Announcement: Be excellent to each other.


Caravel Forum : DROD Boards : Bugs : bomb entry inconsistency (more of a suggestion that a bug)
New Topic New Poll Post Reply
Poster Message
leroy00
Level: Master Delver
Avatar
Rank Points: 155
Registered: 09-30-2003
IP: Logged

File: bomb_entry_inconsistency.jpg (18.2 KB)
Downloaded 51 times.
License: Other
From: Unspecified
icon bomb entry inconsistency (0)  
This picture shows Beethro standing with his sword over a bomb and living to tell about it. I realise this is most likely desired behaviour to aviod a die-restore-die loop. It is, however, a bit inconsitent and could lead to solutions which are technically valid but inconsistent with gameplay, since it allows the player upon entry to assume an otherwise impossible orientation. A careful designer could aviod this if he is aware of it, but perhaps it would be a good idea to have the bomb explode when Beethro leaves the square, remaining consistent with gameplay while satisfying the mechanics of the game. Just a thought.

-leroy

BTW, my DROD 2.0 screenshots are still saving to my DROD:AE directory. (The image has been cropped to save memory and avoid spoilery.)

____________________________
You can hear happiness staggering on down the street -- footless, dressed in red.
-Jimi Hendrix, "The Wind Cries Mary"
06-22-2005 at 12:37 PM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Send Email to User Show all user's posts Quote Reply
eytanz
Level: Smitemaster
Avatar
Rank Points: 2708
Registered: 02-05-2003
IP: Logged
icon Re: bomb entry inconsistency (0)  
leroy00 wrote:
This picture shows Beethro standing with his sword over a bomb and living to tell about it. I realise this is most likely desired behaviour to aviod a die-restore-die loop. It is, however, a bit inconsitent and could lead to solutions which are technically valid but inconsistent with gameplay, since it allows the player upon entry to assume an otherwise impossible orientation. A careful designer could aviod this if he is aware of it, but perhaps it would be a good idea to have the bomb explode when Beethro leaves the square, remaining consistent with gameplay while satisfying the mechanics of the game. Just a thought.

Waiit, how is that consistent with the game mechanics? It seems to me to be even more inconsistent - the game mechanics at the moment always are such that either some reaction happened, or it doesn't happen at all. Delayed reactions are just not part of the game. Introducing them seems to make the game far less consistent and predictable.

Also, room entry is already known to be an exception. Note that in addition to the sword-on-bomb thing, Beethro is standing on a black door. This is also impossible except at room entry. I think it's by far the lesser of several evils to just have players/designers be aware that upon entry Beethro can violate some rules, as opposed to having ad-hoc methods of addressing individual violations.

____________________________
I got my avatar back! Yay!
06-22-2005 at 01:59 PM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Show all user's posts This architect's holds Quote Reply
leroy00
Level: Master Delver
Avatar
Rank Points: 155
Registered: 09-30-2003
IP: Logged
icon Re: bomb entry inconsistency (0)  
eytanz wrote:
Waiit, how is that consistent with the game mechanics? It seems to me to be even more inconsistent - the game mechanics at the moment always are such that either some reaction happened, or it doesn't happen at all. Delayed reactions are just not part of the game. Introducing them seems to make the game far less consistent and predictable.

It is, as I said, inconsistent with gameplay, in that it is an exception to the rule that bombs explode when Beethro's sword touches them. Both variations are consistent with game mechanics, since those are by definition that which is specified by the code. Specifically, by "satisfying game mechanics", I meant the never-ending loop that would result from their exploding immediately. Possibly, this was not clear. Both possibilities represent exceptions to the general rule, and the player/designer has to be aware of them both, so I cannot understand your argument that the variation suggested here would make the game less consistent or the viewpoint that one rule would be more ad-hoc than the other. Are not exceptions are always ad-hoc?

On a side note, you, as a player, cannot necessarily distinguish between delayed reactions and scripted events, unless, of course, you know in advance that delayed reactions tabu.

