|
Johnny Joestar posted:monolith is one of those games where i'd much rather leave all the weapons on and just have fun with the differences, because it's tough but it's also not horseshit and the variety is nice. the +damage to enemy type mods are definitely something that can be safely turned off, imo, though. (the other one that procs on shot is okay i guess)
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 03:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 06:28 |
|
|
Johnny Joestar posted:monolith is one of those games where i'd much rather leave all the weapons on and just have fun with the differences, because it's tough but it's also not horseshit and the variety is nice. the +damage to enemy type mods are definitely something that can be safely turned off, imo, though. constructs and machines being 2 separate enemy types feels kinda pointless to me. I would like it more if enemy types were just like... ghost, machine, mage, that would make more sense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 03:11
|
|
|
Perpetual Hiatus posted:I'd just quickly like to plug Night Of The Full Moon (phone based deckbuilder gamelite) and thank the people talking about it a hundred pages back. I have been going back to Night of the Full Moon off and on since it was first talked about in the thread, until I eventually beat it on every difficulty with every class and won the dlc once with every starting deck. I think the whole thing cost me less than $10 and I played at least 70 hours. I never anticipated I would get that much fun out of a poorly translated phone game from China, but surprise!
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 03:15
|
|
|
idk i lost like 15 hp in a single temple room the other day due to thunderhead not dealing area damage to blocks, which made it take a long time to individually shoot through the blocks i needed to destroy to get at the imps who were dropping explosions w/ bullets (loop 1) right on top of me in a narrow area a lot of the new rooms are pretty bullshit tbh lets hang out fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Jan 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 03:19
|
|
|
cock hero flux posted:Ideally, you keep a game interesting by adding things to it that will keep people coming back to see what's new. DCSS is the only game I can think of where the devs typically remove more content than they add. As I posted earlier, I'm baffled that this criticism keeps consistently being made over the past decade? Are people really considering Bolt of X, Bolt of Y, Z Bolt, and Bolt of N to be four separate, unique, exciting and interesting spells that they're upset that all of these got removed and replaced with spells that are actually mechanically distinct from each other beyond the type of elemental damage applied to monsters' hit points? Saying "Oh well they're untargetable" seems to be missing the point entirely, given that Crawl is a game about positioning, spells that require you to consider your environments and your positioning directly tie into the core gameplay! I've been playing since pre-Stone Soup in 2005-2006 and modern Crawl is completely different from what it was back then, and barely recognizable to what it was in even the 0.4, 0.5 days. There's a colossal amount of new content. There are new monsters, new uniques, new spells, new gods, new classes, new races, new artifacts, new branches, new vaults. Hell, new names, new flavor, new sprites! Loads and loads of them! And a huge majority of stuff that isn't new have been revamped to be made way more interesting than they were before. I can pull up a list of removed monsters and it's all full of really boring and unremarkable stuff like brown oozes, plain bears, and toads, while the new monsters are like, dream sheep, catoblepas, ushabti, raiju, and caustic shrikes. If what you're looking for is for Crawl to add that much content again on top of all the above stuff rather than what it's currently doing -- going through the enormous pile of stuff that's already in the game and going "How can we make this better?" -- then you're probably better off looking for another game that's still in its early-development phase and has a lot more room to put meat onto its scrawny skeletal beta-version bones. Caves of Qud was like this for a couple years (and has a new dungeon coming soon I believe), Cogmind was like this for a couple years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 03:27
|
|
|
IronicDongz posted:+damage to machines is good because machines are common, and in particular quite a few bosses are machines. I think the mech/construct typings work from a worldbuilding perspective, and the two types are visually distinct enough that you can always tell the difference. Constructs are part of The Facility's infrastructure, and the mechs are merely beings that inhabit it. Also, special shout out to Monolith's bestiary in general, I love how some of the mech descriptions are just quotations of their personal inner feelings, or how some of the ice mage bestiary pages are burnt up because the fire mages are lovely, or how there are just SO FEW enemies listed under the "creature" category. When I found the DLC's new high-money value "ancient tuna can" pick up, at first I thought, "ah ha! this must be so valuable because of the intact DNA, for research purposes" but then I realized that it's valuable because the local economy is centered completely around a giant merchant cat. Monolith's worldbuilding is the best.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 03:57
|
|
|
On the recommendation of the thread I bought Asura during the sale and I'm digging it. It's not the sort of game you sink a hundred hours into, but I think I'll get a good twenty out of it. It's challenging but fair. The randomized skill trees are definitely a winner for keeping runs feeling fresh and forcing me to try different abilities. It took me way too long to notice my armor disappearing from my inventory and a little longer still to figure out why.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 04:17
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:I can pull up a list of removed monsters and it's all full of really boring and unremarkable stuff like brown oozes, plain bears, and toads, while the new monsters are like, dream sheep, catoblepas, ushabti, raiju, and caustic shrikes. I can't believe you would blow up your own spot like this. Those birds are the absolute worst so much that I had to come post about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 04:21
