Ray Dillinger wrote:
> The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> Ray Dillinger wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew Sidwell wrote:
>
>>> Rings of slow digestion could also make you vulnerable to
>>> confusion (at least, *I* get dizzy and lightheaded when I've been
>>> not eating enough...), reduce your strength or constitution while
>>> being worn,
>>
>> Why?
>
> Because appetite suppressants lower your metabolism, and these are
> effects of lowered metabolism.
I'm not sure how I failed to convey this before, but looking back at my
previous post apparently I did.
In the way I've always interpreted it (automatically and/or intuitively
enough that the fact never came to my attention before), what "Slow
Digestion" does is reduce how much of what you eat your body *needs* to
consume in order to sustain itself. Therefore, since you are still
getting enough to sup****t yourself and what you need to do, none of the
effects you describe (which look to me like nothing more than a form of
concealed starvation) should manifest.
It's not an effect of a lowered metabolism; it's an effect of a more
*efficient* metabolism, able to do more with the same amount (or the
same amount with less) and so able to continue longer without needing
refueling.
>>> Potions of speed could have a small chance of reducing your
>>> constitution.
>>
>> Why?
>
> In game terms, to make speed potions less of a "no-brainer."
Fair enough. I still don't like the idea, but fair enough.
> In justification terms, because the potion of speed is clearly some
> type of amphetamine and long-term amphetamine users just don't stay
> healthy.
Nonsense. There's no reason to think it's an amphetamine; it's magic,
the same way as the speed-increasing spells or items are.
>>> Healing potions and speed potions should inflict hunger when
>>> used. This should be severe enough that you can't use 3 of them
>>> back-to-back without stopping to eat.
>
>> Why in the world?
>
> *sigh.* You keep saying "why" when the game-logic and justification
> are both pretty obvious.
I don't think either is particularly obvious in most of the cases you
suggested, and certainly the latter is not here.
> I think you may mean "but I wouldn't *like* that" rather than
> actually meaning "why." If so, you can express your opinion openly
> and I think you should. Answering "whys" is a tedious labor, and an
> utterly wasted one if that's not really what you mean.
No - I am asking for you to explain your reasoning or justification,
because it does not seem at all obvious, intuitive or sensical to me.
This is the reason for every one of the "why" questions I asked.
The fact that I probably wouldn't like it (which I probably wouldn't) is
an entirely separate point, which I have attempted to refrain from
bringing up in most cases because it's not a particularly strong
argument.
You'll note that in the two responses where I did not ask "why", I did
state that I didn't like it, and in one case also said that I didn't
have any particularly strong arguments against it; I am trying to be
even-handed (and/or something resembling "fair") here, rather than
merely basing objections on my own personal tastes. (I probably wouldn't
object to something if I *don't* dislike it, but I do not consider my
own dislike of an idea to automatically be a strong enough reason for it
not to be implemented.)
> In game terms, because rapid serial use of healing potions and speed
> potions in combat is a tactic that is highly abusable, and this
> nerfs it somewhat while leaving healing and speed potions still
> useful.
It also severely changes the balance of the game, and (by reducing or
eliminating the ability to heal effectively and/or to maintain
equality/advantage in speed) would I think be likely to require
significant rebalancing of the late game.
I don't think that extensive use of healing potions, at least,
constitutes abuse; I think it's more-or-less how the game is designed
and intended to work, particularly given the caveats that you have to be
carrying the necessary potions and that using one is consuming a
resource which is not necessarily easy to replace.
> In justification terms, because both healing and speed are extreme
> metabolic feats that require extreme use of bodily resources.
Again, they're magic, not purely a manipulation of metabolism. Yes, you
could interpret them as functioning merely by enhancing the body's
natural functions (though in the case of speed potions, at least, I'd
have a hard time seeing that as being able to produce a large enough
effect); you could, however, equally well argue that all of the effect -
including the resources to power it - comes from the potion itself. I do
not think that that is a less plausible explanation, and indeed I would
probably find it more intuitive in a magical context such as Angband.
>>> Scrolls of enchant weapon could become a lot more fun but
>>> riskier, if they were a lot more trouble to use. For example, if
>>> after reading them, you had to actually wield the weapon you were
>>> enchanting for at least a thousand hit dice of monsters
>>> vanquished (no switching weapons, no unwielding, no digging, no
>>> using wands/anything else in your hands, etc) before the
>>> enchantment took effect.
>
>> Way too complicated, impractical for anything resembling the early
>> game, and how in the heck would this work for enchanting
>> ammunition?
>
> Not particularly complicated at all; it involves a decrementing
> counter, an effect that takes place when the counter reaches zero,
> and a routine to "abort" the count when given actions take place.
I don't immediately remember what about it struck me as too complicated,
but whatever it was this does not address the concern. I'll see if it
comes back to me.
> It would as you note make enchanting weapons a less-viable strategy
> in the early game, but I think that's a good thing.
I'm honestly not sure I do, though I'm also not sure I don't.
I agree that enchanting could use some revamping, but I really don't
feel this is the way to do it. Rather than making enchanting more fun, I
think this would actually make it *less* so, by adding a required degree
of grinding before being able to take advantage of the effect. (I
certainly don't want to use an inferior weapon for an extended period
just because, if I do so, somewhere down the line it will receive a
trivially small +1 to one of its bonuses...)
> I see no reason why not to apply it to ammo -- but in that case you'd
> need to be using from that stack, picking your used ammo up off the
> floor, and keeping the compatible launcher in-hand. At the end of the
> ordeal, the ammo stack gets a bonus.
Given the tendency of ammunition to disappear when fired, with some
regularity, most potentially usable stacks would not be likely to
survive (in potentially-usable size) long enough to receive the bonus.
Particularly not given that killing things with missiles is a dicey
proposition even sometimes when the missiles are enchanted, much less
when they aren't, unless you go back and fight things much weaker than
you are just so as to reach this threshold; in games where it is a
more-or-less required tactic, this is generally referred to as either
"grinding" or "s***ming", and is not often considered fun. (The same
problem applies for non-missile weapons, as well, simply to a lesser
extent.)
--
The Wanderer
My usual .sig is on vacation while I adjust to my new computer
|
