Should Hell and Pan be mutually exclusive?

[Happylisk]

I typically don't do the postgame. There's two main reasons for this. One, some characters just can't hack it. If I've wrapped up the normal game and don't have rMut and only one pip of rF, I'm not really in the mood to set that character into the abyss, hell, or pan.

But the second reason is the main reason why I don't do it: I find it tedious and boring. It's very long; it's very similar (demons demons demons hellfire torment torment smite); because it's very similar it encourages similar tactics (zin/TSO or necro mutation, holy wrath melee murder machine or Firestorm/Tornado/Glaciate); and it's just not that much fun.

Since I started playing DCSS (0.3.3), a lot of the game has been shortened. Vaults went from 8 to 5, Elf went from 5 to 3, Lair went from 10 to 8, Dungeon went from 27 to 15 + 5 Depths, and Crypt went from 5 to 3. I personally believe every one of those changes made the game better. No shortening has been applied to the end game; indeed, pan and abyss are infinite (an issue in itself, especially as to the former).

I understand that the bulk of development is (and should be) geared towards a 3 rune perspective, since that's what most players see, but I think some attention to this is worthwhile. I think as a first step, Hell/Pan should be mutually exclusive, so you only get one but not both in any game. That would make a complete win go from 15 to 11 runes. What do other people think?

[Sandman25]

For me main problem of Pan is demonic rune which is tedious to find since many levels don't contain it but you cannot know it before exploring most of the level. I would change Pan to have only 5 levels: holy and 4 unique levels, all these levels are interesting and fun IMHO.
Demonic rune can be in a new branch so players can choose to ignore it if they want.

[Patashu]

The problem with making Hell and Pan mutually exclusive is that Pan is a LOT easier than Hell.
If you can pick, everyone will pick Pan every time.
If it's randomly chosen for you, people will cuss when the game picks Hell for them
A better solution would be something like 2/4 Hell runes are available and 3/5 Pan runes are available.
Or do the above then use the remaining 4 runes to introduce new kinds of end game branches. For example, there was a (korean?) suggestion to have a hell focusing on things like 27-headed hydras.
(Of course even then, we'd need to rebalance the hells so dis/geh aren't a ton harder than coc/tar...)

I think most people agree that something like this needs to happen, but I think that at the same time the devs don't want the number of runes to go down, so we're stuck in this limbo where everyone wants it, but to do the change requires new, just as good endgame content swapping in simultaneous with the change.

[duvessa]

The problem with making Hell and Pan mutually exclusive is that Pan is a LOT easier than Hell.
If you can pick, everyone will pick Pan every time.
If it's randomly chosen for you, people will cuss when the game picks Hell for them

So what do you think of swamp/shoals/snake/spider?

[Happylisk]

For me main problem of Pan is demonic rune which is tedious to find since many levels don't contain it but you cannot know it before exploring most of the level. I would change Pan to have only 5 levels: holy and 4 unique levels, all these levels are interesting and fun IMHO.
Demonic rune can be in a new branch so players can choose to ignore it if they want.

I agree that the demonic rune is problematic in itself and should be removed - but I didn't want to bite off too much here! I don't like it cause it's kind of spoilery. One of my pan strategies is to just blow through random pan levels until I get to Holy Pan since I know the demonic rune is there. I also don't like how much it reminds me of the abyssal rune - just stumbling around samey areas until you find it.

I wouldn't mind if we axed the demonic rune, buffed the elf vault, and threw a rune in there. Or just axed the demonic rune without a replacement.

[Happylisk]

The problem with making Hell and Pan mutually exclusive is that Pan is a LOT easier than Hell.
If you can pick, everyone will pick Pan every time.

I disagree. In fact, if given the choice, I'd pick Hell over Pan every time. Hell effects can be neutralized with Zin; unlike Pan you don't need to be omniresistant, since you can pick the Hell branch you do and therefore what resists you need; and the stairs often make escape easy.

And more importantly, I find Hell way less tedious. With Pan you're committed to sloughing around for 25-50 levels trying to get the 5 runes. With hell, I know it's a 7 level dive per branch, and if I have to flee my progress at least stays mapped.

