Hybrids & Cross Genre RLs

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

I've been playing a lot of games lately, and have had a lot of fresh
inspiration. One thing that I'm particularly interested in toying
with right now, are ways to fuse roguelikes with other genres.
Roguelikes are, in my opinion, one of the best genres of games ever.
They have shown more development and depth of gameplay than any other
genre. Because of this, I think that a well-implemented fusion could
breathe some fresh life into one of the many stagnant genres out
there. Following are some of the more popular genres, and my ideas of
how to mix them with RLs.


Action/Platformer: There are a few of these already in existance, but
most end up giving us a poor action/platformer combined with a poor
RL. The key is to take out a lot of the RL mechanics that only serve
to interfere with the action, and keep things simple. Ideally, you'd
remove most statistics, other than a few bare-essentials. Combat
should ideally be non-random, and lean more towards the skill-based
side of things. Of the major RL influences that are necessary, random
dungeons is important. Also, making sure to supply the player with a
nice assortment of weapons/armor/items/etc to uncover can add a lot to
the game. Keeping it level-based would probably be a good idea, since
it can add some gradual power increases, to help deal with the
ever-escalating difficulties of the enemies.

One big advantage of such a hybrid RL is the possibility of _very_ fun
mini-boss and boss encounters. Of all the cross genre possibilities,
this would be one of the easiest to make right. My vision of an ideal
platformer/RL hybrid would be somewhat reminiscent of Metroid.
Slowly, more powers/weapons become available, allowing access to new
areas. If you can create a solid random dungeon generator, as well as
adding the possibilities of leveling/stat increases/etc, then you'd
have it.


Strategy: This would be an interesting hybrid, if done right.
Fortunately, due to the wide range of strategy games, a lot of
possibilities exist.

One possibility that I like, would be to make a Defense-type game,
with a strong central character. For example, the player would have a
small fortification, which he is charged to protect from increasingly
larger attacks. He intercepted the enemy's plans, so he knows on
which days an attack is coming. You start off with a small wooden
fort, which is empty. The first attack is just a few scouts, which
you have to fight with the main character. You can loot the scouts,
to increase your funds. Luckily, there's X days before the next
attack, giving the player time to build up his defenses.

Coincidentally, he also just heard of -foo- artifact, which he can
find in some nearby ruins. So the player gets to go and play,
standard RL style, to adventure through the ruins to find the
artifact/gold/band of soldiers/etc, which will aid his defense
greatly. Obviously, he's on a tight time-limit, since another attack
will come soon. When he returns, he can use his gold to buy upgrades,
build new defensive structures, hire soldiers to assist, etc.
Obviously, this game lacks realism of any sort, but, not all games
need to be realistic. It'd be fun, and simple.

Another possibility would be to make the game more tactical, with a
squad-based system. This has been done before (can't remember the
name), but it's not done too often, and rarely done right. Ideally,
for a game consisting of a small team (4-8 guys), the levels should be
designed to reflect this. Wider corridors, more open areas, etc. If
you take a game like Angband, and give the player a bunch of
teammates, the game falls apart. Narrow corridors cause teammates to
become a nuisance, getting in the way. Having a team becomes useless,
since they can only attack one at a time in hallways, and it can
become a hassle to always have to lure enemies into rooms, to take
advantage of the strength of numbers. Ideally, you'd also make the
enemies more team-oriented, or increase their power significantly, to
make good teamwork a necessity.


Sports: I have to admit, I've never been much of a sports fan, but a
hybrid sport/RL game would be interesting enough, to say the least.
You'd want to create an interesting enough sport, otherwise the player
gets bored. Whether teambased or not, character development becomes
very important. Also, providing an interesting method of training or
gaining experience between matches would be vital. Possibly adding in
a town to explore between games would be cool, with small quests to
perform for needy townspeople, in exchange for
training/money/equipment/maneuvers/etc. This kind of game would be
best done in a silly, light-hearted manner.


Well, that's all I really had to say about that. I seem to post an
awful lot of ideas and stuff, but, oh well. ;-)

Hopefully, I can get my I/O routines ported to SDL soon enough, and
then I'll actually have a finished product coming soon, so I'll
actually be able to claim that I have some clue what I'm talking about.


--
"There are of course many problems connected with life, of
which some of the most popular are `Why are people born?'
`Why do they die?' `Why do they spend so much of the
intervening time wearing digital watches?'"

-- The Book.
58 answers Last reply
More about hybrids cross genre
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Timothy Pruett wrote:
    >
    > Action/Platformer: There are a few of these already in existance,
    but
    > most end up giving us a poor action/platformer combined with a poor
    > RL. The key is to take out a lot of the RL mechanics that only serve

    > to interfere with the action, and keep things simple. Ideally, you'd

    > remove most statistics, other than a few bare-essentials. Combat
    > should ideally be non-random, and lean more towards the skill-based
    > side of things. Of the major RL influences that are necessary,
    random
    > dungeons is important. Also, making sure to supply the player with a

    > nice assortment of weapons/armor/items/etc to uncover can add a lot
    to
    > the game. Keeping it level-based would probably be a good idea,
    since
    > it can add some gradual power increases, to help deal with the
    > ever-escalating difficulties of the enemies.

    ShockFrost attempted this at one point. His final statement was:
    "Randomly generated jumping puzzles is hard". I tend to agree with
    him.

    The real trick here is to try and get replayability. Usually
    platformers get replayability by the player memorizing the level layout
    and getting better at the timing for the jumps/moves. When you use
    random levels, you *remove* this important part of the platform
    gameplay. The only thing to replace it with is making figuring out
    *how* to jump through the level interesting. This is very difficult to
    make random.

    I'd like to see this proven wrong, however.

    > Strategy: This would be an interesting hybrid, if done right.
    > Fortunately, due to the wide range of strategy games, a lot of
    > possibilities exist.
    >
    > One possibility that I like, would be to make a Defense-type game,
    > with a strong central character. For example, the player would have
    a
    > small fortification, which he is charged to protect from increasingly

    > larger attacks. He intercepted the enemy's plans, so he knows on
    > which days an attack is coming. You start off with a small wooden
    > fort, which is empty. The first attack is just a few scouts, which
    > you have to fight with the main character. You can loot the scouts,
    > to increase your funds. Luckily, there's X days before the next
    > attack, giving the player time to build up his defenses.

    This sounds very cool. I'd even suggest integrating it with Sherm's
    Lemming suggestion. You have your main character you control during
    your fight, but also lots of archers, meleers, repair men, etc. They
    all run on automatic when assigned their proper roles. You can
    determine where the archers should be, so they can shoot appropriately
    and automatically at the enemy.

    You could even make this multiplayer. You have two phases: build, and
    fight, which alternate. The game Ramparts did this rather well. This
    is a good way to deal with the zerg rush approach. The players know
    that fight time is in 5 minutes, and thus both sides have the same
    window of opportunity to build their forces.
    --
    Jeff Lait
    (POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Timothy Pruett wrote:

    > I've been playing a lot of games lately, and have had a lot of fresh
    > inspiration. One thing that I'm particularly interested in toying with
    > right now, are ways to fuse roguelikes with other genres.

