Faded altar improvements

[ArcaneNH]

Currently faded altars feel about as useful as fountains to me. The risk/reward ratio seems to be at "New Player Trap" levels. So here are my ideas to bring the balance to "intentional challenge".

1) Converting to Xom using a faded altar gives +35 piety, and is considered a medium interest event.
2) Double (or more) chances of converting to Jiyva or Lugonu (or Xom).
3) If you already have a god, piety/200 chance of converting the altar to your god. Still get the +20 piety bonus.

Please feel free to tell me all the reasons why these are horrible, game breaking, ideas. And how I "just don't get" faded altars.

[VeryAngryFelid]

1) Xom piety is changed after every action, piety boost is almost useless.
2) Maybe change faded altar to give just those 3 gods? Though I don't know characters for whom Lugonu would be a challenge, all 3 activated abilities are very useful, banishment becomes a joke and even distortion can be nice.
3) I don't get the point. Is it expected that player takes the chance to increase piety by 20 at the cost of getting unknown god wrath?

[duvessa]

Yeah, the only purpose of faded altars is as a "newbie trap". They should be removed.

[Sar]

there's literally nothing wrong with newbie traps

[ArcaneNH]

there's literally nothing wrong with newbie traps

I was under the impression that they were not part of the DCSS Design Philosophy. If I am mistaken, I retract my proposal.

The evil part of me wants to make xom altars as rare as team Jelly, so that faded is the only "reliable" way to get him. But that would have a bunch of knock on effects.

[Doesnt]

I thought they were just a non-serious option for people who like screwing around, much like Xom (who is also a newbie trap).

[VeryAngryFelid]

there's literally nothing wrong with newbie traps

Care to explain? What newbie traps are currently in crawl and why they are not bad?

Let's just take one newbie trap - non-displaying max possible damage from a monster. Do you think there is nothing wrong with it? I created a thread about it a long time ago and can try to find it if your answer is

"yes, it is fine to have "extremely dangerous" monster who deals 272 damage per turn max and "extremely dangerous" monster who deals about 140 damage per turn max on the same floor".

The funny thing is that the latter has higher HD and gives more XP.

[BabyRage]

Why were faded altars implemented in the first place?

[Leszczynek]

What's wrong with faded altars? It's literally "get a random god", nothing more. Next you'll say random character choice and Wanderers should be removed too.

And yes, I use them, even if rarely, for novelty.

[Shard1697]

It's fun to roll the dice like that, mostly.

[edgefigaro]

I really like faded altars as is. -Most- gods with 1* on d2 is a major boon. Xom, quaz and chei are fun. Occasionally a conduct screws your character over (**FE^Dith).

I'll take a faded altar every time I'm godless, and they result in tremendously interesting games.

It boggles me that people want to remove them.

[Shard1697]

The only change I want to faded altars is for them to always show up.

[Sprucery]

What's wrong with faded altars? It's literally "get a random god", nothing more.

With bonus +20 piety, which is important, because otherwise you could have almost* the same result with just selecting the first altar you find.

*Jiyva and Lugonu are more probable with faded altars than otherwise, IIUC

[DracheReborn]

Faded altars are fun, but can screw your character. Same can be said of, say, mutation roulette, but personally I don't start on mutation roulette if I don't have !cure mut (pref. more than 1) on hand. With faded altars there's no easy way to undo a bad roll.

A suggestion for improvement: rejecting the offered god doesn't result in wrath, but instead you will start with negative piety with your next god. This would make the risk/reward ratio more suitable IMO.

[ion_frigate]

If it is optimal strategy* to pick the first non-bad god you find, how can faded altars be a newbie trap? Let's look at the list of gods:

  Code:

Ashenzari, Beogh, Cheibriados, Dithmenos, Elyvilon, Fedhas, Gozag, Hepliaklqana, Jiyva, Kikubaaqudgha, Lugonu, Makhleb, Nemelex Xobeh, Okawaru, Pakellas, Qazlal, Ru, Sif Muna, Trog, Uskayaw, Vehumet, Xom, Yredelemnul, Zin, the Shining One.

Of those, Chei and Xom are usually considered "bad". TSO is kind of useless early on. Trog is horrible for magic backgrounds. Veh, Kiku and Sif are not great for melee characters. Ignoring Beogh (since most characters aren't orcs), that's a 1/4 chance of bad god, at most. A 1/6 chance for magic-users, and honestly the 1/4 chance is a bit exaggerated for melee dudes: most of them will get some benefit from the magic gods.

They're very early altars that have a 75+% chance of giving you a good (as in not terrible) god. The downside isn't even immediate death, just a crappy god and/or god wrath.

