Halls of Mist is coming soon

[Mikko Lehtinen]

You keep claiming, your game is too hard, well, ok, probably so.
Replace word 'win' in all my post into something like 'dive to level 5' or whatever your 'not too hard for the newbie' goal is. So, it is still good, then the same goal can be achived in 5 min by good player and in 5 days by newbie.

I want the newbie to die a couple of times before he learns to play well enough to survive to level 5.

It's okay to spend lots of time when playing the game. I do, actually, and it helps me survive deeper. But I spend that time thinking over tactical choices, not doing some boring stuff again and again.

For example, I removed gold digging because I found it boring. IMO gold digging can be compared to farming. Do you think that gold digging should stay in the game so that newbies could gain some advantage by boring play?

EDIT: Since my goal is to have as many near-death experiences as possible in a given time, slowing down the game with farming or gold digging would be bad. It's very possible that you want some other things from roguelikes than me...?

EDIT 2: I don't really want to persuade you that I'm right and you're wrong. Sorry if that's how you feel! This discussion has helped me clarify for myself what I want from roguelikes and why I've made certain design choices with Halls of Mist. And maybe because of this discussion some potential players have figured out that Halls of Mist would suit their adrenaline seeking playing style -- or that they'd better look elsewhere for their enjoyment. Thanks for the discussion! There's no reason to continue unless you want to.

[getter77]

Just a thought: No reason to not further turn "a few" conventions on their head in terms of this whole "impossible to win" aspect via approaching it from a different vantage point.

So, the odds are high as things currently stand that the game is a rare win on account of the interaction of the various systems at play? OK, rather than changing the unique/flavourful systems, beyond unless something winds up actually broken upon the full on release, how about adding in multiple possible win conditions geared towards different challenges/approaches/playstyles etc? Circumstances being as they are it would be perhaps not uncommon for a win to elude a player based on how their luck goes mixed with outright skill, but then multiple, valid possibilities for a win beyond the one allows for their flexibility and adaptability attributes to have a chance to yet carry the day as opposed to having to restart or suicide and "lose" all those hours.

[Mikko Lehtinen]

So you can win with farming ? How long do you farm ?

I did not answer this one. I don't farm myself. I watched my friend farm summoners for two or three hours. After that the following five or so dungeon levels were too easy for him. I think the play experience suffered because of the farming possibility.

He did not win, of course. He might have, had he continued farming for a couple of days...

[Mikko Lehtinen]

OK, rather than changing the unique/flavourful systems, beyond unless something winds up actually broken upon the full on release, how about adding in multiple possible win conditions geared towards different challenges/approaches/playstyles etc? Circumstances being as they are it would be perhaps not uncommon for a win to elude a player based on how their luck goes mixed with outright skill, but then multiple, valid possibilities for a win beyond the one allows for their flexibility and adaptability attributes to have a chance to yet carry the day as opposed to having to restart or suicide and "lose" all those hours.

Very good ideas. You got me thinking.

The game currently has 48 levels. At some point I want to divide the dungeon into four 12-level areas with distinct flavour. It might be possible to treat the first dungeon level of every area as "checkpoints". For example, there could be three dungeon towns at levels 12, 24, and 36. If you manage to reach a dungeon town, perhaps your next character would be an already recognized hero that begins play from that dungeon town.

48 levels is a perhaps bit too hard a challenge, considering that you need to be both skilled and somewhat lucky on every dungeon level on the way. Having checkpoints might make the journey more fun.

Your next character would have all items that you left at home, and also all the points that you have collected so far.

That way the player could experience more character deaths during the "campaign", which is a very good thing considering my design goals... For the same reason I added Wounds in the latest FayAngband release: now you can "die" three times during a game, and experience more moments of horror!

I don't actually want the player to lose. I just want him to die.

[LostTemplar]

It's very possible that you want some other things from roguelikes than me...?

I think that I understand your goal. And what I want from roguelike is irrelevant, I have my own variant for this.

Since my goal is to have as many near-death experiences as possible in a given time, slowing down the game with farming or gold digging would be bad.

Meaning of near-death experiences is unclear for me, so I assume, that you like high risk play style.

Vanilla angband have extremely srong bias towards high risk playstyle, despite all possible scumming it have. For very simple reson: it is suboptimal to try to power up 'unlucky' character, it takes too much time and too much effort, better to let it die and restart, until your character will get some luck for the win.

When playing FAangband ironman with hard start, I had about 8 out of 10 characters killed by first monster I fought (why not, it takes few seconds to restart, and killing strong monster can instantly give many level ups).

