DGM
Level: Master Delver
Rank Points: 202
Registered: 06-16-2006
IP: Logged

This is a follow-up to this poll, and it likely won't be the last. I'll have to explain the choices below, as I wasn't allowed enough space in the Option fields:

----------------------------------------------------------------
1) I am a graduate of the Rube Goldberg school of dungeon design.

We didn't need briars to create lethal timers when we already had bombs and fuses. We didn't need pressure plates or a new orb. And don't even get me started on mud, much less gel - we should have stopped with tar.

Each new element should do something fundamentally new. If I need a variation on the old, I'll jury-rig it myself.

----------------------------------------------------------------
2) A little variety goes a long way.

A few different ways of accomplishing the same goal is fine, as long as each does it in a very different way. Briars and bombs can each serve a purpose. Three kinds of pressure plates and a new orb is overkill, but just one kind of pressure plate would have been perfect.

----------------------------------------------------------------
3) But a lot of variety goes even further.

As long as a new element offers some significant twist on an old, it's worth including. Three pressure plates and a new orb are great. Tarstuff babies moving like roaches but surviving hot tiles, or gel babies moving like golems but not leaving obstacles when killed, round out the architect's options nicely.

----------------------------------------------------------------
4) A tool for every single possible occasion.

As long as a new element brings any new puzzle potential, it should probably go in. I think a roach that prefers horizontal over vertical movement would be good for the game.

----------------------------------------------------------------
5) I'm just here for the eye candy.

What is this "puzzle potential" you speak of? I'll take a new monster with basic roach behaviour if the artwork for it is cool enough.

----------------------------------------------------------------



So, what do you all think? Again, please give the reasoning behind your answer.

____________________________
My gaming blog is at http://dungeon-games.com/blog/

---

[Last edited by DGM at 04-07-2007 01:25 AM]

eytanz
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2708
Registered: 02-05-2003
IP: Logged

I probably belong to group 2, sort-of - I disagree with the exact example you give (I think the three types of pressure plates fall into the "different enough category), but agree with the general principle (for example, I think 3.0 didn't really need water (and water platforms, trapdoors, and bridges) for gameplay reasons - it's justified for other reasons (aesthetics, story), but that doesn't seem to matter for this poll). Similarly, I wouldn't have shed many tears if the clone potion wasn't put in, though I do like the clone level in TCB.

There's also a question of, once something being possible anyway, enabling it also in a way that's more obvious to players - e.g., the swordless token, which doesn't do anything that cannot be done by scripting, but does it in a way that gives the player direct feedback. I think sometimes that is more important than variety per se.

____________________________
I got my avatar back! Yay!

NeonElephant
Level: Goblin

Rank Points: 25
Registered: 05-11-2005
IP: Logged

Well, my rationale is essentially "I think the Caravel people did well when they picked the set of stuff to go into TCB", so I picked the option that seemed closest to that

I have not yet run into Gel or any of the foo-baby behavior you describe, and while there's a part of me that wonders if it would be worthwhile to have every combination available (e.g. golem-movement-not-killed-on-hot-floor-spawned-by-mud), it's currently sulking in a corner wondering why the rest of me isn't returning its calls

DGM
Level: Master Delver
Rank Points: 202
Registered: 06-16-2006
IP: Logged

eytanz wrote:
I probably belong to group 2, sort-of - I disagree with the exact example you give (I think the three types of pressure plates fall into the "different enough category), but agree with the general principle

Thanks for clarifying. Did you vote for 2 or 3?

There's also a question of, once something being possible anyway, enabling it also in a way that's more obvious to players - e.g., the swordless token, which doesn't do anything that cannot be done by scripting, but does it in a way that gives the player direct feedback. I think sometimes that is more important than variety per se.

I don't really see gameplay-altering scripting as part of the puzzle, but rather as a way to violate the rules of the puzzle. So I don't even count it. Perhaps a better example of this would be the conquer token as an alternative to the trapped roach?

