Personally, I found Hell to be very anticlimactic

[Gorgondantess]

Inconsequential flavor text:

Spoiler: show

So, I'm completing my very first 15-rune run at the moment, and I was immensely enjoying it for a very long time. All the end-game branches are phenomenally well made: imho, the Tomb is probably the most well designed branch in the game. It's intricate, it's diverse (sphinx mobs, traps, etc.) it looks DAMN cool, it has a nice scaling from a brutal intro, to a slow and gradual grind through the various areas, to the incredibly deadly mob on Tomb: 3. And then I got to Pandemonium, which was a little less interesting, but I understand that being chaotic is a part of its nature, so I'm going to just accept that, and stuff like TSO's fortress and the various vaults made it worthwhile. And then I got to Hell, and I was just... incredibly disappointed. I've been playing Crawl (poorly) for over ten years now, and I've spent the whole time hearing about how Hell is the toughest area in the game: nasty, brutal, the place where you go when everything else has been vanquished. And there's just NOTHING there.

A more organized list of complaints:
1: Hell levels 1-6 are way too easy. Packs of Wights? Really? Is that even supposed to be a threat? I could probably just ignore these guys altogether and let them wail on me and it wouldn't impact me in the slightest.
2: There's - quite literally - nothing there. No loot, no portals to places, no vaults, nothing. Now, I understand that at this point loot is a moot point, but shouldn't there at least be SOMETHING interesting to expect? Vaults are one of my favorite aspects of the game - stuff like the steam baths in Zot or the disco room in Pandemonium, little touches like that are really what make this game great. They don't necessarily have to be silly like that, but at least interesting: perhaps something like the shrine to Elvylion in TSO's fortress could be done, but dedicated to an evil god instead.
2a: This also makes their visual design really unappealing. There really is no layout to the Hell levels, just absolutely chaotic and cluttered maps, and it doesn't even have the benefit of being claustrophobically chaotic like The Abyss. Hell, even Pandemonium has geometric shapes.
2b: Even the level 7 areas aren't that interesting. Again, no vaults (other than the Lord's chambers), mediocre stashes...
3: Absolutely no incentive to clear out Hell 1-6 anyways, since you can just come back straight down to the level you left off at. Now, this is actually nice because Hells 1-6 are incredibly tedious and pointless, but when it's preferable to just skip past a chunk of a game, imo that's just bad design.
3a: This also makes the various Hell levels incredibly short (and, by extension, anticlimactic): in Gehenna I rushed down to level 7 in about a minute real time. I probably cleared out Dis and Gehenna in about as much time as I took on TSO's fortress alone.
4: I understand this will probably be an unpopular opinion (well, relative to the rest of this post, which I'm certain will receive a lot of flak), but I found Hell's Mystical Force to just be a source of constant tedium. All it really did was slow down my regeneration downtime, and was never that threatening. I'm certain it would be brutal if it hit me with a nasty effect while I was fighting a lord of hell, or maybe a pack of hell sentinels, but it didn't; the ratio of excitement to tedium there is very low. Perhaps it should kick in much more rarely, but only at high tension?

My suggestion to how this could be improved: now, first of all, I understand that randomness is a big part of this game. However, there ARE maps like the Tombs or TSO's fortress that are very consistent, and I think Hell should be one of those. We already have the abject chaos of the Abyss, and the semi-chaos of Pandemonium; why not consistency in Hell? From a flavor standpoint, I think this makes sense; I know this game takes some inspiration from D&D, and in D&D the Abyss is the Chaotic Evil plane, Pandemonium makes sense in Crawl as the Neutral Evil plane, and in D&D Hell is the Lawful Evil plane. So why not make it more orderly, structured and predictable, as a Lawful plane should be? Having a unique, structured, but brutal layout ala the Tombs would make Hell worthy of its place as (arguably) the toughest sets of branches in the game, and honestly make it much, much, much cooler.
Just my two cents. The only reason I haven't cleared all of Hell at this point is because it's just so dull, tedious and generally not that exciting, and as the place I was looking forward to most in the game, that was really, really disappointing.

[bcadren]

Since I've brought this up before. I'm going to preclude some things so devs don't come and say them:

1. Hell isn't important. We want to iron out earlier branches before focusing on extended.
2. If you want more vaults in hell; submit a patch with a vault to be placed in hell.
3. If you want to change the balance of hell; create a testing fork that increases enemy spawning or makes new hell unique monsters, or increases the difficulty of existing ones.
4. There are vaults in hell; they just have low placement values. (There's a Gehenna vault that puts all three downstaircases together, for example).
5. You aren't -supposed- to clear hell, you're supposed to dive it; the extra floors are designed to be rushed through.