Hell, you could even argue that faded altars teach players how it's good to be flexible in early god choice, and just how beneficial it is to have ANY god during the D:3-early Lair stretch of the game.

* This is a common opinion in Tavern; I present it without comment.

[KoboldLord]

If it is optimal to pick the first non-bad deity you see, why would it follow that it is a good idea to pick a bad deity?

A 25% chance of essentially losing your deity slot is insane. Why would you deliberately choose to do something that runs a 25% chance of crippling your character in a functionally permanent fashion?

[BabyRage]

I don't think you should use faded altar if you want to win.

[ion_frigate]

If it is optimal to pick the first non-bad deity you see, why would it follow that it is a good idea to pick a bad deity?

A 25% chance of essentially losing your deity slot is insane. Why would you deliberately choose to do something that runs a 25% chance of crippling your character in a functionally permanent fashion?

Because at D:2 or D:3 you have invested roughly 30 to 120 seconds in this character. Obviously it's a bad idea if you're trying to streak, but for an average player, it's more likely to help you than to hurt you. I wouldn't be surprised if it were a better option than waiting for the next altar that you find, at least for less-skilled players.

Also, it's NOT a 25% chance of "essentially losing" your deity slot. Even the "bad" gods usually provide some marginal utility.

[Arrhythmia]

If it is optimal to pick the first non-bad deity you see, why would it follow that it is a good idea to pick a bad deity?

A 25% chance of essentially losing your deity slot is insane. Why would you deliberately choose to do something that runs a 25% chance of crippling your character in a functionally permanent fashion?

you know that it's actually possible to abandon gods and not die right.

like, it's usually very easy.

[Shard1697]

If it is optimal to pick the first non-bad deity you see, why would it follow that it is a good idea to pick a bad deity?

A 25% chance of essentially losing your deity slot is insane. Why would you deliberately choose to do something that runs a 25% chance of crippling your character in a functionally permanent fashion?

Because at D:2 or D:3 you have invested roughly 30 to 120 seconds in this character. Obviously it's a bad idea if you're trying to streak,

But of course that's what they're talking about, because it was you who brought up "optimal" gameplay!

[ontoclasm]

Not every single feature in the game needs to be built around players trying for streaks. If your sole goal is to win the exact character you're playing right now, a faded altar is probably not a good gamble. But even if you do want to win, you might also want other things (e.g. to play an unusual character, or face a challenge, or -- heaven forbid -- have fun, for whatever your idea of fun is) and in those cases you might find a faded altar interesting. It's no more spoilery than any other altar; it tells you exactly what it's going to do before doing it, and as soon as you are aware of two different gods you know that taking a random one is going to be a crapshoot.

e: Of course there's nothing wrong with making them better. But there's no reason to remove them, either.

[duvessa]

If they don't contribute anything to the game, there's every reason to remove them. And since you can get essentially the same effect by worshipping the first god you find, I don't think they contribute anything to the game.

[le_nerd]

you know that it's actually possible to abandon gods and not die right.

like, it's usually very easy.

Thats actually my main learning effect from Abandoned Altar, learning about different wraths effects and how they scale. Like, did you know early Vehumet Wrath is actually very survivable? Instead of Firestorming you'll get flame tongued.

Early Dithmenos is a bit of a two-edged sword: sure the D:3 shadow adders wont hurt a lot, but the shadow demons are quite bad.

Whereas Fedhas Wrath is basically non-scalar with level, a ring of Oklobs at XL3 is just not survivable.

[Shard1697]

If they don't contribute anything to the game, there's every reason to remove them. And since you can get essentially the same effect by worshipping the first god you find, I don't think they contribute anything to the game.

There's a difference, mentally, between worshipping the first altar you find and not knowing what you're going to worship. It makes it more exciting.

[ydeve]

Because at D:2 or D:3 you have invested roughly 30 to 120 seconds in this character. Obviously it's a bad idea if you're trying to streak,

You made the assumption here that everyone who isn't running a streak is ok with startscumming.

[duvessa]

If they don't contribute anything to the game, there's every reason to remove them. And since you can get essentially the same effect by worshipping the first god you find, I don't think they contribute anything to the game.

There's a difference, mentally, between worshipping the first altar you find and not knowing what you're going to worship. It makes it more exciting.

If you decide at the beginning of the game that you'll worship the first god you find, then you don't know what you're going to worship. Is the lack of excitement during the 7 turns it takes to walk to the altar such a big deal that it demands adding a new dungeon feature with less utility than drinking from sparkling fountains?

[Siegurt]

If they don't contribute anything to the game, there's every reason to remove them. And since you can get essentially the same effect by worshipping the first god you find, I don't think they contribute anything to the game.

