Horizontal continuity between dungeons

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

jude hungerford wrote:
> I'm sure this must have been discussed before, but my searches did not
> turn anything up on precisely this subject- please let me know if I'm
> repeating.
> In a multi-dungeon roguelike, it should logically be possible to dig
> horizontally from one dungeon to the next (at least in some cases). Are
> you going to care whether this is actually possible or not?

I wonder how you could even know in what direction you need to dig? In
a multi dungeon roguelike, such as say, ADOM, I would think you would
almost always miss all other dungeons and just dig forever.

> I'm not so concerned about implementation difficulties; my mapping
> framework will certainly support it if I want to make it possible. I'm
> sure someone will try to do it somewhere down the road (once there's a
> playable release out there). Will you feel cheated if the rock on each
> level just keeps getting harder and harder the further you go from the
> centre, essentially making it impossible to make connecting tunnels
> from one dungeon to the next?

I would feel cheated if you made the rock just harder and harder to dig
with no actual purpose.

If there is no reason to dig arbitrarily far out, you should give "This
rock is too hard to dig" and make a hard boundary on your dungeon
levels.

It is very important to inform the player what actions are useful and
what are a waste of time. Placing an ability which is just a huge
waste of time merely frustrates users that dig three screens until they
realize there is indeed no point to this.

> There are obvious advantages to confining
> the levels,

The real advantage is that the player knows when they are done
exploring the level. Preventing the creation of shortcuts is a minor
game design issue compared to this.
--
Jeff Lait
(POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)

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

Jeff Lait wrote:
> jude hungerford wrote:

> I wonder how you could even know in what direction you need to dig? In
> a multi dungeon roguelike, such as say, ADOM, I would think you would
> almost always miss all other dungeons and just dig forever.

I plan for the world to be unrealistically cramped full of features;
there will be spaces between towns and between dungeons, but they will
not be realistically huge. So if I opt for the continuous approach,
casting Magic Mapping at sufficient level may reveal bits of adjacent
dungeons.
The thought was sparked by Ultima 6, where some different dungeons were
built to link up horizontally, and other dungeons (due to the lack of
LOS) did not link but were frustratingly visible.

> If there is no reason to dig arbitrarily far out, you should give "This
> rock is too hard to dig" and make a hard boundary on your dungeon
> levels.

Agreed, absolutely. I do want to avoid simply drawing a hard rectangle
around each level, but I guess a scattered cave formation of
impenetrable rock around the edge is a better solution than the
preliminary idea above.

> It is very important to inform the player what actions are useful and
> what are a waste of time. Placing an ability which is just a huge
> waste of time merely frustrates users that dig three screens until they
> realize there is indeed no point to this.

I was never thinking of three screens - more like three tiles, with the
fourth producing messages like "You don't seem to make any progress on
cutting this rock..."

Thanks for the input!
I am still attracted to the idea of being able to connect up the
dungeons, but fear this may be one of those neato features that no-one
likes or uses.

How do people feel about Crawl's arrangement in the Orcish Mines, where
there are distinct segments to the levvels which must either have
tunnels dug, or all stairs explored to find the little nooks? I always
liked this, but the only comments I've heard from other people have
been negative.

--jude hungerford.

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

jude hungerford wrote:
> I am still attracted to the idea of being able to connect up the
> dungeons, but fear this may be one of those neato features that no-one
> likes or uses.

I think it's a cool idea, if your game can handle that. I could not
use that in my game, where some level connections are sealed until
something happens. You can dig to the next level in Nethack and I'm
using that frequently to escape from monsters..

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

jude hungerford wrote:
> I'm sure this must have been discussed before, but my searches did not
> turn anything up on precisely this subject- please let me know if I'm
> repeating.
> In a multi-dungeon roguelike, it should logically be possible to dig
> horizontally from one dungeon to the next (at least in some cases). Are
> you going to care whether this is actually possible or not?
> I'm not so concerned about implementation difficulties; my mapping
> framework will certainly support it if I want to make it possible.

What about a "PacMan" effect. When you dig through the right most wall
you enter over on the left most.

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

Quoting jude hungerford <lichen678@popmail.com>:
> In a multi-dungeon roguelike, it should logically be possible to dig
>horizontally from one dungeon to the next (at least in some cases). Are
>you going to care whether this is actually possible or not?

Assuming we have digging at all. There is a tendency to allow digging just
because other games have digging, and although it's always unwise to think
about time and distance scales in roguelikes digging does tend to be
particularly absurd.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is First Wednesday, Presuary.

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

In article <1119974942.930990.37580@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Krice" <paulkp@mbnet.fi> wrote:
>jude hungerford wrote:
>> I am still attracted to the idea of being able to connect up the
>> dungeons, but fear this may be one of those neato features that no-one
>> likes or uses.
>
>I think it's a cool idea, if your game can handle that. I could not
>use that in my game, where some level connections are sealed until
>something happens. You can dig to the next level in Nethack and I'm
>using that frequently to escape from monsters..

Vertical connect-ups are the norm in Moraff's World. There are hidden
traps (MW refers to them as chutes) that drop you a level or two down.
If you later find a ladder back up, you can't actually reach the
terrain on the far side of that chute tile directly - now that it's
revealed, you will always fall down the chute when stepping on that
tile. So you have to find alternate up ladders further over on the
lower level. They're very plentiful though.

