Rebalance Thrundarr quests
issueid=1880 01-28-2013 10:13 PM
Senior Member
Number of reported issues by BenMathiesen: 92
Rebalance Thrundarr quests
Rebalance Thrundarr quests

While it felt faintly ridiculous for Thrundarr to assign a giant rat as the first quest, I now find myself exploring the Tomb of the High Kings and the Rift before I meet one of the rare monsters that he assigns in p10. The problem vis-a-vis gameplay is that characters are likely to reach levels 18-20 before completing the quest, and quests 2 through 5 are far too easy for such characters.

In earlier versions, I would try to complete all Thrundarr's quests when in the early teens, while the forest, the dwarven halls, and the ogre cave are a real challenge. There is also the interesting tradeoff for rapidly advancing characters of whether to get them done before clearing the pyramid.

I think it would be fine to restore the previous behavior; one of the benefits of Thrundarr assigning a common monster is that you can get his quest rewards earlier. Alternatively:

  • Have Thrundarr assign a monster with danger level vaguely appropriate for the character's level, but not a rare monster.
  • Have Thrundarr assign a rare monster, but introduce code to force generation of the monster in a reasonable time. For example, if the quest is active, then each time a monster is generated of the right DL, it has a 10% chance to be the quest monster.
  • Keep the current behavior (p10), but change the order of the quests and/or rewards. For example, why not assign the AF/DH and ogre cave quests before the random monster? The dwarves need news, after all, more than they need a dead master swordsman. :-)
Issue Details
Issue Number 1880
Issue Type Feature
Project ADOM (Ancient Domains Of Mystery)
Category All
Status Implemented
Priority 5 - Medium
Suggested Version ADOM 1.2.0 pre 11
Implemented Version ADOM 1.2.0 pre 21
Milestone (none)
Votes for this feature 29
Votes against this feature 0
Assigned Users (none)
Tags (none)




01-28-2013 10:18 PM
Junior Member
I agree, why was this changed in the first place?

01-28-2013 10:49 PM
Ancient Member
Well, the first quest is designed to prove your worth--it should stay where it is. The thing that needs fixing is this minimum rarity limit (i.e. it has to be as rare as x or rarer). That's utterly absurd. I mean, c'mon, it's Thrundarr's first quest for goodness' sake! You can get it at level 6 if you really want! In addition, it doesn't make any sense to have it be so rare because then people can rarely take the second quest because you have to explore beyond the AF before then [unless you are getting super grindy, which it would be bad of the game to encourage], and you only have 50/50 chance of not entering AF and screwing the quest in the first place, not to mention sometimes DH is untraversable.

Anyway, I guess choice one; I mean, really, why not just choose a monster of x DL (i.e. all monsters up to x DL) at the rate they are spawned? That would offer plenty of variety and not screw people most of the time. Maybe that was previous behavior, but the previous behavior was a lot better than this. If not that, I guess a max rarity limit, but that makes the quest more of a formality than anything.

01-28-2013 11:59 PM
Senior Member
Yeah, as a quest from him, my level 7 character got assigned a stone statue. Not a stone golem, no, a stone statue. I didn't even realize that was a real monster at that point - needless to say I never found one. My DeRa UNE last week had 2 in his killed monster list - that was after diving down to D:69 to kill Filk.

There should definitely be a "maximum rarity limit" as well.

01-29-2013 08:07 AM
Ancient Member
I think that slaying a random monster is, in general a slightly pointless and boring quest, that must lead to frustration in more cases than not, and in the not-cases it goes unnoticed as in those the monster is found quickly.

I'd vote for removing this assignment completely. Put one of the new mini-quests from the resurrection campaign there, instead or such.

01-29-2013 09:16 AM
Senior Member
Or maybe make the first quest partially static with choice of mid-tier monsters being the pool. For example, a quest to kill:

-a red dragon
-a black dragon
-a stone giant
-a Dorn Beast
-a giant boar

killing one of those appears as a nice rite-o-passage and all are readily available in the wildneress map

01-29-2013 09:49 AM
Ancient Member
Quote Originally Posted by plllizzz9
Or maybe make the first quest partially static with choice of mid-tier monsters being the pool. For example, a quest to kill:

-a red dragon
-a black dragon
-a stone giant
-a Dorn Beast
-a giant boar

killing one of those appears as a nice rite-o-passage and all are readily available in the wildneress map
These monsters don't appear in the wilderness until you have reached a certain level (15?), making the quest extremely difficult for trolls.

01-29-2013 10:33 AM
Senior Member
oh, they don't? I always felt like they appear earlier

01-29-2013 02:22 PM
Ancient Member
Yes, they don't appear until a certain level, and that level is not that trivial (also much higher than 6, which is the level you can take the quest). His first quest should e super easy and able to be completed before you even do the Pyramid, imo.

01-29-2013 03:12 PM
Senior Member
Maybe dealing with an orc camp on some branch level of CoC? Dwarves and orcs hate eachother and orcs are fairly low-tier challenge [a competent class level 6-7 character can easily dealwith orc vaults]

01-29-2013 03:37 PM
rho rho is offline
Member
I'd be in favour of replacing this quest completely as well. Hanging around in one level waiting for a specific monster to spawn just isn't fun. I'm on the verge of suiciding my current character who has been looking for a ratling warlord without success for about 6 levels now.