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:If what you're looking for is for Crawl to add that much content again on top of all the above stuff rather than what it's currently doing -- going through the enormous pile of stuff that's already in the game and going "How can we make this better?" -- then you're probably better off looking for another game that's still in its early-development phase and has a lot more room to put meat onto its scrawny skeletal beta-version bones. Caves of Qud was like this for a couple years (and has a new dungeon coming soon I believe), Cogmind was like this for a couple years. quote:There is a fundamental divide here between people who want a game of tactical and strategic challenge, with a tightly designed and coherent system powering it, and who play for mastery; and people who are more about exploring the edge cases of this big open toy dungeon simulator. A system which is possible to master by circumventing the tactical and strategic layer is flawed by definition from the first perspective - the pursuit of mastery is pointless, because 'mastery' just involves learning a bunch of cheap exploits. On the other hand, the toy people always want 'more stuff' because that means more play space to explore, with more combinations and interactions to discover, and they don't really care as much about the relative value of those things within the system, or even whether that system is coherently and purposefully designed at all. The Silver Snail posted:I think the mech/construct typings work from a worldbuilding perspective, and the two types are visually distinct enough that you can always tell the difference. Constructs are part of The Facility's infrastructure, and the mechs are merely beings that inhabit it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 05:04
|
|
|
You can also, you know, have a tool-based approach to problem solving that's still deep enough for mastering it to be a worthwhile challenge. That entire paragraph has some really loaded assumptions. Another thing to consider is that if the most basic, core gameplay in your game just isn't that interesting or deep, even a limited knowledge/toolbox layer is still better than nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 05:07
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:If what you're looking for is for Crawl to add that much content again on top of all the above stuff rather than what it's currently doing -- going through the enormous pile of stuff that's already in the game and going "How can we make this better?" -- then you're probably better off looking for another game that's still in its early-development phase and has a lot more room to put meat onto its scrawny skeletal beta-version bones. Caves of Qud was like this for a couple years (and has a new dungeon coming soon I believe), Cogmind was like this for a couple years. I'm looking for Crawl to add the stuff that it's adding and not remove about 50% of the stuff that it's removing, because about 50% of the stuff that it's removing made the game better when it was in. also, if you go back to like .05 then yes they've added loads of stuff but that's mostly because they hadn't made this poo poo the entire focus of their development cycle yet and what I'm saying is not "oh well they're untargetable" what I'm saying is that they're the same spell that was removed, except that they're untargetable. Bolt spells also required positioning to get the most use out of them, these "new" spells are just the bolt spells again. They are the exact same spells, except that they're untargetable. That's it, they just made them more annoying to use. Nothing about the schools is actually differentiated, the spells are all the same and used in the same way, the only difference is that instead of trying to get the enemies to stand in a line you instead get them to clump up around you. So yeah, the bolt spells are boring, and in order to make them more interesting they made them untargetable and then changed the names. That's it. Then they also took most of the spells you could have used instead of them, and removed them. So now instead of having a couple of options for how you'd like to deal that kind of damage, with their own relative power levels, costs, ranges, and specific situations in which they would be the most useful, you have 1 option and it's finicky. They looked at a class of spells that was kind of dull and they decided that instead of dull, they should be irritating. And nobody is complaining about them getting rid of toads. It is very easy to bring up examples of poo poo that didn't really matter getting removed. I'm not going to shed a tear about toads being gone or about rations getting condensed to one type or anything like that, because they don't really matter. The game isn't measurably worse for the absence of generic toads. I am, however, going to about TSO not making angels friendly, and about pink chunks, and about LRD, and about Trog's book burning, and all the other little casualties of this way of doing things, because the game is absolutely worse for their absence and I see no benefit at all. Hell, I'm going to take this opportunity to bitch about Trog again real quick: it was a nice little bit of flavour and an important gameplay consideration. And you might ask "but isn't the QOL of not having to carry around 20 books worth more", and maybe it is, but they were never mutually exclusive. It would have taken only the slightest amount of effort on the devs part to put in the book change and keep Trog's book burning, but they didn't, they demonstrably do not care about that sort of thing. And, for me, that sort of thing is what makes the game good. It's what makes this kind of game, in general, stand out from the rest, and it's also exactly the kind of thing that they casually axe with every new update.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 05:10
|
|
|
IronicDongz posted:vampires were god awful, nobody on planet earth liked managing thirst states. As much as it was sometimes a pain in the rear end, that was one of my favorite things about playing vampire. It gave the character a lot of flavour!
