nicer lab mazes


If it doesn't fit anywhere else, it belongs here. Also, come here if you just need to get hammered.

User avatar

Tomb Titivator

Posts: 911

Joined: Thursday, 17th December 2015, 02:36

Post Monday, 23rd May 2016, 01:48

nicer lab mazes

People want maprot gone and simpler mazes, which all sounds grand. The following might be compatible with some such proposals, but assumes that the basic idea of the labyrinth will not change, so nobody's toys get taken away.

make maprot instant and complete

There's no point to having some terrain linger on in your minimap. It's actually actively detrimental. The point of maprot is to make you identify with your character's predicament, right? Delayed, incomplete maprot creates a disconnect between you and your character. Instant and complete maprot makes you start relying totally on your memory and spatial awareness, so that you start remembering/imagining terrain you can't see but which you visited earlier. Current maprot inhibits that, but you also can't rely on the map, so you get the worst of worlds. Same reasoning goes for the Abyss, BTW. This ought to also solve the bugs that plague the minimap in those places.

turn 45 degrees

Labyrinth is made up of lots of hallways. The way shift+direction works, you stop before coming to the center of the node. This lets people cut corners to save time. It's okay in the dungeon, but distracting in the lab, where you're supposed to just be looking for the exit. It also creates a bunch of open space, which diminishes the claustrophobia and smallness you're supposed to feel in this place.

I've noticed that the labyrinth is composed of a series of "nodes" connected orthogonally, though since Crawl's walls take up 1 tile each and work as barriers, each "node" takes up 2x2 tiles (as opposed to 1x1). You won't see this in labs:
  Code:
##########
......####
######..##
########.#
###.....##
###.######

It should be pretty easy to make the maze algorithm generate equivalent diagonal labyrinths, like so:
  Code:
#####    ########
#####    ###o#### # wall
#o.o#    ##.#.### o node
#.#.# -> #o###o## . connection between nodes
#o#o#    ##.###.#
#.#.#    ###o####
#####    ####.###
#####    ########

This makes shift+direction take you straight to the corner. It makes the labyrinth seem larger, and there's also the illusion of the space being cramped, of having to squeeze your way through, which is nice.

size and sight

IMO labs are a little too big for people who aren't maze fanatics, and you can see a little too far each way. I suggest making the lab effectively smaller (making it easier/faster) but also make it similar to guiding your finger through a 3D model while blindfolded (making it harder). Some ways to do this:
  • make nodes/hallways very big and wide, e.g. steps of 9x9 instead of 2x2
  • make maze smaller; use a darkness-like effect: set LOS to 2 (or 3?) whenever the player is in the labyrinth
  • make maze smaller; generate fog everywhere in the labyrinth at all times
Each way has a distinct effect on meeting and fighting the minotaur, especially the last one. Having glass walls wouldn't do much, but IME the only purpose glass serves is to show a piece of stone/metal wall, so NBD right?

improve lab generation algorithm

Obviously easier said than done, I'm no maze-ologist, but I haven't seen loops or anything interesting like that which would have made me stop and think "ok what am I doing? Danny!"

remove ancient gears

Their effect is hardly noticeable, so the player cannot be expected to take measures against them. Technically they can block off your path to the exit, and open it up somewhere else, far away, and that effectively means that you have to start over again, but with a somewhat familiar maze. Why is that a good thing? Guess it supports the notion that one can get stuck in the lab forever. But I say: let players finish the maze they started with.

For this message the author HardboiledGargoyle has received thanks:
Yermak

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 4055

Joined: Tuesday, 10th January 2012, 19:49

Post Monday, 23rd May 2016, 02:48

Re: nicer lab mazes

  Code:
#######
#@...H#
#######

For this message the author crate has received thanks: 5
amalloy, duvessa, Hellmonk, ydeve, ZipZipskins
User avatar

Dungeon Master

Posts: 431

Joined: Tuesday, 13th September 2011, 17:34

Post Monday, 23rd May 2016, 03:42

Re: nicer lab mazes

You've got a typo in the title; you put "nicer" when you meant "more annoying." The letters are right next to each other.

I do labyrinths every time and I absolutely guarantee that I would never do another one, ever, with a single one of these changes, with the exceptions of a) removing ancient gears and b) making the maze smaller, period.

Full maprot: "X is bad, so maybe more X would be good." At least the current maprot lets you have some semblance of an idea what's going on. Full maprot would immediately make it impossible to keep track of where you've been -- even like 5 seconds ago -- without, like, graph paper on hand. As in, after wandering for 15 minutes, I hit a dead end, and now I have to re-explore that 15 minutes-worth of terrain because there are no landmarks and everything looks the same. ctrl-q

45 degrees: I have to step on literally every single tile of the map to see things. LITERALLY. In a diagonal corridor you can't see junctions that are even a single step away from you:
  Code:
xxx.x
xx.xx
x@xgx
.xxxx
xxxxx

Can't see the goblin from here; I don't even know if that square is wall or floor. Awful.

