reduce number of levels the shopkeepers get when buying artifacts
issueid=3961 10-30-2015 04:20 AM
Senior Member
Number of reported issues by yhal003: 12
reduce number of levels the shopkeepers get when buying artifacts

I like how shopkeepers get experience when buying artifacts but this quickly gets out of hand:
Code:
 You examine Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper. Diagnosis: Level: 2767, DV: 1859, PV: 560, Hits: 57715, Attacks: 278, Damage: 939-954. Speed: 148
And this can be exploited too (although first time I tried to do it, he killed me with thrown coin by dealing over 800 damage so it is not risk free :)).

Code:
 Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper is consumed by a roaring column of flame! [+9982590xp].
I suggest the following changes:
1) don't give them levels from bying si
2) give them less levels from individual artifacts (at the moment it is +28 or even more)
3) don't give them levels for the same artifact twice
Issue Details
Issue Number 3961
Issue Type Feature
Project ADOM (Ancient Domains Of Mystery)
Category All
Status Implemented
Priority 3
Suggested Version ADOM r61
Implemented Version ADOM 3.1.0
Milestone Potential work pipeline
Votes for this feature 13
Votes against this feature 0
Assigned Users adom-admin
Tags (none)




10-30-2015 05:11 AM
Member
I would very much like to laugh at/read the game where you got spiked with a lead-filled coin.

I like 1 and 3 (mostly because raising their level also devalues how much the si can be sold for, along with raising prices in shops, not worth it for me, I let them build then sac them all away at once), the levels they receive are supposed to ward off stealing them back (god forbid they try to enact revenge on you) and I personally think that 28+ levels is a great ward against it, considering you got hit with a 800 damage coin.

This has my vote.

10-30-2015 11:30 AM
Senior Member
Here's an RFE I made where I talk about monster leveling more generally and also mention this issue.

10-31-2015 12:48 AM
Senior Member
Quote Originally Posted by auricbond
Here's an RFE I made where I talk about monster leveling more generally and also mention this issue.
Yeah, monster levelling is one of the most broken things in ADOM. This is one of the reasons I never take companions past the level they were generated.

10-31-2015 03:55 PM
Senior Member
My vote goes to #3.

02-15-2018 05:33 PM
The Creator
While I like the idea of giving rewards for an artifacts but once this sadly is the hardest to implement in ADOM (as we'd need to store that information for each shop/artifact combination). So for now I have decided to take Sis out of this game and additionally reduce the number of levels gained.

02-15-2018 05:51 PM
Senior Member
Quote Originally Posted by adom-admin
So for now I have decided to take Sis out of this game
Whoa.

02-15-2018 06:28 PM
Junior Member
Quote Originally Posted by adom-admin
While I like the idea of giving rewards for an artifacts but once this sadly is the hardest to implement in ADOM (as we'd need to store that information for each shop/artifact combination). So for now I have decided to take Sis out of this game and additionally reduce the number of levels gained.
Wouldn't it be better to just have shopkeepers not gain levels from sis, rather than taking them out of the game? Treating them as a special case should already be possible, like in the case of the demented ratling. Yes, this would remove the "penalty"/reward (shopkeeper level increase) for selling large amounts of sis many times, but if this effect is impacts the game at all, it is more often than not in the form of the now-to-be-eliminated ridiculous XP gains from shopkeepers. Not to mention it is easy enough to sell sis to a shopkeeper you have absolutely no intention of angering in the future anyway.

02-15-2018 06:56 PM
Junior Member
Hmm, I understood "out of this game" as "not counting towards level-gaining" :)

02-15-2018 06:58 PM
Junior Member
Quote Originally Posted by Harkila
Hmm, I understood "out of this game" as "not counting towards level-gaining" :)
Ooooooh, that makes sense. :) Thanks for pointing it out.

+ Reply