"Give Mountain Dwarves the axe"

[KoboldLord]

Anyway, removing the primary newbie friendly race reveals to me two things:

'Newbie-friendly'? What version did you stop playing at, 0.5? Mountain dwarves haven't been a power species since then, and the lack of wiki updating to correct this outdated information has caused many a new player to smack into the brick wall that is the Crawl melee difficulty cliff.

[TwilightPhoenix]

...the fact that every species, including Mountain Dwarves, is almost entirely reliant on finding good gear, etc.

Fixed.

[nicolae]

Anyway, removing the primary newbie friendly race reveals to me two things:

'Newbie-friendly'? What version did you stop playing at, 0.5? Mountain dwarves haven't been a power species since then, and the lack of wiki updating to correct this outdated information has caused many a new player to smack into the brick wall that is the Crawl melee difficulty cliff.

Maybe newbie-friendly in the sense that MDFi are a pretty simple build -- get heavy armor and big axes, bonk things, repeat until dead -- so newbies can learn the basics before dealing with magic, characters with less HP, etc.

I'm still not sure why that can't happen with MiFi now, though.

[jackalKnight]

Octopode is a gimmick because it is completely dependent on one type of equipment.

[KoboldLord]

Octopode is a gimmick because it is completely dependent on one type of equipment.

An octopode caster that sees zero ring spawns before Vaults will be a grand total of 4AC below a standard caster that sees no cloak/boots/gloves spawns by the same point, and otherwise be roughly the same. The fragility of the octopode species is greatly exaggerated.

[Roderic]

I guess that if devs had cut halflings nobody would have complained so blatantly, even sending them some wine bottle instead.

[roctavian]

I can't believe they're people still bothered by this -- if you've been into Crawl long enough to be attached to a race, I assume that you'd understand Crawl well enough to know that it changes, and that in general it changes for the better. I was sad to hear that dwarves were going because I love dwarves in general, but it's a worthy sacrifice for a more interesting game. At least new players in the future won't care.

[Megabass]

I can't believe they're people still bothered by this -- if you've been into Crawl long enough to be attached to a race, I assume that you'd understand Crawl well enough to know that it changes, and that in general it changes for the better. I was sad to hear that dwarves were going because I love dwarves in general, but it's a worthy sacrifice for a more interesting game. At least new players in the future won't care.

And besides, it's not like they're necessarily gone forever, lost into the mists of time, and all that. I mean they PROBABLY are, but hey, we've seen backgrounds disappear, only to resurface a few builds later (though arguably some are mere shadows of their former selves). Who's to say we won't see a properly 'dwarfy' Dwarf species slough it's way back into the rotation some day?

[nicolae]

And besides, it's not like they're necessarily gone forever, lost into the mists of time, and all that. I mean they PROBABLY are, but hey, we've seen backgrounds disappear, only to resurface a few builds later (though arguably some are mere shadows of their former selves). Who's to say we won't see a properly 'dwarfy' Dwarf species slough it's way back into the rotation some day?

Most of the main features of MDs got outsourced to other species anyway: Minotaurs are the new tanks, and Hill Orcs got some of the magic aptitudes. I think the only aspect of MDs that you can't do anymore is to play a heavy-armor FE or EE, which is part of the inspiration for Forge Dwarves.

[Scrotar]

Just chiming in here. Made an account to write this because I want to stop DCSS from being ruined by what I hope are momentarily misguided developers.

Dwarves are a race that people have an emotional/imaginative attachment to in addition to seeking them for their brand of hack and slash. A significant amount of people seem to have some imaginative attachment to particular races, and Dwarves top the list. There is a reason they are featured in most fantasy games, people want to play Dwarves. The argument to remove entirely them seems quite thin when stacked against both their strong flavor and their high popularity among gamers.
If Mountain Dwarves are not differentiated enough, the best solution would not be to remove them, but to change them so that they are more thematically differentiated. If not that, the next best option would be a similar race like Forge Dwarves. But don't remove them without at least providing an alternative in the spirit of the Mountain Dwarf- you will start the process of decline of DCSS if MD are not accounted for- if for no other reason than the massive disapproval of the change.