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 06:37
|
|
|
really love repeatedly backtracking out of spider because none of the monsters there give blood
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 06:46
|
|
|
Take it to the crawl thread, guys.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 06:48
|
|
|
I never thought I'd actually see someone tout "you can't hit the thing you want to hit, specifically, reliably" as a feature of a cool new magic spell. Stone Soup aside, from a general mechanical-design standpoint that's clearly a drawback.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 07:28
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:As someone who has literally never played Crawl but plays a bunch of Angband, I find it hilarious how the exact same kind of thing is happening in the Angband community. People are bitching about the gameplay changes the maintainer is making, but like the QoL changes. Like, half the point of taking a thankless job like maintainer is that you get to dick around with the gameplay. If you want someone to only do the QoL changes and leave the gameplay untouched, you'd better be prepared to pay them. angband's changes tend to be better though. crawl is a constant series of removals and replacements until you reach a point where you have to ask the ship of theseus question - if most of the parts of the game you originally liked have been replaced or are gone entirely, are you really still playing the same game?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 08:04
|
|
|
Sandwich Anarchist posted:This thread made me pick up Hades, and after playing it nonstop for two days, I've decided that homeboy who said it was bad can go get hosed lol Haters gonna hate, Hadesers gonna Hades
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 08:26
|
|
|
Serephina posted:Take it to the crawl thread, guys. The crawl thread has been really hostile to opposing view points for probably around 3 years now. I understand if people who don’t agree with that thread’s consensus don’t want to post there. Since crawl is a roguelike and, I don’t think, the discussion has degraded here to a point where it’s no longer useful at all, nor has it completely taken over the thread, I don’t see why people shouldn’t be able to continue to discuss the game here. palecur posted:I never thought I'd actually see someone tout "you can't hit the thing you want to hit, specifically, reliably" as a feature of a cool new magic spell. Stone Soup aside, from a general mechanical-design standpoint that's clearly a drawback. That’s a bit of a strawman. Very powerful, but somewhat cumbersome is a very common design for lots of attacks, fighting styles or weapons in all kinds of games. And starburst or hailstorm both are considerably more powerful than the spells they’re replacing, but are also harder to use. I haven’t played the new changes, and, to state it right out, I probably won’t. I’m going to stick with gooncrawl. But I absolutely think some of the changes are good. There are also reasonable criticisms to be leveled against the magic overhaul, and I’ve written some of my opinions about that in the crawl thread, but the overall idea of creating further distinctions in the magic schools is good and will make the game better, especially as the devs iron out problems. IronicDongz posted:There was a comment on a video linked earlier which I think is very relevant here- I don’t think this is nearly so fundamental a divide as the quote claims, nor do I think that second group or “maximalist” approach necessarily includes exploitative tactics that reduce system mastery to learning a bunch of cheap exploits. So I disagree with the specifics of the quote, but I agree with the general principle, and I think that if you rephrased the respective descriptions, vanilla dcss devs and the core player group hews closer to the first type of people while critics like those in the crawl thread here hew closer to the second. Neither perspective is objectively wrong, just expressions of differing tastes. Good discussion on Crawl should include respect that the “other side” is operating from a valid point of view. SKULL.GIF posted:As I posted earlier, I'm baffled that this criticism keeps consistently being made over the past decade? Are people really considering Bolt of X, Bolt of Y, Z Bolt, and Bolt of N to be four separate, unique, exciting and interesting spells that they're upset that all of these got removed and replaced with spells that are actually mechanically distinct from each other beyond the type of elemental damage applied to monsters' hit points? Saying "Oh well they're untargetable" seems to be missing the point entirely, given that Crawl is a game about positioning, spells that require you to consider your environments and your positioning directly tie into the core gameplay! If you had to identify one particular aspect of Crawl that makes this particularly true compared to other games, recognizing that other games also can have large groups of critical fans, what do you think it would be? I