____________________________
My gaming blog is at http://dungeon-games.com/blog/

DGM
Level: Master Delver
Rank Points: 202
Registered: 06-16-2006
IP: Logged

NeonElephant wrote:

I have not yet run into Gel or any of the foo-baby behavior you describe, and while there's a part of me that wonders if it would be worthwhile to have every combination available (e.g. golem-movement-not-killed-on-hot-floor-spawned-by-mud), it's currently sulking in a corner wondering why the rest of me isn't returning its calls

So I guess you're half-way between 2 and 3, then? I'm guessing that most people will fall somewhere in that range, even if they don't agree with where my specific examples fall on the spectrum.

____________________________
My gaming blog is at http://dungeon-games.com/blog/

eytanz
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2708
Registered: 02-05-2003
IP: Logged

DGM wrote:

eytanz wrote:
I probably belong to group 2, sort-of - I disagree with the exact example you give (I think the three types of pressure plates fall into the "different enough category), but agree with the general principle

Thanks for clarifying. Did you vote for 2 or 3?

I don't really see gameplay-altering scripting as part of the puzzle, but rather as a way to violate the rules of the puzzle. So I don't even count it. Perhaps a better example of this would be the conquer token as an alternative to the trapped roach?

Well, my point was that the capability was there in the game. The conquer token actually does stuff that's not possible otherwise - it allows making rooms with green doors while playing a swordless character, for example (technically also possible with bombs, but that introduces more serious constraints to room design).

____________________________
I got my avatar back! Yay!

coppro
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1309
Registered: 11-24-2005
IP: Logged

Also, you can have a room that only has monsters some of the time (as a storyline feature) and use a conquer token to prevent a 1-move demo, thus invalidating the room (and rewarding the player who took the non-fight route.

DGM
Level: Master Delver
Rank Points: 202
Registered: 06-16-2006
IP: Logged

eytanz wrote:

Click here to view the secret text

×2. Sort of a lonely decision

I wonder if there's a tag that lets you hide text in a poll from only those that haven't voted yet? Is there a complete list of tags for this forum somewhere?

Anyway,

Well, my point was that the capability was there in the game. The conquer token actually does stuff that's not possible otherwise - it allows making rooms with green doors while playing a swordless character, for example (technically also possible with bombs, but that introduces more serious constraints to room design).

Point taken, from both you and Coppro.

____________________________
My gaming blog is at http://dungeon-games.com/blog/

---

[Last edited by DGM at 04-07-2007 08:34 AM]

Tahnan
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2460
Registered: 11-14-2005
IP: Logged

My own thoughts were not dissimilar to eytanz's, though I didn't have the bird's-eye developer's view that might have knocked my vote down a notch.

So for me, #1 and #5 were out--though I'm a fan of aesthetics. Water may not be all that fundamentally different from, say, walls [though apparently briars can grow over the former but not the latter], but, hey, look, water! But OK, sure, don't just throw in every conceivable image. That's why we've got custom wall images, custom floor images, style mods, etc.

Which left:

DGM wrote:

"A few different ways of accomplishing the same goal is fine, as long as each does it in a very different way."

"As long as a new element offers some significant twist on an old, it's worth including."

"As long as a new element brings any new puzzle potential, it should probably go in."

I went with the middle one, but that's because both #2 and #4 included words that were just a little too extreme for my tastes, namely "very" and "any". Should a new element go in if it brings any new puzzle potential? Heavens no. Does an element need to be very different before it goes in? Well, what counts as "very" different, really?

I certainly wouldn't want DROD to become a hodge-podge of every deuced idea someone half-heartedly thought of. (There're a lot of Feature Requests that I'd be perfectly happy to never see in DROD--not just rayguns, but sheesh, how many different kinds of snakes and tarstuff do we need? One new one per release works just fine for me.) But as someone commented somewhere, Lord knows where at this point: the first time I saw mud, my reaction was "oh look more tarstuff to have to learn to deal with"; now I can't imagine not having it available to architects. There are quite a few elements I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around (what shapes of gel are still cuttable? and which ones aren't? what's the most efficient way to deal with a horde when sped? what about a brained horde?), but ask me in six months and I'm sure my reaction will be "you can take away the new elements in 3.0 when you pry them from my hot-tile-warmed, sped-up, gel-covered fingers."

