Something between 2000' and 5000'

[fizzix]

5) Have only one down stairs per level. A randomly assigned monster on each level holds a unique "key" to thestairs. You have to unlock the downstairs entry by killing the monster, who drops the key as part of their treasure drop, and carrying the key to the stairs entryway.
Maybe that idea is too much for every level. Maybe one in ever 2-3 levels.

Just having 1 downstairs per level is sufficiently cumbersome to require exploration (without the key). If you don't think so, try it. I've thought about ideas that require you to kill a certain monster, or a certain % of monsters on a level before descending, but never hit on something that seemed reasonable. (I don't think your key idea is reasonable)

[Derakon]

You could always start the player in one corner of the level and the downstairs in the other corner. Then they'd know where to go to go down, but they'd still have to traverse at least half the level, or risk teleporting.

This is still just an artificial mechanism to discourage diving, though. I would much rather have a natural mechanism where players don't want to dive, because the depth at which they currently are represents the best risk/reward tradeoff available. One of the reasons why I like the idea of compressing levels is that it becomes much more feasible to do this; by having fewer levels, you increase the differences between those levels and make each new level achieved a significant milestone with a noticeable difference in monster danger and droppable loot. Players will still want to be "as deep as possible" but will have to take fewer stairs to reach that depth.

[Timo Pietilä]

Players will still want to be "as deep as possible" but will have to take fewer stairs to reach that depth.

That's divers point of view. I want to be at the depth with most fun, not as deep as possible. As deep as possible to me is probably 4900' when I'm at about 3000' checking if there is a vault or something other interesting in this level. Sometimes it is more like 5000' when I'm still having fun chasing orcs and killing annoying Greater Balrogs that get in the way of having fun.

[PowerDiver]

Hello.

I have read a few posts lately that just basically say that levels between 2500 and 4900 are not much different, and basic advice is to skip them..

The reasons that you skip levels are that your goal is to kill M and better stuff is deeper. The same reasoning to skip from 2500 to 4900 also applies to skipping from 50 to 2500. You should descend so long as you can survive the next level.

In a non-persistent dungeon, the only meaningful measure of exploration is the number of rooms seen. If you spend time exploring 10 rooms at DL50 and I spendthe same time exploring 5 rooms on each of DL50 through DL53, I am exploring twice as much as you are. Limiting access to the next level inhibits total exploration. It is not necessarily a bad idea, but if it is good it is good for reasons other than encouraging exploration.

I would not be surprised if I explore more rooms than most people. I just do it as efficiently as possible for finding the best loot, which ideally means clairvoyance below DL90.

If you want to impose your desire for level clearing on others, all that is needed is to compress the dungeon. The faster difficulty increases, the more time is required on a level to be ready for the next. Tables are so messy. A simple translation could be newDL = oldDL/2 or perhaps ewert would be happier with newDL = \sqrt{4 * oldDL}.

[Derakon]

That's divers point of view. I want to be at the depth with most fun, not as deep as possible. As deep as possible to me is probably 4900' when I'm at about 3000' checking if there is a vault or something other interesting in this level. Sometimes it is more like 5000' when I'm still having fun chasing orcs and killing annoying Greater Balrogs that get in the way of having fun.

My point is that, at least for me, the depth with the most fun is the depth with the best risk/reward ratio. Having to stealth around avoiding lots of powerful monsters and cherry-picking the ones I can actually kill is a lot more fun than being able to handle the vast majority of monsters I meet but getting nothing interesting for my efforts.

[nullfame]

I want to be at the depth with most fun, not as deep as possible.

Any ideas? Maybe something to do with landscape that makes diving thru those levels inconvenient and staying there interesting?

I guess I don't understand what you aren't enjoying about the game's current configuration. Aren't you having fun between 2500'-4900'? What about other people skipping it is detracting from your enjoyment?