[Patashu]

The problem with making Hell and Pan mutually exclusive is that Pan is a LOT easier than Hell.
If you can pick, everyone will pick Pan every time.
If it's randomly chosen for you, people will cuss when the game picks Hell for them

So what do you think of swamp/shoals/snake/spider?

It's a good question, but I don't think they're the same kind of thing.
Hell/Pan have very different rules and lots of unique special cases.
Swamp/Shoals/Snake/Spider play differently but they all have the same rules, just different terrain/monsters.
Hell/Pan being random would be something kind of like 'sometimes there's no orb vault in zot:5, instead you have to go to the bottom of a 10 level abyss and back to get the orb'. Randomly getting a completely different kind of end game challenge.

[Hurkyl]

I understand that the bulk of development is (and should be) geared towards a 3 rune perspective, since that's what most players see,

Consider the possibility that many players only see 3 runes because it's annoying to play for more.

[crate]

re: minmay's question:

I'm pretty sure he's pointing out that Snake is significantly easier than Spider for most characters, and that Swamp is significantly easier than Shoals for very nearly all characters. (In fact shoals is the most difficult lair branch and imo it's not even really close.)

So do you complain when you get Shoals or Spider?

It is certainly true that Hell has unique rules but that was not the point you brought up in your first post!

[Happylisk]

Randomly getting a completely different kind of end game challenge.

Well that's part of the problem. I truly don't think that the differences between Hell and Pan can be described as "completely different." But I'll admit that's partly due to the fact that I rarely go into Hell without Zin (but then again, why would you if you were non-undead/demonspawn with an eye towards optimal play).

There's one thing Abyss does that I like, and that's presenting tons of non-demonic yet non-living monsters (starcursed masses, wretched stars, tentacled starspawn, etc). I'd like to see more endgame content that's non-living (and therefore not easily trivialized with a pain or holy wrath weapon).

Speaking of which, if the postgame is going to insist upon being 98% demonic/undead, it may be time to revisit the holy wrath brand. For a game that's geared to encourage tactical choices and no nobrainers, a brand that's ideal against everything in Pan and Hell and Tomb (sans sphinxes) seems out of place. If there has to be a holy wrath brand, I'd be pleased as punch if it only worked while being a worshiper of TSO. This would make Zin vs. TSO a real choice for Hell. It would also prevent players who intend all along to go Zin from using TSO as a pit stop to get their holy wrath evening star/claymore/executioner's axe etc.

[Sandman25]

Not everyone uses good gods: there are also Ashenzari, Vehumet, Dithmengos, Trog (to name a few). Even Okawaru's wrath is quite nasty lately too. I think we should not base our opinion about Pan vs Hell on assumption that everyone takes Zin.
Pan is much easier as you can use Controlled Blink (or corresponding scroll) and Control Teleport to get into rune chamber. Also it is much easier for stealthy characters who don't get Hell summons on top of them breaking their stealth by battle noise.

[Quazifuji]

On the general subject:

Personally, I'm definitely in favor of making extended more varied and less Demon-heavy. I don't like how focused the threats are in the end-game, particularly how anti-demon stuff (i.e. TSO, Zin, and holy brand) are consistently strong throughout 10 of the 12 post-game runes and how torment and hellfire are such consistently present threats. Personally, I think this is an even bigger issue than the annoyance of the infiniteness of Pan and Abyss, but I don't know if everyone else agrees with those priorities.

Reducing the number of Pan and Hell runes in any one game and adding new runes to replace them sounds like a good way to do that to me. If only 2 hell branches spawned per game, and 2 or 3 pan runes (depending on whether demonic was removed or not), and 5 new runes were added that were much less demon-heavy, it would definitely give the end-game more variety. The long-discussed Elf rune would be an obvious one - I'm definitely in favor of it personally - but even so, that's still four more branches, which would be a pretty huge undertaking. Replacing holy Pan with a holy branch or adding a holy Pan specific rune (instead of just the demonic rune) could cover another one, but Holy Pan is also considered incredibly annoying by many people, so it might need a good deal of tweaking if we wanted to make holy monsters something you deal with in every 15-rune game, rather than a pretty rare occurrence.