While angband ironman have many scumming things, like farming black oozes, wich breed and have drop, it is never optimal play, and I never did something like this (why spend half an hour to slightly power up character, who will die on next level anyway).

So, from my angband experience I learned, that farming possibility does not lower value of high risk play style.

[Mikko Lehtinen]

I don't actually want the player to lose. I just want him to die.

A little clarification.

Angband can be thought of as a kind of strategy game with only one unit.

In other kinds of strategy games you can lose lots of battles but still manage to win the war. For this reason the battles can be designed to be genuinely challenging, with maybe a 50/50 winning chance. Your tactics really matter. In Angband you need to make battles so easy that a good player with a little luck will almost always win, or at least manage to escape with some lost resources.

In my opinion battles with 50/50 winning chance are the most fun. If the player has multiple lives, I can have these kind of battles much more often.

[Mikko Lehtinen]

Vanilla angband have extremely srong bias towards high risk playstyle, despite all possible scumming it have. For very simple reson: it is suboptimal to try to power up 'unlucky' character, it takes too much time and too much effort, better to let it die and restart, until your character will get some luck for the win.

I don't want to play like this. I want to try to win with every single character, and to use all the skill I have to keep the character alive. I almost never quit.

I understand where you are coming from, though. I've heard other players say the same. I would very much like to learn that kind of playing style so that I could genuinely enjoy playing Angband. And maybe some day I will!

Unfortunately, maybe because of my gaming history, altering my playing philosophy is really hard. In some ways it was easier to write my own variant...

[LostTemplar]

Yes, angband is cruel, you can improve your characters chance to win indefinitely, but it will cost you progressively high amount of time, attention, and is a hard work overall, and will not guarantee win anyway. So it is better to just rely on luck.

I think, this choice is most important strategical choice for an angband player "how much time and effort do you want to invest in this particular character ?"

[Mikko Lehtinen]

I think, this choice is most important strategical choice for an angband player "how much time and effort do you want to invest in this particular character ?"

Yes! I need to meditate with this mantra before I next try to play Angband.

To enjoy Halls of Mist the most, you need to adopt a different mantra. "Time spent playing does not matter; only winning does."

Well, at least the game was designed for players with this playing philosophy. Hopefully the game is at least somewhat compatible with the Angband philosophy, too.

I enjoy spending lots and lots of time on tactical considerations. I feel Mist is at most enjoyable when you limit your playing to two or three dungeon levels a day. For that long I can keep my attention purely on the game.

[LostTemplar]

I doubt this, It may turn out, that 'dive and die' style player will be first to win your game.

[Mikko Lehtinen]

I doubt this, It may turn out, that 'dive and die' style player will be first to win your game.

You are probably right.

But what really matters from my point of view, and maybe from the "roleplaying point of view", is this: "How many heroes were slain before the Thin White Duke was finally vanquished?" Time spent playing does not matter.

For as long as I can remember, even in my Moria days, my most enjoyable way to play has been this: create an "adventurers' guild" of ten different heroes. Your mission is to slay Morgoth, and these ten heroes are all you've got.

After all my ten heroes are all dead, I consider their achievements. What was my average DL? How well did I play?

Then I have a long period when I totally stop playing the game.

(Note that I too like to dive and die if the game gives appropriate rewards for risky play. In Mist, at least on theory, diving at first gives you better chances at winning. That's why I always dive too fast in Mist. Still, even as I risk their lives, I consider every one of my characters very important.)

[saarn]

on the same note re different kinds of winning, have you considered an achievement system? e.g. come near death three times and get the "brave soul" achievement, fight a horde of monsters on a table to earn the "bar room brawler" Possibly these give you some minor buff that goes away over time to encourage different kinds of play. You might also have recognition for level reached, monsters killed, levels cleared, etc.

[Mikko Lehtinen]

But what really matters from my point of view, and maybe from the "roleplaying point of view", is this: "How many heroes were slain before the Thin White Duke was finally vanquished?"

Hey, maybe this does come from my roleplaying background. This kind of playing philosophy would be perfectly functional in a gamist roleplaying game like D&D.

BTW, loading a saved game in a CRPG is about as unpleasant to me as treating your characters as disposable and pumping the RNG for good loot... I'm not saying either of these is bad behavior as such! I would have to learn to do these things to get enjoyment from certain types of games.

[LostTemplar]

as treating your characters as disposable

This may be a good point to start with, add dead character counter, then add payer score, that depends on summary acivements of all characters divided by this count.

[Mikko Lehtinen]

This may be a good point to start with, add dead character counter, then add payer score, that depends on summary acivements of all characters divided by this count.

Good idea. This "family honor" might even have game effects, like more gold for beginning characters.