Making the game harder, take two
Collapse
X
-
Indeed - I think this is where we agree. I'm ok with removing things if it's a step forward. In general, I'd rather not remove things which are a step backward (revert) - but there are obvious exceptions like Haradrim being overpowered."Been away so long I hardly knew the place, gee it's good to be back home" - The BeatlesComment
-
Okay.
I've made a quick variant with non-restocking shops, and played it for an hour (the code changes really were trivial - just commenting out the call to "store_maint" in dungeon.c).
Now obviously this isn't long enough to grasp all the subtleties, but it's enough for first impressions.
And here they are...
1) This hits warriors a lot harder than spellcasters, since a spellcaster can buy one book and keep casting light or detect doors/stairs whereas a warrior very quickly runs out of scrolls.
2) In the early game, it really hits you in the wallet. At low levels you're normally picking up scrolls and potions at 50'-100' and bringing them back to town to sell so that you can afford decent non-magical armour and stuff. However, without restocking, the temple and alchemist very quickly run out of space and you're stuck unable to sell any more.
3) Food and torches are surprisingly unaffected, since there's plenty of both to be found in the dungeon.
Now obviously this can all be tweaked, but it brings us back to the $64,000 questions:
What exactly is the proposed change intended to achieve, other than a nebulous "make things harder"?
Which classes is it intended to hit?
And at what part of the game?
I must admit when I play a warrior I never buy scrolls of light or detect stairs, I find I just don't need them for the early levels and later on I've normally got the phial/rods of illumination for light and rods of detect stairs.
The idea as I see it is to make the resources like ?phase and !CCW more valuable and something you'd have to use sparingly rather than an endless resource you can spam in any situation. I find in games that once I've got the initial kit started off with rBase, SI and free action and enough money to buy the consumables then the game becomes a lot easier from then on.
Practically all the close calls I have when playing happen in the first 20 character levels.Comment
-
If anyone's interested I have a test version up on git that has modified destruction and Teleport other. https://github.com/fizzix/angband
Monsters can now save versus destruction. Saving either teleports them away or pushes them back just outside the destruction zone.
Teleport other is a bolt.
I can't promise that it's not buggy, but it seems to work properly.Comment
-
www.mediafire.com/buzzkill - Get your 32x32 tiles here. UT32 now compatible Ironband and Quickband 9/6/2012.
My banding life on Buzzkill's ladder.Comment
-
It is still real, difference between "old-school" playing and diving is that divers lose a lot of chars, but because they play so much faster they eventually get winners. It is a great way of learning the game, but it causes you to lose a lot more than with slower playing. It is a change in thinking what is important.
Slower pace still produces more winners/game than diving.One Ring to rule them all. One Ring to bind them.
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness interrupt the movie.Comment
-
With all this talk of removing shop restocking to prevent town-scumming, it's worth remembering that - especially for new players - going into the shops to see what new things there are to buy with your freshly gained treasure is fun.
If the shops don't restock, that fun element is removed from the game.
Personally, if non-restocking shops were implemented I'd want to see it as either a variant or - if it's going in V - as an "ironman" option. So people who want the game harder can switch it on, but new players (who don't need the game made harder) will have it left off by default.
One thing imo that maybe needed to make the game harder is to reduce the number of weapons generated. We are literally swimming in ego weapons by the time we reach the last quarter of the game. One way to do this might be (i think i might have mentioned this before) to limit the number of Foo weapon of Bar generated ever like artifacts, so only one (???) dagger of frost is ever generated. That way things remain interesting as you know you are never to see a weapon of this sort again and you have to decide whether to use it or junk it. Maybe even this could be an option
Comment
-
Exactly. It's all in your head. Slow play produces more winners per game, but diving produces more winners per hour spent playing the game. Measuring things in winners per game is fallacious when the perception of reduced difficulty comes from a reduced mean real world time before winning for new players.
As you said it is in your head, that means that without change in thinking the "punishment" is still there. Game has changed from playing-driven to goal-driven. In old days YASD emphasis was on "S". Any death was stupid. You didn't want to be stupid, so you played more carefully and slower. I still think diving playstyle is just stupid, because it involves risks I never encounter, and ignoring the losses of the precious chars.
OTOH, diving has become easier. There has been several changes in monster distribution making diving easier, more "drop good" and "drop excellent" monsters introduced and also a lot more very powerul items has been introduced, so that getting that necessary gear to win fast has become easier. I still play slow, exploration-style, but my turncount is now less than half of what it was in 2.8.3. More like 1/3 of what it was back then. You get about 1M turn winners without diving.