Those out of the way. You're pretty well right.

1. Effects of Hell are plain -unfair- auto-kill if you are facing a hell lord. [Paralysis is in the pool of effects for Zin's sake.] While nothing but boring tedium most the time. Only thing they really do on MOST games is force the issue on needing to dive instead of grind; since you'll get rotted and ability drained if you 5 too much.
2. Though there are some interesting hell-unique enemies (Shard Shrike, Salamander Firebrand, etc.) Most characters are only threatened by 1's and the Helllords themselves, by the time they get there. If you want a 'hell is hard' experience do it for your 3rd or 4th rune.
3. I will disagree with the layouts; Gehenna in particular actually has tower-like things. The others; well Cocytus is basically Swamp; Dis is between lower Dungeon and Vaults and Tartarus is kinda like Snake. They don't really have design unique to themselves, but they do have patterns.

[Gorgondantess]

Since I've brought this up before. I'm going to preclude some things so devs don't come and say them:

Ah, yeah, I kinda figured someone might've brought it up. Well, shit.

Hell isn't important. We want to iron out earlier branches before focusing on extended.

I... what the actual hell. How can this argument even be made? Each new version adds in enough new stuff that begs for its own balance changes, will the game ever be "ironed out" enough to work on Hell? I've been playing this game for ten years, and I have to assume that Hell has been around since then.
I was gonna make a sarcastic remark, but I really don't want to be the demanding fan. Still, playing this game for ten years and finally getting to the penultimate areas and then getting a justification for their mediocrity like that is just... it feels like spitting in my face. Just because a small percentage of players are never going to experience the area isn't a justification for not putting effort into it; quite the contrary, I believe that players should be rewarded for their effort and dedication with some really fantastic areas. Take a game like Dark Souls, for example: many of the early areas - areas which many players will not ever progress past - are quite bland (thematically, at least), and it takes a very long time to actually get to the awesome settings like Anor Londo or Ash Lake.
I was seriously considering quitting Crawl more or less for good after this run. With an answer like that, I think that's a nail in that coffin.

If you want more vaults in hell; submit a patch with a vault to be placed in hell.
If you want to change the balance of hell; create a testing fork that increases enemy spawning or makes new hell unique monsters, or increases the difficulty of existing ones.

Times like these I wish I knew more about programming n'stuff. I could barely work through customizing my config files, let alone something like that.

You aren't -supposed- to clear hell, you're supposed to dive it; the extra floors are designed to be rushed through.

Why even have them, then? (That's not meant to be snarky or anything, but a serious question). The only other branch that needs to be "rushed through" is Slime, but I think it works in Slime because the mix of caustic walls and nasty status effects forces a VERY cautious and thoughtful rush.

Those out of the way. You're pretty well right.
Effects of Hell are plain -unfair- auto-kill if you are facing a hell lord. [Paralysis is in the pool of effects for Zin's sake.] While nothing but boring tedium most the time. Only thing they really do on MOST games is force the issue on needing to dive instead of grind; since you'll get rotted and ability drained if you 5 too much.

Yeah, one of my biggest problems in this game is run-ending randomness. Randomness is awesome, and getting screwed over by randomness is always great fun (I'm looking at you, malmutate), but losing a good run entirely because of unaccountable-for RNG is kinda just bullshit. Especially when you consider the chances of that Paralysis penetrating an end-game character's MR. Thank Sif for my amulet of Four Winds.

Though there are some interesting hell-unique enemies (Shard Shrike, Salamander Firebrand, etc.) Most characters are only threatened by 1's and the Helllords themselves, by the time they get there. If you want a 'hell is hard' experience do it for your 3rd or 4th rune.

Thanks, but if I want to commit suicide I'll do it in a branch that's actually fun.

I will disagree with the layouts; Gehenna in particular actually has tower-like things. The others; well Cocytus is basically Swamp; Dis is between lower Dungeon and Vaults and Tartarus is kinda like Snake. They don't really have design unique to themselves, but they do have patterns.