Oh yeah, while I am at it... less mega bats. They are an awfully common annoyance for newer (thus melee oriented players). They are of the same nature as the "cliff racers" from Morrowind.

[nicolae]

There is a reason they are featured in most fantasy games, people want to play Dwarves. The argument to remove entirely them seems quite thin when stacked against both their strong flavor and their high popularity among gamers.

I think the reason they're featured in most fantasy games is because fantasy writers love using Tolkien, whereas the devteam of Crawl would rather have as little to do with Tolkien as possible, precisely because everybody else uses him so much.

[mad]

I'd love to see one of the developers give a list of every feature, added or removed, that people would claim was going to ruin crawl.

There must have been people complaining that say, Beogh was unbalanced and was going to ruin the game and how could one species have a god dedicated to it. I'd love to see a collection of such quotes, but wouldn't know where to look.

I mean, surely people were pissed when "Elf" was removed?

FWIW, I accept that the developers know what they're doing because they've made a game I like so much, and preffered Mi to MD - but that might be because I don't care for all the overused fantasy species in the first place.

[TwilightPhoenix]

Berserk Rage as a spell, Trog favoring Anti-Magic weapons over uber randarts, Felids, Crusaders/Skalds, Reavers, Arcane Marksmen (though they're coming back), Priests of Yred, Chaos Knights of Makhleb, Paladins, and Katanas, for starters.

[jackalKnight]

So its okay to cut dwarves but a terrible crime to cut High Elf (the ULTIMATE stereotypical Tolkien race?)
Some tropes get repeated because they work. Sentient cats and octopi crawling around is getting way too deep into the weird scale. Might as well put killer robots back into the game if this is the path the dev team wants to go down.

[Blade]

So its okay to cut dwarves but a terrible crime to cut High Elf (the ULTIMATE stereotypical Tolkien race?)

Actually, High Elves, along with Halflings (the other stereotypical Tolkien race) are very high on the list of potential candidates for being cut. They have been saved thus far because their niches are more unique and interesting than the Mountain Dwarf, not out of any desire to keep Tolkien-esque species. Species are cut not out of animosity, but out of a desire to have the widest range of niches available with as few redundancies as possible.

[nicolae]

Some tropes get repeated because they work. Sentient cats and octopi crawling around is getting way too deep into the weird scale. Might as well put killer robots back into the game if this is the path the dev team wants to go down.

They are, they're just calling them golems. Cats and octopuses are things that actually exist, at least, which is more than can be said for some of the stuff that appears in Crawl. There's way more room in a fantasy setting for creatures beyond elves, dwarves, and orcs, and it's really disappointing to see so many people call things "too weird" just because no other fantasy author's thought of them before.

If you want to hate on Octopodes and Felids because you don't like playing without body armor or whatever, I can see that, but hating them for reasons that basically turn out to be "no one else's fantasy setting has them", that seems just really silly to me.

[mad]

Imagine if Tolkien used sentient cats instead of hobbits in his stories, and the reaction if the Halfling race were to be introduced.

"What the heck is this thing? A small creature that's got hairy feet and is good with slings and stabbing? Really?"

[evilmike]

I personally think high elves are a better candidate for "reflavouring" than outright cutting, although I know there are a few people who are particularly vocal about just deleting them from the game (and their opinions hold a lot more weight than mine do). I think high elves could be given a new name, /maybe/ a new ability, and a few small adjustments. The powerful-but-slow-leveling aspect they have is interesting, and so is the way they make good hybrids, but lean towards spellcasting rather than melee (hybrid races tend to lean the other way, or strike a more even balance). I think they're great if you want to start as a caster and then branch out into a hybrid role. They fill a fairly significant niche, which I think also happens to be a pretty fun one. I think I've mentioned this in the thread already.