I don't mind the Demonic Rune too much, not because I like having to hunt through every Pan floor, but because it actually gives motivation to do something that you're rarely motivated to do in the end-game: explore. One issue I have with the extended end-game that no one's mentioned is that it heavily encourages you to just spend all your time diving from floor to floor. In the main game, you're generally expected to explore nearly every floor (except for particularly threatening sections) for experience and loot. In every single extended area, it's recommended that you basically just dive through as fast as possible. The only place you ever really fully explore in extended is Tomb, and that's because it's so linear that you don't have much choice. So while the randomness of hunting for the Demonic rune bugs me, I do like the fact that it actually encourages you to clear non-special Pan levels, rather than them just being filler while you immediately take the first portal you find. I don't have a better solution to this issue - part of the problem is that characters doing the post-game tend to have all the loot and experience they need anyway, so it's hard to motivate them to go for anything other than runes -

Well that's part of the problem. I truly don't think that the differences between Hell and Pan can be described as "completely different." But I'll admit that's partly due to the fact that I rarely go into Hell without Zin (but then again, why would you if you were non-undead/demonspawn with an eye towards optimal play).

Well, some god wraths can be quite nasty, and DCSS isn't really a game that's designed to be balanced in the first place. Xom is already mostly worse than other gods, and everyone knows that it's 100% intentional that mummies are the worst race in the game, for example. So saying "why would you chose anything other than Zin for hell" is silly because the answer is obvious: because you want to use something other than Zin for Hell. Crawl is a game about trying out different combinations and playstyles and challenging yourself, not just playing optimally every time. Otherwise everyone would always just be Minotaurs and Gargoyles.

Speaking of which, if the postgame is going to insist upon being 98% demonic/undead, it may be time to revisit the holy wrath brand. For a game that's geared to encourage tactical choices and no nobrainers, a brand that's ideal against everything in Pan and Hell and Tomb (sans sphinxes) seems out of place. If there has to be a holy wrath brand, I'd be pleased as punch if it only worked while being a worshiper of TSO. This would make Zin vs. TSO a real choice for Hell. It would also prevent players who intend all along to go Zin from using TSO as a pit stop to get their holy wrath evening star/claymore/executioner's axe etc.

I agree that the holy wrath brand needs some rethinking. It's a bit overspecialized, and possibly more importantly, it's too overspecialized for the post-game. Having a brand that's simply the best brand for 10 runes (besides maybe anti-magic) ad the worst for the rest is kind of silly. Other brands can be stronger or weaker by branch, but none so consistently vary from useless to insanely powerful. Honestly, I think TSO and Zin's designs as a whole are too post-game focused. I don't mind some gods being stronger in the early game or the late game, but giving them both multiple abilities that specialize in dealing with demons and undead feels a bit too brute-force-y to me.

For this reason, I really don't like the idea of making holy wrath TSO-only. He's already basically considered the standard for end-game gods, making it so even if you find a holy brand with another god you can't use it will just gear TSO towards that direction even more. I'd rather find ways to make TSO and Zin more general-purpose than make them more specialized as the definitive end-game slayer. Your solution makes picking between TSO and Zin for hell more interesting, but it makes picking between TSO or any other god in the game for Pan and Hell less interesting.

Not everyone uses good gods: there are also Ashenzari, Vehumet, Dithmengos, Trog (to name a few). Even Okawaru's wrath is quite nasty lately too. I think we should not base our opinion about Pan vs Hell on assumption that everyone takes Zin.
Pan is much easier as you can use Controlled Blink (or corresponding scroll) and Control Teleport to get into rune chamber. Also it is much easier for stealthy characters who don't get Hell summons on top of them breaking their stealth by battle noise.

Agreed. I have two 15-rune wins and a 12-rune win and I'm not sure if I've ever worshipped TSO or Zin, they're far from mandatory like a lot of people think they are. Also, Kiku is criminally underrated as a post-game god, I think he can compete with TSO and Zin for how well he handles is (but he also gives you a lot more for the regular game). Request corpses is stupidly powerful paired with simulacrum in Pan, Hell, Tomb, and Abyss, not to mention he gives better torment resistance than TSO.

[nilsbloodaxe]

I don't think ZIn really needs work to be a general-purpose god, he is pretty good in a 3-rune game. TSO not as much.

All in all, I don't know if I agree with the proposal completely, but I would like to see more effort going into making extended more interesting and into differentiating Pan and Hell.