    One hybrid type I've been thinking about is RL/Lemmings. Instead of
    directly controlling a single character, you'd indirectly control a
    bunch of them. Like in Lemmings, you could assign a job to each one, and
    it would keep performing that job until you assigned it another one.

    As you gained in levels, you'd be able to summon greater numbers and/or
    different types of lemmings. Digger Lemmings, Attack Lemmings, Archer
    Lemmings, Priest Lemmings, etc.

    I've seen several RLs that include pets or familiars, but none where
    they have a central role in the gameplay.

    sherm--

    --
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
    Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Sherm Pendley wrote:
    > Timothy Pruett wrote:
    >
    >> I've been playing a lot of games lately, and have had a lot of fresh
    >> inspiration. One thing that I'm particularly interested in toying
    >> with right now, are ways to fuse roguelikes with other genres.
    >
    >
    > One hybrid type I've been thinking about is RL/Lemmings. Instead of
    > directly controlling a single character, you'd indirectly control a
    > bunch of them. Like in Lemmings, you could assign a job to each one, and
    > it would keep performing that job until you assigned it another one.
    >
    > As you gained in levels, you'd be able to summon greater numbers and/or
    > different types of lemmings. Digger Lemmings, Attack Lemmings, Archer
    > Lemmings, Priest Lemmings, etc.
    >
    > I've seen several RLs that include pets or familiars, but none where
    > they have a central role in the gameplay.

    Nice! I never even thought of something like that. That would be
    cool as hell to play. Now, just need someone to make such a rockin'
    game... ;-)


    --
    "There are of course many problems connected with life, of
    which some of the most popular are `Why are people born?'
    `Why do they die?' `Why do they spend so much of the
    intervening time wearing digital watches?'"

    -- The Book.
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    I think that the tactical sub-genre would be good, but I'd really like
    to see survival horror roguelikes. DoomRL is in this direction, but I'd
    like to see more.

    If I ever get around to writing a decent one, it'll be in this genre, I
    think.
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Jeff Lait wrote:
    > You could even make this multiplayer. You have two phases: build, and
    > fight, which alternate. The game Ramparts did this rather well. This
    > is a good way to deal with the zerg rush approach. The players know
    > that fight time is in 5 minutes, and thus both sides have the same
    > window of opportunity to build their forces.

    Zerg rush approach?

    --
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
    "One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
    One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Paul Derbyshire wrote:

    > Zerg rush approach?

    It's from Starcraft. Zergs are one low-level grunts, and a "zerg rush"
    is when you throw mobs of them at an enemy. There's very little (if any)
    finesse or strategy to it, just sheer overwhelming numbers of grunts.

    sherm--

    --
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
    Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Sherm Pendley wrote:
    > Paul Derbyshire wrote:
    >
    >> Zerg rush approach?
    >
    >
    > It's from Starcraft. Zergs are one low-level grunts, and a "zerg rush"
    > is when you throw mobs of them at an enemy. There's very little (if any)
    > finesse or strategy to it, just sheer overwhelming numbers of grunts.

    That's just not true. I never cared for zerg rushes myself, because
    they can make a quick, boring battle, depending on whether or not the
    rush fails or succeeds. There's a great deal of strategy and finesse
    involved in it, however, because if you send your lings one second too
    late, you will undoubtably lose, and be stuck with a crippled economy.
    You have to really send them as soon as humanly possible, and then
    micromanage the hell out of them. Also, you got to take a lot of
    things into consideration first, before deciding whether or not to
    rush. If the level is too big, can't rush. If more than one
    opponent, can't rush. If opponent is terran, can't rush. In the
    hands of a good player, a well executed rush can be a powerful tool.

    Granted, I hate playing zerg, so I never bother with that anyway.


    --
    "There are of course many problems connected with life, of
    which some of the most popular are `Why are people born?'
    `Why do they die?' `Why do they spend so much of the
    intervening time wearing digital watches?'"

    -- The Book.
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Timothy Pruett (drakalor.tourist@gmail.com) wrote:

    > Sports: I have to admit, I've never been much of a sports fan, but a
    > hybrid sport/RL game would be interesting enough, to say the least.
    > You'd want to create an interesting enough sport, otherwise the player
    > gets bored. Whether teambased or not, character development becomes
    > very important. Also, providing an interesting method of training or
    > gaining experience between matches would be vital. Possibly adding in
    > a town to explore between games would be cool, with small quests to
    > perform for needy townspeople, in exchange for
    > training/money/equipment/maneuvers/etc. This kind of game would be
    > best done in a silly, light-hearted manner.

    No no no. I've almost seriously considered a ice hockey roguelike. And
    I've given some tought to a sort-of sports related rl I'd really like
    to make if I find the time. Which should be Real Soon Now(tm). But
    first I need to do my one-stat test roguelike I was supposed to start
    last fall. Oh well, maybe when the university semester and Ice Hockey
    World Championships are over.

    --
    JTJ | http://www.kolumbus.fi/j.julkunen/
    "As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the
    demand."
    --Josh Billings
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Timothy Pruett wrote:

    [snip]

    > Strategy: This would be an interesting hybrid, if done right.
    > Fortunately, due to the wide range of strategy games, a lot of
    > possibilities exist.
    >
    > One possibility that I like, would be to make a Defense-type game,
    > with a strong central character. For example, the player would have
    a
    > small fortification, which he is charged to protect from increasingly

    > larger attacks. He intercepted the enemy's plans, so he knows on
    > which days an attack is coming. You start off with a small wooden
    > fort, which is empty. The first attack is just a few scouts, which
    > you have to fight with the main character. You can loot the scouts,
    > to increase your funds. Luckily, there's X days before the next
    > attack, giving the player time to build up his defenses.
    >
    > Coincidentally, he also just heard of -foo- artifact, which he can
    > find in some nearby ruins. So the player gets to go and play,
    > standard RL style, to adventure through the ruins to find the
    > artifact/gold/band of soldiers/etc, which will aid his defense
    > greatly. Obviously, he's on a tight time-limit, since another attack

    > will come soon. When he returns, he can use his gold to buy
    upgrades,
    > build new defensive structures, hire soldiers to assist, etc.
    > Obviously, this game lacks realism of any sort, but, not all games
    > need to be realistic. It'd be fun, and simple.
    >
    > Another possibility would be to make the game more tactical, with a
    > squad-based system. This has been done before (can't remember the
    > name), but it's not done too often, and rarely done right. Ideally,
    > for a game consisting of a small team (4-8 guys), the levels should
    be
    > designed to reflect this. Wider corridors, more open areas, etc. If

    > you take a game like Angband, and give the player a bunch of
    > teammates, the game falls apart. Narrow corridors cause teammates to

    > become a nuisance, getting in the way. Having a team becomes
    useless,
    > since they can only attack one at a time in hallways, and it can
    > become a hassle to always have to lure enemies into rooms, to take
    > advantage of the strength of numbers. Ideally, you'd also make the
    > enemies more team-oriented, or increase their power significantly, to
    > make good teamwork a necessity.
    >
    >
    > Sports: I have to admit, I've never been much of a sports fan, but a