I've seen them compared as being too similar to other elves (which is nonsense... the main similarity is in their name, not in how they play) and to merfolk, which I think is a closer comparison but still a bit off the mark. If anything I think demigods feel the most similar gameplay-wise, but even they are different enough (it might be hard to see the connection at first... the similar feeling mainly comes from good stats and slow leveling).

So, I hope high elves aren't just deleted from the game without at least _trying_ alternative options. I have some ideas as to how they could be made less generic (which I'll probably put on the wiki once I'm able to do a proper writeup). That effort will all be a bit pointless if high elves are suddenly axed with no warning, though (which I have to admit, I worry will be what happens). I hope it won't be wasted effort if I make a wiki page about adjusting high elves. (If you're interested in hearing what I have in mind, PM me or ask me on irc. It's nothing radical; the biggest change is to flavour.)

[goo]

I think the main reason people are pissed MD is gone is simple. People like playing a race that can utilize armour well with no equipment restrictions. That's it. I personally couldn't care less about what the race is called. I don't think most people who are mad MD is gone are Tolkien/Dwarf Fortress fanatics, they just like this simple playstyle and enjoy piling sweet armor loot on their character. If Mountain Dwarf was called "Diarrhea Golem" and it was the best race at using diarrhea crafted armor, I would still be upset it was cut. I don't play this game for the story and setting.

The new Minotaur is very close, but misses out on artifact helmets and isn't QUITE as good at using armor as MD, since it doesn't get the extra bonuses from dwarven armor. I know these are only minor things, but it's still upsetting an option to play a character like this no longer exists.

The fact that Minotaur was in the game didn't make Mountain Dwarf redundant, Mountain Dwarf made Minotaur redundant. The fact Minotaur was chosen over Mountain Dwarves due to the presence of a portal vault that most players don't enjoy, and the extremely arbitrary reason that the devs prefer Greek mythology over Tolkien is why people are upset. Yes, you have cut races before, but those races were made redundant by other races that performed the same role in a better and more entertaining way. This time the reverse situation has happened, and that's why people aren't happy with this change.

EDIT: I basically made this post because most of the naysayers of this change are being brushed off as Tolkien fanboys who just have to have dwarves in their game. I think the naysayers are upset because between two races that play similarly, the race with less options was chosen to stay over the one with more. Also, because there was no good reason stated as to how the decision was made. "Well, the devs think Greek mythology is way more interesting than cliche Tolkien tropes" is not a good reason. Preference over which fantasy stories you like more shouldn't be influencing game balance.

[TwilightPhoenix]

Humans, Deep Dwarves and Hill Orcs, all have 0+ Armor apts and are not restricted in armor slots, so saying it's impossible to make a "simple heavy armor fighter" is completely false. Deep Dwarves can get bonuses from Dwarven gear and Hill Orcs can get bonuses from Orcish gear, so you still have that. If you're willing to expand to -1 apt, which is barely a penalty, Demigods, Demonspawn (barring some body slots), and High Elves all open up as well. If you allow for armor slot issues, Kenku (+1) and Ghouls (-1) are also there too. If you're willing to go heavy armor with worse apts still (which is plenty doable and easier than training up multiple spell schools that all have negative apts, which nobody hesitates to worry about), you can armor up on Deep Elves, Sludge Elves, Merfolk (out of water), Mummies, and Vampires with zero armor slot issues. If players can successfully build Troll Wizards, heavily armored Deep Elves should be easily possible.

Also worth pointing out, Centaurs and Nagas make great armored fighters because they exchange their boot slot (and poor fitting armor mutation) for barding, which is awesome and only hampered by how rare it is.

