Implement "cure" for sticky flame

[delarado]

From this thread: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=9334&p=127989#p127989

STicky flame from Mottled whatevers. Watching everything you own burn with no fix sucks. Can potions of curing be made to put out fire or something?

I've done most of the (regular) game now, if I wanted to win Id go get 3 runes right now, then do zot. I still haven't found conservation, Ive been set on fire twice and its burned most of my scrolls.

Having a single (And decidedly rare) defense against a really annoying (and decidedly punishing) status (And no cure!) surely isn't right?

[Mankeli]

You can drop things before you are set ablaze or drop them even while being on fire (dropping takes time, of course). But no, I still don't like sticky flame's item destruction part at all, I'm just not sure that this "cure" would be the solution especially since other item destruction exists and I'd rather see a major overhaul in it as a whole. Besides cure means that you'de still be on fire for a or more turns which would still mean that you should drop your scrolls beforehand.

[delarado]

SOmetimes you cannot drop items before being set on fire though. It takes one turn to drop each scroll, so you have to choose which to drop.

I like the difficulty aspect and uniqueness of being set on fire and having scrolls destroyed, however, I don't like the fact that its very possible to walk around a corner, get sticky flamed from point blank range, have no way to stop 60% of your scrolls getting destroyed adn then having to choose between dropping (And saving) one to three scrolls (And getting beat on for the privilege) or just killing stuff and watching your hard-found scrolls burn to shreds.

Im not saying remove the destruction completely, but at the moment, the ONLY prevention is quite rare.

[Baldu]

The proper behavior when meeting a sticky flame monster is to leave line of sight, drop scrolls, then go beat it up. It's clearly not realistic to do at all times though, but is one of the reasons why swiftness is such a powerful spell, it makes this kind of problem relatively easy to deal with.

More on topic, if you look through the first 3 pages of this subforum you should find a thread about reforming item destruction. You should probably post in that thread to see what happened to that possibility as that may fix this issue entirely.

[Azrael]

How about casting Freeze on yourself solves the problem?

[MoogleDan]

Is there any chance that that experimental destruction branch's approach will be implemented? I thought that one handled the situation pretty well.

[and into]

Is there any chance that that experimental destruction branch's approach will be implemented? I thought that one handled the situation pretty well.

Yes, I think sticky flame is a particularly annoying instance of a deeper underlying problem.

MoogleDan is referring (I think) to a different proposed mechanic to replace item destruction: a chance that attempts to use the relevant consumable will fail for X period of time when hit with flame / ice. I agree with him that I hope this is implemented, it makes elemental damage into an interesting threat that makes you stop and think when you are in danger, rather than an obstacle known and understood always in advance, to be solved through tedious stash (or pseudo-stashing) behavior.

But.... At the risk of sounding self-contradictory, I'd say that IF the current system of item destruction is to remain, then it is VITAL that sticky flame continue to operate as it does now: No consumable cure. You have to wait that out. Because it is the ONLY form of item destruction that at least APPROXIMATES putting you in a difficult or dangerous tactical situation. The others are a mere nuisance. I think there are better ways to mess with our reliance on consumables, but until those ideas are implemented, sticky flame should stay as it is. In other words, sticky flame should only be changed as part of a much bigger, sweeping reform. That's my take on it.

[Wahaha]

Is there any chance that that experimental destruction branch's approach will be implemented? I thought that one handled the situation pretty well.

Hopefully not because it nerfs consumables for no reason. I'd rather keep the current annoying destruction than make it not annoying but nerf consumables. Also to properly handle the 50% chance of your teleport/blink/heal wounds/whatever not working when needed, we would have to play more carefully around fire monsters, and it's not the fun type of careful in my opinion. Hope one of those yaktaurs doesn't shoot bolts of fire.

[and into]

Is there any chance that that experimental destruction branch's approach will be implemented? I thought that one handled the situation pretty well.

Hopefully not because it nerfs consumables for no reason. I'd rather keep the current annoying destruction than make it not annoying but nerf consumables. Also to properly handle the 50% chance of your teleport/blink/heal wounds/whatever not working when needed, we would have to play more carefully around fire monsters, and it's not the fun type of careful in my opinion. Hope one of those yaktaurs doesn't shoot bolts of fire.

