[Fixed for V0.39] Quirks of V0.38

[Lunever]

Engine: Is there special reason torches suddenly can't be put into the quiver main slot (scabbard) anymore like all other attack-capable weapons, on contrary to V0.37 (although it might have been that way in FTL-DM too, I'm not sure anymore, I can't see why a place that offers room for a sword, arrow, bow or staff wouldn't take a torch)?

While the light addition isn't as linear white anymore as it used to be in V0.37, it's still becoming to bright to quickly (light 3 torches and things will still look a bit whitish. Ever walked a cave or just a night outside with 3 torch-holding people in real life? It's just not white-bright). Maybe some parameter in the light addition formula shold be slightly adapted.
Also, while it's normally me making bunches of weird suggestions to evolve RTC further and most others here that cry "No, un-DM", in this case it might be the other way round. I think it's a nice idea to have that light accumulation, and I use it when playing the RTC-DM dungeon, but for the O-DM dungeon I prefer steplighting, and would prefer a max light level too.

I don't know whether that has changed somehow, but the impression that shield spells, especially MonYaIr expire far too quickly is stronger than ever.



Editor:

The mouse wheel in RTCEd does move the bar on the right of the level selection window, but not its contents.


O-DM dungeon:

The trolin generator (17) at Enc. z02/x29/y38 RTCEd (L24,28,2) is according to the Encyclopaedia supposed to generate 1d4 trollins, in RTC it always produces 2 trolins.

[beowuuf]

Torches could never be put in the main quiver area - check it out in ADGE or through CSBwin! If it happened in 0.37, it was a minor bug

I think real life in DM is stretchign it, why can 17 big or small objects take up equal room? ;) BAsically you might need two torches in hand to fight a special monster - if you are carryign three torches, then thsi is excessive lighting, and thigns shoudl go a bit whitish. Haven't played with the new version in respect to lighting, so will reserve judgement until I have.

[Lunever]

Ok, then hereby I officially suggest to deliberately reintroduce the quiver-"bug": Let torches fit in there.

Well, of course I don't expect DM to be a real life simulator. But while the new light settings are better than the last ones, they still just feel not right, a slight inhibition of the higher light levels would probably do it though.

[beowuuf]

Probbaly does need the log tweaked, just as you may remember from the early days of getting the stamina and food drain etc, this can be quite a painful process over many iteratiosn if we don't get a consensus! It's too much..not enough..too much...not enough..etc!

[George Gilbert]

While the light addition isn't as linear white anymore as it used to be in V0.37, it's still becoming to bright to quickly (light 3 torches and things will still look a bit whitish. Ever walked a cave or just a night outside with 3 torch-holding people in real life? It's just not white-bright). Maybe some parameter in the light addition formula shold be slightly adapted.

OK; for V0.39 I've toned it down a bit more...as beowuuf says though, this is going to be a bit of an iterative process.

Remember though that the lighting (in ANY game) is a dungeon mechanism to alter gameplay - not a realistic reflection of the world.

I don't know whether that has changed somehow, but the impression that shield spells, especially MonYaIr expire far too quickly is stronger than ever.

I havn't touched that section for (literally) years - since about V0.20 or so. It's your imagination!

O-DM dungeon:

The trolin generator (17) at Enc. z02/x29/y38 RTCEd (L24,28,2) is according to the Encyclopaedia supposed to generate 1d4 trollins, in RTC it always produces 2 trolins.

I think both are wrong - it should be 1-2 (which is what RTC now does).

[Lunever]

I suppose then that V0.39 will have the lighting right. I also noticed that on the laptop's display the whitish effect appears to be stronger than on my desktop's tft, so screen settings have an influence there. Guessing the middle between both screens I think that even a slight tone down for high light will probably solve this, and V0.39 sounds like that won't be an issue then anymore.

Right, so I keep saying the same since V0.20: Make them shield spells last a little longer; it might be useful to actually compare those duration to FTL-DM. If the difference isn't as much as I feel it to be, well then just ignore me (and let me know so I won't bring this up again). But maybe my feeling isn't that wrong. I remember when playing PC-DM I cast a couple of MonYaIr and wandered about quite a while before they eventually wore off completely, in RTC they are done after rather a short time.

[beowuuf]

Why can't YOU compare the two through CSBwin and let George know it's your imagine then? : )

Also, MonYaIr in DM was still dependant on level - so were you castign this with archmasters on the PC or not?