There's a difference, mentally, between worshipping the first altar you find and not knowing what you're going to worship. It makes it more exciting.

If you decide at the beginning of the game that you'll worship the first god you find, then you don't know what you're going to worship. Is the lack of excitement during the 7 turns it takes to walk to the altar such a big deal that it demands adding a new dungeon feature with less utility than drinking from sparkling fountains?

The problem with pre-deciding is that your decision isn't actually *made* until you take action, there's a difference between deciding "I will take the first altar I come across" then seeing that altar and deciding "yes I will do that even though it sucks" or "no I will not pick a god that I don't want to use this session" vs deciding "I will try this random altar out, and whatever I get, I get".

In the abstract, you presumably duplicate the blind choice by accepting whatever altar you find first, but humans, largely, aren't built like that, you have to *re decide* when coming across the altar, and the knowledge fundamentally changes the type of decision made. Since in the "random altar" sense you can cede the actual choice of getting a bad god over to chance, you don't have to accept responsibility for it, so the choice is exciting. When you re-decide to accept (or reject) a bad "first altar" find, you take the blame for either choice yourself, this makes it less exiting and less fun.

It *is* a form of gambling, and gambling is exciting. No-one would play slot machines where you went up to the machine, could see whether you would win or lose, and then had to put your money in any way.

[dpeg]

And there's the extra piety on top of it!

[Sprucery]

Would it be too much if the extra piety was raised to 30 (i.e. one *)? It would make faded altars more appealing.

[dpeg]

Sprucery: I think it would be fine, and clearer too.

[Shard1697]

There's a difference, mentally, between worshipping the first altar you find and not knowing what you're going to worship. It makes it more exciting.

If you decide at the beginning of the game that you'll worship the first god you find, then you don't know what you're going to worship. Is the lack of excitement during the 7 turns it takes to walk to the altar such a big deal that it demands adding a new dungeon feature with less utility than drinking from sparkling fountains?

The problem with pre-deciding is that your decision isn't actually *made* until you take action, there's a difference between deciding "I will take the first altar I come across" then seeing that altar and deciding "yes I will do that even though it sucks" or "no I will not pick a god that I don't want to use this session" vs deciding "I will try this random altar out, and whatever I get, I get".

In the abstract, you presumably duplicate the blind choice by accepting whatever altar you find first, but humans, largely, aren't built like that, you have to *re decide* when coming across the altar, and the knowledge fundamentally changes the type of decision made. Since in the "random altar" sense you can cede the actual choice of getting a bad god over to chance, you don't have to accept responsibility for it, so the choice is exciting. When you re-decide to accept (or reject) a bad "first altar" find, you take the blame for either choice yourself, this makes it less exiting and less fun.

It *is* a form of gambling, and gambling is exciting. No-one would play slot machines where you went up to the machine, could see whether you would win or lose, and then had to put your money in any way.

This is basically what I was trying to communicate, thank you. Whether or not you can say that it is functionally the same, it feels completely different to me, and I know I'm far from alone in that. Quirk of human psychology, I guess. Which is part of why I wish it was guaranteed-I would like it if I could, say, play Demonspawn Wanderer and be guaranteed a faded altar so I get the fun of rolling the dice on random god on top of random mutations and starting items.

Would it be too much if the extra piety was raised to 30 (i.e. one *)? It would make faded altars more appealing.

This would also be nice. A fat ***... for monks who worship faded altars!

[dpeg]

A quick ##crawl-dev chat yielded that faded altars already give * (20 bonus plus 15 standard piety). There was some support for ** on faded altars, and people agreed that *** would be too strong.

[all before]

faded altars wouldn't be as terrible if there were no chance of getting a god that actively made it more difficult for you to win (xom, chei, qaz).

[Arrhythmia]

what is bad about faded altars that isn't bad about potions of mutation?

[duvessa]

there's something good about potions of mutation that isn't good about faded altars: they're actually useful

[Quazifuji]

faded altars wouldn't be as terrible if there were no chance of getting a god that actively made it more difficult for you to win (xom, chei, qaz).

I strongly disagree, especially for Chei and Qaz (less so Xom, only because chaos knights exist). I think the fun of Ecumenical Altars is partly trying to adapt to whatever the game gives you, even if it's clearly suboptimal. And I think adapting to Chei or Qaz is interesting.

Heck, I dislike getting Trog from an Ecumenical altar way more than getting Chei, Qaz, or even Xom. Because if I get Trog, there's no real interesting adaptation. Any character who gets Trog from an Ecumenical altar either abandons him or plays like a berserker, whether they're a MiGl or a DEFE. The only difference is whether they play like a good berserker, a regular berserker, or a crappy berserker.