DGM
Level: Master Delver
Rank Points: 202
Registered: 06-16-2006
IP: Logged

Tahnan wrote:
I went with the middle one, but that's because both #2 and #4 included words that were just a little too extreme for my tastes, namely "very" and "any". Should a new element go in if it brings any new puzzle potential? Heavens no. Does an element need to be very different before it goes in? Well, what counts as "very" different, really?

It sounds like the specific examples I gave for each option weren't enough. Damn... If I've skewed the results towards the middle with poor wording, maybe I should scrap this poll and start again.

Okay, let me try and clarify what I meant by each option:

-----------------------------------------------------------------
1) Only one means to each end.

Having any two elements that accomplish the same basic goal (such as serving as a timer, triggering doors, etc.) is bad, regardless of the mechanisms involved. Having both orbs and plates is too much overlap, even though the two work very differently.


2) Multiple means to an end, but a new mechanism for each means.

Having two elements that accomplish the same basic goal is fine, as long as each works by a different mechanism (striking with a sword or explosion for orbs, stepping on by anything for plates). But no two should share the same basic mechanism. Meaning: no second orb, only one type of plate. More than that is redundant.


3) Multiple means sharing the same basic mechanism, but each enabling new kinds of puzzles.

Having two elements that accomplish the same goal using the same basic mechanism is acceptable, as long as the requirements or secondary consequences for each are different and enable different kinds of puzzles. Having two kinds of orb and three kinds of plate is okay, as long as each lets you challenge the player in a way the others don't.


4) Any number of means as long as there's some difference, even if the difference isn't enough to enable new types of puzzles.

Having similar elements is okay even if it doesn't enable new kinds of puzzles. The best example here is the roach that prefers horizontal to vertical movement; what can you do with both that you can't do with just one?


5) A new element can be identical to an old one in terms of gameplay, as long as you put a fresh coat of paint on it.

Pretty obvious. A roach in all behaviours, but with different artwork. What tarstuff babies were before TCB.

-----------------------------------------------------------------


Okay, is this clearer? Would you have voted differently if I had presented the options this way?

____________________________
My gaming blog is at http://dungeon-games.com/blog/

---

[Last edited by DGM at 04-07-2007 09:48 AM]

BeefontheBone
Level: Master Delver

Rank Points: 184
Registered: 05-11-2006
IP: Logged

The only thing (thus far) that's frustrated me in TCB is the plates - the graphics aren't sufficiently different for the various types, and all 3 were introduced at once, which threw me a bit. At the minute I'm usually working out what they do in each room based on what the puzzle looks like - which is fine, until I hit one of those rooms where the puzzle doesn't jump out at you (only one in TCB thus far, which isn't too bad). The basic premise of the plates is sound, but it's only the toggle ones which I feel I can intuitively grasp - for me, I don't mind a whole bunch of elements so long as I can grasp (and remember) their workings relatively easily and can see the puzzle potential for them. That's what killed SubTerra for me very quickly - too many elements, too many obscure interations (plus it's headache-inducingly ugly at times...). It's less of an issue for you in The Dungeon (which, incidentally, is a strange choice of name, at least until you realise it's intended to allow the construction of all sorts of different dungeons, hence the lack of specifics) since you're presenting the information about what each monster does to the player on the screen anyway. If you get to the point where an item makes you lose mana instead of health in fights except against monsters in a particular shade of cyan or if you've also got the Flowery Wellington Boots of Clashing on, you've definitely gone too far

____________________________
Braindead's Mordor Site - Dungeon crawling having nothing whatsoever to do with LotR. Plus a freeware remake in-progress, featuring descriptive text written by yours truly!

Beef Row wrote: Actually, it doesn't really matter because the soap is a lye.

---

[Last edited by BeefontheBone at 04-07-2007 12:16 PM]

Briareos
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 3516
Registered: 08-07-2005
IP: Logged

BeefontheBone wrote:
The only thing (thus far) that's frustrated me in TCB is the plates - the graphics aren't sufficiently different for the various types[...]

