On Fri, 26 Nov 2010, David Ramsey wrote: > On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Adam Borowski <kilob...@angband.pl> > wrote:
>> However, with blue_anna's gone, it's not that likely the branch will >> make it. There are three possibilities: >> >> * an actual branch (1 level deep right now, but someone may come up >> and provide more content) >> * a portal vault >> * nothing but a monster set >> >> And, after throwing away all the junk (witches x3, trollkonor, etc), >> the dwarves left are damn good. I mean, they don't make a nice group >> thematically and have issues with design, but they include some great >> ideas. >> >> I especially like Injury Mirror on the unborn -- this is something >> that is interesting even in Zigs. >> >> I'd throw out nisses, though, and reuse the tile for some sort of >> gnomes or the like. Support from here, by the way. > Agreed on these. So, then, it sounds as though the main issue is really > integrating the (surviving) existing monster set into the rest of the > game where applicable. Yes. There will be a (deep) dwarf branch at some point in the game, there is no need to hurry, and integrating fitting monsters right now would be a good preparation step. >> I prefer the former, but then, I'm not a native speaker, and as due >> said, dpeg shouldn't be allowed to name monsters -- this applies to me >> as well I guess. > > Okay. Any other comments, from native speakers or otherwise? I have ever (re)named a monster. >>> 4. Are any of the Dwarf Hall monsters suitable candidates for showing >>> up in the Abyss? For example, the greater wraith, currently one of >>> the rare faster-than-average undead, might fit, >> >> I like this idea. Me too. >>> and some of the death-themed deep dwarf monsters (necromancer, death >>> knight, unborn) also might, since human necromancers already show up >>> there, and the undead-themed branches seem full enough already. >> >> Sounds good. And, draconians which do spawn there have no connection >> with death already, so even the other guys would be ok. > > Good to know. So, since it's a relatively minor change code-wise, > should I go ahead with it (and/or the greater wraith name change)? > >> I'd say no -- let's keep it pure. I already hate human wizards on Lom >> Lobon's level. > > Okay; I wasn't certain. Maybe, in the long term, the Abyss and Pan need > more differentiation in terms of monster sets? Absolutely. Pan and Abyss should be differentiated in more ways than just monsters, but that's another topic. But in particular, making sure that not every abyssical denizen shows up in Pan (and vice versa) is good. >> It is used just by player ghosts. A pity, that. > > Definitely. It could potentially be used by the rod code, since the > spell is available on one rod, but there would have to be proper checks > on when to use it. (And, while on the subject, the rod code should > ideally be using mons_cast() somehow instead of hardcoding rod spell > lists and the aforementioned usage checks. Also, shouldn't the > occasional magical effects from using staves apply to monsters as well? > But I digress.) > >> They are not permanent and go out pretty fast even if left alone (hard >> cap at 5 turns, likely to poof sooner). They are considered a magical >> creation like a stone arrow, crystal spear or IOOD, and thus are not >> abjurable, give full exp, etc -- unlike summons whose theme says they >> are pulled from some other place. > > Good points. > >> It's certainly not conjuring, per the above logic -- but indeed the >> word "summoning" is inconsistent with spells as well. Not sure what >> to do here. > > Neither am I. Hmmm. It would be an option to remove rods of summoning. Rods are not crucial to Crawl and we have to change/remove the rod of Divination anyway. So perhaps this should go to a full rod overhaul plan. >> I wonder if it makes sense to have a demon and a pile of animated body >> parts count as the same monster. One of proposed themes says it's >> both -- necromantic material, demonic control. If we don't use that >> theme, I think it might make sense to go all the way to one side or >> the other. >> >> Thus, the three options would be: >> a) all abominations are demonically possessed dead flesh. >> b) all are demons. >> c) all are undead. >> d) status quo -- inconsistent. >> >> Option b) would lead to problems with Twisted Resurrection, option c) >> fails to explain abominations in Pan. Thus, I'd suggest going with >> a). > > Interesting. Under a), both types of abominations would end up > integrated, meaning that more than the spell would end up changing: > scrolls of summoning would be useful to worshippers of gods that accept > undead kills, etc. a) also makes it sound as though Twisted > Resurrection should be changed to Summoning/Necromancy, rather than pure > Necromancy as it is now, since the demon doing the possession would have > to come from somewhere. It's probably a topic for the wiki, or at least > a separate mail. Yes to wiki. Thanks for discussion. David ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App & Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base & get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Crawl-ref-discuss mailing list Crawl-ref-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/crawl-ref-discuss