think the “ivory tower”, as Serephina put it, attitude of the devs is partly (not wholly!) to blame. I think the devs have consistently had trouble communicating with the player base about certain types of changes or accepting criticism. For me, the main sticking point is that dev attitudes, intentionally or not, often come across as insistent that their subjective tastes are objectively superior. It’s one thing to make the game you want to make, and it’s another to insist the people who don’t like certain aspects of it are all arguing in bad faith! I don’t include you, personally in that assessment, by the way, even when I don’t agree with you, your posts have always left open the possibility for further discussion. But I do think Crawl devs have historically had a PR problem and have come across as cliquish, elitist and unable to accept criticism outside of a very specific framework. SKULL.GIF posted:If what you're looking for is for Crawl to add that much content again on top of all the above stuff rather than what it's currently doing -- going through the enormous pile of stuff that's already in the game and going "How can we make this better?" -- then you're probably better off looking for another game that's still in its early-development phase and has a lot more room to put meat onto its scrawny skeletal beta-version bones. Caves of Qud was like this for a couple years (and has a new dungeon coming soon I believe), Cogmind was like this for a couple years. To be frank, someone formerly involved in development and broadly satisfied with the state of the game could hardly post anything else. But it’s not surprising that people who are less satisfied want different types of changes. For sure, in a game that (maybe used to) have some maximalist sensibilities, there are lots of individual little features that are going to be some player’s pet feature and they’re simply guaranteed to pitch a fit when it’s removed. So any kind of removal is going to provoke a negative reaction from some players and removals or reworks of some things are inevitable. I hated the old vampires, for example, in spite of liking their apts, and am surprised to see anyone disapprove of changing them. But from my perspective, there are a lot of areas in Crawl’s design that could use serious rework that development has largely been ignoring for many versions. The magic rework is a start, but weapon skills and shields don’t have very exciting designs, the nutrition system is still weird and frustrating in a lot of places, ranged weapons are desperately in need of rework (and the magic reform is also targeted at that, to be fair) charms are in a dire place (regen was apparently just cut in trunk, which is a start, from a certain perspective —not mine!) and extended has needed a rework for years and years. Sensibilities in game design in general are not where they were 5 years ago, and they’re guaranteed to be different 5 years from now. Crawl has plenty of room for large changes to its systems that don’t involve trimming content.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 09:35
|
|
|
IronicDongz posted:really love repeatedly backtracking out of spider because none of the monsters there give blood potions of blood exist also having to worry about certain areas being dry was one of the interesting things you had to think about so unironically, yes, I did enjoy this
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 14:01
|
|
|
Fulsome Distillation and Evaporate whipped rear end, and then were removed. I'm not here to complain or to argue with anybody, I am simply making a correct observation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 14:07
|
|
|
Its just an opinion... A doctor's opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 14:52
|
|
|
One of the funniest things about playing DCSS online was always putting together ungodly stupid boneheaded character combinations with ridiculous, unreasonable goals based on stupid intersecting mechanics, then having other people drop in and correctly point out what a bad idea this was. I splatted so many Draconians trying to get to the point where I could summon dragons while in dragonform, for maximum dragon. But people always enjoyed watching me splat, then doggedly pick myself up and try again 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 14:58
|
|
|
Angry Diplomat posted:One of the funniest things about playing DCSS online was always putting together ungodly stupid boneheaded character combinations with ridiculous, unreasonable goals based on stupid intersecting mechanics, then having other people drop in and correctly point out what a bad idea this was. I splatted so many Draconians trying to get to the point where I could summon dragons while in dragonform, for maximum dragon. But people always enjoyed watching me splat, then doggedly pick myself up and try again This is genuinely my favorite part of roguelikes condensed into an eloquent phrase.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 15:13
|
|
|
