Make potions of Mutation more deterministic

[cheetah7071]

Right now, potions of mutation are in a weird place--on average, they're extremely beneficial--each mutation has a 60% chance of being beneficial, which over three mutations works out to a 21% chance of three good mutations, 43% chance of two good mutations, 28% chance of one good mutation and only a 6% chance of three bad mutations. That, combined with the fact that most positive mutations help you more than most negative mutations hurt you means that it's almost a no-brainer to just quaff them right away. However, unlike every other "positive" strategic item in the game, it does have that 1/3 or so chance of actually being a negative item. This strike me as weird--why should there be an item that is on average very very good but will sometimes randomly be all-downside?

My proposal is that, instead, potions of mutations always give two positive mutations and one negative mutation (counting strengthening/weakening/removing existing mutations as appropriately positive/negative). This will have several benefits--first, it gives serial purple-quaffers like myself a more even experience, so you don't end up with a god-character one game and a character riddled with horrible flaws the next, all from the exact same behavior. Second, it makes it more clear to people who currently don't drink potions of mutation that it is a (net) positive item, rather than a crapshoot (which is what you'd think it is just from reading the item description).

Mutagenic flesh could use a similar change, but I don't have a good idea of how to go about that--perhaps it should just be identical to potions of mutation, instead of a lesser version of it.

tl;dr: I don't think a usually net-positive item that has a chance to be all-negative is a good design. This change would make it always part-positive and part-negative, but more positive than negative, while roughly preserving the current good/bad ratio.

[Sar]

That, combined with the fact that most positive mutations help you more than most negative mutations hurt you means that it's almost a no-brainer to just quaff them right away.

This is literally the opposite of the general consensus on good and bad mutations and potion of mutation but

potions of mutations always give two positive mutations and one negative mutation

I kind of like that (except I probably still would not ever drink those unless I am with Jello).

[cheetah7071]

That, combined with the fact that most positive mutations help you more than most negative mutations hurt you means that it's almost a no-brainer to just quaff them right away.

This is literally the opposite of the general consensus on good and bad mutations and potion of mutation but
>potions of mutations always give two positive mutations and one negative mutation
I kind of like that (except I probably still would not ever drink those unless I am with Jello).

I guess I don't know what the consensus is, I just know I've been quaffing the purple for dozens of games and have only ended up net-negative from it single-digit times. I certainly don't recall ever becoming so negative I felt the need to quaff curemut over it, and have been able to save those for the times an enemy casts malmutate on me.

[Sar]

well now you know

[Jeremiah]

I think the reason why many players avoid quaffing !mutation and even !beneficial mutation is that if you do get a really bad mutation from any source, the (rare) potion of cure mutation is less likely to remove it if you have a lot of other mutations.

[Sar]

The reason I avoid quaffing !mutation is that I generally want to win a character I started (within reasonable limits, I don't check every goblin ever for a glowing weapon etc.), and something like deterioration 2 will make that significantly more annoying.

[and into]

And, by contrast, a good mutation like +1 AC from scales or +2 Dex or even rF+ is unlikely to have a major impact on my chances to win the game, unless that rF+ is literally the only source generated in a game, which is extremely unlikely. Teleportitis, berserkeritis, anti-piety, and even deterioration are nearly always a lot worse for a character than "Your flesh is heat resistant" is good.

[Psiweapon]

There's been recent talk about the use of mutations... as a legitimate character-building element of the game.

I tend to not quaff potions of mutation a lot, I maybe quaff one and eat chunks twice or so, by then I either have a set of 2-4 helpful* mutations (reason to avoid being mutated any further like the plague) or have acquired a Cursed with Suck and Annoyance mutation (reason to drink cure mutation and forget about it at least for now)

*: Technically helpful, a lot of them have very low impact, some even negligible; but resistances or acute vision save you a lot of fiddling when you need them, jittery can be a godsend, robust or rugged brown always makes you safer, etc.

I think making mutation potions more deterministic is a good idea.

I think that mutagenic chunks should remain inferior to potions of mutation.

Further cure mutation suggestion:
Make cure mutation cure a selected bad mutation, and a random good mutation.

