Dungeon size: small

[Timo Pietilä]

I have seen few messages about recent changes to dungeon generation, but I don't recall anybody mention how small they got. These new dungeon levels are tiny, there isn't much to explore. At least for early levels. Will there be larger dungeons to explore deeper? It takes me some time to get down there.

I can see how these are diver-friendly, but lets not forget that that is not the only way to play the game. I don't think that majority of players are divers.

[jens]

I'm not really a diver, think I have a bit of OCD ;-) At first my reaction was the same as yours, but after playing for a while I think I like the change. Speaking as a non-diver, it's less to explore, so I am 'forced' down more quickly, which in general should improve my playstile, and probably my enjoyment. And I believe the number of mon/obj generated are about the same, so it's more crowded than before, increasing danger and excitement.

[d_m]

I can see how these are diver-friendly, but lets not forget that that is not the only way to play the game. I don't think that majority of players are divers.

The change wasn't really intended to be diver friendly--I'm not sure if that is the current effect. In fact, Eddie was not pleased with the small levels because they are much more dangerous for divers (you don't have as many options for where to go and might need to take greater risks to make it to the stairs).

There was a ticket to vary the size of dungeons more, to try to make different levels seem more varied. Levels might be a little too small on average right now and I'm going to try to tweak them to be a bit bigger on average. I think they do get larger as you go deeper.

In my opinion, the bigger problem is that some levels aren't currently interconnected enough--they end up being a linear walk through N rooms. I'm hoping to try to tweak that a bit for 3.3 also.

[Timo Pietilä]

The change wasn't really intended to be diver friendly--I'm not sure if that is the current effect. In fact, Eddie was not pleased with the small levels because they are much more dangerous for divers (you don't have as many options for where to go and might need to take greater risks to make it to the stairs).

For that I agree. I just thought that about 90% of the levels I have now visited if there were something like graveyard in the level getting past it would have required to go in LoS of it.

This affects quite a lot what you can do in the level. I probably would just recall from that level and try again. Practically level-scum until there is some reason to stay on level.

In my opinion, the bigger problem is that some levels aren't currently interconnected enough--they end up being a linear walk through N rooms. I'm hoping to try to tweak that a bit for 3.3 also.

I noticed that too. Good thing that you are already working on it.

[PowerDiver]

I dislike the smaller levels. They are just less. Fewer interesting rooms. Fewer tactical choices. They are OK as ideas for large rooms, but bad as entire levels IMO. There must be a dozen things I think are made worse.

For one example, it used to be that I'd detect a greater vault and need something to go inside. Perhaps a potion of fire resistance, but it doesn't matter what. Then I'd clear the level hoping to find it. Now there might be only 2 empty rooms on a level in addition to a greater vault. No significant chance to find anything.

Also, the maze levels should never have permanent walls. Those walls belong only at the edge of max possible dungeon size to prevent software bugs and in vaults, and I'd even prefer to restrict them to vaults with an '8' block despite the artistry of some of the new vaults.

[Timo Pietilä]

I dislike the smaller levels. They are just less. Fewer interesting rooms. Fewer tactical choices. They are OK as ideas for large rooms, but bad as entire levels IMO. There must be a dozen things I think are made worse.

For one example, it used to be that I'd detect a greater vault and need something to go inside. Perhaps a potion of fire resistance, but it doesn't matter what. Then I'd clear the level hoping to find it. Now there might be only 2 empty rooms on a level in addition to a greater vault. No significant chance to find anything.

Also, the maze levels should never have permanent walls. Those walls belong only at the edge of max possible dungeon size to prevent software bugs and in vaults, and I'd even prefer to restrict them to vaults with an '8' block despite the artistry of some of the new vaults.

I agree at all counts. Smaller levels are just small. Fewer everything. Permanent walls only for Greater Vaults (or like you said, vaults with "8" blocks).

[bron]

I like the level size variation; it mixes things up in interesting ways. But I also agree that there are too many levels with only a few rooms, and (in my games at least) too many "maze" levels. I think the older 3.1 style "big" levels should predominate.

I particularly like the new "cave" style levels: potentially very dangerous terrain. Although maybe if I was playing ironman right now I might sing a different tune. But again, even though I like these a lot, I think I'm seeing too many of them.

[d_m]

Thanks for the good feedback everyone.

I was excited to add (and play) new level types but I agree that they need significant tweaking, in terms of frequency and style.

Several people (Magnate, PowerDiver and others) have suggested that labyrinths should be a room type (similar to vaults). While I will probably not altogether remove labyrinth levels I think I will make them much rarer and translate them into a room type which the default generation can use.

To that end, I think I will make sure that labyrinth levels never have permanent walls (although a "labyrinth vault" with permanent walls seems fine to me).