[Lasty]

Agreed re: Zin. I'm a big fan of Zin for the 3-rune game -- everything about Zin except mutation resistance and Hell effect suppression are good throughout the game.

[ackack]

I don't think ZIn really needs work to be a general-purpose god, he is pretty good in a 3-rune game. TSO not as much.

While TSO is definitely on the weaker side for 3 runes, TSO still does plenty that's useful in 3 runes. Halo accuracy and SInv is good; the shield buff can be very helpful; and once you get the piety angel bros are outstanding summons.

[eeviac]

Personal, unqualified opinion based solely on extensive extended play:

Hells good, Pan bad*.

*and worse with the new demonspawn dudes - now I have to actually pay attention while drudging through 40+ panfloors. Interesting dudes are cool and all but in this case they only make Pan take longer.

[Quazifuji]

Honestly, I think my problem with TSO isn't so much with TSO himself, it's with the holy brand. Frankly, I think the holy brand is terrible design that goes completely against the philosophy of DCSS and makes the extended game less interesting. Choosing your equipment is supposed to be an interesting choice throughout the game. The holy brand removes much of the choice. The answer to "what weapon should I use in Pan/Hell/Tomb" is always "holy or antimagic". The answer to "should I use holy brand anywhere else" is "yes in Crypt, but it's useless everywhere else." A brand that is the best brand of the game in four branches and the worst brand in the game in every other branch is incredibly boring game design.

I think I'd like to see holy brand reworked. I'm not sure how, but something that's less of a no-brainer in demon and undead branches and less worthless in others would make it much more interesting, and it would make TSO much more interesting too. If the free holy brand provided more use earlier in the game but wasn't as obscenely strong later (it could still be very good in extended, just not as no-brainer good), then TSO would be more useful early game and switching to him just for Pan and Tomb (and to grab a holy weapon before switching to Zin for Hell) wouldn't be as standard.

Also, I think part of my problem isn't just that TSO and Zin feel so specialized for extended (even if they might be underrated for the first three runes), but that them feeling specialized leads to people feeling compelled to use them for any 15-runer they do. I think Happylisk's comment of "why would you not play Zin in Hell if you have an eye towards optimal play" really highlights the problem. I don't like that there's such a clear optimal choice of god in Hell for so many characters.

[johlstei]

I disagree with the premise that removing runes necessitates adding new ones. The high score cutover is a bummer but we'll live, there are many other smaller ones like it.

[TeshiAlair]

Tangent: Is Snake really considered easier than spider? Spider always felt with me like "Orc but wear rPois" while Snake has some interesting threats, some cool uniques, and can be quite deadly if escape routes get cut off. Only time Spider has ever been interesting is when Mennas spawned in it.

I haven't ever actually made it to the hells in an online game, but they definitely feel more interesting than Pan, if a bit repetitive in their own right. Here's an idea: Why not replace Pan with a Zig with a rune at the bottom? Solves the problem of Zig grinding, preserves one of the interesting features of Pan, and has that "random challenges" feel. It would necessitate the Zig being re-enterable though.

[KoboldLord]

Speaking of which, if the postgame is going to insist upon being 98% demonic/undead, it may be time to revisit the holy wrath brand. For a game that's geared to encourage tactical choices and no nobrainers, a brand that's ideal against everything in Pan and Hell and Tomb (sans sphinxes) seems out of place. If there has to be a holy wrath brand, I'd be pleased as punch if it only worked while being a worshiper of TSO. This would make Zin vs. TSO a real choice for Hell. It would also prevent players who intend all along to go Zin from using TSO as a pit stop to get their holy wrath evening star/claymore/executioner's axe etc.

A version of this that I think would be better is to cut the holy wrath brand entirely, and give TSO a passive holy wrath ability that provides a piety-based slaying bonus when the player is fighting abominations, anathema, and apostates. A general bonus to fighting evil monsters will allow the TSO player to retain the choice of weapons, rather than pushing one specific option hard, and since slaying bonuses are easily scalable even a starting character can get a meaningful bonus against dangerous monsters like some enemy spellcasters, meaning the holy wrath is meaningful even early in the game.