That way the player can get rid of whatever is ruining the game (frail for an already low-hp caracter, shoutitis for stealthy chars, deteriorating for anybody), while hampering the accumulation of a "perfect" mutation kit.

[Siegurt]

Well, those are some of the worst of the bad mutations, to really compare honestly you have to compare the best of the good mutations against the worst of the bad mutations (or the medocre good/bad vs each-other)

Nevertheless, the point still stands, the best of the good mutations is less beneficial than the worst of the bad mutations is detrimental, which means on average, your decreasing your odds of winning using mutation roulette.

Now I *would* argue that the medeocre-but-good mutations are more beneficial than the medeocre-but-bad mutations are detrimental, but in a game like crawl, winning is about removing the long-odds chance of death, since that's what kills you, so whether the middle is neutral or even beneficial is irrelevant, it's the worst case scenario that you have to worry about.

[Psiweapon]

Well, those are some of the worst of the bad mutations, to really compare honestly you have to compare the best of the good mutations against the worst of the bad mutations (or the medocre good/bad vs each-other)

Yes, but the mediocre bad barely even bear mentioning most of the time. -2 to a single stat? Most of the time you can live with it. Frail 1 with a fuckton of HP? still sucks but much less threatening, etc. Those don't make me really worry.

Nevertheless, the point still stands, the best of the good mutations is less beneficial than the worst of the bad mutations is detrimental, which means on average, your decreasing your odds of winning using mutation roulette.

If they affect in such a way the possible outcome of the game, why are there means for voluntary mutation? I can't Corona myself because it would be "overly suicidal", but I can drink potions of mutation?

Also, how do you really define "mutation roulette"? I understand that as hoarding a lot of mutation manipulation and using it all at once or in bouts trying to find a perfected kit. What is the legitimate, intended use of voluntary mutation? Because at times it seems as there is none. Maybe it's true that the worst mutations are much more annoying than the good mutations are awesome, but wouldn't that be an argument in favor of toning down the worst mutations or giving the player more control?


Now I *would* argue that the medeocre-but-good mutations are more beneficial than the medeocre-but-bad mutations are detrimental, but in a game like crawl, winning is about removing the long-odds chance of death, since that's what kills you, so whether the middle is neutral or even beneficial is irrelevant, it's the worst case scenario that you have to worry about.[/quote]

[duvessa]

Yes, but the mediocre bad barely even bear mentioning most of the time. -2 to a single stat? Most of the time you can live with it. Frail 1 with a fuckton of HP? still sucks but much less threatening, etc.

Robust is probably the best good mutation in the game. You can't reasonably say frail barely even bears mentioning and then say that good mutations do bear mentioning.

If they affect in such a way the possible outcome of the game, why are there means for voluntary mutation? I can't Corona myself because it would be "overly suicidal", but I can drink potions of mutation?

Crawl has multiple gods and spells that are useful even less often than potions of mutation. You can decide for yourself if this is intentional or not.

[Siegurt]

If they affect in such a way the possible outcome of the game, why are there means for voluntary mutation? I can't Corona myself because it would be "overly suicidal", but I can drink potions of mutation?

Also, how do you really define "mutation roulette"? I understand that as hoarding a lot of mutation manipulation and using it all at once or in bouts trying to find a perfected kit. What is the legitimate, intended use of voluntary mutation? Because at times it seems as there is none. Maybe it's true that the worst mutations are much more annoying than the good mutations are awesome, but wouldn't that be an argument in favor of toning down the worst mutations or giving the player more control?

Well, like many things in this game, killing uniques, doing elf, doing extended in general, there are a number of things in this game which are some combination of fun, entertaining, risky, and potentially rewarding.

Risky things might be fun, and they might not be the *most* likely to make you win, there's nothing wrong with having fun risky things to try, experiment and have fun with.

[johlstei]

Clarity seems like a cool mutation if you're casting borgs/death's door. I can't say how useful it is in practice since I've never done it, but having both stasis and clarity is something one can't generally do outside of formicids/ash/some fixedarts.

