Thoughts on endgame

[Scraper]

It was suggested by somebody awhile back (might've been me, I forget) that you should get at most N vaults per game, or at most N "value" worth of vaults, or something along those lines. The idea being that you should see a few vaults in a game, but you wouldn't be able to scum for them because there'd only be so many. This lets them remain special without making them scummable.

Also, disable level feelings. Make players scum the hard way, by actually exploring a portion of the level and/or burn an Enlightenment potion. Seriously, guys, if you play without level feelings you'll realize you're really not missing anything important.

Wouldn't this make the option of continuing on after you have killed Morgoth a bit pointless. I mean, I know it's pointless in terms of winning the game to continue playing after you have killed Morgoth, but there is definitely a sentence about "after killing Morgoth, you can continue to explore the dungeon in the hope of finding legendary items" etc etc.

This change would take away the nature of the game in my mind as a dungeon explorer game.

[spara]

Wouldn't this make the option of continuing on after you have killed Morgoth a bit pointless. I mean, I know it's pointless in terms of winning the game to continue playing after you have killed Morgoth, but there is definitely a sentence about "after killing Morgoth, you can continue to explore the dungeon in the hope of finding legendary items" etc etc.

This change would take away the nature of the game in my mind as a dungeon explorer game.

Killing Morgoth could open a stairway to the Mother of All Vaults, a viciously designed level wide deathtrap containing every single non-encountered artifact in game...

[AnonymousHero]

It was suggested by somebody awhile back (might've been me, I forget) that you should get at most N vaults per game, or at most N "value" worth of vaults, or something along those lines. The idea being that you should see a few vaults in a game, but you wouldn't be able to scum for them because there'd only be so many. This lets them remain special without making them scummable.

Not sure about this one, but definitely worth trying out, IMO. Can also be combined with my suggestions.

[Therem Harth]

Hmm, maybe. I'll note that with Hippy I got most of my decent items from dragon pits.

[Pete Mack]

Do we actually care that vaut-scumming is possible? I mean, play how you like. Let others play how they do.

[fizzix]

Do we actually care that vaut-scumming is possible? I mean, play how you like. Let others play how they do.

Well, the question is how do we balance the game. We can't balance around both the diver and the scummer. Which one do we care more about?

[Carnivean]

Well, the question is how do we balance the game. We can't balance around both the diver and the scummer. Which one do we care more about?

I imagine that both are edge cases and the majority of players play somewhere in the middle. Balance for them. Perhaps even work out ways to subtly disadvantage both.

[Scraper]

Do we actually care that vaut-scumming is possible? I mean, play how you like. Let others play how they do.

I agree. Should we dictate how others have fun. Who decides how players should have fun.... what is the best way for them to experience the game.

[Derakon]

I agree. Should we dictate how others have fun. Who decides how players should have fun.... what is the best way for them to experience the game.

It is definitely possible to take this argument too far. Remember all the arguments about no-selling and how players who didn't want to sell stuff could just...not sell stuff? We absolutely should be making an effort to ensure that the rules of the game encourage fun playstyles.

[AnonymousHero]

It is definitely possible to take this argument too far. Remember all the arguments about no-selling and how players who didn't want to sell stuff could just...not sell stuff? We absolutely should be making an effort to ensure that the rules of the game encourage fun playstyles.

+1000

Some people just can't help playing "optimally" even if it's not fun.

(Incidentally, "play as you like" can be used to argue for almost anything. "When entering L100 we should just prompt the user whether to automatically instantly kill Morgoth." "But! But!". "Well, you can always answer 'no'. Play as you like!". Yeah, I know that's a bit absurd, but I'm making a point here.)

EDIT: Word swap

[Estie]

No selling is an option, and while the majority of players seems to be using it, the old way of play is still available. Forced descent is also an option, but it seems to be rarely used compared to the default. As long as whatever major change for the endgame is implemented is made optional, there cant be any reasonable objection.

My guess is that the current default game will remain the most popular when you introduce restriced version, based on the current frequecy of normal/forced descent games. If people want to play a no-scum game, they can pick forced descent; apparently they do not. Maybe whatever restricion you come up with can be bound to, or replace, the forced desent option.

[Derakon]

Forced descent is also an option, but it seems to be rarely used compared to the default.

I'm curious if you have any numbers for how many people play forced-descent vs. "normal". Personally I think it's the best way to play since it means I can't scum indefinitely and thus each level becomes more important. Of course as a non-default option I'd guess it doesn't get much visibility.

I wonder how many of our players aren't even aware of birth options...?

[Therem Harth]

Hmm. I'll have to try forced-descent.

For some reason, I like the idea of a variant with forced-descent and auto-ID. Maybe I'll make Neoband like that (once I fix the freaking balance issues).

[AnonymousHero]

No selling is an option, and while the majority of players seems to be using it, the old way of play is still available. Forced descent is also an option, but it seems to be rarely used compared to the default. As long as whatever major change for the endgame is implemented is made optional, there cant be any reasonable objection.

My guess is that the current default game will remain the most popular when you introduce restriced version, based on the current frequecy of normal/forced descent games. If people want to play a no-scum game, they can pick forced descent; apparently they do not. Maybe whatever restricion you come up with can be bound to, or replace, the forced desent option.

FWIW, I personally haven't played forced_descent because it sounds too harsh. I'd love something "mid-way" between that and infinite scumming. It's not that I think I couldn't possibly win -- I very probably could -- but I want a little flexibility in how I navigate the levels.

EDIT: I think this "sounds scary" factor is a huge factor in people not choosing it -- plus the obvious thing of people not actually being aware of birth options in the first place. Plus... people who haven't tried it can't judge if it'll be fun; see "no_selling". (I was semi-opposed to start, but after playing a few games (because default) I don't play any other way any more.)

[Nick]

We absolutely should be making an effort to ensure that the rules of the game encourage fun playstyles.

This is true, but we also don't want to be too heavy-handed about it.

Here's another list of possible tweaks to address fizzix' vault-scumming strategy:

• Save the level as the player leaves it, have them return to the same one if they take the stairs again too quickly
• Make chance of a vault dependent on time spent on previous level
• Have vault treasure get closer to just regular floor treasure the deeper you get
• EDIT: Make *destruction* have a chance to destroy the floor and drop you a level, increasing with the number of times it's been used on the level

My feeling on this issue is it's not as cut and dried as the selling/no-selling one. Rather than a single change, I think the answer to this one is more likely to be in a number of smaller changes - and ideally they would be changes that make the game better in other ways, too.