[Netbrian]

I agree with Timo that the problem isn't that it's too easy to dive (thus, the solution isn't making stairs harder to find), but that too many of the levels are just boring -- I normally would prefer to play fairly slowly, but too often there's just nothing to do on the level other than run to the next staircase. More vaults, more pits, more (and better) floor items, new special rooms, etc, would all help. I'd also like to see the risk/reward ratio on some room types (zoos, graveyards, etc) balanced better so I have some incentive not to ignore them completely.

[AnonymousHero]

(Opening a can of wyrms, I know, but...)

One thing that causes tedium for me is the fact that the artifacts are limited; you know when you've found all the findable artifacts. If my current game is anything to judge by, you're basically going to have found most artifacts by dlvl 75. (Rings of Power and a few other high-end/high-rarity artifacts notwithstanding). That means that every single non-artifact armor is useless, all known flavors of rings (modulo Speed) are useless, etc. etc.

I think this contributes to the perceived scarcity of interesting items on levels.

[fizzix]

(Opening a can of wyrms, I know, but...)

One thing that causes tedium for me is the fact that the artifacts are limited; you know when you've found all the findable artifacts. If my current game is anything to judge by, you're basically going to have found most artifacts by dlvl 75. (Rings of Power and a few other high-end/high-rarity artifacts notwithstanding). That means that every single non-artifact armor is useless, all known flavors of rings (modulo Speed) are useless, etc. etc.

I think this contributes to the perceived scarcity of interesting items on levels.

there is an option to set randarts...

[PowerDiver]

I think this contributes to the perceived scarcity of interesting items on levels.

There are a limited number of usable items in a game. It does not matter how you redefine objects and artifacts, muck with drops, or anything else. I doubt that I find more than 150 objects I will reasonably care about wielding in a typical game. You cannot get something interesting from every unique and from every vault. There are too many of those, and you also probably get more than half of the items you wield from other sources.

The slower you go, the more you find early. That leaves fewer to find later. If you could manage to average 2 interesting items per DL [including all times you revisit a particular DL] or 3 if we extend interesting to include usable good weapons and precious consumables, I think you would run out before the end.

[AnonymousHero]

there is an option to set randarts...

Yeah, they're also limited... in some cases even to the same base item type as the standarts, i.e. you'll only ever find one randart "Star". Simply count the randarts you find and you'll figure it out pretty quickly.

And to answer PowerDiver (partially): E.g. ToME has basically unlimited potential for items; If you clear enough levels you can find quad-immunity armor(*). If you find enough rings you'll find a +15 attacks ring (but that'll never actually happen unless you're obscenely lucky). It's not that it happens often, but it's the fact that it's open-ended that makes further exploration interesting. That satisfies the "explorer" players, but if you just want to win you can still do it with "standard" equipment/skills.

Disclaimer: I've only played a few games of Vanilla, but I've player lots of games of various variants. My observations are basically based on playing Vanilla lately and comparing it to my various variant experiences.

(*) - some modules have the (very theoretical) potential for quintuple-immunity armor.

[Pete Mack]

If you want artifacts like ToME has, play ToME. Vanilla is more bare-boned, and I don't think that should change. I agree with Eddie: don't expect to find a huge number of interesting items in a single game. If you are able to find too many, then the game must be unbalanced. (As you say, you will end up with quadruple-immunity armor and a ring of attacks +15; it's not a good thing.)

[Nick]

Maybe 20 levels are too many, and we need to compress to just one level. But then it's too hard, so start everyone with Ringil and Feanor and PDSM.

[PowerDiver]

Maybe 20 levels are too many, and we need to compress to just one level. But then it's too hard, so start everyone with Ringil and Feanor and PDSM.

I sense a comp in the making.

[Derakon]

I'm actually contemplating downloading the source and trying out a compressed-to-20-levels hackjob patch, just to see how it plays. I'm on vacation, so theoretically I have the time for silly little projects. And I did bring my extended keyboard with me...