minmay wrote:Of course we like the changes we're proposing. Otherwise we wouldn't propose them!
I asked quite clearly if the changes being proposed would cause you to like playing Felids. Everyone can enjoy armchair quarterbacking even if the suggestions are bad ones. Saying you'll like the change when you have no intention of being affected by it is setting a pretty low bar.
minmay wrote:The first quote was intended to illustrate that "non-trivial challenge" is not in itself a reason to add/keep a species. In the second, note the "I consider." (As an aside, I am not really happy with demigods as they stand because apparently most people find them boring.)
Together the quotes illustrate the absurd reduction of an opposing argument and a bit of hypocrisy. When it suits you low aptitudes are an interesting drawback but when it doesn't they're boring and unsuitable for a species.
minmay wrote:But, to elaborate on a major difference: high HP/MP/attributes is something that you actively take advantage of, exploit, and consider. Extra lives are...extra lives, a crutch for bad play, and I can't think of a practical situation where they would be a factor in tactical considerations. If you can, please tell me; I'd like to know.
Seeing as spending an extra life tactically to teleport with the orb of Zot was brought up in this very thread, I find this statement odd. I think it's a broken feature if this is indeed possible, but it doesn't take too much imagination to see that you can spend a life to achieve an objective. You see extra lives as a crutch for bad play, and they can be, but I also see them as an opportunity to explore gameplay styles I would get too frustrated with to play otherwise. Extra lives allow you to learn something about the game without having to start over entirely. Maybe I don't want to chuck 20 characters into the graveyard trying to get a monk off the ground before I even get to the point of learning to deal with an octagon. I'm not that new now, but once I was.
minmay wrote:Hushed wrote:I'm not saying Felids can't or even shouldn't change. But they should be changing for the better, to be more interesting, not just pointed at and say that ain't right, nerf it, just because you don't like how other people play and can't be bothered to challenge yourself.
I have no idea what you mean by "can't be bothered to challenge yourself," but my complaints about felids have nothing to do with them being too powerful, nor do I think flatly nerfing them would be an improvement at all.
MavinPA's post, which you said you thoroughly agreed with.
Part of the problem is I think alot of you are coming at this from the point of view of players for whom DCSS is a puzzle you've already found the solution to. You're already good players and you already jump past the intended use of mechanics to how to potentially break them. I can understand how to you Felids would just be an opportunity for you to be sloppy or lazy and just novel in a limited kind of way.
I'm probably not what you'd consider good at Crawl. I don't play it with a need to win. I don't invest energy in easy solutions. If I want to see how viable playing a transmuter is without fulsome or evaporate (because I think it'd be interesting to remove or move them for various game design ideas), Felid makes this more accessible. If I want to see if berserk makes crusader a one spell wonder, I can try that with some wiggle room. I don't normally play wizards, but if I wanted to see how to tackle the Snake pits as one I'd probably do so as a Felid.