[Lunever]

The characters I used on PC-DM were even a couple of levels lower than the RTC characters currently used by me.

Of course I could just start CSBWin, take a watch and see. That would work certainly for casting a single MonYaIr. But this is as far as it goes. Since I know neither the internals of PC-DM nor CSBWin nor RTC, I wouldn't be able to see anything beyond the fact that the blue line of the spell is still visible, and maybe make a rough guess about it's effectiveness in combat by doing a large number of battles at different times.

But I wouldn't be able to discern for certain whether the protection I seem to remember is just running out slower on a last low power level or whether it actually upholds efficient protection until the blue line dissappers, especially since like so many things in DM this is more complex and is interconnected with monster strength, character dexterity and armour. I also have no idea what the different engines are doing if you cast several MonYaIr. Are they added up linearly, logarithmically or something else? Do the engines add up protection level and duration equally or differently? Is there a maximum protection level? If so once that maximum level is active, does that influence the accumulation of duration?
I once did ask a couple of questions about that in a thread, but never got a reply. George might just have the better information here than me. Of course if he tells me he doesn't have time to bother with it, I will gather what data I can about this by experimentation rather than by knowing the internal algorithms, post what I got and that's it.

[George Gilbert]

No idea what the original game did, but for RTC it's a simple binary on or off. The power of the spell merely determines its duration (which is linear and has no upper limit).

[Lunever]

Is this binary approach the same for spellshield and fireshield?

[George Gilbert]

Yes (and all the power / duration / no limits I mentioned too)

[Lunever]

Ok, then the one thing I would still like to know is what exactly they protect against (which isn't as obvious as it may sound):

Physical shield vs. probability to get hit or damage reduction only? Falling damage reduction too? Vs. black flame attacks too?

Fireshield vs. fireballs and black flame attacks only or lightning too?

Spellshield: Vs. poison clouds and bolts only or lightning and possibly fireballs too?

Is there anything lightning does that fireballs don't do as well?

[TheMormegil]

IIRC In Amiga DM you could do loads of fireshields and then go to see Librasulus at the dungeon entrance and he would do almost no damage for a quite a while. It seemed that fireshields gave additive protection.

[beowuuf]

Lightning is magical not fire if I remember a recent conversation correctly (in RTC)

Yes, in DM fireshields and partyshields were cummulatinve effect but the same decay - like drinking strength, etc potions - you could boost the stat more, and it would take longer to die merely because you had more points to drain away

[George Gilbert]

I've done a bit of playing about now and it appears that in the original game the strength of the spell not only determines the duration of the shield but also it's degree of protection (which fits nicely with TheMormegils recollection)....so RTC V0.39 now does that too!

[Lunever]

Hey cool, thank you George!

[George Gilbert]

The mouse wheel in RTCEd does move the bar on the right of the level selection window, but not its contents.

Fixed this too...

[Lunever]

BTW: I noticed that monsters now make melee attacks even when still half a tile away. While from a tactical point of view I think this makes sense, grafically it looks a bit strange for some monsters.

Can you make the engine autmatically move the monster the half tile in between a split-second after attack initiation, using the proper attaking gafics while doing so?

[Lunever]

Hmm, I can't tell anymore whether this used to work in all versions before 38 or only in some, but I got used to putting the horn of fear in the scabbard slot, but this also doesn't work anymore. Please open the main scabbard slot for the broad choice of action-capable item it had in 37.

MORE IMPORTANT:

While I understand and accept that the majority of players here currently does not share my request of introducing two-handed, double weapons and two-weapon-fighting into RTC, it seems that I have to watch my every word. While discussing this issue during V0.37, I made a positive comment about that I like very much that RTC allows stat-boosting weapons in the off-hand to take effect, thus making the pretty useless off-hand from the FTL-engine more versatile, and lo, behold, suddenly in 38 it doesn't do it anymore. Please reintroduce this feature at least as a custom dungeon option that will be active in the RTC dungeon at least, for I always assumed that it had been implemented deliberately because it does make sense.

[Sophia]

While discussing this issue during V0.37, I made a positive comment about that I like very much that RTC allows stat-boosting weapons in the off-hand to take effect, thus making the pretty useless off-hand from the FTL-engine more versatile, and lo, behold, suddenly in 38 it doesn't do it anymore.