IronicDongz posted:I've beaten the game many times and I didn't understand that until you said it here, so I don't really think they're that distinct. If you can't tell the difference between a human skull stapled to a propulsion system and a very occult rear end looking future rhombus, then you're just being robot racist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 15:16
|
|
|
IronicDongz posted:
Looping in I am one hundred percent the maximalist. I think 'tightly designed' is literally what it sounds like, restrictive. It implies a correct methodology and is intrinsically limiting. The argument I always get in response is 'Well if X is so broken just use X all the time forever and you'll always win, how is that fun?' which is... interesting, since my first instinct playing any game is to maximize my personal fun which doesn't necessarily coincide with 'winning invariably' or even 'winning'. I get into a ton of arguments with people over balance for this reason... gently caress balance, balance is nothing. Locking, gatekeeping and hamstringing content so that it meets some arbitrary standard of balance feels like a sisyphean task in the face of the subjectivity of user experience. In roguelikes its especially egregious, its often a gamble what one can and can't do already and if someone ends up getting unreasonably strong early thats literally a function of random chance. Ultimately a tight design would mean that the game has content that will challenge them somewhere and they can fast-track to meet it now if they so choose, the difficulty curve should be an ever expanding fourty five degree triangle with 'win' above and 'lose' below that you will eventually sink into lose on regardless of how apparently 'broken' your weird stupid build gets.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 15:36
|
|
|
Dammit you people are making me want to try Crawl again. Last time I ascended (3 rune) was 0.7.2 and last time I played was ~0.14 so it's been a minute.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 16:22
|
|
|
Funktor posted:Dammit you people are making me want to try Crawl again. Last time I ascended (3 rune) was 0.7.2 and last time I played was ~0.14 so it's been a minute. I recommend checking the Gooncrawl thread; you can play either Gooncrawl or Trunk online. I will say that I'm not as hostile about Trunk dev as many, but some of the recent changes are geared towards making the game more challenging for the purposes of score running (traps that trigger on exploration particularly come to mind), so you may find Gooncrawl to be more familiar for the purposes of getting back up to speed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 16:58
|
|
|
Angry Diplomat posted:One of the funniest things about playing DCSS online was always putting together ungodly stupid boneheaded character combinations with ridiculous, unreasonable goals based on stupid intersecting mechanics, then having other people drop in and correctly point out what a bad idea this was. I splatted so many Draconians trying to get to the point where I could summon dragons while in dragonform, for maximum dragon. But people always enjoyed watching me splat, then doggedly pick myself up and try again 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 17:01
|
|
|
In other news, I beat both Hades and Monolith as D-13 yesterday  Monolith was goddamn hard. But I lucked into a run where I got the unique Drill (that pierces the heavens); while it's running you're invincible but you cannot stop it until it expires (can collect ammo though). Let me get through a significant chunk of the floor six boss, then get slaughtered for 25 hp to trigger Quickening and losing 2 more by the time the boss exploded. That is a rough fucker of an encounter! Finished buying Kleines' stuff, too. Hi Skully 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 17:04
|
|
|
Motherfucker posted:Looping in I am one hundred percent the maximalist. I think 'tightly designed' is literally what it sounds like, restrictive. It implies a correct methodology and is intrinsically limiting. The argument I always get in response is 'Well if X is so broken just use X all the time forever and you'll always win, how is that fun?' which is... interesting, since my first instinct playing any game is to maximize my personal fun which doesn't necessarily coincide with 'winning invariably' or even 'winning'. I get into a ton of arguments with people over balance for this reason... gently caress balance, balance is nothing. Locking, gatekeeping and hamstringing content so that it meets some arbitrary standard of balance feels like a sisyphean task in the face of the subjectivity of user experience. In roguelikes its especially egregious, its often a gamble what one can and can't do already and if someone ends up getting unreasonably strong early thats literally a function of random chance. Ultimately a tight design would mean that the game has content that will challenge them somewhere and they can fast-track to meet it now if they so choose, the difficulty curve should be an ever expanding fourty five degree triangle with 'win' above