    > hybrid sport/RL game would be interesting enough, to say the least.
    > You'd want to create an interesting enough sport, otherwise the
    player
    > gets bored. Whether teambased or not, character development becomes
    > very important. Also, providing an interesting method of training or

    > gaining experience between matches would be vital. Possibly adding
    in
    > a town to explore between games would be cool, with small quests to
    > perform for needy townspeople, in exchange for
    > training/money/equipment/maneuvers/etc. This kind of game would be
    > best done in a silly, light-hearted manner.
    >
    >
    > Well, that's all I really had to say about that. I seem to post an
    > awful lot of ideas and stuff, but, oh well. ;-)
    >
    > Hopefully, I can get my I/O routines ported to SDL soon enough, and
    > then I'll actually have a finished product coming soon, so I'll
    > actually be able to claim that I have some clue what I'm talking
    about.
    >
    >
    > --
    > "There are of course many problems connected with life, of
    > which some of the most popular are `Why are people born?'
    > `Why do they die?' `Why do they spend so much of the
    > intervening time wearing digital watches?'"
    >
    > -- The Book.
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Timothy Pruett wrote:
    > Sherm Pendley wrote:
    >
    >> Timothy Pruett wrote:
    >>
    >>> I've been playing a lot of games lately, and have had a lot of fresh
    >>> inspiration. One thing that I'm particularly interested in toying
    >>> with right now, are ways to fuse roguelikes with other genres.
    >>
    >> One hybrid type I've been thinking about is RL/Lemmings. Instead of
    >> directly controlling a single character, you'd indirectly control a
    >> bunch of them. Like in Lemmings, you could assign a job to each one,
    >> and it would keep performing that job until you assigned it another one.
    >>
    >> As you gained in levels, you'd be able to summon greater numbers
    >> and/or different types of lemmings. Digger Lemmings, Attack Lemmings,
    >> Archer Lemmings, Priest Lemmings, etc.
    >>
    >> I've seen several RLs that include pets or familiars, but none where
    >> they have a central role in the gameplay.
    >
    > Nice! I never even thought of something like that. That would be cool
    > as hell to play. Now, just need someone to make such a rockin' game...
    > ;-)

    Two words: "Matrix RL"

    with bullet time ;)

    --
    ABCGi ---- (abcgi@yahoo.com) ---- http://codemonkey.sunsite.dk
    Fun RLs in rgrd that I have tested recently!
    DoomRL - DwellerMobile - HWorld - AburaTan - DiabloBand
    Heroic Adventure - Tower of Doom - Tendrils - TheTombs
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    On 2005-05-01, ABCGi <abcgi@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > Two words: "Matrix RL"
    >
    > with bullet time ;)

    Roguelikes sort of have bullet time already. It's just called
    turn-based gameplay.

    --
    Risto Saarelma
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Timothy Pruett wrote:
    > Action/Platformer: There are a few of these already in existance, but
    > most end up giving us a poor action/platformer combined with a poor RL.
    > The key is to take out a lot of the RL mechanics that only serve to
    > interfere with the action, and keep things simple. Ideally, you'd
    > remove most statistics, other than a few bare-essentials. Combat should
    > ideally be non-random, and lean more towards the skill-based side of
    > things. Of the major RL influences that are necessary, random dungeons
    > is important. Also, making sure to supply the player with a nice
    > assortment of weapons/armor/items/etc to uncover can add a lot to the
    > game. Keeping it level-based would probably be a good idea, since it
    > can add some gradual power increases, to help deal with the
    > ever-escalating difficulties of the enemies.

    DoomRL is somewhat like that :-)

    > One possibility that I like, would be to make a Defense-type game, with
    > a strong central character. For example, the player would have a small
    > fortification, which he is charged to protect from increasingly larger
    > attacks. He intercepted the enemy's plans, so he knows on which days an
    > attack is coming. You start off with a small wooden fort, which is
    > empty. The first attack is just a few scouts, which you have to fight
    > with the main character. You can loot the scouts, to increase your
    > funds. Luckily, there's X days before the next attack, giving the
    > player time to build up his defenses.

    Ever heard of Bay12Games - Dwarven Fortress? You must see it -- it's
    exactly what you are describing -- the game is in-dev tough, but the
    movies on the site show something great...

    > Another possibility would be to make the game more tactical, with a
    > squad-based system. This has been done before (can't remember the
    > name), but it's not done too often, and rarely done right. Ideally, for
    > a game consisting of a small team (4-8 guys), the levels should be
    > designed to reflect this. Wider corridors, more open areas, etc. If
    > you take a game like Angband, and give the player a bunch of teammates,
    > the game falls apart. Narrow corridors cause teammates to become a
    > nuisance, getting in the way. Having a team becomes useless, since they
    > can only attack one at a time in hallways, and it can become a hassle to
    > always have to lure enemies into rooms, to take advantage of the
    > strength of numbers. Ideally, you'd also make the enemies more
    > team-oriented, or increase their power significantly, to
    > make good teamwork a necessity.

    Bay12games again ;-). Liberal Squad or something like that...
    --
    At your service,
    Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
    "Come on, Kornel. 11 years and no binary? And it's not
    vapourware?" -- Mike Blackney
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    J. W. McCall wrote:
    > I think that the tactical sub-genre would be good, but I'd really like
    > to see survival horror roguelikes. DoomRL is in this direction, but I'd
    > like to see more.

    What about Z-Day?
    And I think my Tower-AssaultRL design would be exactly what you think
    about ;-)

    --
    At your service,
    Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
    "Come on, Kornel. 11 years and no binary? And it's not
    vapourware?" -- Mike Blackney
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Timothy Pruett wrote:
    >> I've seen several RLs that include pets or familiars, but none where
    >> they have a central role in the gameplay.
    >
    >
    > Nice! I never even thought of something like that. That would be cool
    > as hell to play. Now, just need someone to make such a rockin' game...
    > ;-)

    What's the deadline? :-D
    No seriously though, I can't imagine such a game... could you be more
    precise?

    --
    At your service,
    Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
    "If hackers will ever use virtual reality, it would show a bunch
    of text terminals floating around them..." -- The Sheep
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Kornel Kisielewicz wrote:

    > What's the deadline? :-D

    Deadlines? I love deadlines! I love the sound they make as they go
    swooshing past. -- Dilbert

    > No seriously though, I can't imagine such a game... could you be more
    > precise?

    Here's a link to a Lemmings-like game in DHTML:

    <http://snesorama.net/flash/lemmings/index.html>

    Obviously a RL would be different, being turn based and with top-down
    view. But the core feature of the game play - the behavior of the
    lemmings - would remain. You'd assign a "job" to a lemming, and it would
    just keep doing that until it couldn't do it any more, or got killed.