-leroy

____________________________
You can hear happiness staggering on down the street -- footless, dressed in red.
-Jimi Hendrix, "The Wind Cries Mary"
06-22-2005 at 02:52 PM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Send Email to User Show all user's posts Quote Reply
eytanz
Level: Smitemaster
Avatar
Rank Points: 2708
Registered: 02-05-2003
IP: Logged
icon Re: bomb entry inconsistency (0)  
leroy00 wrote:
eytanz wrote:
Waiit, how is that consistent with the game mechanics? It seems to me to be even more inconsistent - the game mechanics at the moment always are such that either some reaction happened, or it doesn't happen at all. Delayed reactions are just not part of the game. Introducing them seems to make the game far less consistent and predictable.

It is, as I said, inconsistent with gameplay, in that it is an exception to the rule that bombs explode when Beethro's sword touches them. Both variations are consistent with game mechanics, since those are by definition that which is specified by the code. Specifically, by "satisfying game mechanics", I meant the never-ending loop that would result from their exploding immediately. Possibly, this was not clear. Both possibilities represent exceptions to the general rule, and the player/designer has to be aware of them both, so I cannot understand your argument that the variation suggested here would make the game less consistent or the viewpoint that one rule would be more ad-hoc than the other. Are not exceptions are always ad-hoc?

On a side note, you, as a player, cannot necessarily distinguish between delayed reactions and scripted events, unless, of course, you know in advance that delayed reactions tabu.

Maybe I'm not understanding you, though. What you're suggesting is that the bomb explode the next turn, even if Beethro takes the sword off the bomb, right? That seems to me to be far less in keeping with the deisng of the rest of the game than bombs just not exploding if your sword happens to be on them in room entry.

Excluding scripting, there's no game element in DROD whose behavior is not calculated from the current game state. What you are suggesting is that a bomb will explode in turn 2 depending on something that happened in turn 1. That seems to me to be a huge break with fundamental game design philosophy.

True, the current bomb exception is also an inconsistency - a rather big one - but it still seems to me to be a less severe one than your suggestion.



____________________________
I got my avatar back! Yay!
06-22-2005 at 03:18 PM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Show all user's posts This architect's holds Quote Reply
Oneiromancer
Level: Legendary Smitemaster
Avatar
Rank Points: 2936
Registered: 03-29-2003
IP: Logged
icon Re: bomb entry inconsistency (0)  
Just to contribute to the ongoing discussion, I agree with Eytan. We tried to make sure in JtRH that there were no rooms where you could enter with your sword on a bomb, in order to avoid this situation. It's a practice that we suggest Architechts follow.

leroy00 wrote:
BTW, my DROD 2.0 screenshots are still saving to my DROD:AE directory. (The image has been cropped to save memory and avoid spoilery.)

Hmmm...I'm not sure how to prevent this. Have you exported anything yet? Once you export to the JtRH directory, I would think that this would set the default exporting directory. I usually take screenshots by using the Print Screen button, so I hadn't noticed this problem.

Game on,

____________________________
"He who is certain he knows the ending of things when he is only beginning them is either extremely wise or extremely foolish; no matter which is true, he is certainly an unhappy man, for he has put a knife in the heart of wonder." -- Tad Williams
06-22-2005 at 03:41 PM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Send Email to User Show all user's posts This architect's holds Quote Reply
StuartK
Level: Smitemaster
Avatar
Rank Points: 564
Registered: 06-10-2003
IP: Logged
icon Re: bomb entry inconsistency (0)  
Two options to improve consistency, kinda.

One option would be for the bombs to explode, and (if he died) Beethro reappear in the previous room again. Since I don't like instadeaths, it would be better to scroll into the room, and then immediately scroll out again (without the explosion and death bit) were Beethro in an orientation that would have resulted in his death. So standing on a wall he'd still be safe, and would stay where he was.

