What it is target players of DCSS?
![Post Post](./styles/ca_halcyon_darkblue/imageset/icon_post_target.gif)
I believe DCSS also does not target any players boring perfectionism art or base source code for your own games.
Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup Forum
https://crawl.develz.org/tavern/
mps wrote:That's who actually plays, not the "target audience." The OP is asking us to guess what the devs think.
advil wrote:I know this is cyc but a sort of answer actually is here. So: male, 24yo, american, and easily confused by letters.
ZipZipskins wrote:I'd just like to say that lots of players are really happy with the amount of remove
onget wrote:If you want a serious player, you do not get the newbies. You get the incoming person instead.
If you are not wanted the player, there is no need to go simple. There is a need to go more complex. (Assume DCSS is a game. In fact it is a perfectionism Art.)
Only simple game you need to go simple but, DCSS is obviously a complicated "game".
Antoine de Saint Exupéry wrote:"perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
Wahaha wrote:not understanding why people like dcss (hint: it's not only for the highly intelligent tactical combat of pressing tab)
archaeo wrote:Wahaha wrote:not understanding why people like dcss (hint: it's not only for the highly intelligent tactical combat of pressing tab)
It'll never stop being funny to me that people unironically think that the devs are some kind of tab-happy IRL Trog worshippers
Wahaha wrote:I liked some changes that made the game simpler because they removed annoying things like the Sick status and secret doors. But that was until version 0.13 approximately. After that I think most changes that removed things are a mistake, but I don't play crawl anymore so whatever. Worth noting that I would be playing crawl if it had new additions. The game would not be worse one bit if it had more unique races, though I wouldn't trust most people to design a good race.
Wahaha wrote:Many current devs want the game to be simple and perfected to the extreme, not understanding why people like dcss (hint: it's not only for the highly intelligent tactical combat of pressing tab).
duvessa wrote:sexy elves
tasonir wrote:archaeo wrote:It'll never stop being funny to me that people unironically think that the devs are some kind of tab-happy IRL Trog worshippers
This is for the best; if they knew the truth that gammafunk actually plays summoners and recommends dragon form on octopodes, it would shatter their fragile minds.
tasonir wrote:There have been a ton of additions post .13, especially in gods, with Ru, Dith, and Qaz being added. Weren't Formicids new in .14? And of course lots of incremental changes to monster sets, particularly in snake, but everywhere really.
Mulzaro wrote:Depths is worse than D:27?? What are you smoking?
archaeo wrote:Crawl started as a very "classical" roguelike, and the genre is still stuffed with baroque examples of the form. There's nothing wrong with Crawl being the sleek, streamlined version of that formula, and most of the removals go a long way toward achieving that.
mps wrote:"That was pure chewing satisfaction!"
neil wrote:I'd argue that Crawl is on the whole more baroque than Nethack, or at least as baroque; it's just that the barocity* comes from stuffing in a higher count of distinct things (monsters, items, levels, ...) rather than adding more interactions among those things ("X monster can be eaten for Y resistance").
* "baroquity"?
Wahaha wrote:Snake is worse, and Depths is much worse than D:x-27.