I'm interested in your opinions about the distribution with which cavern and labyrinth levels should appear? Do you think it should vary by depth? Do you think there should be ranges of levels where they are more or less common? This is the sort of thing I am working hard to polish for 3.3.

Anyway, feel free to continue giving feedback and offering suggestions.

[Tobias]

Levels feel smaller than they used to for me.

Caverns are fun, once you have reliable mapping equipment. And annoying before then. So maybe there should be a minimum level for them. 20-30 i would say. Also they really seem a bit common, unless the annoyances from the other thread are fixed this is probably bad.

mazes I like, they are fun with my playstyle. I don't know if they starting out mapped, is depth dependent, but if they aren't it should be.

But I have no idea how the maze reacts to disconnected stairs, and i imagine they would be very annoying to an ironman player.

Maze or labyrinth vaults sound like fun, but don't labyrinth vaults already exist?
... I checked 40 and 48 are almost but not really laborings, we really need a real labyrinth.
And maybe even a unmappable type of vault.

[Derakon]

It'd be hard to say what the frequency of the different level types should be without knowing what it currently is.

I'd say that cavern levels should probably wait until 750' or so. At that point the player might reasonably be expected to have the resources to either explore adequately (mapping) or at least to get off the level quickly (stair location).

Having labyrinths be their own vault type sounds reasonable to me. You could stick a small (2x2, 3x3) room in the middle of the labyrinth with a few items and guards in it.

[Timo Pietilä]

Thanks for the good feedback everyone.

I was excited to add (and play) new level types but I agree that they need significant tweaking, in terms of frequency and style.

I agree that more different types of dungeons is a good thing, but the old style dungeon should be the main one. It was not broken, so there is no reason to fix it.

Old style maybe 60% of time, rest of the types 40% of the time would be good I think.

[jens]

Having labyrinths be their own vault type sounds reasonable to me. You could stick a small (2x2, 3x3) room in the middle of the labyrinth with a few items and guards in it.

This suggestion I really like! Has a realistic fantasy dungeon flavor going for it ;-)

[Timo Pietilä]

It'd be hard to say what the frequency of the different level types should be without knowing what it currently is.

I'd say that cavern levels should probably wait until 750' or so. At that point the player might reasonably be expected to have the resources to either explore adequately (mapping) or at least to get off the level quickly (stair location).

I got my stair location at 1350' (warrior, rod). Could of course buy scrolls of stair door location earlier but those are usually not worth the slot. Much more important is the ability to detect traps. OTOH I didn't find caverns that much more dangerous than ordinary dungeon ("cavern" is the dungeon type without decent rooms, right?)

[Derakon]

Yeah, caverns are the more "organic" dungeon types. And you can buy scrolls of door/stair location, just like you can buy scrolls of trap location if the game's being horribly stingy with the rods of same.

The main thing about caverns is that it can be difficult to control line-of-sight and avoid getting surrounded. This is especially true if your exploration is slower than usual (due to lack of knowledge of where the walls are) since it gives more time for monsters to wake up. Cavern levels are an excellent argument for carrying a source of magic mapping with you.

One thing I forgot earlier: the pack AI is horribly, horribly annoying in labyrinths. Effective, but annoying. It just continually kites you across the entire dungeon, always skirting the edge of LOS, getting a few breaths off, and then hiding. Neat from an emergent-behavior perspective, but very annoying to play against.

[kaypy]

I find the labyrinths especially to be annoyingly small. It just doesn't feel like Angband- rather that I've wandered into nethack or something...

I wonder if it would work better with a sparser labyrinth. Something like:

Start with the current labyrinth

 | | | | |
-#########
 #   #<  #
-# # # ###
 # #   # #
-##### # #
 # #    >#
-# #+# ###
 #   #   #
-#########

Expand the grid size from 2 to 3-5 (random on a per row/column basis to add irregularity)

 |   |    |   |  |
-#################
 #################
 #################
 #     ####<    ##
-# ### #### ######
 # ### #### ######
 # ### #### ######
 # ### #### ######
 # ###      ### ##
-########## ### ##
 ########## ### ##
 ########## ### ##
 # ###         >##
-# ###+#### ######
 # ### #### ######
 # ### #### ######
 # ### #### ######
 #     ####     ##
-#################

Randomise the position and width of the passages within the grid

 |   |    |   |  |
-#################
 #################
 ##    #####<    #
 ##    ##### #####
-## ## ##### #####
 ## ## ##### #####
 ## ##       #####
 ## ######## #####
 ########### ## ##
-########### ## ##
 ######        >##
 ### ##  ### #####
 ### ##  ### #####
-### ##++### #####
 ### ##  ### #####
 ### ##  ### #####
 ###     ###    ##
 ###########    ##
-#################