[and into]

^ Bit of a tangent, but yes, holy wrath is problematic design for a number of reasons. Later in the game angels and daevas and ophans and the like are fine, because then you know what you are getting into right when you see them, but I've been one-shotted by holy wrath weapons before I even knew what was going on. Being paranoid in the early game about glowing/runed weapons that enemies are carrying is one thing, but a beefy holy wrath weapon can kill in one or two hits really deep in the game. It is basically same problem as orc/dragon slaying.

Anyway, I like the passive slay idea, and a simple thematic way to implement it is to have the slay bonus against evil apply to everything in your halo. That, plus maybe let cleansing flame do somewhat more damage to non-evil stuff—even if piety cost also increased—would go a long way toward making TSO feel more useful, and thus more fun to play, throughout the three rune game. (Still weaker than Zin probably, sure, but it would be a lot less drastic.)

[and into]

To add something that's more on topic, I don't think the problems with Hell or with Pan are really solved by making only one of them spawn in the game.

The things that used to suck about Swamp (e.g., back when it always had a monotonously huge open layout on every level) were not solved by the fact that it was put on rotation with other branches; rather, the problems with Swamp were only solved when they were squarely addressed as such. On its own, the Lair branch rotation simply diversifies your post-Lair game a bit, but that novelty largely depends on the fact that both non-Slime Lair branches are in the vast majority of cases treated as part of the "non-optional" game sequence.

When you do either Pan or Hell, by contrast, you are intentionally going for a longer than necessary game, and so really you can elect to do some or all of one of them or none of them in order to lengthen the game exactly as much as you want. (Well Pan doesn't give total control, admittedly, but that's somewhat beside the point.)

So I'm afraid I don't see the upshot of making Hell and Pan mutually exclusive. It seems to me it would simply let people who really hate to do the Hells or Pan have a "full rune" game 50% of the time without the annoyance of doing their least favorite part of the game. But even this very dubious design goal is already pretty well met by gods that you can just switch to, if you really want to get all those runes, so I don't see the point.

[KoboldLord]

To add something that's more on topic, I don't think the problems with Hell or with Pan are really solved by making only one of them spawn in the game.

The things that used to suck about Swamp (e.g., back when it always had a monotonously huge open layout on every level) were not solved by the fact that it was put on rotation with other branches; rather, the problems with Swamp were only solved when they were squarely addressed as such. On its own, the Lair branch rotation simply diversifies your post-Lair game a bit, but that novelty largely depends on the fact that both non-Slime Lair branches are in the vast majority of cases treated as part of the "non-optional" game sequence.

When you do either Pan or Hell, by contrast, you are intentionally going for a longer than necessary game, and so really you can elect to do some or all of one of them or none of them in order to lengthen the game exactly as much as you want. (Well Pan doesn't give total control, admittedly, but that's somewhat beside the point.)

So I'm afraid I don't see the upshot of making Hell and Pan mutually exclusive. It seems to me it would simply let people who really hate to do the Hells or Pan have a "full rune" game 50% of the time without the annoyance of doing their least favorite part of the game. But even this very dubious design goal is already pretty well met by gods that you can just switch to, if you really want to get all those runes, so I don't see the point.

It is true that Pan and Hell need more repair than just being collectively half as long, but making Pan and Hell collectively half as long is also a fix that I think would be strictly beneficial for the game. I have enjoyed going through Pan, and I've enjoyed going through Hell, but in general I only enjoy the one I go through first on a particular character. After that, the game is clearly dragging on too long. Yes, I could stop at any time, but the siren call of 100% completion speaks to me no matter how irrational I know that impulse to be, and it isn't like the second one of the two that I complete is actually likely to kill a character that has been fatted on xp and loot from the first.

Currently, Hell involves clearing 5 levels and diving for 24 levels, and Pan involves clearing 4 levels and diving for… whatever the numbers are these days. I'm pretty sure it's still a lot, and I don't like the degree of variance involved, but that's more of a persistent third problem sort of thing. If we suppose that 9 levels cleared and 50 levels dived is excessive even if the fundamentals of their design were to be made sound, which I hope is not too controversial, it seems viable to either cut off half of each or to cut all of one. Bad content is a problem, but at the same time so is too much content. If they both involve approximately 5 cleared and 25 dived, that might still prove to be too much but at that point it will be easier to make judicious cuts because the post-game content is no longer so outlandishly overlong that the length obscures other problems.