Size and sight: basically the same as above; same maze, but it's harder to see corners, harder to keep track of the shape, and even moreso incentivized to pull out a sheet of graph paper. Like did you actually sit down and go "okay, how can I make it less fun to do labyrinths"? I can't imagine coming up with these any other way.

"Improve" maze generation: loops make mazes dramatically harder to solve, and dramatically increase the chance that you will waste time going in circles. Whoopee! (it's funny that your metaphor for how fun this change would be is a movie where the maze is so awful that a guy dies in it)

Remove ancient gears: yes sure do this

For this message the author ontoclasm has received thanks: 3
chequers, duvessa, ololoev

Dungeon Master

Posts: 1051

Joined: Thursday, 12th June 2014, 05:19

Post Monday, 23rd May 2016, 04:13

Re: nicer lab mazes

the point of ancient gears was to break hand-crafted autoexplore, i'm told.

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 8786

Joined: Sunday, 5th May 2013, 08:25

Post Monday, 23rd May 2016, 04:14

Re: nicer lab mazes

PleasingFungus wrote:the point of ancient gears was to break hand-crafted autoexplore, i'm told.
you know they don't actually do that, right
User avatar

Tomb Titivator

Posts: 911

Joined: Thursday, 17th December 2015, 02:36

Post Monday, 23rd May 2016, 05:05

Re: nicer lab mazes

Yeah I thought the opening made it clear: if the maze must be considered a bore that just sucks away your time, then these things would make button-mashing lab-solving strats worse... but there are optimists who want to keep mazes. I'm saying they have weaknesses as mazes.

ontoclasm wrote:Full maprot: "X is bad, so maybe more X would be good."

Yes, some things work this way, where if you decide to do something, you gotta go all-in. It's either this, or crate-lab, otherwise nobody is satisfied. Because you have the map, your brain turns off any attempt to rely on your innate sense of orientation. It's like always using a GPS to drive anywhere. It's only by weaning off such devices that you start getting funny feelings in your head; partial maprot doesn't quite do that.

ontoclasm wrote:Can't see the goblin from here; I don't even know if that square is wall or floor. Awful.

I don't understand the concern about not seeing goblins in the labyrinth.

I've played a dungeon crawler with a challenge mode that took away your map. I found it fun.

Swamp Slogger

Posts: 162

Joined: Wednesday, 4th May 2016, 06:04

Post Monday, 23rd May 2016, 06:28

Re: nicer lab mazes

HBG wrote:there are optimists who want to keep mazes. I'm saying they have weaknesses as mazes.


So this is in response to the maprot stuff, and a bit about something you don't talk about, autoexplore; but really it's about this whole approach to making the lab's maze more challenging. It's kind of rambly because I'm kind of drunk but hey, it's CYC. I hope it still makes sense.

I get where you're coming from: if there are going to be mazes in crawl, there should be real mazes, that pose some actual challenge for finding your path. After all, at least one reason that lots of people find the labs' maze portion tedious is because it's normally hard to actually lose and requires basically no strategy; it's just a tax on your time and patience. (When can I kill the minotaur and get back to the game already?)

But I think a big part of the problem is that in order to make the maze challenging at all, the game has to take away quality of life tools that apply in every other part of the game. There's no point in having a tricky maze if autoexplore just solves it for you, and an automatic map of where you've been at least makes it faster.

Now put aside whatever you think of the kind of difficulty that's generated by games or puzzles that restrict you from using that kind of automation---some people like it; some people feel that it's stupid to struggle to do a problem ''by hand'' when they see that they can quickly automate a solution; probably most of us sometimes feel the one way and sometimes the other. But for lots of people of all of those groups, it is going to feel bad to have a subsection of the game that tries to generate difficulty by removing quality of life interface features. It feels like the difficulty is shallow and cheap, and not ''earned'' or ''genuine'' difficulty.

Compare a dimension along which NetHack really is harder than Crawl: you can fat-finger and stumble into water or lava or whatever and ruin everything with one clumsy key press. This does make the game more challenging for me, and I think probably for a lot of other people. Personally I think it's a pretty boring kind of difficulty, but put that aside for a moment, because that's not the parallel I wish to draw with labs. Even if you thought it was the kind of challenge that can make for interesting gameplay, it would feel frustrating if the game usually prompted you if you were about to step into water, but then the gimmick of one part of the dungeon was that it was full of water and the game stopped warning you. The game got you used to having this interface convenience, trained you into expecting to be able to interact with the game world in this way, and then took it away. Feels bad.