Another option would be to 'force' Beethro to move his sword into a position where it's not over a bomb. Filling in the gaps, something like this happens anyway with creatures he kills upon room entrance. He doesn't just jump on them, because that would make the game easy (not to say more like Super Mario) Also, jumping in dungeons with low ceilings is dangerous. He obviously stabbed them, then moved into the square, which is two moves, one of which we did not see. No it isn't, it's just one move with two parts (stab creature, move forwards) one of which we didn't see. :selftwak

How about a 'peak' button (shift+directional arrow) which would scroll the screen temporarily to show whatever is on the edge of the next screen (two rows) before you move into a room? This would also help players to enter a room with the best sword orientation without entering, exiting and entering again.

[Last edited by StuartK at 06-23-2005 04:58 PM]
06-22-2005 at 08:41 PM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Send Email to User Show all user's posts Quote Reply
eytanz
Level: Smitemaster
Avatar
Rank Points: 2708
Registered: 02-05-2003
IP: Logged
icon Re: bomb entry inconsistency (0)  
StuartK wrote:
Two options to improve consistency, kinda.

One option would be for the bombs to explode, and (if he died) Beethro reappear in the previous room again. Since I don't like instadeaths, it would be better to scroll into the room, and then immediately scroll out again (without the explosion and death bit) were Beethro in an orientation that would have resulted in his death. So standing on a wall he'd still be safe, and would stay where he was.

I don't think the engine is up to this.

Another option would be to 'force' Beethro to move his sword into a position where it's not over a bomb. Filling in the gaps, something like this happens anyway with creatures he kills upon room entrance. He doesn't just jump on them, because that would make the game easy (not to say more like Super Mario) Also, jumping in dungeons with low ceilings is dangerous. He obviously stabbed them, then moved into the square, which is two moves, one of which we did not see.

But how will the game determine which direction to turn the sword to? And what if there is a bomb in the new square as well?



____________________________
I got my avatar back! Yay!
06-22-2005 at 08:45 PM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Show all user's posts This architect's holds Quote Reply
StuartK
Level: Smitemaster
Avatar
Rank Points: 564
Registered: 06-10-2003
IP: Logged
icon Re: bomb entry inconsistency (0)  
That was quick Eytanz... I edited my post a little but I don't think it made any difference to the context of your response.
eytanz wrote:
I don't think the engine is up to this.
I'm not au-fait with the code, but in my amateur (read: highly likely to be wrong) opinion I don't see a problem when moving from a completed room - just scroll back again. When moving from an incomplete room, the previous room would be reset, but then that would happen anyway. If undo were to extended to include undoing across room boundaries, that could possibly be used in the latter case.

But how will the game determine which direction to turn the sword to? And what if there is a bomb in the new square as well?
Move the sword twice or more? This would be my less preferred option anyway...
06-22-2005 at 08:57 PM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Send Email to User Show all user's posts Quote Reply
AlefBet
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 979
Registered: 07-16-2003
IP: Logged
icon Re: bomb entry inconsistency (+1)  
StuartK wrote:
I don't see a problem when moving from a completed room - just scroll back again. When moving from an incomplete room, the previous room would be reset, but then that would happen anyway.
We run into issues if there are force arrows on room edges. We could also run into a problem with a situation where your sword would be on a bomb in the new room and in the old room.
If undo were to extended to include undoing across room boundaries, that could possibly be used in the latter case.
My preference would be not to cheat someone out of a room victory just because going to the next room has this problem they couldn't have anticipated.

Edit: Also, hitting a bomb with your sword is not always fatal. We couldn't simply go back to the previous room if your sword is on a bomb; we'd have to figure out if you're unprotected. Doing this, in my opinion, doesn't make the game any better and I think the effort is better spent elsewhere. The current mechanic is consistent with the fact that you're safe on the first turn (which is why you can step on monsters on the first turn). It's what we have now, and I don't see a good reason to change it, especially since it's already released.

____________________________
I was charged with conspiracy to commit jay-walking, and accessory to changing lanes without signaling after the fact :blush.