    Imagine a first level like this:

    ################# ###################
    # # # #
    # # # #
    # # # #
    # <L L L L L # # > #
    # # # #
    # # # #
    # # # #
    # # # #
    ################# ###################

    All five lemmings begin the game simply walking from left to right until
    they hit a wall, then turning around and going the other direction. To
    get them to the stairs, you'd have to choose one (or more) and give it
    orders to "dig".

    Once you gave a lemming the order to "dig", it would walk until it hit a
    wall, then start digging:

    ################# ###################
    # # # #
    # # # #
    # ######### # #
    # < L L L L D# # > #
    # ######### # #
    # # # #
    # # # #
    # # # #
    ################# ###################

    Another part of "indirect control" is, you can't simply tell your
    digger, walker, or other lemmings to change directions. Instead, you
    tell one of them to be a "traffic cop" lemming that directs others to go
    the way you want them to. That one stops in place, and any lemmings that
    run into it change directon.

    ################# ###################
    # C ######### # #
    # L L L L D# # > #
    # L ######### # #
    # # # #
    # L # # #
    # # # #
    # < L L L L LC# # #
    # # # #
    ################# ###################

    It gets more and more complex from there. There could be traps,
    monsters, etc. And of course, many types of lemmings - diggers, traffic
    cops, priests that heal, soldiers that attack, archers that shoot,
    sniffers and disarmers to search for and remove traps, etc.

    sherm--

    --
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
    Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Sherm Pendley wrote:
    > Kornel Kisielewicz wrote:
    >
    >> What's the deadline? :-D
    >
    > Deadlines? I love deadlines! I love the sound they make as they go
    > swooshing past. -- Dilbert

    :-D

    >> No seriously though, I can't imagine such a game... could you be more
    *snip*

    Ok, I see what you mean. But we would still have a problem with two
    lemmings on one square (going opposite directions). Also there would be
    a problem with density -- the original allowed you virtually any amount
    of lemmings in any amount of space. We cant do that...

    And of course it would have to be realtime ;-)

    --
    At your service,
    Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
    My opinions are my own. Share them at your own risk.
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Kornel Kisielewicz wrote:

    > Ok, I see what you mean. But we would still have a problem with two
    > lemmings on one square (going opposite directions). Also there would be
    > a problem with density -- the original allowed you virtually any amount
    > of lemmings in any amount of space. We cant do that...

    Um... why not? Lots of RLs have stackable equipment; it's not much of an
    implementation problem. Why not stackable lemmings?

    sherm--

    --
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
    Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    ???

    Maybe it was a newsreader glitch, but all I saw was a quote, with
    nothing written by you.


    --
    "There are of course many problems connected with life, of
    which some of the most popular are `Why are people born?'
    `Why do they die?' `Why do they spend so much of the
    intervening time wearing digital watches?'"

    -- The Book.
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Sherm Pendley wrote:
    > Kornel Kisielewicz wrote:
    >
    >> Ok, I see what you mean. But we would still have a problem with two
    >> lemmings on one square (going opposite directions). Also there would
    >> be a problem with density -- the original allowed you virtually any
    >> amount of lemmings in any amount of space. We cant do that...
    >
    > Um... why not? Lots of RLs have stackable equipment; it's not much of an
    > implementation problem. Why not stackable lemmings?

    Kheh ;-). But you would have to have a way of seeing how many lemmings
    (approx) there are in that cell...

    P.S. Please stop provoking Twisted One -- you both just produce flames
    on the newsgroup, and some people are tired of reading it... Your
    flaming him wont do any good, we both know that it will change nothing.
    --
    At your service,
    Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
    "Oh come on. We both know the truth about this game --
    vapourware." -- Anathiel about GenRogue
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Kornel Kisielewicz wrote:

    > Sherm Pendley wrote:
    >
    >> Um... why not? Lots of RLs have stackable equipment; it's not much of
    >> an implementation problem. Why not stackable lemmings?
    >
    > But you would have to have a way of seeing how many lemmings
    > (approx) there are in that cell...

    It wouldn't necessarily have to be exact though. If your lemmings were
    green, for example, dark green could be a single lemming and a brighter
    shade more than one. Or if you didn't want to rely on color, you could
    use case - 'l' vs 'L', for instance.

    sherm--

    --
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
    Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Oops, dunno what happened there.

    [snip]
    > Strategy: This would be an interesting hybrid, if done right.
    > Fortunately, due to the wide range of strategy games, a lot of
    > possibilities exist.

    Actually, I am working on a roguelike(don't have a name yet;) and I
    hope to balance it considerably strategicly. Basically, there's an
    enemy -foo- and you have to kill him, but every time you make a move,
    he does, like a borg. It will level up, try to kill you, etc.
    Ultimately, your objective is to kill hime before he kills you. The
    game will be designed to end somewhere in the time that you have a
    fortress, army, etc. I hope to make NPCs more controllable, so that you
    might even be able to set up a construction crew with orders, leave for
    a while, come back and you've got a wall, staircase, tunnel etc. This
    game is a beginner project for me, so don't expect anything before a
    few major rewrites and dissapointments:)

    > One possibility that I like, would be to make a Defense-type game,
    > with a strong central character. For example, the player would have
    a
    > small fortification, which he is charged to protect from increasingly

    > larger attacks. He intercepted the enemy's plans, so he knows on
    > which days an attack is coming. You start off with a small wooden
    > fort, which is empty. The first attack is just a few scouts, which
    > you have to fight with the main character. You can loot the scouts,
    > to increase your funds. Luckily, there's X days before the next
    > attack, giving the player time to build up his defenses.

    This will be a part of the game, except that I hope to make it possible
    to eventually nuke to enemy tower. I hope to implement extremely long
    ranged spells, althouh exactly how, I don't know yet.

    > Coincidentally, he also just heard of -foo- artifact, which he can
    > find in some nearby ruins. So the player gets to go and play,
    > standard RL style, to adventure through the ruins to find the
    > artifact/gold/band of soldiers/etc, which will aid his defense
    > greatly. Obviously, he's on a tight time-limit, since another attack

    > will come soon. When he returns, he can use his gold to buy
    upgrades,
    > build new defensive structures, hire soldiers to assist, etc.
    > Obviously, this game lacks realism of any sort, but, not all games
    > need to be realistic. It'd be fun, and simple.

    If the player makes it to the point were you have a seeing stone/wand
    of random spoiler/majordomo(also functions as rumor gatherer), maybe
    I'll have it generate a dungeon in a place where you can't have found
    it yet(buried) and put a powerful artifact in it. This would be a
    random midgame event, designed to allow a player who is behind to
    recover. OTOH, I don't want to make a game where you feel rushed.
    Maybe. I have to think about that some more. good idea, but I don't
    want to get bogged down by adding every concievable feature at cost of
    gameplay.

    > Another possibility would be to make the game more tactical, with a
    > squad-based system. This has been done before (can't remember the
    > name), but it's not done too often, and rarely done right. Ideally,
    > for a game consisting of a small team (4-8 guys), the levels should
    be
    > designed to reflect this. Wider corridors, more open areas, etc. If

    > you take a game like Angband, and give the player a bunch of
    > teammates, the game falls apart. Narrow corridors cause teammates to

    > become a nuisance, getting in the way. Having a team becomes
    useless,
    > since they can only attack one at a time in hallways, and it can
    > become a hassle to always have to lure enemies into rooms, to take
    > advantage of the strength of numbers. Ideally, you'd also make the
    > enemies more team-oriented, or increase their power significantly, to
    > make good teamwork a necessity.