+3 Armor apt is nice, but it's not that big of a deal and you really, really do not need it to make a successful heavy armored fighter. Sure, it's a big difference over 0 or -1, but Armor is still not a skill you need to LEVEL UP NAO! unless you're trying to cast spells in armor as soon as possible. But if you're trying to do that, you probably didn't pick a Mountain Dwarf.

[goo]

The majority of those races listed either have low HP aptitudes, resistance weaknesses (Mummy), difficulty healing properly (Vampire and Deep Dwarf) or are just plain not suited that well to a pure melee combat build by their aptitude spread. They may be able to wear armor well, but are still not as well suited to melee combat as Mi/MD is due to frailty or other issues. As for Vampire and Deep Dwarf, I know it's not that hard to keep them healed, but sometimes players don't want to fuss around with the Vampire blood system or, in the case of Deep Dwarf, limiting themselves to a smaller pool of gods to make them viable in melee combat. Centaurs and Nagas are damn good in melee, but things like fast metabolism or slow movement are also things players don't always want to deal with.

The point I'm saying is now the only normal sized, melee race with no extra set of benefits and drawbacks is Minotaur, and Mountain Dwarf performed in that role better. It's a simple, uncomplicated niche. But when you want to play a character like that, it simply is more fun to go with Mountain Dwarf than Minotaur.

Hill Orc can also fill this role, but you pretty much have to go with Beogh in order to reach their full potential when it comes to melee due to the AC and damage bonuses from wearing orcish equipment. Also, you have to micromanage an army of orcs which can get tedious.

EDIT: I guess what I'm getting at is none of the other races have both things that made MD great: excellent attributes for melee and simplicity.

[nicolae]

EDIT: I guess what I'm getting at is none of the other races have both things that made MD great: excellent attributes for melee and simplicity.

What are you talking about? Minotaurs had good melee aptitudes even before MDs got ditched, and they're simple as hell: put on armor, grab big weapons, hit things until they stop moving. In practice they're both pretty much exactly the same unless you want to get into crazy niche builds like MiTr or MDEE or whatever.

[goo]

EDIT: I guess what I'm getting at is none of the other races have both things that made MD great: excellent attributes for melee and simplicity.

What are you talking about? Minotaurs had good melee aptitudes even before MDs got ditched, and they're simple as hell: put on armor, grab big weapons, hit things until they stop moving. In practice they're both pretty much exactly the same unless you want to get into crazy niche builds like MiTr or MDEE or whatever.

I'm tired (long day at work), maybe I'm not articulating what I'm trying to say correctly. Ok, besides Minotaur, there are no other races like Mountain Dwarf. The whole point is that apparently one of them had to go, and the one with less equipment bonuses and options (however minor they may be in your opinion) is the one that stayed. I'm sure this may seem like an arbitrary reason for disagreeing with the change to you, but it's certainly less arbitrary than the reason Minotaur stayed over Mountain Dwarf, as it's actually based in gameplay and mechanic, as opposed to a love for a Greek myth about a maze and a bull.

EDIT: Also, when I meant "none of the other races", I was talking about the ones listed by TwilightPhoenix. I wasn't lumping Minotaur in that group.

[dpeg]

I think the main reason people are pissed MD is gone is simple. People like playing a race that can utilize armour well with no equipment restrictions. That's it. I personally couldn't care less about what the race is called. I don't think most people who are mad MD is gone are Tolkien/Dwarf Fortress fanatics, they just like this simple playstyle and enjoy piling sweet armor loot on their character.

I think goo's analysis is quite right, as far as what the reasons for the outcry are. (Note: You don't hear those who don't care about MD.) Of course, I disagree with the rest.

The fact Minotaur was chosen over Mountain Dwarves due to the presence of a portal vault that most players don't enjoy, and the extremely arbitrary reason that the devs prefer Greek mythology over Tolkien is why people are upset.

Why do you know that most players don't enjoy labyrinths? (Hint: You don't hear those who actually like labyrinths or who don't care.) We'll get to the "arbitrary" in a moment.

