Dungeon Master
Posts: 3618
Joined: Thursday, 23rd December 2010, 12:43
Although the central place for design discussion is ##crawl-dev on freenode, some may find it helpful to discuss requests and suggestions here first.
Dungeon Master
Posts: 3618
Joined: Thursday, 23rd December 2010, 12:43
Blades Runner
Posts: 568
Joined: Wednesday, 5th March 2014, 03:52
archaeo wrote:That's fine Reptisaurus; judging from the changes we've seen, I don't know that the devs like my specific proposal either.
Vestibule Violator
Posts: 1591
Joined: Saturday, 3rd August 2013, 18:59
Blades Runner
Posts: 568
Joined: Wednesday, 5th March 2014, 03:52
Vestibule Violator
Posts: 1591
Joined: Saturday, 3rd August 2013, 18:59
Reptisaurus wrote:Oh God.
GOOD, but now I'm worried about repel/deflect missiles.
My argument for keeping them is "I'm a wuss" but I'm worried for my poor, squishy casters.
Dungeon Master
Posts: 3618
Joined: Thursday, 23rd December 2010, 12:43
Vestibule Violator
Posts: 1601
Joined: Sunday, 14th July 2013, 16:36
dpeg wrote:The underlying issues were not really solved though: a numerical buff on a spell without downsides.
Tomb Titivator
Posts: 911
Joined: Thursday, 17th December 2015, 02:36
Hurkyl wrote:dpeg wrote:The underlying issues were not really solved though: a numerical buff on a spell without downsides.
I never understood why some people are dead set on thinking it is a problem. Especially since this argument is only ever used in the particular case of spells.
Abyss Ambulator
Posts: 1249
Joined: Sunday, 18th September 2011, 02:11
HardboiledGargoyle wrote:Me neither, but I think other buffs get exonerated with the rationale that they cost piety or consumables or an equipment slot. Charms take up spell slots but the player can make that not a thing by training spellcasting. Except that, for example, armor skill has no downsides and depends on armor finds, and charms skill similarly has no downsides and depends on book finds, so I don't know.
Barkeep
Posts: 4435
Joined: Tuesday, 11th January 2011, 12:28
Blade wrote:With regards to this topic overall: I don't know that it's gotten to a bad point yet, but I feel a trend towards a homogenization of characters and playstyles that isn't ideal. With the removal of more buffing charms, for example, characters who want those defenses just train Armour and Dodging more with that newly freed xp. There are other examples, but this one is topical. Not bad, exactly, but it does make them blur into each other more.
To illustrate, I haven't played many IEs. When I used one recently, I was surprised by how much I liked ozo's armour and condensation shield. I left my natural defenses lower and relied on those, and it felt different--in a good way--to my standard, even though the end result was the same. If I had played that this week or in a hypothetical future where more are removed, that different feel would have been gone as it would have quickly morphed into yet another otabber.
Vestibule Violator
Posts: 1591
Joined: Saturday, 3rd August 2013, 18:59
dpeg wrote:Tiktacy: But the fix only goes for the interface. Unlike spells you have/had to manually spam, Repel/Deflect Missile are easy to use. The underlying issues were not really solved though: a numerical buff on a spell without downsides.
I'd say Reptisaurus' fears are not entirely unfounded (There are no plans yet, at least I am not aware of any.)
Dungeon Master
Posts: 3618
Joined: Thursday, 23rd December 2010, 12:43
Hurkyl wrote:I never understood why some people are dead set on thinking it is a problem. Especially since this argument is only ever used in the particular case of spells.
HardboiledGargoyle wrote:[I don't understand that either] but I think other buffs get exonerated with the rationale that they cost piety or consumables or an equipment slot. Charms take up spell slots but the player can make that not a thing by training spellcasting. Except that, for example, armor skill has no downsides and depends on armor finds, and charms skill similarly has no downsides and depends on book finds, so I don't know. The argument was also brought up with rods but we don't have such rods anymore. Kind of nice to see spells getting removed though, rather than shuffled into other schools.