But getting most other gods is interesting. If it's a bad god, or one that doesn't have obvious synergy with my character so far, then it makes me think about how I'm going to play that character. After all, if the Ecumenical Altar never gives you a god you wouldn't take voluntarily, what's the point?

Obviously, in this case, I'm looking at it from the standpoint of Ecumenical Altars being fun/interesting, not useful, but I think that's the standpoint they should be looked at from. I think trying to make Ecumenical Altars good is a lost cause. Not that I don't think it's possible (we can use the thought experiment dpeg brings up sometimes and ask "Is there a number that would make them strong?" to easily conclude that yes, if they gave 200 piety they'd be strong, so it's obviously possible), or that I think they shouldn't be buffed (I think making them give ** piety sounds good), but that I think they simply work better as a fun feature for people who like the gambling and/or adaptation they create than as a serious feature where it's sometimes optimal to chose them. I don't think there's anything wrong with them not being optimal, I think they're serving a clear purpose already as something some people enjoy.

[BabyRage]

What happens if you are a monk and get gozag from faded altar? No additional benefit?

[DracheReborn]

What happens if you are a monk and get gozag from faded altar? No additional benefit?

No service charge for being a monk and no service charge for worshipping at a faded altar. So yeah, no additional benefit. Shouldn't Gozag advance you some gold instead?

Same issue for Ru, I think. Both monkhood and faded altar gets you to the first sacrifice right away, so again no additional benefit.

[MainiacJoe]

Faded altars would be more appealing if identified overflow altars didn't appear so high in the Dungeon. The piety isn't enough of a bribe to risk a random god, when there's a good chance you'll get a god you want around the next corner or one level down. I very rarely choose a god in the Temple since overflow altars higher up are so common.

[VeryAngryFelid]

Faded altars would be used more often if the altar would prevent generation of overflow altars before Temple.

[duvessa]

I would be ok with faded altars if they were the only altars in a game. Only altars before Temple is not nearly enough.

[VeryAngryFelid]

True, if character cannot survive to reach D:9, it is a bad idea to take unknown god.

[stickyfingers]

Put it on D:1 near the exit and I'll take it every second game.

[chequers]

Putting faded altar on d:1 would just encourage tedious start scumming. That's part of the reason the spawn chance isn't 100%.

I don't mind the current place of faded altars as a sort of optimal conduct enforcer. I disagree with "just worship the first altar you find, no need for faded altar". The bonus piety and existence of a specific altar encourages people to try this play style. That said, it would be nice if if faded altars could be attractive to conduct players and HOPs.

For optimal play, it's hard to make faded altars a reasonable choice. Part of this is because if you're a good player, it's not that risky to wait for a decent god. The two longest streaks in crawl history (elliptic & zxc) picked their god in Temple 50% of the time. The immediate power offered by faded altar is not balanced by the risk of getting a less optimal god.

I think there are two approaches to make faded altar more attractive to a HOP. a) Make other altars less good, or b) make the downside of faded altar less bad.

a) duvessa's idea is about right. You need to push the other altars further down the dungeon. Starting overflow altars below temple's entry floor seems elegant. This would make the game harder, probably too much harder to justify.

b) The potential upside of faded altar is in a good spot, but the potential downside is high. 50% of possible gods are below average power, after all. Perhaps a choice from two gods, or some sort of alternate penalty to wrath if you immediately abandon. Ideas: invo apt reduction, temp mut forlorn, xp-gated no-worship period, etc.

[duvessa]

I wasn't talking about pushing the other altars further down. I meant removing other altars entirely. I do not think non-faded altars existing in the same game as faded altars will ever be good, no matter what extra bonuses it gives.

[Arrhythmia]

I wasn't talking about pushing the other altars further down. I meant removing other altars entirely. I do not think non-faded altars existing in the same game as faded altars will ever be good, no matter what extra bonuses it gives.

it's already good tho

[chequers]

Again, I think duvessa means "good" for someone completely focused on winrate, while you mean "good" for someone who has fun with conduct-play. I get you're probably making a joke, but definitional arguments are boring and derail threads. I can just feel someone itching to change the topic of this thread to "but what's the POINT of crawl??".

[duvessa]

No, I mean good design.

[dpeg]

Everybody knows that duvessa is the grumpy cat of Crawl discussion, no need to drive that point further.

[Arrhythmia]

Again, I think duvessa means "good" for someone completely focused on winrate, while you mean "good" for someone who has fun with conduct-play. I get you're probably making a joke, but definitional arguments are boring and derail threads. I can just feel someone itching to change the topic of this thread to "but what's the POINT of crawl??".

no i mean it's good in literally every reasonable definition or interpretation of "good".