01-29-2013 04:43 PM
Ancient Member
From the previous Thrundarr quest RFE:

Quote Originally Posted by adom-admin
Interestingly the game internally required a minimum rarity rating of rare for quest monsters (which exactly is the rating for vapor rats and cyclopses, just to name an example). Monsters that are very common are excluded from selection as are some special monsters (like dwarves and vortices). I have tuned down slightly the maximum permissible monster level which might help to ease things a bit. But in turn the game takes more effort to create a rather high level monster (e.g. one close to that limit). Let's test how this works out...
So if I understood correctly, there had already been a rarity limit - you get nothing rarer than a vapor rat or cyclops, both of which have the same rarity value. The only thing that got changed was the danger level rating of assigned monsters.

01-29-2013 05:36 PM
Senior Member
I'm 100% for restoring the previous behavior regarding the first quest.

01-29-2013 06:44 PM
Ancient Member
I'm quite certain you are misinterpreting that, Laukku--minimum rarity refers to as rare as x or rarer, not as rare as x or more common. Thus, vapor rats and cyclops are the most common monsters you can get.

01-29-2013 07:03 PM
Ancient Member
Quote Originally Posted by SirTheta
I'm quite certain you are misinterpreting that, Laukku--minimum rarity refers to as rare as x or rarer, not as rare as x or more common. Thus, vapor rats and cyclops are the most common monsters you can get.
I have gotten some really common monsters such as zombies in 1.1.1.

01-29-2013 07:30 PM
Ancient Member
I have, as well (giant rats, even). That is no longer the case since this has been fixed, however, so there is definitely a minimum rarity now, which works as I've outlined in my previous post.

01-29-2013 07:58 PM
Ancient Member
The way I read it was that TB described old behaviour in his first two sentences, and the bits starting from "I have tuned down slightly..." was what he changed.

01-29-2013 08:02 PM
Ancient Member
Supposedly only the maximum monster level was changed, but empirical observations do not bear this out. I would quote my own experiences, but grobble did an excellent analysis himself: http://www.adom.de/forums/showthread...5358#post75358. As you can clearly see (and this is at level 6, not level...8-12 when many players first get it, which ups the DL a bit), nearly all the monsters are a real pain to find.

My personal conclusion is that the old behavior was something of a bug--clearly, there was no minimum rarity. I'd rather have that then the current system, though.

01-30-2013 05:42 AM
Senior Member
Quote Originally Posted by SirTheta
I'm quite certain you are misinterpreting that, Laukku--minimum rarity refers to as rare as x or rarer, not as rare as x or more common. Thus, vapor rats and cyclops are the most common monsters you can get.
It's actually quite vague. It could mean that it has a minimum frequency of occurrence, or that it has a minimum difficulty of finding. After all, if you were to describe rarity in terms of a ratio - like, 1 in 30... do you consider the "rarity" to be the 30, or 1/30? If the former, then a minimum rarity would mean it has to be that rare or more rare. If the latter, then it means that it can't be more rare than that.

01-30-2013 06:03 AM
Ancient Member
I don't think it's vague at all--if you read the statement, it excludes 'very common' monsters, which means that the 'minimum rarity rating of rare' must mean this rare or more. What I can't figure out is why we're discussing this at all--I don't mean to be rude, but I am correct in interpreting its meaning vis a vis its current implementation. A number of people have played the new prereleases and expressed their frustration with the rarity of the monsters assigned and grobble has even done a well-sampled analysis of the monsters assigned. It's simply unhelpful/off-topic to discuss the meaning of 'minimum rarity rating of rare' when it's clear from the implementation.

(and, really, even if I were incorrect, it wouldn't matter because then the implementation would be foobared anyway. The real point of discussion isn't what may or may not have been changed in what way and how we can interpret what we are told was changed, but what we can observe--and what we can observe just isn't fit for the first Thrundarr quest. again, see grobble's analysis and then decide for yourself whether the monsters assigned should be changed in some way)

01-30-2013 01:36 PM
Senior Member
Quote Originally Posted by SirTheta
I don't think it's vague at all--if you read the statement, it excludes 'very common' monsters, which means that the 'minimum rarity rating of rare' must mean this rare or more.
Actually, the fact that he specifically added that "very common monsters" are "excluded" after saying that there's a minimum rarity could be interpreted to mean that he wanted common monsters, just not the 'very common' ones - that is, perhaps including gnolls, but not giant rats.

The fact that it doesn't have this behaviour doesn't necessarily mean that it's not what he wanted. It's easy to, for instance, get an inequality backwards in a code, if you're even slightly distracted enough, or if the code is abstract enough (if you coded Rarity and ReqRarity as a variable and a constant, and you forgot that you coded them as integers representing the inverse, it would be easy to type Rarity > ReqRarity, thinking it requires the frequency to be large, when you really wanted Rarity < ReqRarity).

I'm fairly certain that Vortices are more common than vapor rats or cyclopses, yet Vortices had to specifically be ruled out, and we know the boundary is at "vapor rats and cyclopses". Perhaps someone can confirm this one way or the other, from that - are Vortices more or less common than cyclopses?

+ Reply