This is probably because of the new editable "Shape" stuff in 0.38-- the weapons aren't considered to be equipped unless they're in the right hand, and only when "equipped" do they give the stat boost.

So, it's still doable for customs! I don't know about basic DM, though.

[George Gilbert]

As Sophia says, a weapon held in the left hand isn't considered equipped and therefore stats boosts aren't applied for weapons held in the left hand - that is the current and correct behaviour.

Anything that is considered equipped in the left hand (e.g. shields, torches) will get stats boosts applied when it's put there - that is also the current and correct behaviour.

Also as sophia suggests, whether or not something is considered equipped in the left hand (or anywhere else for that matter) is editable and therefore if you want swords to give stats boosts in the left hand in a custom dungeon, then that can be done in custom dungeons (but it isn't the default in the default dungeons).

[Des]

I thought it was "by design" too rather than a bug. It does let characters have their cake and eat it, so probably right to remove it. Better check my dungeon as there are a couple of custom items designed to be held in the spare hand....

[beowuuf]

it seems that I have to watch my every word.

Not at all, it's GG's engine and we are all interested in debating and suggesting wacky stuff. If you look back we have all suggested things overf the years that get ignored or shouted down, and obviously George himself throws thigns in that gets praised and yelled at in equal measure.

I think the key is that what RTC is trying to do. It is trying to be a viable way to play DM and CSB again and fulfil that nostalgia/playing experience as you remember them while also then giving designers who love that engine the chance to really expand that engine. With that ethos in mind, some of the changes people are debating heavily against are to do with breaking the clean feel of DM we love in default ways. DM2 was an evolved engine that was basically the Dm engine with many cool features yet lots of people don't like it nearly as well - why? I think becuase it took only a few changes to subtle mechanis no one thought of to just remove the feel. A less clean interface, removing some of the the multi-tasking ability, and bit of dumbing down in a few minor things and that was it. It just felt...not as good! Same applies to the initial dungeon, it felt easier and had one or two annoying quirks and that was that.

It's funny that Gambit and I seemed to have debated with you over the years, probably just from the stand point of you wanting an advanced engine that can still play DM, and us still wanting the DM engine with expansions. Obviously it's hard to find a game that you care about 20 years after the fact, and that was down to alot of subtle things as I said. So what would it take for the DM engine to just not hold the same appeal? A cluttered interface with eight attack options as default where dealing fast damage rather than moving around and tactics is more important? Hence the 'no', not a purist standpoitn, a gameplay standpoint. WOuld it be fun in a dungeon? Yes...would it be good in all dungeons...maybe not.

You've seen how one thing can take time to tweak - people felt RTC 'unplayable' ubetwen relase 0.something and 0.35 justbecause of the sleep time. There was the stamina issue. I assume GG's 'wake up time' has bit the dust. People don't like the whiteout so George is still having to tweak that. And that last one is ignorable under normal playing conditions! Every engine element suggested that he loves had been debated forever and had to be changed/messed with, let alone other major elements he is maybe not invested in. Yet some when suggested or tried work - the spell book just feels natural as does monster group splits, even though the are radical engine departures. Some ones from people have gone in - sucinum got the 'dump item quickly in to pack' in, which actailly bugs me jsut now because I keep losing flasks in the middle of combat - see, subtle thigns, but things get in and are probably enjoyed by other people

The other thign you find resistance on is of couse the dungeon changes. Many of the thigns you suggest would be great to see in a custom dungeon, but could easily be too much in the default one. New people who play RTC, they pick DM - will they get put off because there are too many differences and it jsut doesn't feel how they liked it. Maybe. And if they are doable changed that you can include in your own version of DM you could release, then why do they have to be avialble in the default one? Perversely, since no one is sitting there playing PC DM back to back with RTC then we can easily shrug off some of the more exact details if we ever seem to be contradicting ourselves with arguments.

Anyway, that's just my thinking, I never got to explain the 'resistence' to new stuff. Not being burned alive as a heretic, just being realistic about what I like about DM and hence RTC, and some of the problems that could happen. Also, GG does have a real life - we are just getting spiled just now by all his attention, really some of the engine changes could take many months to tweak between versions :(

[Lunever]

Beo: Well, most of what you say sounds reasonable and while you might have gotten the impression, I do not have a problem with suggestions and ideas being declined. That's why they are suggestions, they will be considered, publicly discussed, possibly modified, and then either dismissed or at some point implemented.