Blade wrote:I don't know that it's gotten to a bad point yet, but I feel a trend towards a homogenization of characters and playstyles that isn't ideal. With the removal of more buffing charms, for example, characters who want those defenses just train Armour and Dodging more with that newly freed xp.
Tiktacy wrote:If a strict buff is what you are trying to avoid, you could always make the effect permenent (casting activates/deactivates) and have it increase accuracy of melee attacks.
Abyss Ambulator
Posts: 1111
Joined: Monday, 18th March 2013, 23:23
Abyss Ambulator
Posts: 1194
Joined: Friday, 18th April 2014, 01:41
Abyss Ambulator
Posts: 1249
Joined: Sunday, 18th September 2011, 02:11
dpeg wrote:The point of these changes is precisly to make characters less homogeneous. It is the *sole* purpose of Armour and Dodging to provide AC and EV, respectively. So if you want more of those, train those skills. I believe this will create more choices in the skilling department for casters than what we have now: you have to decide what kind of armour you wear, when to train Armour, and how far, and how to distribute stat points.Blade wrote:I don't know that it's gotten to a bad point yet, but I feel a trend towards a homogenization of characters and playstyles that isn't ideal. With the removal of more buffing charms, for example, characters who want those defenses just train Armour and Dodging more with that newly freed xp.
Dungeon Master
Posts: 3618
Joined: Thursday, 23rd December 2010, 12:43
Vestibule Violator
Posts: 1601
Joined: Sunday, 14th July 2013, 16:36
tabstorm wrote:don't have a dual school that exists only to eat XP (*/conj)
Abyss Ambulator
Posts: 1249
Joined: Sunday, 18th September 2011, 02:11
dpeg wrote:Blade: I understand you, and I think you are right: some Crawl don't get more interesting than this. But I fail to see how jumping through the extra Charms hoop makes matters more interesting -- this is probably the point where we diverge.
How I really understand your point, however, is that there's too much experience in the game, and we need to cut on it.
I am not at all concerned about "driving new players away"... once you start thinking in these terms, all decisions are crippled. Developers have agreed that numerical buffs are tedious and boring, so we try to improve on that. If it makes the game better for us, it will certainly improve the game for many players (never for all players, but that'd be a hopeless goal).
Note that what's actually happening is much less drastic than what Megane proposed on SA, I proposed on the c-r-d mailing list, and archaeo proposed here.
Dungeon Master
Posts: 3618
Joined: Thursday, 23rd December 2010, 12:43
Ziggurat Zagger
Posts: 6454
Joined: Tuesday, 30th October 2012, 19:06
dpeg wrote:Developers have agreed that numerical buffs are tedious and boring, so we try to improve on that.
Barkeep
Posts: 1788
Joined: Saturday, 29th June 2013, 16:52
Ziggurat Zagger
Posts: 6454
Joined: Tuesday, 30th October 2012, 19:06
archaeo wrote:I agree with Siegurt, but reach the opposite conclusion: the numbers aren't the problem, it's the buffs, and it's because Crawl has too many fights for buff spells to not feel like a pre-battle chore or checklist you repeat over and over again. For that reason, I think the Ozo's change is toothless; it only adds a new checklist item, "stop wanting to move," and adds a post-battle 5 so you can wait off ponderous. That checklist item is marginally more "interesting," since it requires an actual tactical decision, but it's not much of one, and it doesn't really justify retaining pre-battle buffs imo.
Barkeep
Posts: 1788
Joined: Saturday, 29th June 2013, 16:52
Barkeep
Posts: 1788
Joined: Saturday, 29th June 2013, 16:52
Ziggurat Zagger
Posts: 6454
Joined: Tuesday, 30th October 2012, 19:06
archaeo wrote:It's not really an either/or thing, kuniqs; they're both problems. I don't really believe this whole "buffs are required for extended" meme, but if it's true, then the solution isn't to keep these bad spells, it's to fix extended.