and 'lose' below that you will eventually sink into lose on regardless of how apparently 'broken' your weird stupid build gets. Balance only matters in multiplayer games because then other people exploiting busted poo poo can gently caress over people who choose not to. In solo games, if some people want to exploit busted poo poo and other people don't then those people literally never have to interact or affect each other in any way and there's no particular reason to stop either of them from doing what they want. Like the justification for gutting LRD was "people can use it to slowly dig twisty passages into the walls and then kite all monsters into them and that's not a fun way of playing". And my response to this is "so?" Who cares? If it's not fun, don't do it, you're absolutely not required to and the benefits of doing so are pretty marginal. And if you enjoy playing like that, then go nuts. If that's fun for you, then sure, why not? The fact that some strange people who enjoy that are spending hours of their time digging out labyrinths has no impact on anyone else in any way. Doesn't matter. And okay, there's also the demographic of people who genuinely can't stop themselves from playing optimally even if they totally hate it and it ruins the game for them. But, unfortunately, there's no helping those poor souls. Only they can defeat their own mindworms, there will always be some aspect of the game which feeds them. I know, I was one of them at one point. And even if you decide that no, you have to stop people from digging twisty passages for some reason or another, with a very, very small amount of effort you can do that and still maintain the unique flavour of the spell, or even enhance it. Here's one that I came up with after thinking about it for literally 10 seconds: make it so that a certain amount of time after LRD destroys a wall, the ceiling collapses and forms a new obstacle there, knocking enemies away and doing some more damage. Now the spell has all of its cool poo poo and non-mindworm utility intact and there's an extra fun aspect to it to replace digging out big tunnels. But they don't care, so they just stripped out half of what made the spell interesting and cool and then moved on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 17:19
|
|
|
Motherfucker posted:Looping in I am one hundred percent the maximalist. I think 'tightly designed' is literally what it sounds like, restrictive. It implies a correct methodology and is intrinsically limiting. The argument I always get in response is 'Well if X is so broken just use X all the time forever and you'll always win, how is that fun?' which is... interesting, since my first instinct playing any game is to maximize my personal fun which doesn't necessarily coincide with 'winning invariably' or even 'winning'. I get into a ton of arguments with people over balance for this reason... gently caress balance, balance is nothing. Locking, gatekeeping and hamstringing content so that it meets some arbitrary standard of balance feels like a sisyphean task in the face of the subjectivity of user experience. In roguelikes its especially egregious, its often a gamble what one can and can't do already and if someone ends up getting unreasonably strong early thats literally a function of random chance. Ultimately a tight design would mean that the game has content that will challenge them somewhere and they can fast-track to meet it now if they so choose, the difficulty curve should be an ever expanding fourty five degree triangle with 'win' above and 'lose' below that you will eventually sink into lose on regardless of how apparently 'broken' your weird stupid build gets. This part of your post reminded me of Slay the Spire, a game I'm completely in love with, which has 21 difficulty levels and is very very tightly designed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 17:37
|
|
|
digging tunnels is like roguelike tactics 101 it's in every roguelike of a certain vintage for a reason: players like it! digging a tunnel is often something you do as a desperation move in a really tight situation in nethack, angband, or old crawl. it feels like a real triumph when you reverse the odds by manipulating the environment. trunk crawl doesn't really cater to what players like, which is sometimes a good decision and sometimes isn't the problem is that the hypothetical optimal player will always dig a tunnel, but sometimes it's okay to say "gently caress the hypothetical optimal player he's a jerk anyway"
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 18:53