    Tactics are important. My level generator tends towards wide open maps
    with wide, rambling tunnels. A few bottlenecks, if you like to fight
    alone, but it will be possible to fight with a squad o commandos as
    well. I hope for the level of control that warcraft has, though of
    course without the ASE view(unless you have a crystal of far seeing and
    a control skill of X, willpower of Y). This is going to be primarily a
    roguelike, so I'll definitely make it possible(although difficult) to
    play as a loner, wih no companions or mercs. Thus, I embark. maybe I
    should have started my own thread. Maybe i should come up with a name
    before I debug that segfault. Maybe not. Speaking of which, does anyone
    know of any reason that endwin() should cause a segfault? I can't
    figure it.

    [snip]
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Timothy Pruett <drakalor.tourist@gmail.com> wrote:

    >???
    >
    >Maybe it was a newsreader glitch, but all I saw was a quote, with
    >nothing written by you.

    ???

    Maybe it was a newsreader glitch, but all I was was stuff written by
    you, with no quote.

    ;-)
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Risto Saarelma wrote:
    > On 2005-05-01, ABCGi <abcgi@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >>Two words: "Matrix RL"
    >>
    >>with bullet time ;)
    >
    > Roguelikes sort of have bullet time already. It's just called
    > turn-based gameplay.

    I know what you mean but nope;

    * At break of turn monsters and PC can be mid-move
    * Activating bullet time means PC moves faster per
    turn than all enemies

    I would implement it as something like 10 units per
    movement square so that monsters and PC can be stopped
    "in between" squares.

    * Dive and shoot moves.
    * Bullet dodging skills.

    etc

    --
    ABCGi ---- (abcgi@yahoo.com) ---- http://codemonkey.sunsite.dk
    Fun RLs in rgrd that I have tested recently!
    DoomRL - DwellerMobile - HWorld - AburaTan - DiabloBand
    Heroic Adventure - Tower of Doom - Tendrils - TheTombs
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    On 2005-05-01, ABCGi <abcgi@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >> Roguelikes sort of have bullet time already. It's just called
    >> turn-based gameplay.
    >
    > I know what you mean but nope;
    >
    > * At break of turn monsters and PC can be mid-move

    You could probably make something interesting out of this, but
    representing the mid-move state is going to be hard if you only have a
    text display. With graphics you'd be able to show an entity's position
    between two cells and maybe also that an enemy is beginning to attack
    but hasn't hit yet. Of course you could use some kind of color coding in
    ascii to show entities who are currently moving and entities who are
    currently attacking.

    > * Activating bullet time means PC moves faster per
    > turn than all enemies

    If you're making something like Max Payne - The Roguelike, having an
    ability called bullet time makes some sense. Otherwise the basic idea of
    bullet time is that you get extra reaction time to aim and shoot at the
    enemies rushing at you. This is only important in a real-time game where
    reaction time is limited. In a roguelike, you'd just call this ability
    speed boost or something like that, because an important requirement of
    the bullet time system isn't present.

    Maybe you could compensate for the turn-basedness and freeze the
    rest of the world completely. The player character could perform a
    number of actions while everything else stands still. That would
    probably be an impressive power even in a turn-based game.

    --
    Risto Saarelma
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    ABCGi wrote:
    > I know what you mean but nope;
    >
    > * At break of turn monsters and PC can be mid-move
    > * Activating bullet time means PC moves faster per
    > turn than all enemies
    >
    > I would implement it as something like 10 units per
    > movement square so that monsters and PC can be stopped
    > "in between" squares.
    >
    > * Dive and shoot moves.
    > * Bullet dodging skills.

    I'd rather see bullet time as bullets in mid air when you move ;-)

    --
    At your service,
    Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
    "If hackers will ever use virtual reality, it would show a bunch
    of text terminals floating around them..." -- The Sheep
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Sherm Pendley wrote:
    > Kornel Kisielewicz wrote:
    >
    >> Sherm Pendley wrote:
    >>
    >>> Um... why not? Lots of RLs have stackable equipment; it's not much of
    >>> an implementation problem. Why not stackable lemmings?
    >>
    >>
    >> But you would have to have a way of seeing how many lemmings (approx)
    >> there are in that cell...
    >
    >
    > It wouldn't necessarily have to be exact though. If your lemmings were
    > green, for example, dark green could be a single lemming and a brighter
    > shade more than one.

    True, and white could be 50+ ;-)

    > Or if you didn't want to rely on color, you could
    > use case - 'l' vs 'L', for instance.

    That's a little, too little.
    --
    At your service,
    Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
    "11 years and no binary. And it's not vapourware" -- Igor Savin
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Sherm Pendley wrote:
    > Kornel Kisielewicz wrote:
    >
    >> Sherm Pendley wrote:
    >>
    >>> Um... why not? Lots of RLs have stackable equipment; it's not much of
    >>> an implementation problem. Why not stackable lemmings?
    >>
    >>
    >> But you would have to have a way of seeing how many lemmings (approx)
    >> there are in that cell...
    >
    >
    > It wouldn't necessarily have to be exact though. If your lemmings were
    > green, for example, dark green could be a single lemming and a brighter
    > shade more than one. Or if you didn't want to rely on color, you could
    > use case - 'l' vs 'L', for instance.
    >
    > sherm--

    BTW, your examples showed a Top-down view, why not a view from the side?
    --
    At your service,
    Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
    "11 years and no binary. And it's not vapourware" -- Igor Savin
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Kornel Kisielewicz wrote:

    > BTW, your examples showed a Top-down view, why not a view from the side?

    Side view doesn't strike me as being very roguelike, in my opinion.

    The idea is not so much to clone Lemmings in text mode, it's more about
    taking a few key game play elements from it and applying those to a
    traditional roguelike.

    sherm--

    --
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
    Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Kornel Kisielewicz wrote:
    > ABCGi wrote:
    >
    >> I know what you mean but nope;
    >>
    >> * At break of turn monsters and PC can be mid-move
    >> * Activating bullet time means PC moves faster per
    >> turn than all enemies
    >>
    >> I would implement it as something like 10 units per
    >> movement square so that monsters and PC can be stopped
    >> "in between" squares.
    >>
    >> * Dive and shoot moves.
    >> * Bullet dodging skills.
    >
    > I'd rather see bullet time as bullets in mid air when you move ;-)

    'bitchin!