[savageorange]

How would this proposal interact with the existing 'diminishing returns' setup?
(By which I mean, the fact that the likelihood of getting an additional mutation rather than cancelling an existing one decrease as your current number of mutations rises). Simply -always- getting two good mutations and a bad one seems like it could get pretty broken.

[cheetah7071]

How would this proposal interact with the existing 'diminishing returns' setup?
(By which I mean, the fact that the likelihood of getting an additional mutation rather than cancelling an existing one decrease as your current number of mutations rises). Simply -always- getting two good mutations and a bad one seems like it could get pretty broken.

Taking a quick look at the code, it looks like the current way it works is that there's a percentage chance, based on the number of mutations you have, for random mutations to, instead of doing their normal thing, remove an existing mutation or do nothing. You could keep that for the guaranteed good/bad mutations, or modify it so a positive mutation roll can only remove negative mutations, and vice versa.

[Sandman25]

Also, how do you really define "mutation roulette"? I understand that as hoarding a lot of mutation manipulation and using it all at once or in bouts trying to find a perfected kit. What is the legitimate, intended use of voluntary mutation? Because at times it seems as there is none. Maybe it's true that the worst mutations are much more annoying than the good mutations are awesome, but wouldn't that be an argument in favor of toning down the worst mutations or giving the player more control?

Let me describe "legitimate, intended use of mutations" from my experience: I clear a wizard laboratory which gives me rMut amulet, 2-3 potions of cure mutation, 1-2 potion of beneficial mutation and about 15 potions of mutation. I am starting mutation roulette here. In one game I had to spend all but one potions of cure mutation to clear everything (yes, it was a mistake, I should have stopped earlier but I wanted to see how unlucky I can be), in another game I got 3 good mutations from first potion so I immediately stopped. As you can see player can have control and even the worst mutations are still fine and don't need to be toned down.

[tedric]

Apparently there is a subset of players who like the concept of mutations so much that they want it to be an integral part of the game for every character, and who then conclude that the current system is broken because playing as though that is already the case leads to annoyance, ruined characters, etc. This is a legitimate opinion to have, I guess? But, like, recognize that the version of Crawl you're describing is an imaginary one that has been balanced around the idea that mutations are like loot, skills, spells -- which steadily improve your character as they accumulate throughout the game. In the game you are actually playing, mutations are a crapshoot that is totally divorced from basic character progression. There are dedicated niches, like Demonspawn or Xom or Jiyva, for those who want mutations to be a central part of the game.

I don't think changes to mut mechnics are necessary or advisable. But since this "MOAR BETTAR MUTS" attitude seems to be so pervasive, perhaps we can do something to discourage it while keeping mutations as the risky-maybe-deadly-but-fun-for-some-people side game that they are now. Here are two (probably mutually exclusive) suggestions that might make acquiring random mutations seem like more of a truly random trade-off rather than a slot machine where the jackpot is "Ultimate Lifeform":

1. Remove !BeneMut. It encourages people to see muts as a "winnable" mini-game by granting a slight edge over the randomness, and then imaginations run wild by overestimating the possible benefits of mutation roulette. I doubt that !BeneMut makes a significant difference to players who do not intentionally seek out further mutations, so removing it isn't really a "nerf". No other changes.

2. Pair them up. Every good mutation gets a downside, every bad mutation gets an upside. This is already the case for some muts like Wild Magic (spell power up, spell success down), horns/beak/claws/hooves/talons (aux attack up, armor slot down), etc. Make it the case for all muts. !BeneMut becomes meaningless and would be removed. !Mut, mutagenic chunks and !CureMut would give/remove some random number of mutations.

3. !Mut and mutagenic chunks no longer give random mutations. They always and only give the Evolution mutation. Change Evolution's behavior to be more like Demonspawn mutations -- when you first get it, it picks a random equal number of good and bad muts (either of which can include removing existing muts from the opposite list) and doles them out at a semi-random schedule as you gain XP. !BeneMut and !CureMut can stay as normal, though I'd still suggest removing !BeneMut for the reasons above.

[XuaXua]

2. Pair them up. Every good mutation gets a downside, every bad mutation gets an upside. This is already the case for some muts like Wild Magic (spell power up, spell success down), horns/beak/claws/hooves/talons (aux attack up, armor slot down), etc. Make it the case for all muts. !BeneMut becomes meaningless and would be removed. !Mut, mutagenic chunks and !CureMut would give/remove some random number of mutations.

