, so that caps are still useful), then the piece could stop protecting that slot from acid damage (making acid more dangerous).
* If going negative is possible, then the Armour skill logic will need to ensure that higher Armour skill doesn't multiply a negative value resulting in a larger penalty to AC.
* The new consumable that removes corrosion would restore some (or all) base AC to one (or more) pieces of equipment.

So, why do this? It makes the "wear all junk" plan for Slime worse (both because wearing your good armor isn't so foolish and because bad armor will corrode and let acid through much faster). It makes acid a damage type that has more tactical effect. It differentiates acid damage from other damage types in that it a) makes heavy armor protect against acid way longer than flimsy robes or leather, and b) penalizes the AC of Armour-skill-having characters more. It turns acid into something other than an enchant armor scroll tax that a) affects novice players more, and b) novice players tend to be more displeased by.

galehar wrote:acid corroding items is not an abstraction.

Well, I've always been confused by golden helmets being corroded.

blinkfrog wrote:
galehar wrote:acid corroding items is not an abstraction.

Well, I've always been confused by golden helmets being corroded.

aqua regia

Grimm wrote:
blinkfrog wrote:
galehar wrote:acid corroding items is not an abstraction.

Well, I've always been confused by golden helmets being corroded.

aqua regia

Seeing that jellies leave stones unharmed, I don't think they produce something that strong.

It's diluted.

Grimm wrote:It's diluted.

If it's too diluted to dissolve rock, then how does it dissolve gold?

The Tavern

Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?

Re: Should corrosion be temporary and more severe?