++Adam H. Peterson

[Last edited by AlefBet at 06-23-2005 04:58 PM]
06-22-2005 at 09:07 PM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Send Email to User Visit Homepage Show all user's posts Quote Reply
StuartK
Level: Smitemaster
Avatar
Rank Points: 564
Registered: 06-10-2003
IP: Logged
icon Re: bomb entry inconsistency (0)  
AlefBet wrote:
We run into issues if there are force arrows on room edges.
If there's a force arrow preventing retreat, that will also protect you from a a bomb blast. An architect would have to specifically design a room for a secondary blast to kill you, which would be unlikely and obnoxious. In such a situation Beethro should survive such a blast anyway, and report the problem to the author of the hold as a bug.

We could also run into a problem with a situation where your sword would be on a bomb in the new room and in the old room.
True. The sword would have to be facing along the edge of the screen, and the player sidestep into the next room, from a room which had bombs in that have already been exploded. In both rooms, bombs would be right on the edge. This would be a rare situation, but I don't see a way to address it, except as above - Beethro survives (after this is on returning to the first room) player reports the problem to the hold author as a bug.

If undo were to extended to include undoing across room boundaries, that could possibly be used in the latter case.
My preference would be not to cheat someone out of a room victory just because going to the next room has this problem they couldn't have anticipated.
Undo was a red herring, sorry. We wouldn't want to return a player to the previous room in the state they left it, because they may return into a configuration where they are trapped, and may die on the next turn, and thus get trapped in a loop (unless they restore to a checkpoint or room start)

This aside, if the previous room were completed, it wouldn't matter, return the player to the completed room. If the previous room were incomplete, the player could be returned to a reset room (as would have happened anyway if they returned that way)

Edit: Also, hitting a bomb with your sword is not always fatal. We couldn't simply go back to the previous room if your sword is on a bomb; we'd have to figure out if you're unprotected.
If Beethro doesn't die, don't retreat.

Doing this, in my opinion, doesn't make the game any better and I think the effort is better spent elsewhere. The current mechanic is consistent with the fact that you're safe on the first turn (which is why you can step on monsters on the first turn). It's what we have now, and I don't see a good reason to change it, especially since it's already released.
I'd rather not ever see a situation where Beethro has his sword on a bomb, and the bomb hasn't exploded. It looks like a bug. All special cases could be resolved if the effort were ever judged worthwhile, though the above solutions could admittedly end up meaning more effort than the problem deserved.


Another option (rather simpler to implement) would be to remove the bomb from under the sword (treating it similarly to a breakable wall) which would be consistent with anything under Beethro (and sword) being destroyed upon room entrance.
06-22-2005 at 10:39 PM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Send Email to User Show all user's posts Quote Reply
Stefan
Level: Smitemaster
Avatar
Rank Points: 2119
Registered: 05-25-2004
IP: Logged
icon Re: bomb entry inconsistency (0)  
I don't think the current behaviour should change. The first move in a room has always been a special case (eg. waking Evil Eyes, standing on doors). If swords are not allowed on bombs in the future, then the other inconsistencies should also be addressed and 'fixed' (and that would break some holds).

____________________________
0.099³
06-22-2005 at 10:56 PM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Show all user's posts This architect's holds Quote Reply
Oneiromancer
Level: Legendary Smitemaster
Avatar
Rank Points: 2936
Registered: 03-29-2003
IP: Logged
icon Re: bomb entry inconsistency (0)  
Perhaps bombs near an entrance should be colored red, as a warning. This is already done for monsters on doors, for example...although you can only place doors under monsters, and not vice-versa. So even though it's a situation that can legally show up in-game (at least for yellow doors), it still gets the error/warning signal, since it's not an ideal situation. (Of course, you still can't put walls underneath monsters, even though tar babies can spawn on walls.)