Barkeep
Posts: 1788
Joined: Saturday, 29th June 2013, 16:52
Ziggurat Zagger
Posts: 4478
Joined: Wednesday, 23rd October 2013, 07:56
Tomb Titivator
Posts: 771
Joined: Tuesday, 25th November 2014, 02:47
Vestibule Violator
Posts: 1591
Joined: Saturday, 3rd August 2013, 18:59
dpeg wrote:This does indeed solve one problem, but why should such an effect be a spell? In Crawl, spells are something you strategically expend skills and magic slots and tactically you spend a turn and MP (and there's the miscast chance). I say that permanent effects don't belong on spells. Such effects can be very fine in Crawl, but they fit much better on items, such as jewellery or armour.Tiktacy wrote:If a strict buff is what you are trying to avoid, you could always make the effect permenent (casting activates/deactivates) and have it increase accuracy of melee attacks.
Tiktacy wrote:I like repel missiles much better as an amulet effect(and god effect with qaz). It makes more sense for the effect to take up a valuable equipment slot rather than 2 spell levels.
I think its worth experimenting giving the same treatment to other charm buffs as well. For example, rocksin and ozo could become ring brands that gain effectiveness based on spell level(similar to pain branding for weapons).
Dungeon Master
Posts: 3618
Joined: Thursday, 23rd December 2010, 12:43
Tomb Titivator
Posts: 911
Joined: Thursday, 17th December 2015, 02:36
dpeg wrote:This does indeed solve one problem, but why should such an effect be a spell? In Crawl, spells are something you strategically expend skills and magic slots and tactically you spend a turn and MP (and there's the miscast chance). I say that permanent effects don't belong on spells. Such effects can be very fine in Crawl, but they fit much better on items, such as jewellery or armour.Tiktacy wrote:If a strict buff is what you are trying to avoid, you could always make the effect permenent (casting activates/deactivates) and have it increase accuracy of melee attacks.
dpeg wrote:Armour has no downsides, but you have to actually train it. And it never stops (more Armour, more AC), so in this sense the skill is continuous. On the other hand, the buffs provide their utility for a limited investment, they are discrete. Of course, you also only get a limited effect, but you get it for very cheap. This is why these are pretty bad on spells, you don't have such questions for the other sources. To be more precise, choice of an rMsl item/god/consumable, say, always comes with an opportunity cost. Setting out to cast rMsl comes with a pretty small fee. At some point of the game, you just pick it up.
Ziggurat Zagger
Posts: 4055
Joined: Tuesday, 10th January 2012, 19:49
Dungeon Master
Posts: 3618
Joined: Thursday, 23rd December 2010, 12:43
Ziggurat Zagger
Posts: 4478
Joined: Wednesday, 23rd October 2013, 07:56
Dungeon Master
Posts: 3618
Joined: Thursday, 23rd December 2010, 12:43
Slime Squisher
Posts: 406
Joined: Thursday, 16th June 2011, 18:36
Barkeep
Posts: 1788
Joined: Saturday, 29th June 2013, 16:52
dpeg wrote:crate: Yes, good call. Nobody wants to remove transmutations, except for archaeo, the OP
Dungeon Master
Posts: 3618
Joined: Thursday, 23rd December 2010, 12:43
mattlistener wrote:Why not just make most Charms fall off near-immediately at low tension? (I notice that Dragon Age: Inquisition does this with Barrier. Out of combat, it slides off your characters in about 2 seconds, so players aren't running around Barrier'ed up all the time.)
Removing buffs seems like a wasted opportunity for creativity. There could be many ways that one could address "they have negligible tactical costs that are never an actual factor in their use" instead.
Barkeep
Posts: 1788
Joined: Saturday, 29th June 2013, 16:52
dpeg wrote:archaeo: I see where you come from, and still I think the problem is much smaller than for spells like Ozo Armour etc. In the benefit of getting something done, I suggest to discuss form changes separately. I know it's your thread, please don't feel offended. I'm really happy that some of the bad spells have been cut/nerfed by now.