Eh?

* Dark red one - one use
* Gray one - multiple use
* Gray one with bumps in it - on/off

Maybe it's just my TFT, but I really have no problem discerning them...

Of course, since left clicking on them is pretty much required anyway to figure them out maybe there should also be an indication what kind of plate it is, as opposed to doing an extra right click?

np: Fat Jon & Styrofoam - Runnin' Circles (The Same Channel)

____________________________
"I'm not anti-anything, I'm anti-everything, it fits better." - Sole
R.I.P. Robert Feldhoff (1962-2009)

---

[Last edited by Briareos at 04-07-2007 12:22 PM]

BeefontheBone
Level: Master Delver

Rank Points: 184
Registered: 05-11-2006
IP: Logged

That would be much more useful; it's the grey ones that cause some confusion, especially if there are other things on the plate.

____________________________
Braindead's Mordor Site - Dungeon crawling having nothing whatsoever to do with LotR. Plus a freeware remake in-progress, featuring descriptive text written by yours truly!

Beef Row wrote: Actually, it doesn't really matter because the soap is a lye.

Fafnir
Level: Smiter

Rank Points: 315
Registered: 11-05-2004
IP: Logged

I went for three myself.

I consider one far too limiting - while a Rube Goldberg approach can occasionally implement some parts of new game elements, it's a long way behind implementing the whole thing in one convenient package. Sure, you can approximate hot tiles by using a mimic to prevent sword turning, but it won't stop the player waiting around on one square and it won't kill monsters. In short, it's not a valid substitute for hot tiles.

I'll accept a new monster with similar or identical behaviour to an existing one when it's strictly necessary for thematic reasons (for example, it would be silly to have tar and mud spawn roaches, or mud spawn tar babies), but otherwise I need something a little newer. So that's five out.

I also think that a monster for every possible occasion goes a little too far. As someone else rightly pointed out, there are quite a lot of combinations of monster attributes we could make - adding them all would be overkill. So four's out. That said, when a new monster similar to the old needs to be added for thematic reasons (tarstuff babies), I prefer it to be made slightly different - gel babies were a good thing.

I agree with elements of both two and three, really. I think a new element should be allowed if it either allows a significant increase in puzzle potential, or removes the need for a routinely used Goldbergian device. So, for example, conquer tokens were justifiable to get rid of the "roach at the end of the room" device, and orthogonal tiles were justifiable to get rid of that nasty contraption involving mimics in A Quiet Place. Three types of pressure plates are good because each one works in fundamentally different ways, giving fundamentally different monster manipulation puzzles. Cracked orbs are teetering on the edge - I can see the potential for some interesting orb puzzles there, but at the same time they don't really seem to add much and I haven't seen any nice applications so far in the official hold. Likewise, I wouldn't have appreciated the addition of tar and mud babies if they hadn't been thematically necessary - surviving on hot tiles is not a sufficient differentiating factor. On the whole though, I plumped for three on the grounds that I prefer slightly too much variety to slightly too little.

____________________________
Stupidity kills.
Absolute stupidity
Kills absolutely.

skell
Level: Legendary Smitemaster

Rank Points: 3765
Registered: 12-28-2004
IP: Logged

I am after three, and I can as well throw here what Fafnir said.

____________________________
My website

---

[Last edited by skell at 01-29-2012 08:32 PM : Going to the keep]

mrimer
Level: Legendary Smitemaster

Rank Points: 5141
Registered: 02-04-2003
IP: Logged

We added many new things into TCB -- some innovational, and some iterational variants of existing elements. Many of these were to improve storytelling capability, the user experience, and immersion. Hopefully they don't feel like clutter.

That being said, now that we're at this point in developing the DROD engine, we won't throw in nearly so many new things to future releases (i.e. DROD 4+) ever again. Besides keeping the feature set lean-and-mean (even though I admit we're past that point now), there's another reason for this in DROD:

Adding a single new game element brings with it the requirement to get it to interact properly (believably) with the dozens of existing elements. That's a lot of information in itself that can be leveraged in developing new puzzles, but also it must be presented "responsibly", so that the user can take in all the new interactions without feeling overwhelmed.