[and into]

Those are all fair points, KL.

I'd prefer making both shorter rather than cutting one out at random, however. I think if you want to see extended, you should have the option to see as much of extended as you want to, rather than only one of Pan/Hells. This is optional content and outside of challenges is not going to be something you see until you have already played a lot. It would be lame if you built up a character that you think might be "extended" capable only to find that you got Hells, again, just like the last two dudes you took beyond 5 runes. It would be really obnoxious in a way that the variability of lair branches is not (they occur fairly early, and you know what you are going to get in advance of when you have to do them, and if you really really don't want to do one of them you do actually have a couple of options).

[Happylisk]

Those are all fair points, KL.

I'd prefer making both shorter rather than cutting one out at random, however. I think if you want to see extended, you should have the option to see as much of extended as you want to, rather than only one of Pan/Hells. This is optional content and outside of challenges is not going to be something you see until you have already played a lot. It would be lame if you built up a character that you think might be "extended" capable only to find that you got Hells, again, just like the last two dudes you took beyond 5 runes. It would be really obnoxious in a way that the variability of lair branches is not (they occur fairly early, and you know what you are going to get in advance of when you have to do them, and if you really really don't want to do one of them you do actually have a couple of options).

I think this is a good point. Which leads to the next question: If the solution is shortening Pan and Hell rather than having them alternate, is the solution to make Gehenna/Cocytus/Tartatus/Dis a "pick 2" situation like lair branches, or is the solution to make each hell branch shorter (maybe 4-5 levels each).

Shortening Pan seems a bit oxymoronic in light of its infinite nature. I know each pan rune increases the chances of finding an exit vault - perhaps each pan rune could also increase the chances of finding another special pan level.

[KoboldLord]

It would be really obnoxious in a way that the variability of lair branches is not (they occur fairly early, and you know what you are going to get in advance of when you have to do them, and if you really really don't want to do one of them you do actually have a couple of options).

Yeah, it definitely might be annoying if you really would prefer one over the other. Hopefully they both can be repaired so that isn't too severe an issue.

You would get quite a bit of advance warning as to which you get, mind you. Depths has something along the lines of 30% of the pre-Zot xp in the game, and you'll probably see the first post-endgame portal with most of that xp still on the table. There should be plenty of time to determine whether you want to push translocations to ninja Pan Runes or evocations to channel mp between hell effects. Or whatever example investment is appropriate for your build.

[johlstei]

Make pan just the 4 unique floors right in a row, no exit until you get to the last one, no going back in after you leave or back up a floor. Maybe make all the downstairs spawn in the rune chambers.

If you still want the infinite dungeon/pan lords/demonic rune, call it something else and make it a separate branch.

[snow]

Well, you could get one or two random hells instead of all 4, and pan could lose some runes too.

I think we just need a really hard (without torment or hellfire of course) extended branch to be added before making any cuts though. It was sort of disappointing that the forest was yet another mid game branch. I would love for a mountain branch with large castles, heavy winds, and dwarves that tab better than you. Maybe they can be technologically inclined dwarves that can stasis or antimagic you with futuristic weapons. If you REALLY need AC/EV ignoring stuff then lightning is the way to go and not hellfire.

As for shortening pan: infinite pan is silly.

[johlstei]

For all the work involved in creating a new branch, I think it's a bad idea to spend time on creating a branch if player who wants to win will skip it every time.

[snow]

For all the work involved in creating a new branch, I think it's a bad idea to spend time on creating a branch if player who wants to win will skip it every time.

People skip extended because it's not fun and not because it lowers their chance of winning. I think only people on their first win or trying to streak care if they die or not.

[Quazifuji]

Personally, even if it's not necessary, I like keeping the game at 15 runes. At the very least, I'm much rather shorten the duration per rune in extended then reduce the number of runes but keep the existing rune the same. As I mentioned earlier (and later in this post), 90% of extended is just running around until you find a staircase and then immediately take it. The first 5 floors of Slime, the first 6 floors of every hell, Abyss 1 and 2 (and 3 until you find the rune vault), and any floor of Pan besides the four big lords, holy pan, and some particularly interesting rune vaults are boring. The things that make end-game exciting, in my opinion, are the big boss fights and the interesting levels.

