Vortices are ruled out because they explode, not because of any rarity concerns. Again, what was intended or not intended doesn't matter at all, so can we please stop discussing this? We know what the current behavior is and can formulate our opinions of whether or not we like it based on that. Everything else is irrelevant because it doesn't change the observed behavior.

I know *why* they're ruled out. The question is, why do they need to explicitly be ruled out? My understanding was that vortices were relatively common, and thus the "it must be at least this rare, if not rarer" condition would already rule them out without needing to separately tell the game not to include them.

And of course whether the current behaviour is intended or not is a relevant question. Thomas clearly has a specific behaviour in mind, and if the game isn't producing that behaviour, we should inform him of this fact. And we cannot reasonably judge the balance of the quest if the current version is buggy.

Who cares why they needed to be ruled out! Maybe to make extra sure they can't be assigned, but who cares, it doesn't matter!



We can certainly judge the balance of the quest if it is buggy. If it's found wanting it needs to be changed--whether that is fixing buggy behavior or introducing new behavior if it isn't a bug. Nothing happens if we just sit around and say 'well, maybe this is what is intended, let's discuss it for 15 pages.' It could not matter less whether this is intended behavior or not because we can judge it on what we observe and ask for changes! (and, if our analysis doesn't match up with what TB thinks is supposed to happen, I think he'll figure out there might be a bug rather than just changing random things in the hope of meeting an RFE--just as he has before. and if this is intended [which I firmly believe, although I also believe he didn't really fully understand what the change would do to the quest], great, that's what RFEs are for)

So, seriously, can we stop this pointless aside and vote on the issue at hand with what we know?

By constantly replying you are just sustaining the debate. If you don't agree with something you can just ignore it instead of constantly trying to refute the other person. You don't have to keep posting because you think someone is wrong on the internet.

As now we have boss monsters how about this:
Thrundarr assigns quest to kill some boss monster, and it's generated somewhere between D1 and D12 without any warning when you enter that level after taking the quest.
The only downside that i see to this (aside from not having enough boss monsters) is that this quest feels like killing Kranash.

Killing a boss instead of a random monster is a pretty excellent idea and is very fit for the message of the quest; i.e. proving one's worth. However, seeing as boss monsters are still pretty rare, their generation rate should be upped a bit while the quest is active. It would only affect the first one (at most two) you meet anyway, so it shouldn't disrupt balance in any way.

BenMatthiesen was very modest with setting the priority to 5. This is _the_ balance problem with the current version and it desperately needs fixing.

The way it used to be before the change, Thrundarr's first quest was usually easy, except in some rare cases where it was difficult. Which meant that most games, the dwarf quests were a good storyline to follow early on, although in a few games you had to think about an alternative approach. That was perfect!

But now? He always assigns some out-of-depth monster and you won't ever be able to start on the dwarf quests until very late in the game, typically just before you are ready to take on the tower of eternal flames. This breaks the flow of the game. By the time you can finally start on his quests, they are becoming irrelevant.

So tl;dr: the change was an interesting idea but turned out very badly, can we please undo it?

Maybe still exclude low DL monsters. It doesn't fit to be asked to slay a giant rat.

I completely agree. Also, it doesn't make much sense that the first is the hardest among the Thundarr quests, as the OP says.

I agree with the impression that this is the most important balance issue in the current version (well, maybe together with the but that reportedly lets you unlimitedly max some stats in spite of potentials).

Can't we get a better reward for killing Thrundarr.

Kidding.

I still don't understand the rationale for requiring a monster to be at least as rare as x for the quest. I think it should be changed to (a) have a DL limit based on your level that is fairly generous (b) choose a monster at least as common as x (where x is some monster that shows up reasonably often at that DL) and that is all. It's his first quest and there's nothing wrong with having him ask you to kill a giant rat to prove your valor.

'Course there is: it's a bloody giant rat. Dwarven children could kill giant rats on their lunch break. To prove your valor, you have to kill something suitable. That's the rationale - purely a roleplay-based one. The "R" in RPG.