But that's not the point here. It's not about some new idea not implemented, it's about a imho good feature being removed after being praised. That's kind of counter-active reaction to suggestions. Ok, I did ask for more 2-hand actions. While I understand that the majority here does not want it, it should also be undstandable that in this instance of course I do not like to have that little 2-hand action that RTC used to do removed from the common dungeon. Also I woulld like not only to give loads of weird suggestions, bug reports and critisism on RTC (because it might look as if I didn't like RTC, and quite the contrary is true), from time to time I would like to continue to be able to praise features I like without having to fear that such a feature will be removed subsequently.

Of course, as you say, the latest RTC is so versatile that you can implement many ideas and changes by using dungeon mechanics. The latest Editor allows even people unskilled in programming to do so for a couple of ideas. Yet, there is a reason for debating whether such ideas should be only in your personal custom dungeon, or should be in the default DM/CSB dungeons:
1) Recently there is quite often an update to a newer and even better release. This often also includes some slight corrections for the default dungeons. If a change back to left-hand-equipped is only doable by editing every single stat-boosting weapon (and in addition to that a couple of other ideas needing editing), I will have to redo all of it for RTC-DM every new release, if I want to have the slight corrections to the dungeon by GG too. So even it is not done for the default dungeons because several people here prefer to not have it, it still makes sense to ask GG for a general engine or dungeon mechanics switch that allows to apply such a feature simply into a new release of RTC-DM by inserting a single line, instead of editing dozens of items, tiles and monsters manually again.
2) While I probably will eventually do a personal experimental RTC-DM, that will be by definition gHoF-incompatible. And I like the gHoF. That problem might be solved if we could agree to include a fourth dungeon where many new ideas will be implemented (of course not only mine), and add an experimental RTC entry to the gHoF. This would make sure that there are not 287 different versions of experimental RTC about that just cannot be compared with each other anymore.

DM2: RTC seems to be about to overtake DM2 in every respect, and it seems only to be a question of time until it will be easily able to emulate DM2, if a dungeon designer wants it to. The problem with DM2 not being nearly as much fun as DM/CSB has been discussed often, but imho it's not the DM2 engine that's responsible, it's the dungeons. They are just not as well designed as the DM dungeon, let alone the CSB dungeon. At least that's the reason why I never got deeper into DM2. On the other hand, having the few things that actually have been improved in DM2 result in a further (optional) improvement of RTC might be a gain for RTC.

[Lunever]

Some way or another I will activate left-hand-equipping, because from a role-playing perspective I don't see why a wand should stop giving you 1 Mana when you switch it from the right hand to your left hand. I also herby suggest to not activate it for O-DM, but activate it for the default RTC-DM.

BTW: I hope at least shields are still considered to be equipped when in the left hand?

[George Gilbert]

Some way or another I will activate left-hand-equipping, because from a role-playing perspective I don't see why a wand should stop giving you 1 Mana when you switch it from the right hand to your left hand.

I'm sure someone more creative than I can come up with a bunch of interesting reasons why not. For starters something analagous as to why people can't write properly with a pen in the wrong hand. If you're going to make a counter argument based on physical contact, then I pre-counter it with something like - why not let wands be equipped behind your ears and have it equippable on your head...

Remember, all these devices are just that - devices to aid role-playing. In this particular instance, limiting where items can be placed before getting bonuses from them forces the player to make decisions about what they want equipped; i.e. allocation of scarce resources (in this instance the scarce resource being slots that things can be equipped in). In fact the forcing of making such decisions is exactly what makes these kinds of games interesting and therefore a good thing!

BTW: I hope at least shields are still considered to be equipped when in the left hand?

Erm, yes - as I explicitly said a couple of posts up from here!

[Lunever]

No, I certainly won't come up with some made-up esoteric reasons, for as as you said you can twist these to support any idea no matter how weird. When it comes to magic weapons I rather think of established archetypes like Gandalf wielding his wizard's staff while fighting with his sword Glamdring in Moria.

When it comes to plain real physical weapons I don't need to go to epic fantasy characters like the Fellowship. I personally prefer fighting with sword and dagger in LARPs and performance with steel weapons too, so of course with fantasy characters I like to have my personal favourite style reflected. As I said, no qualms about that being to un-DM, but during all those past RTC releases for quite some time I just got used to Mace of Order + Inquisitor as kinda 2-weapon-fighting, or wielding a Vorpal Blade in the off-hand to have it quickly available while enjoying it's Mana bonus. It's been that way for so long in RTC by now that to me it rather appears to be un-DM to suddenly not have it anymore. I think a good compromise would be to leave it as it is now in 38 for O-DM, but to reactivate left-hand-equipping for the RTC-DM dungeon (since it is an aspect of dungeon mechanics anyway and not of the engine). I would be completely content with that.

