New FUN trait: Careless

[KA101]

[quote=“Pthalocy, post:40, topic:1771”]

1) Some folks (chiefly LazyCat, but I think xe had some support) want scoreboards, etc and pushed for standardization to enable better comparisons. It may not be a competition now, and I want it to stay that way. Doesn’t mean it won’t be a competition in future.

Standardization is an argument I hadn’t considered.

Given the amount of other options available to be tweaked (I refer to the bleeding edge build in this case), that would leave a lot of other things to likewise ‘lock’ on or off. I feel like you’d almost need a standardized ‘competitive’ gameplay mode under ‘Special’ for that to really be made fair. Sanity-check prompts would be a very good example of why that is necessary. I still think prompt toggling is best suited to the options menu, perhaps moreso in light of the above.

[size=8pt]Off topic, but what pronoun should I use when referring to you KA101? In case I make mention in future replies here.[/size][/quote]

Yeah, a Special option is probably the way to go for competitive play, and I agree re liking to tweak options and putting the Careless effect in the options menu.

If marking my gender/sex is important, cis/male is the way to go. If you’ve got gender-unmarked pronouns you like, use 'em. I use xe/xyr in most cases here because I don’t know people’s genders–nor do I feel it’s really necessary for me to know, truth be told.

[Pthalocy]

Cool, thanks for clearing that up. I just dislike mislabelling.

Hmm. Trying to think of any other thoughts regarding item limits and how a new organization system would impact that. Since we only have hotkeys for activating things, and get pushed to our inventory to pick something, I suppose we’re never going to encounter the issue of hitting } and having two items come up as conflicting ‘answers’ to that. You’d just be prompted to pick a container, and then an item.

Yeah, is there any way in which bypassing the item limit by using the same character twice inside separate containers would ever pose a problem?

[MassiveEffectz]

[quote=“ted, post:34, topic:1771”]It’s easy to walk into traps because there is currently no penalty for doing so. If walking into traps triggered the trap, people wouldn’t do it. Maybe you, specifically, wouldn’t be good enough to deal with it, but that’s no reason to give better players free points. Furthermore, offering advantages to players who are willing to make the game more annoying is still a fundamentally bad idea. Traits should interesting, not annoying, even if they have bad effects.

Unreal World, another roguelike with player made traps, has no confirmation for stepping onto your own trap pits, and may kill or cripple you for doing so. That doesn’t prevent successful players from making extensive use of traps, but it surely makes it more annoying to do so.[/quote]

i butchered the quoting.

Careless= Clutzy?
You stumble with your momentum! You trigger a trap! Game over!

[Weyrling]

[quote=“Pthalocy, post:38, topic:1771”]I am of the opinion that such options as enabling or disabling game notification types is better suited to the config menu, much like the toggle for safemode and autosafemode. Heck, there’s already an option for toggling some prompts. I am for its inclusion in this capacity.

Admittedly my definitions could be bent, but that’s not really my point. My point is you’re changing player behaviour by changing something HUD-related rather than interaction qualities, and this is what I think makes it stand out as more menu-worthy than trait/flaw worthy. At the very least, this is helping to make it ‘not fit’ in ways enough to result in the split debate in this thread.[/quote]
I’m of a similar opinion in that the UI should have options but not be a strong gameplay element, the self-awareness trait is about the furthest I’d want to go because it’s a fairly plausible addition, not everybody can diagnose exactly how injured they are, similar traits might be good for flavor.

A good option might be to connect safe-mode to the UI confirmations, default being always confirm (as now), the option (as true) being if you turn safe mode off it stops asking you about jumping on landmines and bear traps.

[Pthalocy]

Yeah, the Self-aware trait is the one that sort of fuzzes up the line between what someone would experience ingame and what is necessary as part of the UI to make the game playable. I don’t actually care for Self-aware, but I think that’s a separate argument and not entirely relevant.

Hm, now that’s an interesting suggestion regarding safemode, Weyrling. It certainly fits with the “failsafes to prevent dumb mistakes” function. Quite nicely. Other thoughts?

[KA101]

Problem is, safemode (or at least auto-safemode) prevents you from doing any significant movement if there’s a hostile in the area. Basically, you’d have to give up your movement-confirmation whenever you see a Dog off in the distance.

This actually seems worse than turning it off altogether, IMO.

[Weyrling]

[quote=“KA101, post:46, topic:1771”]Problem is, safemode (or at least auto-safemode) prevents you from doing any significant movement if there’s a hostile in the area. Basically, you’d have to give up your movement-confirmation whenever you see a Dog off in the distance.

This actually seems worse than turning it off altogether, IMO.[/quote]
To some extent I’d argue that being careful and fighting bears/wolf spiders/zombies involve two wildly different states of mind, but it is a UI feature so I suggested it as an option that I would be okay with.

Personally I’ve changed my safe mode range so that it doesn’t go off when seeing something in the distance, and I always plan everything out extensively when I do have to leave safe mode.
So I might have a different view of how various situations might play out, especially considering my long history playing roguelikes that are much less forgiving than Cataclysm DDA, where doing anything without planning ahead 10 to 30 moves doubles (at the least) your chance of an untimely death.