It just turns out that solving the roleplay issue created a much more severe gameplay issue. Before, when people were sent to kill a cyclops, their anger was subdued because they also remembered the heartful chuckles they had when Thrundarr sent them to slay a fearsome goblin and they were done with the quest in twenty seconds. Now that all Thrundarr objectives are hard to find, patience is much more likely to run out. In a strange way, the ridiculously easy Thrundarr objectives were what made the hard ones bearable in the first place, and axing the former made everything worse.

At this point I'd advocate for returning to 1.1.1 behavior, but I'm a bit weird; when I look at two possible solutions - having "very common" and "very rare" and everything inbetween as potential outcomes, or only a limited pool of monsters that are just the right amount of rare, I want to pick the former because it elicits more emotional response. Roguelike players love to hate the RNG, but if the monster pool is skewed too much towards rare, it becomes more fitting to blame the game instead of the RNG. And that's something to avoid.

I couldn't agree more. Let the RNG play with the whole range, and let players rejoice or vent at the whim of the RNG gods. Much better than the current uselessness of the dwarf quests.

Here I thought that I got the "Ratling Master Thief" quest request due to a whim of the RNG. I remember thinking, "What the fuck? How many Ratling Master Thieves do I even come upon in the course of an entire game?" I was, for the first time ever, gearing up for the TotHK to fulfill the request. Pretty ridiculous in my opinion.

Some people mentioned in this thread that this first quest is terrible game design. Kill a random monster is on the same level as a fetch quest.

We should be asking for a completely new quest. A fresh quest of reasonable difficulty. I liked the suggestion about the orc cave.

None of the dwarven children I've encountered could take a giant rat..they'd be swallowed whole in half a second. I think it's important to remember that this is a level 6 quest (well, that's the earliest you can start it, anyway). So, no, I don't think getting stuck with a giant rat is ridiculous and I do think it does perfectly fine with proving your valor. Plus, a giant rat (or similar) wouldn't be that likely under my above suggestion.

I am in favor of having it be a difficult creature, but I am also in favor of having the creature be something that you can encounter fairly quickly. Thus, I say go for the middle of the road someone suggested, and have the 'automatic generation'.

My viewpoint is the same as others here: Thrundarr gives a number of quests. Quests that, potentially, are completely irrelevant by the time you have found the creature with which to 'prove your valor'. Not to mention that his quest is offering a chance to get literacy. Something that is virtually *necessary* in the game. I don't want to have to go back to slaying 'a giant rat', but I *do* want to know that, when the monster has been challenged to me, I can actually go out in the world and hope to find it in a reasonable amount of time.

I think a proper test is in order, I'll see if I can conduct one in the near future.

Update - well, they do swallow them whole in 3 to 4 turns. The PC had 4 giant rats on his kill list and they were summoned by a wererat in the bigroom(D:7). Both children were male.

So, the conclusion is: Thrundarr would ask a dwarven child to slay a giant rat to prove his valor.
(val·or*-*/?val?r/
Noun:
1. Great courage in the face of danger, esp. in battle)

I have to agree that this is one of the most pressing balance issues right now. The first Thrundarr quest is now taking me more time than all the others combined and is by far the most tedious.

Replace random monster quest with "Explore the dungeons below and found the level with two staircases. Stand on both of them, look below and return to me to tell what you have seen."

Change default text of those staircases to something special, like dwarfen ghost/wall of flames messages, with the exception that you are not blocked from further descent, just discouraged.

Something like "There is a stair leading downwards here. You see great dwarven hall below, just... altered in a terrifying way. Great columns lay broken in a strange patterns, once white rocks are scratched and dented, and you sense strange vibrations, like great masses of the rock pounding on each other below. You really dont want to be near the source of that sound, whatever made it." Add guaranteed moloch (ordinary:P) on DH:1 or DH:2. Add some other special message for Animated Forest entrance.

Quest would be completed when you would read both messages. "Prove your valor" message could be moved to second quest, when Thrundarr would ask to cross one of the paths, it would be much more appropriate.

Would be nice, except for the guaranteed moloch. I love the sheer randomness of DH and the fact that if you are really lucky, you can get some high DL items without danger (but if you're unlucky, something can step out of a corner and one-hit you).

I think a message about incredibly menacing monsters, without specifying more, would be enough.