Also, because there was no good reason stated as to how the decision was made. "Well, the devs think Greek mythology is way more interesting than cliche Tolkien tropes" is not a good reason. Preference over which fantasy stories you like more shouldn't be influencing game balance.

Who should set the tone and theme of DCSS if not the developers?! You might find is stupid/silly/elitist/insert adjective of your fancy to prefer the Greeks over Tolkien -- fine. I don't. Your parents may have read the Silmarillon to you when they were rocking the cradle, I got to read classical sagas and myths from a very early age. It is a matter of taste, and taste and humour are not very well negotiable. Why should I keep the Tolkien version when I don't really like Tolkien?[1] (I use the singular form, but the other developers follow, though not as vocal as me, or don't care about this matter.) Why is that a bad reason??[2]

The last sentence of the quote is outrageous (and made me almost not answer in the first place).

To me, the situation is as simple as for goo: If you came to Crawl for the dwarves, I understand that you're upset and I also understand that you go away. No problems -- every removed feature is someone's most beloved feature, it just happens. If you came to Crawl for the tactical game, the dwarves seem to be secondary.

[1] Me not liking Tolkien, Nethack and D&D does not mean I go out of my way to purge Crawl of these elements. It does mean that when the situation presents itself so that we choose between flavours, I take the one that is more interesting to me.

[2]You could throw in "popularity" as a reason. But hey, this is a niche game in a niche genre. If we have 200 or 2000 players, it is tiny. Since no money is involved whatsoever, we rather develop something that fits our vision than contort ourselves to the standards of some fantasy industry. And as it happens, shunning the mainstream is always appealing to some. (Heck, by playing a roguelike you already do so.)

[dondy]

i just wanted to note that mythology isn't fantasy in a sense that the two terms usually differentiate quite well, as in mythology beeing historical folk-tales (or however you'd actually call that) and fantasy beeing more "modernish".

most of the game's content seems based around fantasy, thus i don't understand the choice going for mythology - anyways.

what's been nagging me more, how does that change improve ANYTHING? :/

there's basically no change to anything besides a arguably more or less redundant starting character choice - thus nothing that actually affects gameplay, why is there so much fuss about it?

i'd rather have usefull changes (Oc isn't really usefull imho... rather the opposite as it's making balance harder) like game balance, less of the RNG hickup/fuckups, a improved difficulty curve, diverse melee combat etc.

[jackalKnight]

At the risk of getting banned, the Minotaur in Crawl is about as different from classical minotaur as the Tolkien Dwarf is from Nordic "Svartalf". Nowhere in classical mythology were Minotaurs weaponmasters who wear heavy armor and worship a berserker god. The Minotaur in this game is more like the ones in D & D than anything else, and the Troll (if anything) plays more like a classical Minotaur. All that Minos in this game have were inferior MDs with a bull's head stuck on. Instead of making their minotaur resemble an actual Minotaur from the Theseus myth in overall gameplay, the devs just removed the more popular choice to try to justify their own preference for the inferior one.

By the point MD fans started getting flamed as "Bay12 Fanboys" and "people who had the Silmarillion read to them at bedtime" all was lost, at least in terms of compromise.

[dpeg]

Games are not made by negotation. We need a melee species, we have one. It needs a name, I like "minotaur" better than "mountain dwarf". End of story. Whine, play something else, call me an arrogant asshole too lazy to design anything properly -- we have moved on.

The commit reduces some overlap, which makes future species choice more relevant. That was the goal. Mission achieved, new targets are: Hellspider, Demigods, etc.

[Grimm]

Hellspider?

[Kate]

Hellspider!

[dpeg]

Hellspider?

At your service, Grimm: https://crawl.develz.org/wiki/doku.php? ... hellspider
Not a species, though. Don't get your hopes up
It is one of the more urgent features to finalise and implement now (if we want to have the Spider branch for 0.10).