-10% HP paired with +10% MP
Uncontrollable Screaming paired with Camouflague
Berserkitis paired with Clarity

[grisamentum]

1. Remove !BeneMut. It encourages people to see muts as a "winnable" mini-game by granting a slight edge over the randomness, and then imaginations run wild by overestimating the possible benefits of mutation roulette.

I like the sound of this. In fact I would say random beneficial mutations should not exist at all, even from Malmutate. Maybe the exceptions can be Jivya and Ds (but even the way Ds work currently seems awful).

I mean, is this game going to turn in to Catacylsm DDA where no matter how you start and play, you're eventually mutating yourself into some kind of bear monster or chimera or whatever? Ugh.

[cheetah7071]

Apparently there is a subset of players who like the concept of mutations so much that they want it to be an integral part of the game for every character, and who then conclude that the current system is broken because playing as though that is already the case leads to annoyance, ruined characters, etc. This is a legitimate opinion to have, I guess? But, like, recognize that the version of Crawl you're describing is an imaginary one that has been balanced around the idea that mutations are like loot, skills, spells -- which steadily improve your character as they accumulate throughout the game. In the game you are actually playing, mutations are a crapshoot that is totally divorced from basic character progression. There are dedicated niches, like Demonspawn or Xom or Jiyva, for those who want mutations to be a central part of the game.

I don't think changes to mut mechnics are necessary or advisable. But since this "MOAR BETTAR MUTS" attitude seems to be so pervasive, perhaps we can do something to discourage it while keeping mutations as the risky-maybe-deadly-but-fun-for-some-people side game that they are now. Here are two (probably mutually exclusive) suggestions that might make acquiring random mutations seem like more of a truly random trade-off rather than a slot machine where the jackpot is "Ultimate Lifeform":

1. Remove !BeneMut. It encourages people to see muts as a "winnable" mini-game by granting a slight edge over the randomness, and then imaginations run wild by overestimating the possible benefits of mutation roulette. I doubt that !BeneMut makes a significant difference to players who do not intentionally seek out further mutations, so removing it isn't really a "nerf". No other changes.

2. Pair them up. Every good mutation gets a downside, every bad mutation gets an upside. This is already the case for some muts like Wild Magic (spell power up, spell success down), horns/beak/claws/hooves/talons (aux attack up, armor slot down), etc. Make it the case for all muts. !BeneMut becomes meaningless and would be removed. !Mut, mutagenic chunks and !CureMut would give/remove some random number of mutations.

3. !Mut and mutagenic chunks no longer give random mutations. They always and only give the Evolution mutation. Change Evolution's behavior to be more like Demonspawn mutations -- when you first get it, it picks a random equal number of good and bad muts (either of which can include removing existing muts from the opposite list) and doles them out at a semi-random schedule as you gain XP. !BeneMut and !CureMut can stay as normal, though I'd still suggest removing !BeneMut for the reasons above.

I feel like you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist here. If some people enjoy the mutation game (like me), let us play the mutation game. 1) doesn't really bother me but I don't see the point of it. 2) does annoy me because it means you can't "win" the mutation game anymore. 3) is also annoying because you have to wait a long time to find out whether or not you "won".

I don't know if your initial statement was actually directed at me or not, but this proposal isn't aimed at reducing the number of "ruined characters"--in fact, if anything, implementing it would increase the number, because you can no longer get extremely lucky and get an all-upside mut potion. (Though I would like to add that in all the time I've been mutating I've never felt a character to be ruined by the mutation game--teleportitis is pretty much the only insurmountably bad mutation, and maybe it's just been confirmation bias but I feel like curemut has been generating a lot more in recent games).

[Sprucery]

My personal view on mutations: Whenever I find !benmut, I quaff it. Sometimes it's not worth it (I've had a +2 helmet with rF++ pushed off my head), but it's a risk I'm willing to take for fun. I wouldn't like !benmut to be removed. However, I never quaff !mut or eat mutagenic meat. So that's a risk I'm not willing to take.