Adding in a couple solid, new game elements at a time to more compact future game iterations, like Erik announced recently, seems to be the right course of action for DROD evolution at this point.

____________________________
Gandalf? Yes... That's what they used to call me.
Gandalf the Grey. That was my name.
I am Gandalf the White.
And I come back to you now at the turn of the tide.

---

[Last edited by mrimer at 04-07-2007 05:34 PM]

Pinnacle
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1135
Registered: 06-10-2004
IP: Logged

mrimer wrote:
We added many new things into TCB -- some innovational, and some iterational variants of existing elements. Many of these were to improve storytelling capability, the user experience, and immersion. Hopefully they don't feel like clutter.

That being said, now that we're at this point in developing the DROD engine, we won't throw in nearly so many new things to future releases (i.e. DROD 4+) ever again. Besides keeping the feature set lean-and-mean (even though I admit we're past that point now), there's another reason for this in DROD:

Adding a single new game element brings with it the requirement to get it to interact properly (believably) with the dozens of existing elements. That's a lot of information in itself that can be leveraged in developing new puzzles, but also it must be presented "responsibly", so that the user can take in all the new interactions without feeling overwhelmed.

Adding in a couple solid, new game elements at a time to more compact future game iterations, like Erik announced recently, seems to be the right course of action for DROD evolution at this point.

You mean 3.x patches with one or two new elements each?

____________________________
Once (adv.): Enough.
Twice (adv.): Once too often.
~Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

Alneyan
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 622
Registered: 07-06-2004
IP: Logged

He did say 'DROD 4+', and ten patchs with one element each will quickly wreck the whole 'slow and steady' scheme.

Of course, CaravelGames just *has* to keep making DROD games, now that they've got a captive market. So expect at least half a dozen sequels, a bunch of derivative (they're even *proud* of making DROD Tetris), and even DROD tupperware just to milk the cows, so to speak. That's how they treat their consumers.

Okay, so I couldn't do the 'angry customer ranting against the very products he buys' thing... maybe I should try 'angry young man speaking out against big capitalism as emboddied by CaravelGames'. Banjooie, care to give me a hand with all the sarcasm.

---

[Last edited by Alneyan at 04-07-2007 06:47 PM]

Jeff_Ray...
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 962
Registered: 05-16-2005
IP: Logged

There WILL be a DROD 4? Dang, I thought TCB would be the last of the series! >_> Is it out yet? *shot*

____________________________
I make Let's Plays too!
Click here to find out my LPs' progress, and find out what I plan to tackle next!

Currently playing:


My Holds:
-Completed:

-Work in Progress:

eytanz
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2708
Registered: 02-05-2003
IP: Logged

While, as Erik announced, there will be future SmS releases that come with new features, that doesn't mean they will all be new "elements" per se - new features can also mean new scripting abilties, for example, or new obstacles and other graphical improvements.

____________________________
I got my avatar back! Yay!

---

[Last edited by eytanz at 04-07-2007 07:37 PM]

Sillyman
Level: Smiter

Rank Points: 339
Registered: 09-08-2006
IP: Logged

Personally, I think that there should be a color-mixing scheme for the serpents/tarstuff. I mean, it makes so much sense! Just a basic one, with each color on/off... and then we finally have mustard to go with our ketchup!

____________________________
Who, me?
FNORD

Pinnacle
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1135
Registered: 06-10-2004
IP: Logged

Sillyman wrote:
Personally, I think that there should be a color-mixing scheme for the serpents/tarstuff. I mean, it makes so much sense! Just a basic one, with each color on/off... and then we finally have mustard to go with our ketchup!

Actually, puppies go with ketchup.