[mumra]

the Troll (if anything) plays more like a classical Minotaur

How do you know how a classical Minotaur played ... did the Ancient Greeks release a Roguelike I'm not aware of?

[Grimm]

Hellspider sounds fantastic! Reminds me a bit of Warning Forever, where the boss evolves in response to your attacks.

[jackalKnight]

the Troll (if anything) plays more like a classical Minotaur

How do you know how a classical Minotaur played ... did the Ancient Greeks release a Roguelike I'm not aware of?

Minotaur (classical)
-lives in a maze (Labyrinth)
-creation of bestiality
-eats human flesh RAW
-doesn't appear to have had any weapons
-large and strong

Honestly sounds more like a Troll in this game (or possibly an Ogre) than a Minotaur.

Minotaur (D & D)
-lives in cities
-legitimate bred race (more than one of its kind)
-doesn't eat human flesh raw
-weaponmasters/military experts (at least the ones in Dragonlance are)
-has heavy armor, large but not too large to wear most armor

Sounds almost exactly like the Minotaur as implemented in this game

[jackalKnight]

I didn't like the labyrinth just because its a whole lot of repetitive nothing and the starvation is a bigger danger than the minotaur. If you want to replace any vaults, replace that one.

[dpeg]

minmay: I am not used to the internet (this is the only forum I visit, for example). Stating the ever-same time after time in a hysterical voice while missing what came up in between is what I'd call "trolling". I may easily have missed proper trolling. Sorry then.

Labyrinths are a source of discontent because they're a minigame (compare Nethack's Sokoban): different rules. Players feel compelled to do them because they miss out on loot otherwise. It doesn't help that some players seem to have an awkward time solving them (they're really not that hard as far as mazes go -- braiding is timid).
However, I liked them since ever, and we have made them more fun (to some of us at least). Also, labyrinths were what made me think of the other portal vaults. Finally, I really love the switch between frantic hurry to catch the lab and Zen-like tranquility when solving it. All of these are weak reasons, I know. If future developers trash them, so be it. We won't just yet.

[Roderic]

Actually, High Elves, along with Halflings (the other stereotypical Tolkien race) are very high on the list of potential candidates for being cut. They have been saved thus far because their niches are more unique and interesting than the Mountain Dwarf, not out of any desire to keep Tolkien-esque species. Species are cut not out of animosity, but out of a desire to have the widest range of niches available with as few redundancies as possible.

Above all them, Orcs are the ultimate Tolkien creation, rather than HE, Ha or Dwarves. No reference is given in any lore but some generic term "ork" to define demon in saxon language if I'm not wrong.

HEs are representing the liosalfar of Norse myths and some other mythical ancient peoples previous to indoeuropean colonization of Europe, such as the Tuatha De Danaan of Ireland and so on. They were basically better than humans are, with magical prowesses unknown by common humans. Eventually they disappeared to give room to fairy-like beings, more related to sludge elves or spriggans in the sense they have become more wild in tales and legends.

Etymologically I think that "halfling" represents a half-human offspring of elves and humans, but they have become some sort of human race somewhat "degenerated" in the sense they are shorter (although I think it is a quite racist consideration), and viewed as magical beings that help humans in farm labour: tasks that are attributed to "good goblins".

[dpeg]

Roderic: Definitely agree. And given all that, our orcs are allowed to stay. Of course, we have taken the liberty to shape them in our will. They are the best organised monster society encountered in Crawl. They are extremely proud and xenophobic. They are certainly not anyone's agents (if you discount Beogh).

[TwilightPhoenix]

<snip for shortening this post>

I feel like I'm starting to get into an argument for the sake of arguing, which I don't like and I doubt I'm going to convince of anything. So, this'll be my last post on this particular subject in this particular thread.

