New level generation

[Timo Pietilä]

Hello.

I'm a bit concerned to see that new level generation has not been discussed here. It is probably the biggest gameplay change there is between 3.2.0 and 3.whateverversiondevversionis. And it is broken as it is. Levels are too small.

If you don't get that fixed by 3.3 is due I suggest reverting it back to 3.2 status. Normal dev-version levels are just boring and small. Caverns are good, but they should be less common than they are now (no vaults in caverns, right?). A bit like destroyed levels were in old version. Maze-levels are pretty much "should I recall now, or should I find stairs to get some real level" -levels. IMO those should be gone.

[Magnate]

Hello.

I'm a bit concerned to see that new level generation has not been discussed here. It is probably the biggest gameplay change there is between 3.2.0 and 3.whateverversiondevversionis. And it is broken as it is. Levels are too small.

If you don't get that fixed by 3.3 is due I suggest reverting it back to 3.2 status. Normal dev-version levels are just boring and small. Caverns are good, but they should be less common than they are now (no vaults in caverns, right?). A bit like destroyed levels were in old version. Maze-levels are pretty much "should I recall now, or should I find stairs to get some real level" -levels. IMO those should be gone.

I think there's a fair degree of consensus that caverns are interesting but should be a bit less common and not appear until a bit deeper (dl25-30, maybe?). I don't think there is consensus that labyrinths (the "maze" levels) are broken per se, though they could become a type of GV within a larger level rather than a level type of their own (but not for 3.3, I think).

I don't agree that either should reverted to 3.2's behaviour, though I understand that d_m intends to adjust the level sizes and densities for 3.3.

Perhaps the fact that there isn't much discussion here means that most people playing nightlies are quite happy with the new levels?

[takkaria]

Hello.

I'm a bit concerned to see that new level generation has not been discussed here. It is probably the biggest gameplay change there is between 3.2.0 and 3.whateverversiondevversionis. And it is broken as it is. Levels are too small.

So just recently there's been some tweaks to dungeon generation, I believe to make the levels less sparse (they should be closer to 3.2 now). However, having variable-sized levels is a feature – before Ben, levels were variable in size and it was somewhere in the 2.7 series that Ben made them all maximum size. I'd appreciate it if you played the next nightly and see what you think, the dungeon tweaks will be in then.

[jens]

Perhaps the fact that there isn't much discussion here means that most people playing nightlies are quite happy with the new levels?

I mostly agree with Timo, I just have more pressing peeves to take care of first... Also I keep hearing that it's being adjusted, so I am waiting to see how it turns out ;-)

If I'm happy with levels after the next adjustment is in I believe I will still agree with Timo on labyrinth levels. They would make excelent GVs, but if they are the whole level, make them very rare indeed.

[Timo Pietilä]

I think there's a fair degree of consensus that caverns are interesting but should be a bit less common and not appear until a bit deeper (dl25-30, maybe?). I don't think there is consensus that labyrinths (the "maze" levels) are broken per se, though they could become a type of GV within a larger level rather than a level type of their own (but not for 3.3, I think).

I don't agree that either should reverted to 3.2's behaviour, though I understand that d_m intends to adjust the level sizes and densities for 3.3.

Perhaps the fact that there isn't much discussion here means that most people playing nightlies are quite happy with the new levels?

It is not the new level types which is the main problem it is the main normal levels which are way too small. d_m himself admitted that there are problems where you just do linear walk from room to room approx five rooms total compared to old behavior. Eddie also peeked in in one thread saying that small levels are boring: there just are less everything.

With those you don't need to reduce drops, because there are way way way way less room for exploration and people just abandon every level in seconds. Less tactical choices, less danger (or more danger depending where you land in new level), very very easy to avoid everything, because monsters can't track you down because they do not have routes to get to you.

This is very normal level layout miniaturized:

---room--------room-----------room
|
|
room
|
|---------room-----room.

If you get lucky there is one extra route between some of the rooms, very lucky and there are two.

Compared to complexity of old levels that's bad.

Another problem is that when you enter new level you very often end up in room with three or four packs/groups of monsters with at least one group in melee-distance. If you don't bail out immediately you are toast. Bailing out means that you might be toast anyway, unless you use *destruction*, mass-banishment, alter reality or level-teleport.

This simply isn't any better than old dungeon as it is. IMO old dungeon was feature that was not broken, so I don't understand why it was changed. I don't recall anybody saying that dungeon itself is somehow broken. There has been some indication that more dungeon types could be fine (which it is) but main dungeon has not been broken since Moria-times.

[andrewdoull]

This simply isn't any better than old dungeon as it is. IMO old dungeon was feature that was not broken, so I don't understand why it was changed. I don't recall anybody saying that dungeon itself is somehow broken. There has been some indication that more dungeon types could be fine (which it is) but main dungeon has not been broken since Moria-times.