    --
    ABCGi ---- (abcgi@yahoo.com) ---- http://codemonkey.sunsite.dk
    Fun RLs in rgrd that I have tested recently!
    DoomRL - DwellerMobile - HWorld - AburaTan - DiabloBand
    Heroic Adventure - Tower of Doom - Tendrils - TheTombs
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Risto Saarelma wrote:
    > On 2005-05-01, ABCGi <abcgi@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >>>Roguelikes sort of have bullet time already. It's just called
    >>>turn-based gameplay.
    >>
    >>I know what you mean but nope;
    >>
    >>* At break of turn monsters and PC can be mid-move
    >
    > You could probably make something interesting out of this, but
    > representing the mid-move state is going to be hard if you only have a
    > text display. With graphics you'd be able to show an entity's position
    > between two cells and maybe also that an enemy is beginning to attack
    > but hasn't hit yet. Of course you could use some kind of color coding in
    > ascii to show entities who are currently moving and entities who are
    > currently attacking.
    >
    >>* Activating bullet time means PC moves faster per
    >> turn than all enemies
    >
    > If you're making something like Max Payne - The Roguelike, having an
    > ability called bullet time makes some sense. Otherwise the basic idea of
    > bullet time is that you get extra reaction time to aim and shoot at the
    > enemies rushing at you. This is only important in a real-time game where
    > reaction time is limited. In a roguelike, you'd just call this ability
    > speed boost or something like that, because an important requirement of
    > the bullet time system isn't present.
    >
    > Maybe you could compensate for the turn-basedness and freeze the
    > rest of the world completely. The player character could perform a
    > number of actions while everything else stands still. That would
    > probably be an impressive power even in a turn-based game.

    Risto - I can see the RL in my mind :) And the body cannot
    live without the mind! Having done a max payne project I
    guess my influences are rubbing off here.

    As for representation in ASCII of being "inbetween" moves
    I would use my Big RL idea where characters and monsters
    are many characters in size. eg a PC 5by5 characters
    would have 4 steps between position 1 and position 2.

    http://codemonkey.sunsite.dk/projects/beyond/newstuff2.html#brl

    @@@@@
    -----
    -----
    -----
    -----
    @@@@@

    But PC only performs action at position 1 or 2...

    --
    ABCGi ---- (abcgi@yahoo.com) ---- http://codemonkey.sunsite.dk
    Fun RLs in rgrd that I have tested recently!
    DoomRL - DwellerMobile - HWorld - AburaTan - DiabloBand
    Heroic Adventure - Tower of Doom - Tendrils - TheTombs
  31. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    "Sherm Pendley" <spamtrap@dot-app.org> wrote in message
    news:_9Cdnel3tMopbunfRVn-iQ@adelphia.com...
    > Paul Derbyshire wrote:
    >
    >> Zerg rush approach?
    >
    > It's from Starcraft. Zergs are one low-level grunts, and a "zerg rush" is
    > when you throw mobs of them at an enemy. There's very little (if any)
    > finesse or strategy to it, just sheer overwhelming numbers of grunts.
    >

    Not true. There is, or should I say there was when I played, a fine art
    to micromanaging the 'lings on their first run. A good piece of playing at
    the beginning can make the difference from being crushed by the weight of
    numbers (their workers) or crippling their fledgling economy (using the
    natural zerg regeneration and keen mouse clicking).

    Of course while this is happenning you are probably expanding to another
    place on the map, keeping up the pressure (and bonus scouting) with repeated
    assaults. At least that's how I'd probably do it.

    --
    Glen
    L:Pyt E+++ T-- R+ P+++ D+ G+ F:*band !RL RLA-
    W:AF Q+++ AI++ GFX++ SFX-- RN++++ PO--- !Hp Re-- S+
  32. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    The Sheep wrote:
    > Dnia 1 May 2005 19:42:31 -0700,
    > NIm napisal(a):
    >
    > > before I debug that segfault. Maybe not. Speaking of which, does
    anyone
    > > know of any reason that endwin() should cause a segfault? I can't
    > > figure it.
    >
    > Maybe you've got some windows overlapping, but without panels?
    > It's a common mistake.
    >
    Nein, I'm not using windows or panels yet(I only have one line at the
    top for debug info). The last thing I did was to change my map from an
    array of int into an array of structures. I'm using c++ BTW. I can't
    figure out how to debug this, although I'm not over-familiar with gdb.
    I'm working on it, but I've got a lack of ideas on how to procede.
    Maybe reading GDB tutorials will help.
  33. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Dnia 1 May 2005 19:42:31 -0700,
    NIm napisal(a):

    > before I debug that segfault. Maybe not. Speaking of which, does anyone
    > know of any reason that endwin() should cause a segfault? I can't
    > figure it.

    Maybe you've got some windows overlapping, but without panels?
    It's a common mistake.

    --
    Radomir @**@_ Bee! .**._ .**._ .**._ .**._ zZ
    `The Sheep' ('') 3 (..) 3 (..) 3 (..) 3 (--) 3
    Dopieralski .vvVvVVVVVvVVVvVVVvVvVVvVvvVvVVVVVVvvVVvvVvvvvVVvVVvv.v.
  34. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    NIm wrote:
    [snip]

    Nothing. Nothing besides headers, attribution, quoted material, and sig,
    anyway.

    --
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
    "One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
    One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
  35. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    On Sun, 1 May 2005, Sherm Pendley wrote:
    >
    > Deadlines? I love deadlines! I love the sound they make as they go swooshing
    > past. -- Dilbert

    Wrong Adams. According to the Internet, which is /never/ wrong, ;-)
    it was Douglas, not Scott, who said, "I love deadlines. I love the
    whooshing noise they make as they go by," or words to that effect.

    [LemmingsRL]
    > Obviously a RL would be different, being turn based and with top-down view.

    That's just a difference in perspective. And Lemmings is turn-based
    already, with the minor detail that each "turn" takes some short amount
    of time. I mean, it's real-time, but the movement of lemmings isn't
    continuous; it's discrete. At least in the versions I've seen. That's
    partly an artifact created by the tiny pixel art, though.
    If the game was a puzzle game where the player controlled many
    initially-undifferentiated automata, I wouldn't call it a "roguelike."
    I'd call it "Lemmings, minus the need for quick thinking." Roguelikes
    can't be /all/ puzzles, IMHO.
    Now, if there were a lot of lemmings wandering around a level, and the
    player character could walk up to any of them and give it instructions,
    and use the lemmings to solve a subsidiary puzzle like "dig into the
    treasure chamber" or "align the mirrors to cast light into the dark room,"
    that would be a neat roguelike addition. But I don't think you could make
    a whole roguelike out of an '@' micromanaging lemmings; it would get even
    more tedious than NetHack's roguelike Sokoban.[1]

    -Arthur

    [1] Not that Sokoban is really all that boring, but it does have wandering
    monsters and plenty of loot to make up for the repetitive boulder-pushing.
  36. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    In article <Q5qdna44sLdSoenfRVn-vA@adelphia.com>,
    Sherm Pendley <spamtrap@dot-app.org> wrote:
    >Timothy Pruett wrote:
    >
    >> I've been playing a lot of games lately, and have had a lot of fresh
    >> inspiration. One thing that I'm particularly interested in toying with
    >> right now, are ways to fuse roguelikes with other genres.
    [...]
    >As you gained in levels, you'd be able to summon greater numbers and/or
    >different types of lemmings. Digger Lemmings, Attack Lemmings, Archer
    >Lemmings, Priest Lemmings, etc.