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:digging tunnels is like roguelike tactics 101 You can say "haha just don't do it," but I'm fine with digging sometimes. The problem is not that HOM digs every time, it's that the more often you dig killholes, the more you benefit, so the amount of digging you do is entirely decided by how you weigh your own boredom against your chances of winning. It's a continuous scale; pick your own level of tedium. When does it go from a fun "desperation move" you do in a crisis, to a degenerate strategy you do often enough that it bores you? Should I use the wacky cheap strategy this fight? How about this one? "How bored are you willing to be" is not a balance the player should be forced to strike. And yeah, one solution to this is to limit the amount of digging available, so that the player can only dig a certain number of times, thus making it an emergency tool in actuality, instead of expecting you to treat it as one on the honor system. (And of course that's not to mention the parts of the game I can't just cleanly opt out of. If you leave lovely monsters in, I still have to fight them. If you leave the dungeon at 27 floors long, I still have to trudge down through them all. If I desperately need an attack spell, but the only viable one is a boring-rear end bolt, then I have to use it (or quit, I guess).) megane fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Jan 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 19:57
|
|
|
I think it bears repeating but crawl is a singleplayer game who cares if the optimal strategy is to dig into a wall and funnel poo poo if you dont find it fun just simply dont do it. Its not as if for every class and race taking earth magic tunneling was the only optimal play. poo poo bring back mummies just resting on D:1 before ascending to get millions of points. Im agnostic on the new crawl changes I haven't played trunk in years but the competitive people were always the most vocal and worst part of the community and it just seems the devs are only taking feedback from them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:10
|
|
|
It took me way too long but I finally beat the last boss of Hades. Am I right in thinking seeker arrow is the best generically good talent in the game, being as strong as an attack buff but not taking the attack buff slot? The two things that carried were seeker arrow and aphrodite weak on special (which is op when you're bad at fighting against bosses).
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:24
|
|
|
Perpetual Hiatus posted:I'd just quickly like to plug Night Of The Full Moon (phone based deckbuilder gamelite) and thank the people talking about it a hundred pages back. It looks like a new update has revised Diaries mode and added the Ranger as a fourth character; also the Soul Hunter is available for the base game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:51
|
|
|
No Wave posted:It took me way too long but I finally beat the last boss of Hades. Am I right in thinking seeker arrow is the best generically good talent in the game, being as strong as an attack buff but not taking the attack buff slot? It depends on the weapon. Seeker is baller af on the Rail.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:52
|
|
|
Ok, so if we're gonna talk about it here I'll chip in:megane posted:You can say "haha just don't do it," but I'm fine with digging sometimes. The problem is not that HOM digs every time, it's that the more often you dig killholes, the more you benefit, so the amount of digging you do is entirely decided by how you weigh your own boredom against your chances of winning. It's a continuous scale; pick your own level of tedium. When does it go from a fun "desperation move" you do in a crisis, to a degenerate strategy you do often enough that it bores you? Should I use the wacky cheap strategy this fight? How about this one? "How bored are you willing to be" is not a balance the player should be forced to strike. Quote: The DevTeam has arranged an automatic and savage punishment for pudding farming. It's called pudding farming. If a player started digging holes every time they saw a kobold, they've got nobody to blame but themselves. The extraordinary popularity of the o & tab keys shows where most of the player base's preferences lie on fun vs optimality. Just because someone, somewhere, decided to punch themselves in the dick doesn't mean that features should be cut to prevent it from ever happening again. edit: A great example of this is RLs with open-form exploration, villages, shops, etc. Qud for example, you could theoretically farm the newbie dungeon ad nasium for kobolds 1xp at a time, taking their loot to sell to keep the hunger (water) clock at bay. NOBODY does this, despite it being the lowest-risk way of hitting lvl20; nor has Unormal made any noises about it being a concern of his. Serephina fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Jan 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 21:37
|
|
|
Serephina posted:Ok, so if we're gonna talk about it here I'll chip in: But what if someone was out there... playing video games wrong... 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 21:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 06:28 |
|
|
Angryhead posted:You might have seen it in your Discord already - I worked a bunch on map generation for Escape from Aeon. This looks neat as hell!  
Gooch181 fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Jan 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 22:27
|
|