IMO winning has become too easy, playing less important. There was for a long long time first real effort on making actual playing more interesting in latest nightlies which introduced more interesting pits, vaults and special rooms. That actually affected playing, and not goal. We need more of those changes. Winning is less important, if winning were all that there is, then I would have abandoned this game a long long time ago. Stop thinking about goal, start to think about game.Comment
-
I agree with this. What I don't understand is the need to deprive others of the shopping experience. If a person wants a harder game simply don't shop! Leave the shops as they are and don't use them. Or are they so addictive that if they remain in the game you HAVE to shop? I think the scenario is the same as self imposed egoless/bookless/artifactless games that I have read on this forum. Next people will be saying let us make the game harder by removing all magic books/artifacts/ego items etc. This change to the shops can it be handled by the veterans by simply not shopping? Keep in mind that new players are facilitated by shops more than veterans and we as a community want to attract new players. Maybe put it as an option? (Takk might be against that )
I imagine it would make the game easier at the start a bit more difficult at the end, whilst making the whole game a bit more interesting. Although it's probably quite hard to know without testing it out for a while.Comment
-
IMO winning has become too easy, playing less important. There was for a long long time first real effort on making actual playing more interesting in latest nightlies which introduced more interesting pits, vaults and special rooms. That actually affected playing, and not goal. We need more of those changes. Winning is less important, if winning were all that there is, then I would have abandoned this game a long long time ago. Stop thinking about goal, start to think about game.
That's perfectly said. I think the most fun I ever had with roguelikes was back in Moria on a Vax in the late '80s. AMHD poison breath was instadeath. Medusas could stone you for instadeath as well. So we just played. Winning was a minor miracle. But that's how video games were back then. You put your quarter in the slot, and you tried to survive for as long as possible....usually just a couple minutes. And in Moria if we survived for 10 or 15 hours, it was a great run.
But video games are different today....first people beat the campaign, then they beat it again on veteran diffuculty for that extra 100 achievement points. Then they play the final level again to get an achievement for beating the final boss with only a pistol headshot. Then people get into a party with several friends so they can take turns getting the "kill 5 people with one grenade" and thier "get 50 kills while rapeling down a wall" achievement, and then they trade the game in and get another one. But people ask each other "how long did it take you to beat the game?", not "could you beat the game?". Is that what Angband is competing with?NPPAngband current home page: http://nppangband.bitshepherd.net/
Source code repository:
https://github.com/nppangband/NPPAngband_QT
Downloads:
https://app.box.com/s/1x7k65ghsmc31usmj329pb8415n1ux57Comment
-
But video games are different today....first people beat the campaign, then they beat it again on veteran diffuculty for that extra 100 achievement points. Then they play the final level again to get an achievement for beating the final boss with only a pistol headshot. Then people get into a party with several friends so they can take turns getting the "kill 5 people with one grenade" and thier "get 50 kills while rapeling down a wall" achievement, and then they trade the game in and get another one. But people ask each other "how long did it take you to beat the game?", not "could you beat the game?". Is that what Angband is competing with?
All of these predate Angband (1990), though not the Rouge-like genre.
Angband has always been competing against games where completion is expected.Comment
-
I think the shops become pointless if they don't have a random factor and the occasional good or great item.
Where's the nice surprise when you come into the shop and see that they've got a useful ego item that you can buy?
Where's the wail of anguish when you come into the shop and see that they've got a lovely ego item that you can't afford?
Where's the decision about whether to buy something now even though you can barely afford it and don't need it because you don't know whether there will be one later when you will have the need for it?
I think we need to keep the shops interesting and useful. If repeatedly scumming for the same few items makes the game too easy for you (that's the generic 'you', not you personally) then don't do it. Or make "shops don't refresh stock" an extra ironman option. But we shouldn't be throwing the baby out with the bathwater and taking all the interest out of the shops to just prevent scumming.Comment
-
Thinking about this...
It seems that the reason people want to change the shops is to make repeatedly scumming for the same items over and over again more difficult.
But trying to do that by stopping the shops from restocking seems to be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
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:
At the start of the game, all items are reset to their standard values.
Every time the player sells a particular item, its value goes down.
Every time the player buys a particular item, its value goes up.
That way, if you're constantly scumming for scrolls of phase door or potions of cure light wounds, or any other specific item, the prices are going to go up and up and up for each one you buy.
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.Comment
-
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.Comment
-
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.www.mediafire.com/buzzkill - Get your 32x32 tiles here. UT32 now compatible Ironband and Quickband 9/6/2012.
My banding life on Buzzkill's ladder.Comment
Comment