Several of those species do not have great HP/melee aptitudes. Yes, that's true. But, you miss where I said that sort of thing doesn't stop anyone from building Troll Wizards and other poor magical apt species casters. Building a melee character from a species poorly suited would be far easier than doing a caster since you don't have to spend all of that XP on multiple spell schools. Sure, it wouldn't be as easy as building with a dedicated melee species, but that's not what people are looking for when they're making characters like that. And the simple, no thought options are still there: Human, Hill Orcs, and Demigods. All of those make for viable species and the Hill Orc and Demigod share the same HP aptitude as the Mountain Dwarf. HO does not need Beogh in any way, shape, or form to see it's full potential (for example, my strongest character by a huge margin to date has been a HOFi of Oka > TSO) and while Demigods are currently religion banned, they'll have their own system sometime in the near future, possibly in 0.10.

[Displeased Crawler]

I made this account just to make this post. This is my first post anywhere on the internet about crawl.

The removal of mountain dwarves won't stop me from playing stone soup. While I disagree with the removal and I find all of the logic for the removal of mountain dwarves over minotaurs or instead of changing them to be frankly weak, in a game with as many races as crawl, you could remove any one race and the impact wouldn't be that great. I rarely play MD, although I recently had a fire elementalist MD win and a transmuter MD win. Anyway, all of this discussion has made one thing clear to me, one thing that is only tangentially related to the MD removal.

Edit: Removed insults. - lucy_ferre

[Jeremiah]

Some people seem to dislike Hill Orcs because there is a perception that "they have to worship Beogh" and put up with the inconvenience of managing allies. This of course is not true: a HO has just as good a reason to worship Okawaru, TSO, Makhleb etc as any other species - and their new +2 aptitude for Invocations will help with many other gods, not just Beogh.

[jackalKnight]

I will say this...if this project is to continue in any form, the devs seriously need to find a better mouthpiece than dpeg. His posts in this thread are some of the most arrogant I've ever seen out of a game developer. He doesn't seem to realize that he's flamed anyone who disagrees with him worse than the pro-dwarf voices have flamed him. I've come to suspect he's mostly responsible for the erosion of melee since 0.45 since he seems to view any non-magic armor melee characters as "derivative". Maybe there are people more anti-dwarf than dpeg, maybe not, but he's given us a face to put our anger on.

I for one won't be getting any post 0.9 versions of Crawl until dpeg is removed from the dev team.

[ximxim]

People need to calm down.

Deep dwarves make perfectly fine tolkien dwarfs, just ignore the flavour text.

You can still play an armoured defensive fighter without equipment restrictions, even if you lose some aptitudes.

[XuaXua]

As a programmer myself, but not for Crawl, I can see where dpeg is coming from, and having worked with many programmers (and as one), I can tell you that there is a reason we are programmers and not, for example, marketing.

Also, of note, dpeg is the designer for Deep Dwarves.

[roctavian]

http://jeff-vogel.blogspot.com/2011/01/ ... never.html

[Scrotar]

I am quickly losing confidence in the development of this game. Dpeg's dismissive and inconsiderate attitude does not bode well for DCSS. There is a time to dismiss player requests and there is a time to receive them. Knowing what is what makes for a well developing game. This is the time to receive them- as indicated by, foremost, the scope and intensity of the response to MD removal.

Oh yeah, and Deep Dwarves are not a suitable alternative. People don't seem to like them. They are basically renamed Svirfneblin from D&D lore.

Make Crawl for the enjoyment of the players not for the enjoyment of an esoteric few. Doing otherwise, as you seem to be doing, would be doing the opposite of what has up until recently made DCSS the most beloved roguelike.

EDIT: Jeff Vogel is a fool. The last good game he made were from the 90's- Exile series. The rest have sucked, which is not surprising since he is disinclined to listen to player feedback. Also, he is not saying that devs shouldn't read their forums, necessarily, he is presenting an argument for why they shouldn't. You won't find many arguments about why they should, because it is generally obvious that it should be done and it works.

