What's this thing about giving spellbooks different DLs? Aren't some spells rare enough already?

I don't see how this really affects Iron Man at all. Firstly, because the "classic" Iron Man does not allow river rule, IIRC. Second because you're regenerating a level you've already explored (at least partially). If you're on I:10 and find its a river, then you regenerate and... you're still on I:10, but there's no floor items. So what? At worst, you're out 1d6 items for that level. More likely, you've found some items on the first incarnation of I:10, but won't find any on the second, and I:11 will play as normal, so you might be out 2-3 items total, and, unless you're really unlucky with rivers, you probably won't have to do this more than a handful of times the entire game.

Removing floor items entirely? Yes, this would probably be a pretty big effect on Iron Man--and, for that matter, to many ID-based forum challenges like the Weakest Link and Duel to the Death. I think there's good reason to tread carefully about permanent changes to the ID.

IMHO the least disruptive change is probably just to make it that the stairs room does not generate items.

I can say this particular idea is bad because
a) it will greatly increase game complexity (not the best in english, is there a word that fits more?) for classes like merchant or mindcrafter.
b) what's the difference with removing items on the floor in all dungeons?
c) stairhopping is not the only way to get items. You can just grind.
d) as said, this will affect ID games. Btw, Jelly, what's the "Weakest Link" game?
Removing item generation in stairs room sounds good though.

I think removing items from the stairway room should be enough to get rid of stairhopping while keeping the ID in its current role intact. You'd have to at least leave a room or slay a monster to get an item.

I don't think merchants or mindcrafters, or any class, will be greatly affected by getting rid of stairhopping - it's more of a shortcut than anything else.

Here's the thread for the 2008 edition. I think there's been three such contests now.

Except that a wand of wishing with 100 charges is obviously too much. I'm curious about this: it seems that a lot of these "balancing" suggestions seem like they'd make the game harder. Why would one want to make it harder, when it's already plenty hard as it is? Do you think that with these things in, the game is too easy? How hard do you want it to be?

As I said in other thread, the core issue is not making the game harder, but make it more fun. You can do things like increase regular item drops so that these suggestions will not make the game harder. But the game will be much more interesting if it's won by following the storyline, exploring and killing stuff, than if it's won by cheap exploits.

Maybe is possible to store last left level of infinity dungeon in memory till PC enters next level or till some time is passed? If PC presses >< or <> he will be returned to old level that he left. This makes stairhopping more difficult: new items can be generated only by passing a level which means player need to spend a lot of time crossing the level, fight with monsters, etc...

That breaks one of the precepts behind the ID - every level is unique and can only be visited once.

Maybe determine if the level will have items generated on the ground based on if it was the previous level visited.

PC enters level 1 for the first time (from the wilderness), items will be generated
PC descends to level 2, items will be generated
PC ascends to level 1, items will NOT be generated

I prefer the idea of not having items generated in the stair room. Implemented.

Could we at least generate on the opposite staircase? Current solution kills anywhere from 20 to 35 percent of loot for people who are just diving and not abusing hopping (on average 7-11 rooms generated per level with 2 lootless with current implementation - 18-30% more or less). The thing that worries me is that people stairhopped to solve a different issue, lack of drops/loot. A tedious solution to lack of drops is fixed by making it more tedious to go I1-I3 and back repeatedly to get those drops. Now with two rooms empty it is EVEN more tedious. While an abuse has been stopped and rfe closed, the issue remains unaddressed.

szopin: More loot is generated from killing enemies than found on the floor. Plus I'm pretty sure the implementation is just that the loot amount is the same but has its distribution area restricted.

The simplest solution for lack of drops/loot would be to increase the drop/loot generation rate of the entire game. It would also make the game easier, and definitely wouldn't detract from fun.

If someone requested that instead of requesting to bring back exploits and scumming methods, I'd support it.

Next weakest link will definitely show. At least my frantic 10 dives do look like less loot in general. Seriously, 7 rooms on whole level is quite often the case, I'm not getting 2-3 items on floor in the 5 rooms that can have them now. Hmmm, TH got even more powerful now, time to RFE for nerfing it. (I do believe more loot will be more fun for users and less need for bombing/hopping/etc..., fix the issue)

Me too (and if it's not like that, it should be).

Would you want to RFE it or should I?

Let me know when it is created, I'll need to comment.

There wasn't an issue with lack of loot drops that I am aware of. I've always thought the game generates too much loot and it should definately be reduced.

Hmm. Well if it isn't an issue, then I won't report.

And why should it be reduced? Do you think the game is too easy with the current loot levels?

I don't think the game is easy. I do think it will reduce grinding behaviour, which I'm assuming, most players don't enjoy if item drops are reduced.

You see, making it even less profitable to grind for loot will have fewer players doing so. That way they might play and see that loot isn't that important and have even more fun.
When they do find something special it might elate them more. As things are now you are bound to find awesome stuff frequently.