Personally, I think this would all be in the numbers, though. If a single hit from an arrow of flame meant 50% failure, yeah, that's one thing. But if it scales up with damage (or whatever), kind of like antimagic but for consumables, I could see that being a much better take on consumable limiting. Also, that damage could be "absolute" (not relative to HP), so in early game it would make hardly any difference when a puff of frost or flame hits you from an orc wizard (since the fact that not many consumables have probably spawned by that point is a natural limiting factor early on), but becomes a major factor later, when consumables become, IMO, all TOO reliable in terms of letting your character escape when he needs to.

[Amnesiac]

having a chance of failure of using, instead of destruction sounds so artifitial and gimmicky. Also I don't like the idea of making options of escape less reliable, that whould just increase deaths count and not give any fun... They are balanced this way so that they give you limited reliable source of escape, so that you know when you can or can't take some risk. They probably also balance different backgrounds and species, so that not everybody play quick races that can cast cBlink, haste or something like that, but I'm not sure about this one

[hannobal]

What about potions of water? Pour one on your head (quaff key) to quench the flames or reduce remaining duration.

[Sar]

I remember I was sticky flamed recently and stepping into a freezing cloud didn't remove the status. Not like I'm saying freezing clouding yourself to get rid of sticky flame is a good idea, just felt strange (freezing clouds are supposedly very tall since nothing can fly above them).

[MoogleDan]

I remember I was sticky flamed recently and stepping into a freezing cloud didn't remove the status. Not like I'm saying freezing clouding yourself to get rid of sticky flame is a good idea, just felt strange (freezing clouds are supposedly very tall since nothing can fly above them).

I had that same reaction when my lava orc wasn't getting cooled after being hit by Ozocubu's Refrigeration.

[Lasty]

Stepping in water does remove Sticky Flame, but of course that's not always an option. The new evokable flask could be used for that purpose, though . . .

[ackack]

I had that same reaction when my lava orc wasn't getting cooled after being hit by Ozocubu's Refrigeration.

Does anything other than Fannar use Refrigeration? This seems like it would be a good thing to add.

[BlackSheep]

The serpent of hell in Cocytus.

[Siegurt]

Stepping in water does remove Sticky Flame, but of course that's not always an option. The new evokable flask could be used for that purpose, though . . .

Could be a side effect of the existing phial of floods...

[Galefury]

I'm pretty sure the "new evokable flask" and the "existing phial of floods" are the same thing. It creates some shallow water.

[Siegurt]

I'm pretty sure the "new evokable flask" and the "existing phial of floods" are the same thing. It creates some shallow water.

Yep, I just tested it, works beautifully, "Ah mottled dragon, 'evoke phial', stand in water, no more flaming sticky scroll destruction!" And it recharges more frequently than you're likely to see a mottled dragon, now I just need to devise a way to get one for all characters before I encounter any sticky dragons

[Lasty]

Yeah, I forgot what it was called. Thanks, Galefury.

[spudwalt]

You could try to put out sticky flame by splashing your potions on yourself, but make it so it's a fairly low chance of it working (potion bottles aren't very big, you know). Then the choice becomes "Do I just hope not too many of my scrolls catch fire, or do I use half my potions trying to put it out?" instead of just "Oh, hey, I'm never going to use this potion of agility. *extinguish*"

Thinking about it, though, I guess your scrolls would still be burning while you're frantically dumping potions on yourself...

[and into]

A potentially usable cure (rather than hoping shallow water is around) would be extremely specific, and I don't think crawl needs more stuff that you carry around as "just in case" measures for very specific things. Blinking, fog, and teleport are great consumables because there is not a one-to-one ratio between the item and the problem it solves (like there is with "have rot" -----> drink curing; "have stat drain" -----> drink restore abilities), plus there are usually some additional tactical considerations in using blinking and fog. You actually have to use them *well.* RA and curing rot are rather one-dimensional considerations ("Do I do this, do I not?"), rather than, "How do I use this tool effectively?" With teleport, for instance, you need to take into account how dangerous the level is versus the immediate area you want to escape, how well explored and well-cleared it is, etc.

I really don't want to see more one-dimensional consumables in the game. Taking a turn or two in order to (have a chance?) to get it off of you sounds a lot like what you do now, you drop scrolls starting with the most valuable, and hope for the best. It seems rather like a lateral move. It usually doesn't last that long, though sometimes you get unlucky and every turn it eats three scrolls.

I don't think it is necessary to nerf sticky flame against player. But if a decision is made to nerf it, I really don't think this should be done in a way that adds another very narrowly useful, "yes/no"-use consumable.