    In Diablo II, the Necromancer class is sort of like that. You can
    raise skeletons and golems and they'll go and do your fighting for
    you. As you increase in skill, you get more and/or different
    creatures to raise depending on which skills you pick.

    (I played a Necromancer this way for a while but got bored with it
    around halfway through the Monastery basement.)


    --Chris


    --
    Chris Reuter http://www.blit.ca
    "[...] and still the BV-238 remained ready at Lake Schaal. Like an eager puppy.
    A giant, six-engine, fascist, heavily-armed, flying, eager puppy."
    --Zack "Geist Editor" Parsons, Something Awful
  37. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Chris Reuter wrote::

    > In Diablo II, the Necromancer class is sort of like that. You can
    > raise skeletons and golems and they'll go and do your fighting for
    > you. As you increase in skill, you get more and/or different
    > creatures to raise depending on which skills you pick.
    >
    > (I played a Necromancer this way for a while but got bored with it
    > around halfway through the Monastery basement.)

    A Skellymancer (necromancer focusing on skeletons) is usually suggested
    for safe and relaxed gameplay. You just stand and watch your army kill
    the enemies, from time to time raise more skeletons from the dead bodies.

    Some say "relaxed" some say "boring" ;o)

    > --Chris

    --
    c.u. Hajo
  38. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Hansjoerg Malthaner wrote:
    > Chris Reuter wrote::
    >
    >> In Diablo II, the Necromancer class is sort of like that. You can
    >> raise skeletons and golems and they'll go and do your fighting for
    >> you. As you increase in skill, you get more and/or different
    >> creatures to raise depending on which skills you pick.
    >>
    >> (I played a Necromancer this way for a while but got bored with it
    >> around halfway through the Monastery basement.)
    >
    > A Skellymancer (necromancer focusing on skeletons) is usually suggested
    > for safe and relaxed gameplay. You just stand and watch your army kill
    > the enemies, from time to time raise more skeletons from the dead bodies.

    Yeah, but try to beat Duriel with an army of skeletons. Hellishly hard
    (well, unless you have a high level Iron Maiden that is...)
    --
    At your service,
    Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
    "It's much easier to make an army of dumb good people than to
    make one single smart good guy..." -- DarkGod
  39. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Kornel Kisielewicz wrote::

    > Hansjoerg Malthaner wrote:
    >
    >> Chris Reuter wrote::
    >>
    >>> In Diablo II, the Necromancer class is sort of like that. You can
    >>> raise skeletons and golems and they'll go and do your fighting for
    >>> you. As you increase in skill, you get more and/or different
    >>> creatures to raise depending on which skills you pick.
    >>>
    >>> (I played a Necromancer this way for a while but got bored with it
    >>> around halfway through the Monastery basement.)
    >>
    >> A Skellymancer (necromancer focusing on skeletons) is usually
    >> suggested for safe and relaxed gameplay. You just stand and watch your
    >> army kill the enemies, from time to time raise more skeletons from the
    >> dead bodies.
    >
    > Yeah, but try to beat Duriel with an army of skeletons. Hellishly hard
    > (well, unless you have a high level Iron Maiden that is...)

    As I said in another message there is no perfect solution in D2 :)

    You have options, though:

    1) Leave the chamber, and raise new skeletons outside, come back with a
    new army.

    2) Clay golem helps to distract and slow Duriel (Clay golem slows the
    enemy on both hitting and being hit). Clay golem can be recast
    endlessly, so finally you can wear down duriel with an long sequence of
    clay golems.
    2a) Iron Golem or Blood Golem are bad ideas against Duriel.

    3) At level 18 (that should be the level when you reach Duriel), you can
    learn Bone Spear, so while he Skellies and the Golem keep Duriel busy,
    Bone Spear him from a distance.

    4) If you don't have Bone Spear, buy the biggest, baddest bow or
    crossbow that you can equip and use it to help you minions.

    5) Bring a trained hireling with you. Act 2 hirelings are good fighters,
    and can also give you a few more seconds time to fight Duriel from a
    distance.
    5a) If the hireling dies, leave the chamber, revive him and go back.

    In general Duriel is a major roadblock for any character. IMO he's worst
    for a sorceress. The poor girl has only few HP, only a hireling to
    prtoect her, and he'll be dead in seconds all alone against Duriel. Then
    she can only play hide and seek with Duriel, just there is no place to
    hide in that chamber ... I can tell all my sorcies fear Duriel the most
    of all quest bosses when they approach him the first time. I can tell
    that boots with faster run/walk can be a lifesaver there! (You can buy
    them. It's not a question of good luck only to get them.)

    I beat Duriel now with 12 different characters on all difficulty levels
    up to hell, so I think there always is a way. Just think about your
    options. Each character will most likely need a different approach.

    Still Skellymancers are among the easiest characters (This was different
    before the 1.10 patch, though. Skellies are now stronger).

    --
    c.u. Hajo
  40. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Hansjoerg Malthaner wrote:
    > As I said in another message there is no perfect solution in D2 :)
    >
    > You have options, though:
    >
    > 1) Leave the chamber, and raise new skeletons outside, come back with a
    > new army.

    Uh leaving the chamber seems immpossible. Also, the skeletons don't do
    almost any damage to Duriel.

    > 2) Clay golem helps to distract and slow Duriel (Clay golem slows the
    > enemy on both hitting and being hit). Clay golem can be recast
    > endlessly, so finally you can wear down duriel with an long sequence of
    > clay golems.

    He kills the clay golem in one hit.

    > 2a) Iron Golem or Blood Golem are bad ideas against Duriel.

    Iron Golem is *a lot* better. Especialy if the first thing you do after
    entering the chamber is scattering a few weapons around.

    > 3) At level 18 (that should be the level when you reach Duriel), you can
    > learn Bone Spear, so while he Skellies and the Golem keep Duriel busy,
    > Bone Spear him from a distance.

    If you go for a Skellmancer that's not a valid option ;-). And he eats
    my 8 skeletons, and 1 Iron Golem in about 10 seconds.

    > 4) If you don't have Bone Spear, buy the biggest, baddest bow or
    > crossbow that you can equip and use it to help you minions.

    Tried. Time that I have for firing is enough to take about 5% of Duriels
    life.

    > 5) Bring a trained hireling with you. Act 2 hirelings are good fighters,
    > and can also give you a few more seconds time to fight Duriel from a
    > distance.

    Get's killed with one shot.

    > 5a) If the hireling dies, leave the chamber, revive him and go back.

    Revive?

    > In general Duriel is a major roadblock for any character. IMO he's worst
    > for a sorceress.

    Funny. My friend said that he's the easiest with the sorcress, and the
    worst with the necro ;-).

    > Still Skellymancers are among the easiest characters (This was different
    > before the 1.10 patch, though. Skellies are now stronger).