Labs as mazes are basically going to be trivialized if you can use autoexplore in them, but (a lot of) players are really used to relying heavily on autoexplore, and it's going to feel arbitrary and forced when the game suddenly changes the rules on interaction with the game's world. The type of difficulty a good maze offers doesn't fit well with the sorts of challenges the rest of the game tries to offer, because the rest of the game feels fine just automating those difficulties away for you; and it feels silly when it suddenly withdraws the offer. So I do feel where you're coming from when you suggest that if there are going to be mazes in crawl, they should be real mazes. But I am inclined to modus tollens instead of ponens: the lab basically shouldn't be an actual maze at all. I myself kind of like such things, but I don't think it fits well with the rest of the game. (I think what crate proposed (jokingly?) is bad because it loses all the flavor, and an arena fight should have some space to tactically maneuver; but it's good that there is no pathfinding puzzle.)

For this message the author andreas has received thanks: 4
duvessa, Lasty, Rast, ydeve

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 4055

Joined: Tuesday, 10th January 2012, 19:49

Post Monday, 23rd May 2016, 09:40

Re: nicer lab mazes

My proposal above is less of a joke than including a maze-solving minigame in a game that actively attempts to eliminate anything resembling maze-solving.

For this message the author crate has received thanks: 3
duvessa, RBrandon, ydeve

Abyss Ambulator

Posts: 1233

Joined: Wednesday, 23rd April 2014, 21:57

Post Monday, 23rd May 2016, 10:14

Re: nicer lab mazes

Let's go the other direction. Make the lab large-ish, no ancient gears, no maprot, auto-explore allowed, no gimmicks, minotaur at the end. And most importantly make interesting intricate map shapes that we can all marvel at for a moment before going back through the portal. Consider it an opportunity for artistry in the cold, dark harshness that is crawl.

For this message the author 4Hooves2Appendages has received thanks:
Rast

Tomb Titivator

Posts: 900

Joined: Sunday, 30th December 2012, 05:26

Post Monday, 23rd May 2016, 13:25

Re: nicer lab mazes

Gosh speaking of random minigames in the middle of roguelikes wouldn't it be something if in Crawl there was a level (maybe, I dunno, you get in from a fourth up staircase) and inside there were like some predetermined levels of that Japanese warehouse game with the box pushing, and at the end there's some loot you definitely really want, like either a big trove or better yet like a guaranteed artifact rF++ ring on one side and a wand of hasting if you get the other

Even if it weren't guaranteed you could take a fuckton of time and stepping on the same tiles over and over to play a different game than the game you chose to play on the off chance you get something you might want which, I dunno, that's pretty great

For this message the author ZipZipskins has received thanks:
duvessa

Dungeon Master

Posts: 3618

Joined: Thursday, 23rd December 2010, 12:43

Post Monday, 23rd May 2016, 14:09

Re: nicer lab mazes

ZipZipskins: He, I wondered how long it'd take until someone brings up Sokoban! You win!! :)

I also realise that me liking and defending labyrinths makes me similar to the Nethack dinosaurs sitting on Sokoban. But I don't mind, and now I go back into my ivory tower.

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 5382

Joined: Friday, 25th November 2011, 07:36

Post Monday, 23rd May 2016, 14:16

Re: nicer lab mazes

Eh, I'm actually a big fan of Labyrinths too, so there's got to be something wrong with both of us. They aren't actually hard, I'm quite good at solving it quickly, and while turning them 45 degrees might be annoying, full maprot probably wouldn't hurt much at all. You were just there 20 seconds ago, you should mostly remember it :) They've already gotten a good bit easier with the increase of vaults that spawn in them, because those tend to open holes in the maze and you can pass through that section easily.

I may be crazy. I wouldn't be terribly upset if they got smaller, or autoexplore was allowed, or anything. But I do like the current ones!

Tomb Titivator

Posts: 900

Joined: Sunday, 30th December 2012, 05:26

Post Monday, 23rd May 2016, 15:05

Re: nicer lab mazes

dpeg wrote:ZipZipskins: He, I wondered how long it'd take until someone brings up Sokoban! You win!! :)

I also realise that me liking and defending labyrinths makes me similar to the Nethack dinosaurs sitting on Sokoban. But I don't mind, and now I go back into my ivory tower.


hooray what do I win

is it a bag of holding
User avatar

Dungeon Master

Posts: 431

Joined: Tuesday, 13th September 2011, 17:34

Post Monday, 23rd May 2016, 18:50

Re: nicer lab mazes

HardboiledGargoyle wrote:
ontoclasm wrote:Can't see the goblin from here; I don't even know if that square is wall or floor. Awful.

I don't understand the concern about not seeing goblins in the labyrinth.

...really? I used the g to mark a spot on the map, that's all. Maybe I should be more explicit?

  Code:
       xx
      x.x
     x.x
   xx.x 
   x@x   
  x.xx   
 x.x     
x.x     
xx       

Where are the corridors branching off of this hallway? The only way to find them all is to step on every single square in it. Compare to the orthagonal equivalent:

  Code:
xx.xxxx.x
x...@...x
xxxxxx.xx

Where I can see them immediately. Clear enough?

Return to Crazy Yiuf's Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 75 guests

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by ST Software for PTF.