____________________________
Once (adv.): Enough.
Twice (adv.): Once too often.
~Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

[Last edited by Pinnacle at 04-08-2007 02:34 AM]

DGM
Level: Master Delver
Rank Points: 202
Registered: 06-16-2006
IP: Logged

BeefontheBone wrote:
It's less of an issue for you in The Dungeon (which, incidentally, is a strange choice of name, at least until you realise it's intended to allow the construction of all sorts of different dungeons, hence the lack of specifics)

As I said way back in the very beginning, that was intending as a working title only. I wasn't going to be held up by being unable to think of a good name, so I picked something simple and obvious as a placeholder with the idea of replacing it later. Which I have yet to do.

Frankly, it sounds like you've thought about the name a lot more than I have. If it has that effect on people in general, I should probably keep it.

If you get to the point where an item makes you lose mana instead of health in fights except against monsters in a particular shade of cyan or if you've also got the Flowery Wellington Boots of Clashing on, you've definitely gone too far

But items with the "of Clashing" property do double damage to enemies with the "fashion sense" trait, so it's worth it.

____________________________
My gaming blog is at http://dungeon-games.com/blog/

NiroZ
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1302
Registered: 02-12-2006
IP: Logged

Fafnir wrote:Cracked orbs are teetering on the edge - I can see the potential for some interesting orb puzzles there, but at the same time they don't really seem to add much and I haven't seen any nice applications so far in the official hold.

I dunno, the fact that you can destroy them after striking them adds a whole lot of puzzle potential in my book, as it avoids the tedious, intricate set of doors, orbs, bombs and walls that used to be to achieve the same effect.

Personally, I think that TCB has got far too many features in it. I mean, Aumtlich's are cool, so are hotplates, clones and platforms, but water, relay points and briar could have easily have been cut out of TCB and it would still feel full. At the moment it's teetering on the verge of being a tech demo of all the new features and their interactions.

DGM
Level: Master Delver
Rank Points: 202
Registered: 06-16-2006
IP: Logged

Fafnir wrote:
I agree with elements of both two and three, really. I think a new element should be allowed if it either allows a significant increase in puzzle potential, or removes the need for a routinely used Goldbergian device.

That last part is a good point, and may be especially relevant to The Dungeon as there isn't too much space on a level for implementing Rube Goldberg devices (at least compared to a DROD room).

____________________________
My gaming blog is at http://dungeon-games.com/blog/

eytanz
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2708
Registered: 02-05-2003
IP: Logged

You know, I'm not sure how much DROD and the Dungeon are directly comparable anyway here - the Dungeon has the whole additional level of complexity brought on by the fact that it's statistic/item driven. Imagine DROD had only roaches - that would make for very little variety. But a Dungeon-like game with only basic monsters and two stats - attack/defense, for example - could still be interesting.

____________________________
I got my avatar back! Yay!

r3m0t
Level: Goblin
Rank Points: 16
Registered: 09-25-2005
IP: Logged

I don't see the puzzle potential for broken orbs if you already have one-time pressure plates. I'll buy TCB one day and maybe it will prove me wrong.

Tahnan
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2460
Registered: 11-14-2005
IP: Logged

r3m0t wrote:
I don't see the puzzle potential for broken cracked orbs if you already have one-time pressure plates. I'll buy TCB one day and maybe it will prove me wrong.

One difference is that a cracked orb will turn into a broken orb--essentially, a crumbly wall--and a one-time pressure plate will turn into a floor tile. Monsters can move through the latter but not the former. Another difference is that you can lure a monster into triggering a pressure plate, but monsters without swords don't trigger orbs.

coppro
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1309
Registered: 11-24-2005
IP: Logged

There are a few others. For instance, briars would trigger a pressure plate, but destroy a broken orb (and a regular one, for that matter)

Sillyman
Level: Smiter

Rank Points: 339
Registered: 09-08-2006
IP: Logged

Pinnacle wrote:

Sillyman wrote:
Personally, I think that there should be a color-mixing scheme for the serpents/tarstuff. I mean, it makes so much sense! Just a basic one, with each color on/off... and then we finally have mustard to go with our ketchup!

Actually, puppies go with ketchup.

I knew that. I was referring to the mustard and kittens to go with the ketchup and puppies.

____________________________
Who, me?
FNORD