[Kate]

Interestingly enough that link's come up in ##crawl-dev in the past. Seems like a pity to encourage developers not to be involved in the community when a lot of what makes Crawl so great is the communication between devs and players, especially since all it really takes is a few good contributions to be given commit access a lot of the time. Certainly the points there are 100% valid, though.

Still, when it comes down to it, yes, the opinions of those who have contributed large amounts of time and effort to the game are worth more when it comes to making decisions. Game design isn't a democratic process, and if it were then Crawl would probably be a worse game. But maybe it wouldn't be, and luckily it's open source so anyone is welcome to revert whatever they like if they feel they could do a better job. I'd suggest trying that instead of resorting to personal attacks, really.

[XuaXua]

http://jeff-vogel.blogspot.com/2011/01/three-reasons-creators-should-never.html

NICE.

Granted, I swear that since you posted that immediately after my post, you were actually posting a link to this (from yesterday's Slashdot):

http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/don ... rogrammer/

[Roderic]

My own experience as roguelike player has passed first with Rogue, then Nethack, then SlashEM and then Crawl since last Christmas. One of the things I liked really much at the beginning was the MDFi build because there's no such character available in Nethack unless you go for a troglodyte and then dress him with heavy armour. Hence, can understand how MD are beloved by many, even me.

However I disagree the tone of this discussion becoming into personal attacks and criticism that go to nowhere, or to nowhere positive. It's very easy to argue with a faceless name in the other corner of the world without shame, yeah. Crawl is the first game where I've found a good communication with devs (think about the "secret council" of Nethack devs ... ) and even they have agreed on some suggestions but it doesn't imply that a) they have to do everything people request -this is not a democracy- and b) it is a free game, so as everything free in life, take it or let it. If you still complain, you can do your own roguelike plentiful of dwarves, can't you?

I don't know how many of you are programmers or just wannabes but I know how difficult is to manage a programming project like a game and the value of taking executive decisions, for good or bad (time will decide). As everything that it's worth in life, there have to be stages of development less or more fortunate, but always for good at the end. Provided the current status of DCSS, it has been a sensible decision in terms of design. If, for example, close combat techniques or thematic portal/brances/vaults with dwarfs had been implemented, possibly the cut would haven't been done so easy.

EDIT: And finally, as you can see this game is a creation of pure altruism and generosity, not a business product, so it's more an artistic creation than a manufactured piece of software. Corolary: never piss off a creator, they know much better than you what is going on.

[Scrotar]

Interestingly enough that link's come up in ##crawl-dev in the past. Seems like a pity to encourage developers not to be involved in the community when a lot of what makes Crawl so great is the communication between devs and players, especially since all it really takes is a few good contributions to be given commit access a lot of the time. Certainly the points there are 100% valid, though.

Still, when it comes down to it, yes, the opinions of those who have contributed large amounts of time and effort to the game are worth more when it comes to making decisions. Game design isn't a democratic process, and if it were then Crawl would probably be a worse game. But maybe it wouldn't be, and luckily it's open source so anyone is welcome to revert whatever they like if they feel they could do a better job. I'd suggest trying that instead of resorting to personal attacks, really.

If the developers opinion sucks and almost everyone of the playerbase is against it, then the playerbase's opinion should be worth more. If it's not, then that should be rectified to make a good game. Good game design is a somewhat democratic process, and crawl would be a better game if they found the right balance between democracy (you chose the term) and dictation. Listening when it's right to and ignoring when it's wrong to.

Also, it's a bit disingenuous to imply that anyone that doesn't like a change can go and create a better alternative. Most people don't have the time, and almost nobody has the endowment that DCSS has for a community and technical resources. So you would suggest trying that instead of pointing out the problems with the mindset of a developer, when you know that it is very likely that I don't have the DCSS endowment, nor time even if I did, I go ahead and create a new fork on my own? You call criticism personal attacks and suggest I do what isn't feasible instead of criticize. I'd suggest being more receptive to player feedback. Your game won't die, and we will have a better game.