So if we're going to cut content, why remove half of the interesting floors and keep so many boring ones when we could cut a whole bunch of boring ones out and leave in some interesting ones. Frankly, if each Hell was just one floor the same as the current 7th floor, Pan was just all four boss level and holy pan in a random order, slime consisted only of the Royal Jelly's level, and Abyss only had Abyss 3 (ignoring the implications that this would have on banishing), the extended end game would probably retain about 90% of the challenge while being about 75% shorter. This might be extreme, but the point is, if we want to halve the length of Hell, I'd much rather cut each Hell down to 3 or 4 levels than remove two random hells every game. Reduce the filler-to-interesting content ratio, don't cut down on interesting content in the process of chopping out filler.

Shortening Pan seems a bit oxymoronic in light of its infinite nature. I know each pan rune increases the chances of finding an exit vault - perhaps each pan rune could also increase the chances of finding another special pan level.

I disagree. Technically Pan is infinite, but not really. Pan's length is the number of floors it takes you to find all 5 runes and then an exit. For any reasonable discussion of the endgame, Pan's length is highly variable, but finite. If you changed Pan so that you were guaranteed to enter a rune floor every 3 levels, and every level after the 4th rune had a guaranteed Demonic rune if you didn't find it already, and every level after all 5 runes had a guaranteed exit, but you could still go on forever if you wanted to, then Pan would be 14 floors. Anyone who keeps playing in Pan after finding 15 runes presumably either likes Pan or is a masochist, and I see no problem with the former enjoying infinite Pan while the rest of us skip it and catering to the latter is silly.

So shortening Pan isn't meaningless at all. It just means increasing the odds of special Pan levels, demonic runes, and/or exits spawning. Ideally in such a way that it reduces the variability in length is reduced as well, not just the average.

For all the work involved in creating a new branch, I think it's a bad idea to spend time on creating a branch if player who wants to win will skip it every time.

Isn't this already arguably true of all of extended (and Elf)? Extended branches should be dangerous. The whole point is that you're risking your character for extra challenges and score. if you're against creating a rune branch that "a player who wants to win will skip every time", then you basically have to be against all of extended existing at all. Unless you're in favor of extended branches being either easy enough that anyone can do them with no risk, or predictable enough that you can easily predict whether or not they're a risk to your character, and I can't imagine anyone being in favor of either of those requirements because they go against the entire point of this discussion by making post-game basically strictly tedious and time consuming without being remotely interesting.

Elf is its own issue, and I think it's actually closely related to the "it's optimal to dive through about 90% of the floors in extended" issue I brought up earlier, which is that if a character is strong enough to go for more than 3-5 runes, it's hard to give them an incentive to do anything besides get the other runes as fast as possible because they're probably set for gear. The simplest solution to making Elf more interesting is to just give it a rune, which I'd be in favor of (both to give more motivation to do Elf, and because it would make 3-6 rune games more interesting by adding a new mid-range rune that can be an alternative to Slime/Vaults/Abyss for 3-runers or more content for people who want more runes but don't want to do Pan or Hell). But I'm not sure if that's relevant to this discussion.

[Siegurt]

What I would do with the demonic rune:

Make it announced on entry "You sense the presence of a powerful demonic rune"
Have it be on a timer, when the timer expires the demonic rune disappears and goes to another pan level:
"You feel the demonic rune slipping losing it's tenuous grasp on this plane"
"You feel the demonic rune slip away from you"

It no longer becomes a tedious exercise in exploring every level until you find it, instead it's a race to find it when you get to the level that contains it, if you can't get to it in time then you just have to keep searching.

[Quazifuji]

What I would do with the demonic rune:

Make it announced on entry "You sense the presence of a powerful demonic rune"
Have it be on a timer, when the timer expires the demonic rune disappears and goes to another pan level:
"You feel the demonic rune slipping losing it's tenuous grasp on this plane"
"You feel the demonic rune slip away from you"

It no longer becomes a tedious exercise in exploring every level until you find it, instead it's a race to find it when you get to the level that contains it, if you can't get to it in time then you just have to keep searching.

I definitely would find this much more interesting than the current system. Removes the endless searching and adds a different challenge from the other runes without completely removing all motivation to ever explore a non-special floor or just turning the demonic rune into an easier version of the other Pan runes.