Alan

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

Jeff Lait <torespondisfutile@hotmail.com> schrieb:
> If there is no reason to dig arbitrarily far out, you should give
> "This rock is too hard to dig" and make a hard boundary on your
> dungeon levels.

Don't forget about cave ins... unless, of course, the player brings
lumber with him and builds the proper supports.

--
Jim Strathmeyer

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

jude hungerford wrote:

> How do people feel about Crawl's arrangement in the Orcish Mines, where
> there are distinct segments to the levvels which must either have
> tunnels dug, or all stairs explored to find the little nooks? I always
> liked this, but the only comments I've heard from other people have
> been negative.

I like it, because it creates an interesting strategic challenge. The
player can approach it with a wide variety of solutions, each with their
own costs and benefits, and has to choose wisely between them. Just a
smattering of examples:

- Try to break in at random using scrolls of teleportation? Requires
little thought or effort, but wastes a fairly rare resource, potentially
for no gain, and may land me in the middle of trouble if it "succeeds."
And what if I run out of scrolls (they get fried) while I'm in the new
section, and there are no up stairs hidden there or safely reachable
from there?
- Teleport using a ring of teleportation? Might also land me in trouble,
otherwise a pretty good choice except for the food cost.
- Dig with a wand of digging? Sure am lucky to have one so early in the
first place... but anyway, what if I need it later? They don't grow on
trees...
- Dig by turning the wall squares into earth elementals via a Stone of
Earth Elementals? Costs me no precious non-renewable
teleportation/digging permanent resources, but I'll have to fight the
elementals, and healing between battles may cost me food, and if I'm
worshipping a god with "piety leak," it'll cost me piety too.
- Learn the Dig spell? Spell slots don't grow on trees either, it's too
high-level to cast with poor skill, and Transmigration skill is only
really useful if you shape your development to make it useful...

The ring of teleportation and stone of earth elementals are interesting
in that these two items are rarely useful elsewise (though that could
also be considered a Bad Thing).

I think the reason people don't like the spotty-level phenomenon is that
they first encounter it at a time when they don't realize how many
options they have, and it's just after they're starting to think Crawl
is fair *after* all, and it looks so unfair upon first glance that it
comes as a death knell for some folks' budding, fragile enjoyment of
this initially frustrating game.

Erik

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

"jude hungerford" <lichen678@popmail.com> wrote:
>I'm sure this must have been discussed before, but my searches did not
>turn anything up on precisely this subject- please let me know if I'm
>repeating.
> In a multi-dungeon roguelike, it should logically be possible to dig
>horizontally from one dungeon to the next (at least in some cases). Are
>you going to care whether this is actually possible or not?
> I'm not so concerned about implementation difficulties; my mapping
>framework will certainly support it if I want to make it possible. I'm
>sure someone will try to do it somewhere down the road (once there's a
>playable release out there). Will you feel cheated if the rock on each
>level just keeps getting harder and harder the further you go from the
>centre, essentially making it impossible to make connecting tunnels
>from one dungeon to the next? There are obvious advantages to confining
>the levels, and the ability to make such connecting tunnels won't
>really add anything to the gameplay which couldn't also be covered by
>Ultima7 style mark/recall spells. I guess what it might add is a
>greater sense of immersion and personal power to reshape the world you
>have been given. Any thoughts?

How about a 2D vertical dungeon with ladders? Playing a bit like Jetpack
Thingy but turn based and ascii and flying dudes and rogueish.

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

Bateau wrote:
> How about a 2D vertical dungeon with ladders?

Hm...
That idea sparks some thought. Not quite on the topic of horizontally
continuous dungeons, but it reminds me of all the questions regarding
ASCII 3d roguelikes. You could have a game where in most situations it
was purely 2d top view, then in some other situations, such as walking
up to castle walls, it switched to pure 2d side view. Nice idea,
thankyou!
--jude hungerford.

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

"jude hungerford" <lichen678@popmail.com> wrote:
>Bateau wrote:
>> How about a 2D vertical dungeon with ladders?
>
>Hm...
>That idea sparks some thought. Not quite on the topic of horizontally
>continuous dungeons, but it reminds me of all the questions regarding
>ASCII 3d roguelikes. You could have a game where in most situations it
>was purely 2d top view, then in some other situations, such as walking
>up to castle walls, it switched to pure 2d side view. Nice idea,
>thankyou!

Roguelikes don't make enough use of cinematics. I want cutscenes.

Anyway this is my idea:

#################H###########################
## H b b H+
## H H###################
## H H###################
## H H H ########
## % H D H bb H####H##############
## ###H### @b H### H #############
## H H H### H #############
## H H H### H #############
## H ######H H### H #############
## H o H### H H #######
## H o H### H#####H #######
## H H H### H#####H #######
## H H H### H#####H #######
## H r rH rrr H### H#####H +
########H#################### H#####H########
########H#################### H#####H #######
H } H#####H #######
########H###########################H #######
########H###########################H #######
########H############ ####H #######
####### H H ####H #######
#####################H ####H #######
#####################H ####H #######
#####################H $ ####H #######
####################################H #######

During his climb to the surface the player awakens some bats. He is also
persued by orcs, but not by the rats which can't climb ladders. If the
dragon wakes up it will totally own him with its breathe attack.