Ziggurat Zagger
Posts: 4055
Joined: Tuesday, 10th January 2012, 19:49
archaeo wrote:there's never really a "which form is best" question
As spells, they have most of the same problem as charms with only the fig leaf of "drawbacks," none of which seem to matter much.
you have to decide between ice form and blade hands for a few thousand turns in Lair
Barkeep
Posts: 1788
Joined: Saturday, 29th June 2013, 16:52
crate wrote:If you mean there's not much question which form is best in a particular, individual situation, okay, I guess (I'm not sure I agree but I really don't want to argue it). But if you mean which form is best for being stuck in forever, the pretty clear answer is "not using any tmut spells" form. Unless you're a felid in a version that can't use wands, perhaps; then blade hands might be better.
I'd like to assert that it is also equally true that whatever form of offense other characters use in any situation is, however, equally clear-cut, especially if you are looking at, for instance, a Trog worshipper. So how is this a problem in one case but not the other?
The drawbacks are actually very significant. (I'm ignoring lichform here, because lichform's problems are for a separate topic.)
Every form except statue form removes the ability to use wands. This (well, plus statue form's speed penalty) alone makes no-form better than any of the individual forms if you must choose one to be stuck in forever, for many characters.
All the forms except statue form also hurt your defenses (and being slow hurts your defenses also, just in a different way), and blade hands and spider form have significant spellcasting success penalties.
If you think the drawbacks are not large enough, okay, I guess. I don't feel like arguing that either, but I don't agree with you.
Ziggurat Zagger
Posts: 4055
Joined: Tuesday, 10th January 2012, 19:49
Dungeon Dilettante
Posts: 2
Joined: Saturday, 6th February 2016, 20:07
lord_khaine wrote:Must confess i have not been able to understand the arguments for removing so many fun buffs myself.
Some people dont like to recast them, so they are getting removed for everyone?
****************************************
N. Philosophy (pas de faq)
****************************************
In a nutshell: This game aims to be a tactical fantasy-themed dungeon crawl. We
strive for strategy being a concern, too, and for exquisite gameplay and
interface. However, don't expect plots or quests.
You may ponder about the wisdom of certain design decisions of Crawl. This
section tries to explain some of them. It could also be of interest if you are
used to other roguelikes and want a bit of background on the differences. Prime
mainstays of Crawl development are the following, most of which are explained in
more detail below. Note that many of these date back to Linley's first versions.
Major design goals
* challenging and random gameplay, with skill making a real difference
* meaningful decisions (no no-brainers)
* avoidance of grinding (no scumming)
* gameplay supporting painless interface and newbie support
Minor design goals
* clarity (playability without need for spoilers)
* internal consistency
* replayability (using branches, species, playing styles and gods)
* proper use of out of depth monsters
Tomb Titivator
Posts: 911
Joined: Thursday, 17th December 2015, 02:36
dpeg wrote:I've said it a couple of times: the problem is not so much about the effects themselves, it is about putting them on spells.
dpeg wrote:I already wrote enough long treatises, so just in brief: I believe that buffs are much better off on evokables, consuables, items and gods than on spells.
dpeg wrote:HbG: I am fine with how Armour/Dodging work. Making buffs more dependent on [int and charms skill] does *not* help. If you only got 2 AC/EV instead of 4, you should still do it.
And yes, I think it is quite hard to design good [persistently activated] spells.
dpeg wrote:HbG: I am fine with how perma-charms work. Making physical defenses more dependent on [str/dex and armor/dodging skill] does *not* help. If you only got 2 AC/EV instead of 4, you should still do it.
And yes, I think it is quite hard to design good [persistently activated] items.
Dungeon Master
Posts: 3618
Joined: Thursday, 23rd December 2010, 12:43
lord_khaine wrote:Must confess i have not been able to understand the arguments for removing so many fun buffs myself.
Some people dont like to recast them, so they are getting removed for everyone?
Slime Squisher
Posts: 406
Joined: Thursday, 16th June 2011, 18:36
dpeg wrote:Then go ahead and enlighten us.
Tomb Titivator
Posts: 911
Joined: Thursday, 17th December 2015, 02:36
dpeg wrote:Powers that are longterm or strategical should not be on spells: for those, success chance and MP cost matter less
Return to Game Design Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests