Making the game harder, take two

[Fendell Orcbane]

I think one of the reasons that V is so "easy" is due to the advice that people give and the ideas that are exchanged. I know for myself I never would have been able to win so soon if I didn't have spoilers and this forum. Don't kid yourselves V is very hard. I think that if people were forced to play espless ironman style then the game would be almost impossible to win. But having said that I still think that people would share ways to get around even that.

[Timo Pietilä]

Well, that's not my recollection, but we are talking about twenty years ago.That marks you out as pretty unusual. Fighting them was indeed thrilling, but in twenty years I've never heard anyone describe an offscreen instadeath as anything other than "unfair"

Thing is that it feels unfair at that moment. It does however make game feel more dangerous which is a good thing.

But OTOH you are now talking about "unfair" instant death from source you have no knowledge about. That is a bit different thing than just having source of instant death. There are quite a few of those in modern angband too, if you just leave some resistances out. Problem is that high-level character is in no danger with good enough gear against anything. There is no feel of danger. You need to have something you can't handle in the game. Something that causes fear and panic when you meet it. Like big pack of time hounds that don't act stupidly like they do now.

Getting killed every now and then is refreshing. Problem is that in current vanilla you don't die unless you want to. Avoiding death doesn't require much skill, only basic knowledge of what's out there, patience and lack of greed.

[Magnate]

Frog-knows is a quite a different game than current vanilla. It is much harder and darker game. There have been quite a lot of talk about some of the features that frog-knows had that should be reverted back in modern vanilla, one major thing is limiting detection.

I would really like if someone made frog-knows with modern angband UI. I could try to do semi-frog-knows with just edit-file changes, but to get it right you need to change gameplay quite a bit. For example acid-brand didn't exist and elec-brand was x5 brand and you couldn't look at anything outside of you LoS (including ESP-detected things). I think there were also basic element stat-reductions, but that might have been Moria or some other roguelike.

I'm hoping that current vanilla code gets to some stable state where editing things get easy, so that I can make that variant myself. Call it ancient angband or AAngband.

That must be the tenth time I've read an almost identical post. No acid brand, x5 elec brand, limited detection, etc. etc. If I make this variant for you, will you promise to stop repeating yourself? Just send me a list of changes and I'll do it over xmas.

[Magnate]

In the most popular games of the day, nobody talked about winning. Just surviving, getting a high score and holding on for as long as possible was the goal.

Well, that's not my recollection, but we are talking about twenty years ago.

Fighting an AMHD in the RAK verison of moria was thrilling. I even worked out a way to safely clone and farm them, without them ever getting an attack.

That marks you out as pretty unusual. Fighting them was indeed thrilling, but in twenty years I've never heard anyone describe an offscreen instadeath as anything other than "unfair" ... until this recent discussion, with the comfortable separation of years, about how jolly exciting it all was. Let's not forget that people played Moria slavishly because there was ... no Angband, no Crawl, no ADoM, no Powder etc. etc. - it was Moria or Hack. In fact I wouldn't mind betting there was someone on rgrm in those days who said "What's all this with Defenders and Holy Avengers? Rogue was a much darker and harder game, we should all play that."

All great improvements. Who is contesting that?

They all make the game easier. That is being contested.

I remember stating that Angband is currently a powerdiviers paradise. I do apologize for anything that has been taken as an implication of a plot.

Ok. As long as people are happy to accept that the current situation is an accident, I'm fine with that. Conspiracy theories cannot coexist with accusations of a lack of strategy! The latter is true; the former is not.

I know as well as any developer out there how hard it is to introduce a feature and preserve the proper game balance. The current NPP 050 Beta-2 is fairly munchkinish due to overpowered quest rewards and randarts. You don't have to change a whole lot to throw off and greatly affect gameplay.

Right, and there are two ways to deal with this:

1. You work on a version with extremely limited circulation (i.e. yourself and one or two trusted testers), iterating for ages to rebalance so that nothing is too far out of whack when you release.

2. You work on a version with public nightly builds, getting yourself a potentially infinite tester base, but every single change gets picked apart and overanalysed instead of being treated the way it ought to be: as a single step in a long evolutionary process between releases.

@buzzkill: there is no strategy - please deal. If you want to write one, I'll happily give you some feedback on it. In the meantime, takkaria wants the development model described at #2 above - yes, that means that things are changed without extensive analysis because that's what nightlies are for. Yes, that means the balance after any change will be improved with yet more changes in future. That's the model we're following. (EDIT: I realise that the choice of development model is orthogonal to the existence of a strategy. There is a roadmap, which shows a bunch of different priorities that different devs want to achieve, but that's not a strategy. I don't think the absence of a strategy matters, but YMMV.)

I strongly recommend that anyone who is frustrated by the development model we're using stops playing nightlies.

P.S. The comment about being tempted to add achievements was a joke. Never mind.

[Timo Pietilä]

The thing is that you probably wouldn't have a modern UI if there weren't gameplay changes as well, because the gameplay changes are the exciting part to work on and that spurs on changes to the UI as well.

FWIW I really like the gameplay changes that have been made in the last couple of years.

Frog-knows is a quite a different game than current vanilla. It is much harder and darker game. There have been quite a lot of talk about some of the features that frog-knows had that should be reverted back in modern vanilla, one major thing is limiting detection.

I would really like if someone made frog-knows with modern angband UI. I could try to do semi-frog-knows with just edit-file changes, but to get it right you need to change gameplay quite a bit. For example acid-brand didn't exist and elec-brand was x5 brand and you couldn't look at anything outside of you LoS (including ESP-detected things). I think there were also basic element stat-reductions, but that might have been Moria or some other roguelike.

I'm hoping that current vanilla code gets to some stable state where editing things get easy, so that I can make that variant myself. Call it ancient angband or AAngband.

[TJS]

Not much to say, except that I would still play frog-knows if it had modern angband UI. You really miss macros and some other modern UI features if you try to play frog-knows.

The thing is that you probably wouldn't have a modern UI if there weren't gameplay changes as well, because the gameplay changes are the exciting part to work on and that spurs on changes to the UI as well.

FWIW I really like the gameplay changes that have been made in the last couple of years.

[Timo Pietilä]

While Timo and Jeff continue their love affair with the good ol' days of frog-knows (which, as I keep saying, is still available for people who want to play it)

Not much to say, except that I would still play frog-knows if it had modern angband UI. You really miss macros and some other modern UI features if you try to play frog-knows.

[ewert]

OMG the protestant advancement-through-suffering attitude, for ... the ... lose. =P

Sorry, just tried to boil my sentiment (as in opinion) to buzzkill's opinion to a very short comment. =P

IMHO if Vanilla can be said to have any duty whatsoever, it is to be a good core game. Not much frills or whistles, but streamlined and good, yet tough and dangerous if improperly approached, gameplay. It's getting to be very very good indeed. Once the core is awesomesauce, most likely result is that now with git, you will start seeing more and more "minivariants". Versions, where just some stuff is extra or changed. That will then give more progress to the core Vanilla, when good changes are found in these minivariants.

As a side note, an unlimited amount of the "stockable" items for sale in shops, with a buy/sell price fluctuation, and a max cap price (so if you really want 99 ?PhaseDoor at 10k a pop, go ahead ), I think that could work. So I'll revert my earlier position on price based availability (as long as the price curve isn't as nutsy as it was in the first example about it ...).

[nppangband]

Now THAT was perfectly said.

It was well said, but games like that were the exception rather than the rule. Ultima was another good example. But fantasy gaming was a niche market, not mainstream. In the most popular games of the day, nobody talked about winning. Just surviving, getting a high score and holding on for as long as possible was the goal.

While Timo and Jeff continue their love affair with the good ol' days of frog-knows (which, as I keep saying, is still available for people who want to play it), I'd like to point out that Moria's AMHD instadeaths were infamous for the frustration and unhappiness that they caused.

Fighting an AMHD in the RAK verison of moria was thrilling. I even worked out a way to safely clone and farm them, without them ever getting an attack.

I think there is a serious case of retrospectoscopy going on here: the last 20 years of developments in angband have had various drivers, two of which were to make the game *fairer* and *less tedious*. So you can now 'I'nspect items instead of having to write their properties down (see the Comp95 thread), and you can do all sorts of other things which essentially just automate note-taking. And you don't, in general, get unavoidable instakills - you even have a turn to escape if you come down into a room full of time hounds.

All great improvements. Who is contesting that?

While I continue to accept that the game has become easier as a result of these changes, I continue to resent very strongly the continued implication in all these posts (which I don't think I am inventing, since Jeff has stated it explicitly in a previous thread) that this is the result of some grand pro-diver strategy (which would be ironic, given the recent criticisms of a lack of strategic direction).

I remember stating that Angband is currently a powerdiviers paradise. I do apologize for anything that has been taken as an implication of a plot. I have never accused anyone of being behind the changes. I simply have no idea what is going on in current Angbnd development, or who is making what specific changes. I have my hands full trying to include all of the great improvements from recent Angband versions into NPP, and get it back up to speed. I occasionally chime in and offer suggestions, because I have been trying to address those same problems in NPP for years.

Angband is still a fairly tough game. The fact that it is winnable is not a problem (I have noticed a few people winning NPP too).

Exactly why I would never critisize Angband development. Look at the NPP forums and you will see my 7 year long comedy of errors on my part trying to get things balanced the way I want them. I know as well as any developer out there how hard it is to introduce a feature and preserve the proper game balance. The current NPP 050 Beta-2 is fairly munchkinish due to overpowered quest rewards and randarts. You don't have to change a whole lot to throw off and greatly affect gameplay.

[buzzkill]

RANT warning. Then I probably shut up about this for a while. Not meant to single out any one person, and probably a but harsher (for emphasis) that actually intended so take it with a grain of salt.

Now THAT was perfectly said.

While Timo and Jeff continue their love affair with the good ol' days of frog-knows (which, as I keep saying, is still available for people who want to play it), I'd like to point out that Moria's AMHD instadeaths were infamous for the frustration and unhappiness that they caused.

.. and yet people still played. You seem to give no credence to the benefit of such instances. The suspense and element of danger they added.

I think there is a serious case of retrospectoscopy going on here: the last 20 years of developments in Angband have had various drivers, two of which were to make the game *fairer* and *less tedious*. So you can now 'I'nspect items instead of having to write their properties down (see the Comp95 thread), and you can do all sorts of other things which essentially just automate note-taking. And you don't, in general, get unavoidable instakills - you even have a turn to escape if you come down into a room full of time hounds.

There's a difference between things that make the game less tedious, and that make the game inherently easier (fairer is you prefer). A "pack full of time hounds" and similar circumstances are rare occurrences. In order to remedy this rare occurrence a throughly exploitable solution was implemented, one that not only handles that situation but also grants a similar benefit upon every staircase, whether needed or not. IT'S PURE OVERKILL (a government agency couldn't have handled it any better).

While I continue to accept that the game has become easier as a result of these changes, I continue to resent very strongly the continued implication in all these posts (which I don't think I am inventing, since Jeff has stated it explicitly in a previous thread) that this is the result of some grand pro-diver strategy (which would be ironic, given the recent criticisms of a lack of strategic direction).

I don't feel that it's any type of grand conspiracy. It just knee-jerk changes being made without giving much thought to (or caring about) the long term consequences of their implementation (apparently paired with the notion that any ill-effects of said changes will be dealt with later... with more changes).

Yes, a number of improvements have been suggested by people who have played the game a lot and whose play style is fast - but that doesn't mean there is any overall goal to support that style of play (tempted though I am to introduce "achievements" to Angband). Recent discussions and efforts have been focused on redressing this balance (by going forward rather than backward - see fizzix's post about changes to TO and *dest*).

Angband doesn't need achievements. This is the type of thing that gets me on my change for the sake of change horse. That said, as long as it it purely a stat gathering tool, and doesn't change the game, I've no real objection to it (though certain achievements could influence play style). Just wondering why achievements would pop up on the radar, change for the sake of change or trying to compete with newer games and trophies??? Both bad IMO.

Angband is still a fairly tough game. The fact that it is winnable is not a problem (I have noticed a few people winning NPP too). Some play to win, others play for fun - it's nobody else's job to dictate which they should do. We cannot please all the people all the time, but in general most people seem fairly happy with the game. Even Timo likes the recent changes to pits and vaults.

Maybe it's just me. I'm a purist, maybe. IMO... (for starters, V shouldn't be comparing itself to variants, apples and oranges)...
Angband has a legacy. Vanilla, above all variants has a DUTY to maintain itself in a manner which honors and respects it's heritage. Winning IMO should be a abnormality even for experienced players. Novice's shouldn't have a chance. The RNG should chew them up and spit them out. It sounds harsh, but that's the nature of the beast. At some point Angband ceased being maintained not as a game that was content as it is, and started to be maintained a game that looked in the mirror and didn't like what it saw. Death and cruelty everywhere. Now it wants to be loved by everyone. The problem with that is that it's players already did love it. It's the only reason it survives. As you gain more fair-weather fans, you lose the hard core base. Robbing Peter to pay Paul. The elimination of ID and sticky curses, as popular as they seem to be, just don't scream Vanilla to me. Maybe V+Angband would be a more apt title.

[buzzkill]

Increasing price is an interesting idea, but orthogonal to the stocking issue.

The question I'm interested in isn't how much X costs, but rather whether X is available, and in what quantity?

The second question is irrevelent (IMO). You can stock every item in the dungeon (within reason) in unlimited quantities. It won't matter.

If X if unaffordable then X IS unavailable. If X is expensive, that DOES limit the quantity. Beyond that it's accomplished intelligently, so to speak (and would probably be really easy to code). The items which are being most often purchased (exploited through buying) are the ones that will be rationed (by price). Beyond that, it would be difficult if not impossible to exploit the system and it organically tailors itself to each individual players style, a perk that no other system offers.

[Dean Anderson]

Another way to do this would be to tie restocks to experience gained, not turns. That way, when you come up after a session in the dungeon, the XP delta determines the likelihood that items have turned over and/or new ones have arrived.

This means you can get random stuff appearing in the shops, but can't just rest on dungeon level 1 to see it. It also means that if you play faster shops restock faster. And finally you could remove the "restock on buyout" mechanic so that the only way to get the black market to turn over items is to actually play the game.

The drawback is that from a "realism" perspective it makes no sense. Unlike fighting with a two-handed sword in one hand while wielding a shield, a torch, and a crossbow, I guess.

I really like that, and actually, I don't think it's a realism problem at all.

I reckon restocking twice per level (when the new level is reached and when you get half way to the next level) is probably a reasonable frequency to test...

[Magnate]

Non-arcade games have carried the expectation of being beatable since at least 1980 - see Ultima(1980), Bards Tale(1985), Wizardry(1981), Might & Magic(1986), and the other 1980s fantasy games. That list is just off the top of my head, btw.

All of these predate Angband (1990), though not the Rouge-like genre.

Angband has always been competing against games where completion is expected.

Now THAT was perfectly said.

While Timo and Jeff continue their love affair with the good ol' days of frog-knows (which, as I keep saying, is still available for people who want to play it), I'd like to point out that Moria's AMHD instadeaths were infamous for the frustration and unhappiness that they caused. I think there is a serious case of retrospectoscopy going on here: the last 20 years of developments in angband have had various drivers, two of which were to make the game *fairer* and *less tedious*. So you can now 'I'nspect items instead of having to write their properties down (see the Comp95 thread), and you can do all sorts of other things which essentially just automate note-taking. And you don't, in general, get unavoidable instakills - you even have a turn to escape if you come down into a room full of time hounds.

While I continue to accept that the game has become easier as a result of these changes, I continue to resent very strongly the continued implication in all these posts (which I don't think I am inventing, since Jeff has stated it explicitly in a previous thread) that this is the result of some grand pro-diver strategy (which would be ironic, given the recent criticisms of a lack of strategic direction).

Yes, a number of improvements have been suggested by people who have played the game a lot and whose play style is fast - but that doesn't mean there is any overall goal to support that style of play (tempted though I am to introduce "achievements" to Angband). Recent discussions and efforts have been focused on redressing this balance (by going forwards rather than backwards - see fizzix's post about changes to TO and *dest*).

Angband is still a fairly tough game. The fact that it is winnable is not a problem (I have noticed a few people winning NPP too). Some play to win, others play for fun - it's nobody else's job to dictate which they should do. We cannot please all the people all the time, but in general most people seem fairly happy with the game. Even Timo likes the recent changes to pits and vaults.

[d_m]

Increasing price is an interesting idea, but orthogonal to the stocking issue.

The question I'm interested in isn't how much X costs, but rather whether X is available, and in what quantity? Fixed inventory, no restocking, or XP-based restocking change this from the current approach (turn-based restocking), in the first two cases by removing restocking entirely and in the third case by making waiting for restocks impossible.

Incrementing the price based on buying history is compatible with all of these approaches but doesn't accomplish the same thing.

[buzzkill]

If we wanted to stop people from constantly scumming for the same items, a good way to do it might be a simple supply-and-demand price variation, as follows:

...We could add an option for items to keep their values from the previous game if we like, so if your previous character relied on particular items too heavily, your next character may have to change strategy and use other more affordable items instead.

I've been barking up that tree for a while now.