[Lunever]

1) Playing a fresh rookie party sometimes makes you notice dungeon details you probably missed for a couple of releases: I wasn't been able to close the trapdoor defense ring in the void because the floorpad at O-DM z07/x34/y37 (RTCEd L17,23,7) is set to deactivate instead of toggle, that should be corrected. I also think that in the swamp slime level compared to the Encyclopaedia maps some fountain is missing, but I'm not sure about that anymore because I forgot to note it.

2) I thought it wouldnt hurt to play though O-DM at least once before 39 is released, but since I know already from some other thread that it won't be possible to get into the HoF, no matter whether local or global, because of some bug, I also thought I might try to outright kill Chaos with my new party in order to have a more interesting training session compared to killing rats (which I just don't do anymore since the food drain in RTC has been corrected), but even after a couple of hours of hitting him, he's still running about unimpaired, so even I probably won't finish his 10000 health off, seems as if for Chaos at least it is irrelevant to introduce an undestroyable flag. For other special puzzle monsters it might still be relevant though. But, George, just out of interest: There isn't an undestroyable flag currently, is it? It's just I'm not patient enough, am I?

BTW: Playing a new party brought it to my mind: While it is not that important for DM (but was a bad bug in EOB once upon a time), can RTC import characters from the HoF rather than from the savegame right before solving a dungeon (i.e. fusing Chaos)? For I have in mind to do a 2-part dungeon, and I would like to give XP for solving for the first one directly.

[Lunever]

Just double-checked with 38 feature update list: "Engine: Added “invincible” flag for monsters"

I suppose I missed the one and only chance to kick Chaos ass directly by updating to 38. This does pose an interesting question for 39 though: According to some other thread in 39 monsters can be hurt so severely that they become crippled, reducing their speed and capability to fight back. Can an invincible monster still be crippled or not? That is, is damage subtracted from an invincible monster's health but not below "1", or isn't it subtracted at all in the first place? So, can I design an invincible custom monster that can't be defeated, but can still be crippled, or not?

[George Gilbert]

it won't be possible to get into the HoF, no matter whether local or global, because of some bug,

That's a problem with the engine rather than the save game. Feel free to get all the way to Chaos with V0.38 and then when V0.39 arrives kill him off to get the gHoC entry.

I also thought I might try to outright kill Chaos with my new party in order to have a more interesting training session compared to killing rats (which I just don't do anymore since the food drain in RTC has been corrected), but even after a couple of hours of hitting him, he's still running about unimpaired, so even I probably won't finish his 10000 health off, seems as if for Chaos at least it is irrelevant to introduce an undestroyable flag. For other special puzzle monsters it might still be relevant though. But, George, just out of interest: There isn't an undestroyable flag currently, is it? It's just I'm not patient enough, am I?

As you've already noted in your later post, that was never going to work...

BTW: Playing a new party brought it to my mind: While it is not that important for DM (but was a bad bug in EOB once upon a time), can RTC import characters from the HoF rather than from the savegame right before solving a dungeon (i.e. fusing Chaos)? For I have in mind to do a 2-part dungeon, and I would like to give XP for solving for the first one directly.

Nope - the gHoC doesn't contain enough information to reconstruct a party; just a few salient statistics.

What you could do though is, once you've solved your dungeon, give the boost and put up a message getting the player to save before pressing a button to actually end.

According to some other thread in 39 monsters can be hurt so severely that they become crippled, reducing their speed and capability to fight back.

That's not a 39 specific feature; you can do it already in V0.38 by swapping a strong monster for another weaker one when sufficient damage is done - there's a number of threads about this on the editing part of the forums.

Can an invincible monster still be crippled or not?

Not directly, an invincible monster takes *no* damage.

So, can I design an invincible custom monster that can't be defeated, but can still be crippled, or not?

...yes, you can do that though. Simply have an ordinary monster that looks like your invincible one - when enough damage is done to that convert it to the invincible monster (with reduced mobility etc).

As I mentioned, have a look at the various editing threads where these kind of things are discussed in more detail.