[ANN] Tower of Doom 0.4.1 released

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

copx <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
> TOD 0.4.1 is out!

'tis a very fine game so far.

I like the rapidly increasing difficulty.
Is the "fate is on your side" feature intended to be permanent, or is it
just until the balance settles down a bit?
Do you intend on including field of vision, or will it always be that
you can see the whole screen? I'd always thought of FOV as necessary,
and still intend on including it in my game, but playing this it does
not seem too critical, as long as you're happy with the increased
suspension of disbelief.


--jude hungerford.

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

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 18:56:53 +0200, copx wrote:

><edward@lore.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>news:f4OCe.52052$oJ.37290@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> copx <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>> TOD 0.4.1 is out!
>>
>> 'tis a very fine game so far.
>
>Thanks
>
>> I like the rapidly increasing difficulty.
>> Is the "fate is on your side" feature intended to be permanent, or is it
>> just until the balance settles down a bit?
>
>It's permanent. I never liked losing a character just because of ONE stupid
>mistake.

Amen to that.

>> Do you intend on including field of vision, or will it always be that
>> you can see the whole screen? I'd always thought of FOV as necessary,
>> and still intend on including it in my game, but playing this it does
>> not seem too critical, as long as you're happy with the increased
>> suspension of disbelief.
>
>I don't plan to add FOV. Most good CRPG don't have it, it's a moronic
>feature if you ask me. The FOVs in roguelikes are not "realistic" at all. I
>mean since when do humans have 360° vision?! This isn't a first person game,
>the player is a third person - not a specific character. In TOD you can have
>a multi-character party - how do you think FOV should work in such a
>scenario?Annoying, stupid and unrealistic are attributes I would attach to
>every FOV implementation I've seen.
>TOD won't get FOV for sure.

While I rather agree with the overall feeling, there are ways to do it.
DND (not quite a roguelike) doesn't let you see around corners or
through walls or doors (which are always considered closed). Your vision
is also limited to 2 squares away (a design choice, due to how the map
is displayed).
--
auric underscore underscore at hotmail dot com
*****
He who increases knowledge, increases sorrow.

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

copx <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
> feature if you ask me. The FOVs in roguelikes are not "realistic" at all. I
> mean since when do humans have 360? vision?!

You can swivel your head in a very small amount of time.

> the player is a third person - not a specific character. In TOD you
> can have a multi-character party - how do you think FOV should work
> in such a scenario? Annoying, stupid and unrealistic are attributes I
> would attach to every FOV implementation I've seen.
> TOD won't get FOV for sure.

Your point is well taken. FOV does not enhance gameplay in most cases,
and becomes practically redundant (within a certain radius) when you
have multiple characters who are capable of communication.

There might be a benefit, for use of ranged weapons, in including a
"who can see who?" look-mode, but it's obviously not a major gameplay
problem- just sometimes it would be useful tactical information. Of
course, that information can be given through the targeting interface;
currently it only seems to tell me that I have no LoS once I actually
tell it to fire at the unseen enemy.

I look forward to seeing how ToD progresses!

--jude hungerford.