I am still of the opinion that it is up to the room creator to not have an issue like this if he can at all help it. In fact, I just checked and there is a situation like this in my SS hold. Although it doesn't really affect anything, since it's at the exit to a room you can't backtrack through, I moved things around so as to keep the original intent, but still allow a player to re-enter the room to change their sword orientation for the next room if they so choose. I think it's just another thing to point out to authors in the Architecture forum, like "More checkpoints!"

Game on,

____________________________
"He who is certain he knows the ending of things when he is only beginning them is either extremely wise or extremely foolish; no matter which is true, he is certainly an unhappy man, for he has put a knife in the heart of wonder." -- Tad Williams
06-22-2005 at 11:03 PM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Send Email to User Show all user's posts This architect's holds Quote Reply
eytanz
Level: Smitemaster
Avatar
Rank Points: 2708
Registered: 02-05-2003
IP: Logged
icon Re: bomb entry inconsistency (+1)  
StuartK wrote:
AlefBet wrote:
We run into issues if there are force arrows on room edges.
If there's a force arrow preventing retreat, that will also protect you from a a bomb blast.

Not in all cases (say, if the arrow points west, the bomb is to the north, and the player enters with his sword facing north).

And what if the arrows are in the room you just exited (preventing re-entry), not in the new room?

An architect would have to specifically design a room for a secondary blast to kill you, which would be unlikely and obnoxious. In such a situation Beethro should survive such a blast anyway, and report the problem to the author of the hold as a bug.

So now you're suggesting behavior that's even less consistent than the current behavior.

We could also run into a problem with a situation where your sword would be on a bomb in the new room and in the old room.
True. The sword would have to be facing along the edge of the screen, and the player sidestep into the next room, from a room which had bombs in that have already been exploded. In both rooms, bombs would be right on the edge. This would be a rare situation, but I don't see a way to address it, except as above - Beethro survives (after this is on returning to the first room) player reports the problem to the hold author as a bug.

Again, it seems to me that this idea just ends up with more, and more severe, exceptions. True, they'll occur less often, but they'll be both less easy to predict (since you need to take two rooms into account) and at least equally non-standard behavior wise. Essentially this so-called "solution" is just making things worse.


I'd rather not ever see a situation where Beethro has his sword on a bomb, and the bomb hasn't exploded. It looks like a bug.

I'd rather not see a situation where Beethro is in a bomb's blast range, and he doesn't die. And I don't see how you can avoid those situations.

Another option (rather simpler to implement) would be to remove the bomb from under the sword (treating it similarly to a breakable wall) which would be consistent with anything under Beethro (and sword) being destroyed upon room entrance.

True, and I'd be happy with this behavior if implemented. My main concern would be people writing holds which depend on it as a puzzle solution (i.e. use the sword dirction upon entry to remove a bomb thus breaking a bomb chain that goes off later or something like that). Not sure if that would be fair to players.

Honestly, I think this is a situation where there are no good solutions. And given that, the current solution - while far from perfect and kind of strange-looking, seems the lesser of all evils, if only because it gets bonus points by already being implemented and thus not requiring any of Mike/Adam's time.

____________________________
I got my avatar back! Yay!
06-22-2005 at 11:33 PM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Show all user's posts This architect's holds Quote Reply
Banjooie
Level: Smitemaster
Avatar
Rank Points: 1645
Registered: 12-12-2004
IP: Logged
icon Re: bomb entry inconsistency (+1)  
I think the whole 'you don't die upon entering the room' thing about DROD is pretty consistent, myself.
06-23-2005 at 03:29 AM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Show all user's posts This architect's holds Quote Reply
leroy00
Level: Master Delver
Avatar
Rank Points: 155
Registered: 09-30-2003
IP: Logged
icon Re: bomb entry inconsistency (0)  
eytanz wrote:
Honestly, I think this is a situation where there are no good solutions.
That was my premise when starting this thread.
And given that, the current solution - while far from perfect and kind of strange-looking, seems the lesser of all evils, if only because it gets bonus points by already being implemented and thus not requiring any of Mike/Adam's time.
That is to say, you don't like the suggestion. That is an answer I can live with; I'm old enough not to be offended, trust me. I just don't see why one solution to the problem would be a more ad-hoc or less ideal solution than the other. The status-quo offers the advantage you state above, the alternate solution offers the advantage that desired solutions cannot be circumvented using the inconsistency being discussed. I can see your point that, in the opinions of the dev team, the cost-benefit analysis is unfavourable for a change. I really don't have an agenda to waste their time, even if it may seem to be the case. :?