The old dungeon generation code is very fragile, which is why it almost always gets changed as a part of adding new dungeon types. See NPPAngband, Unangband etc. I can't speak for the Angband code, but it's likely to be for the same reason.

[d_m]

Things are in progress but at this point I have the following changes/fixes to dungeon generation:

1. Fixed some random bugs that occasionally cropped up (and were caught by intensive use of main-stats)

2. Made labyrinth levels much more rare. At this point I would expect to see 1-2 per 100 levels. I am going to work on tweaking them further before 3.3. Lots of people don't like them so they may get axed, we'll see...

3. Caverns are a bit more rare now. I expect a bit less than 10% of dungeons to be caverns. I think I have tuned cavern density a bit better to prevent some of the smallest (and largest) caverns, which were either too boring or too annoying.

4. Normal levels are more like they used to be in terms of size and feel. Partly this was due to fixing a bug I introduced and partially just by retuning things a bit. There is still more variability in level size than there was in 3.1 but I think people will like it.

At this point I have been playing staging for a bit and it seems pretty stable. There are still some outstanding bugs (e.g. Timo's map view bug) which we're working on but at this point I feel like dungeon generation is pretty close to where it needs to be. Thus feedback on the (upcmoing) nightly would be great [1].

Thanks.

[1] There should be a nightly built in the next 30 minutes or so.

[takkaria]

The old dungeon generation code is very fragile, which is why it almost always gets changed as a part of adding new dungeon types. See NPPAngband, Unangband etc. I can't speak for the Angband code, but it's likely to be for the same reason.

I think some of the changes came about as a result of tightening up the code so it's more robust - for example, it's now guaranteed that all runs in a dungeon link up and there's no potential infinite loops left in the code anymore.

[Timo Pietilä]

So just recently there's been some tweaks to dungeon generation, I believe to make the levels less sparse (they should be closer to 3.2 now). However, having variable-sized levels is a feature – before Ben, levels were variable in size and it was somewhere in the 2.7 series that Ben made them all maximum size. I'd appreciate it if you played the next nightly and see what you think, the dungeon tweaks will be in then.

Good to hear that this is actively being developed. However I have very little time to play for next four weeks (I'm on vacation away from computers). I'm home this weekend, but then gone. After I get back, I can imagine that there is mile high queue of jobs to do that nobody else could do, so I'm not sure when I can play again.

[jens]

There should be a nightly built in the next 30 minutes or so.

I guess there is for mac... But the windows version is still from June 11.

btw, in the June 11 version, the version stated was 3.2, I like the nice hashy nightlies version numbers, so I can see I actually have a new version...

[d_m]

I guess there is for mac... But the windows version is still from June 11.

btw, in the June 11 version, the version stated was 3.2, I like the nice hashy nightlies version numbers, so I can see I actually have a new version...

Yes, sorry.

Buildbot seems to have crashed, taking a look now.

[Chud]

I actually like the smaller levels -- one vote for them not being too small and boring, though variety is good too. I'd be happy to see levels range from the original size (or even bigger!) down to the small end of what's generated in more recent iterations, maybe with the average somewhere in between.

I don't dislike the labyrinth levels, but neither do I find them terribly exciting. I think the idea is sound, but needs some tweaking. They could be more interesting (and very much more difficult) if they were large enough to constitute a true maze and had all or mostly permanent walls. As is, it's not large enough that there's any real question about how to get from point A to point B after just looking at things for a minute, and if you don't like the path you can easily just dig a more direct one.

[Derakon]

Labyrinths would also be improved by the insertion of a few small rooms to break up the corridors. If you just hollowed out the maze in random locations after generating it, navigation would become easier because there'd be more than one way to get from point A to point B. Right now, fights in labyrinths tend to be isolated affairs, unless the monster can walk through walls.

[Nick]

Labyrinths would also be improved by the insertion of a few small rooms to break up the corridors. If you just hollowed out the maze in random locations after generating it, navigation would become easier because there'd be more than one way to get from point A to point B. Right now, fights in labyrinths tend to be isolated affairs, unless the monster can walk through walls.

I'd actually go for a kind of inversion of this - have the dungeon level split into two parts connected by a labyrinth, so you had to get through it to get down the stairs. Or teleport, I s'pose, this is not very well thought out. And I haven't even played V with the new levels, so I guess this comment is irrelevant. What else is new.

[d_m]

I don't dislike the labyrinth levels, but neither do I find them terribly exciting. I think the idea is sound, but needs some tweaking. They could be more interesting (and very much more difficult) if they were large enough to constitute a true maze and had all or mostly permanent walls. As is, it's not large enough that there's any real question about how to get from point A to point B after just looking at things for a minute, and if you don't like the path you can easily just dig a more direct one.

Timo and Eddie have argued passionately that permanent walls only belong in vaults and level borders. You can currently create labyrinths with permanent walls at greater depths, but I may remove this.

I agree that digging gets so easy that labyrinths become somewhat pointless with it. Maybe that's an argument against them, or against digging, or against something else.