    Skellymancers are ridiculously easy *except* for Duriel.
    --
    At your service,
    Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
    "Well, the philosophy of the World of Shadows is based on most of the
    degenerate, immoral and foremost amoral philosophical beliefs of our
    world exagarated to the maximum." --Anubis
  41. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    "Chris Reuter" <cgreuter@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
    news:3b885d.6tq.ln@catarneh.blit.ca...
    > In article <Q5qdna44sLdSoenfRVn-vA@adelphia.com>,
    > Sherm Pendley <spamtrap@dot-app.org> wrote:
    >>Timothy Pruett wrote:
    >>
    >>> I've been playing a lot of games lately, and have had a lot of fresh
    >>> inspiration. One thing that I'm particularly interested in toying with
    >>> right now, are ways to fuse roguelikes with other genres.
    > [...]
    >>As you gained in levels, you'd be able to summon greater numbers and/or
    >>different types of lemmings. Digger Lemmings, Attack Lemmings, Archer
    >>Lemmings, Priest Lemmings, etc.
    >
    > In Diablo II, the Necromancer class is sort of like that. You can
    > raise skeletons and golems and they'll go and do your fighting for
    > you. As you increase in skill, you get more and/or different
    > creatures to raise depending on which skills you pick.
    >
    > (I played a Necromancer this way for a while but got bored with it
    > around halfway through the Monastery basement.)
    >

    You are bored quickly...that's only about two hours of play time!

    --
    Glen
    L:Pyt E+++ T-- R+ P+++ D+ G+ F:*band !RL RLA-
    W:AF Q+++ AI++ GFX++ SFX-- RN++++ PO--- !Hp Re-- S+
  42. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    "NIm" <bladedpenguin@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > Speaking of which, does anyone know of
    > any reason that endwin() should cause a segfault? I can't figure
    > it.

    This could happen if you corrupted the memory allocation arena,
    such as by writing through a stray pointer, or passing an invalid
    pointer to some other curses function.

    --
    CalcRogue: TI-89, TI-92+, PalmOS, Windows and Linux.
    http://calcrogue.jimrandomh.org/
  43. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    In article <42788c7d@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Glen Wheeler <gew75@uow.edu.au> wrote:
    >"Chris Reuter" <cgreuter@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message

    >> (I played a Necromancer this way for a while but got bored with it
    >> around halfway through the Monastery basement.)

    > You are bored quickly...that's only about two hours of play time!

    I think I play more slowly than you, then. I'm pretty sure it took
    longer than that.

    In any case, I don't know if "bored" is the word. "No longer fun" is
    an apt description regardless. I found that I missed being able to
    personally bash the bad guys.


    --Chris


    --
    Chris Reuter http://www.blit.ca
    "Who really has time to worry about some al Queda l33t d00dz owning my site
    when so many people are dying true deaths that can't be fixed with backup
    tapes?" --Peter Wayner, reviewing Edward Yourdon's "Byte Wars"
  44. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    "Chris Reuter" <cgreuter@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
    news:s9nd5d.q04.ln@catarneh.blit.ca...
    > In article <42788c7d@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Glen Wheeler <gew75@uow.edu.au>
    > wrote:
    >>"Chris Reuter" <cgreuter@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
    >
    >>> (I played a Necromancer this way for a while but got bored with it
    >>> around halfway through the Monastery basement.)
    >
    >> You are bored quickly...that's only about two hours of play time!
    >
    > I think I play more slowly than you, then. I'm pretty sure it took
    > longer than that.
    >
    > In any case, I don't know if "bored" is the word. "No longer fun" is
    > an apt description regardless. I found that I missed being able to
    > personally bash the bad guys.
    >

    That's funny; I found myself most bored with D2 while playing a Barbarian
    (my first character) who really didn't have much strategy...apart from being
    sensible about picking skills.

    Good decision however, I was just surprised you made it so early. That's
    not even the end of the first act :).

    --
    Glen
    L:Pyt E+++ T-- R+ P+++ D+ G+ F:*band !RL RLA-
    W:AF Q+++ AI++ GFX++ SFX-- RN++++ PO--- !Hp Re-- S+
  45. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    jimrandomh wrote:
    > "NIm" <bladedpenguin@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > > Speaking of which, does anyone know of
    > > any reason that endwin() should cause a segfault? I can't figure
    > > it.
    >
    > This could happen if you corrupted the memory allocation arena,
    > such as by writing through a stray pointer, or passing an invalid
    > pointer to some other curses function.

    Thank you, I finally figured it out. I was writing to an array, and the
    number I was comparing my for loop to was one too high. It wrote out of
    where it should be by one several hundered times and really screwed up
    the stack, which presumably is what caused endwin() to bellyache. Thank
    you for your help.
  46. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    NIm wrote:
    > jimrandomh wrote:
    >
    >>"NIm" <bladedpenguin@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Speaking of which, does anyone know of
    >>>any reason that endwin() should cause a segfault? I can't figure
    >>>it.
    >>
    >>This could happen if you corrupted the memory allocation arena,
    >>such as by writing through a stray pointer, or passing an invalid
    >>pointer to some other curses function.
    >
    > Thank you, I finally figured it out. I was writing to an array, and the
    > number I was comparing my for loop to was one too high. It wrote out of
    > where it should be by one several hundered times and really screwed up
    > the stack, which presumably is what caused endwin() to bellyache. Thank
    > you for your help.

    Those off-by-one errors are very common -- even experienced coders trip
    over it from time to time. :) And C isn't very forgiving -- and doesn't
    always give good diagnostic info to help locate an error...

    --
    http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/germany-1933.htm
    Reichstag fire -> 9/11
    Communist "arsonist" -> Iraq "weapons of mass destruction"
    Be afraid. Be very afraid.
  47. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    On Sun, 1 May 2005 14:15:37 +0300, Juho Julkunen
    <giaotanj@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >I've almost seriously considered a ice hockey roguelike.

    For when DoomRL isn't violent and gory enough?

    R. Dan Henry = danhenry@inreach.com
    Idiot boy, when are you going to post something useful?
    Or better yet, get a job and stop being a welfare bum?
    Dance, Puppet, dance!
  48. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    R. Dan Henry wrote:
    > On Sun, 1 May 2005 14:15:37 +0300, Juho Julkunen
    > <giaotanj@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I've almost seriously considered a ice hockey roguelike.
    >
    >
    > For when DoomRL isn't violent and gory enough?

    Probably.
    [gratuitous attack deleted]
    This is getting old, retarded pedantic. Really, really, *really* old.

    --
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
    "One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
    One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
  49. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    R. Dan Henry wrote:
    > On Sun, 1 May 2005 14:15:37 +0300, Juho Julkunen
    > <giaotanj@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >>I've almost seriously considered a ice hockey roguelike.
    >
    > For when DoomRL isn't violent and gory enough?

    DoomRL could add a ice hockey stick and use gibbed
    heads as pucks... ;)

    --
    ABCGi ---- (abcgi@yahoo.com) ---- http://codemonkey.sunsite.dk
    Fun RLs in rgrd that I have tested recently!
    DoomRL - DwellerMobile - HWorld - AburaTan - DiabloRL
    Heroic Adventure - Powder - Shuruppak - TheTombs
Ask a new question

Read More

Development Games Video Games