I'm still glad we talked about it, though. Maybe I wasn't the only one who was not previously aware of this. Then again, maybe I was.

-leroy

____________________________
You can hear happiness staggering on down the street -- footless, dressed in red.
-Jimi Hendrix, "The Wind Cries Mary"
06-23-2005 at 09:25 AM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Send Email to User Show all user's posts Quote Reply
eytanz
Level: Smitemaster
Avatar
Rank Points: 2708
Registered: 02-05-2003
IP: Logged
icon Re: bomb entry inconsistency (+1)  
leroy00 wrote:
That is to say, you don't like the suggestion. That is an answer I can live with; I'm old enough not to be offended, trust me. I just don't see why one solution to the problem would be a more ad-hoc or less ideal solution than the other.

Well, this is all relative, and in a sense subjective - what's more ad-hoc is what conforms less to the expectations, and clearly we have different expectations to some degree. But, that said, it seems to me that at the moment there's a general rule that whenever a game mechanic can't take effect for some reason, it is ignored. Swords on bombs are one case. Scripts being cancelled if Beethro starts on the character's location - even if the script is invincible (but not if it's invisible) are another case.

My point was that this is an exception, but that at the moment there's a general principle behind dealing with exceptions. Each case is still weird - no one is debating that - but I think adhering to a general principle is preferrable than different solutions to each case, even if they are (arguably) more intuitive in the individual cases and don't allow cirumventing room design.

I can see your point that, in the opinions of the dev team, the cost-benefit analysis is unfavourable for a change.

I should stress that I'm not on the dev team, and I don't represent them.

____________________________
I got my avatar back! Yay!
06-23-2005 at 12:39 PM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Show all user's posts This architect's holds Quote Reply
mrimer
Level: Legendary Smitemaster
Avatar
Rank Points: 5056
Registered: 02-04-2003
IP: Logged
icon Re: bomb entry inconsistency (0)  
eytanz wrote:
I should stress that I'm not on the dev team, and I don't represent them.
Sure. I'll put in an "official" word, for the record: Eytan has properly explained the reasons why we have chosen to deal with room entry issues in the way we have.
...it seems to me that at the moment there's a general rule that whenever a game mechanic can't take effect for some reason, it is ignored. Swords on bombs are one case. Scripts being cancelled if Beethro starts on the character's location - even if the script is invincible (but not if it's invisible) are another case.
This is, no doubt, an especially sticky issue because, as you know, there's no clean way to deal with behavior across the "room seams". Thanks for bringing it up though. Everyone is quite welcome to discuss any part of DROD mechanics they like. I love the great discussion we have on this forum. It's conceivable that a future version of the game engine might improve on this somehow, when related enhancements would justify making such a change. However, that won't be until after 3.0 at least.

____________________________
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.
06-23-2005 at 04:58 PM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Send Email to User Show all user's posts High Scores This architect's holds Quote Reply
New Topic New Poll Post Reply
Caravel Forum : DROD Boards : Bugs : bomb entry inconsistency (more of a suggestion that a bug)
Surf To:


Forum Rules:
Can I post a new topic? No
Can I reply? No
Can I read? Yes
HTML Enabled? No
UBBC Enabled? Yes
Words Filter Enable? No

Contact Us | CaravelGames.com

Powered by: tForum tForumHacks Edition b0.98.8
Originally created by Toan Huynh (Copyright © 2000)
Enhanced by the tForumHacks team and the Caravel team.