Mmm, that's more of an intangible design/aesthetic thing. Hard to describe, but I'll try: The visual design is pretty terrible relative to those other branches (though that's probably just because I'm a tiles-using casual); in Swamps vs. Cocytus you have stuff like trees, and a very good color palette (Blue/Light Blue/Green/Dark Green/Brown vs. Light Blue/Blue/Dark Blue) and the deep water is actually significant because it hides nasties, so it works from a design standpoint. One of the things that annoys me the most is a color palette where everything blends in with the background, and every single level of hell does that pretty bad, imo.

Anyways, thanks for the discussion. It was nice to get this stuff off my chest, futile as it may be.
(And I'd like to add that at the end of the day I do love this game, and have great respect for the devs: they have some fantastic design work, and I love their approach to the genre. I'm just very disappointed is all.)

[bel]

I think 90% of your post is from the confusion that you are supposed to clear Hell. You aren't. Dive to 7th floor. The only point of the 6 floors before that is to force you to hunt for stairs down. Other people have suggested that the number of floors be reduced because it is tedious.

Regarding other points, hell's mystical force can be dangerous in various situations. You could be tormented just before a big fight, or silenced by a summoned silent spectre. In Dis you can be petrified and so on.

[Sandman25]

Hell levels 1-6 are way too easy.

I guess you were with a very powerful character like Mi of TSO with boots of running (or HE of TSO with Tornado) and were somewhat lucky. Hells are very hard and interesting to me.
Torment from hell effects, Hell Sentinel or a Fiend from hell effect, Silent Specters for those in lich-form...
If you are fighting those wights, you get more hell effects. If you ignore them, you can be surrounded by them later and hell effect will drop a fiend or tormentor for more fun. This is good IMHO.

Slime levels 1-5 are way too easy too but only in Hell I had some characters who retreated 5-6 times before they actually were able to reach last floor.
Also people lose characters in Hell.
Some level 7 vaults have 2 Hell Sentinels entering your LoS or 6 Ice Fiends after you open a door. Imagine what happens when Hell Serpent is generated there too or you are tormented/get another fiend from hell effect

I had several characters who won with 10-11 runes because they tried hells and found them too hard (some didn't even reach last levels).

If your main complaint is loot, then it is very unlikely that you will get something useful at this stage. Though I've checked my last game where I visited hell, my character had "ring "Decaoc" {+Inv rF+ Dex+4}
(You found it on level 7 of the Iron City of Dis)". The character almost died in Geh:7 (Hell Serpent appeared after a hard battle with other monsters) despite having Fire Storm, CBlink, Haste and Necromutation. I randomly teleported about 6 times to survive and spammed wand of healing like crazy. When ended Necromutation I was getting fiends in LoS, when I entered lich-form again, I lost regeneration spell and got nothing which helps vs Hellfire. That was a touch choice.

Paralysis was removed from hell effects as far as I know.

[archaeo]

While I absolutely agree that Hells:1-6 are 4 levels too many and having to do that same dive 24 times in a row is one of the worst stretches of extended, I will defend the endings. We could definitely use more of them, but vault design doesn't need to be hard coding work, and I suspect even a dummy like me could figure it out after awhile. The ones we have are pretty cool though, and there are a few examples that are some of my favorite encompass vaults in crawl.

Paralysis was removed from hell effects as far as I know.

I believe it was replaced with petrify, which at least gives you a bit of warning.

[Sar]

Even the level 7 areas aren't that interesting. Again, no vaults (other than the Lord's chambers)

Each 7th level is a full scale vault though?

[KoboldLord]

Since I've brought this up before. I'm going to preclude some things so devs don't come and say them:

Ah, yeah, I kinda figured someone might've brought it up. Well, shit.

Hell isn't important. We want to iron out earlier branches before focusing on extended.

I... what the actual hell. How can this argument even be made? Each new version adds in enough new stuff that begs for its own balance changes, will the game ever be "ironed out" enough to work on Hell? I've been playing this game for ten years, and I have to assume that Hell has been around since then.
I was gonna make a sarcastic remark, but I really don't want to be the demanding fan. Still, playing this game for ten years and finally getting to the penultimate areas and then getting a justification for their mediocrity like that is just... it feels like spitting in my face. Just because a small percentage of players are never going to experience the area isn't a justification for not putting effort into it; quite the contrary, I believe that players should be rewarded for their effort and dedication with some really fantastic areas. Take a game like Dark Souls, for example: many of the early areas - areas which many players will not ever progress past - are quite bland (thematically, at least), and it takes a very long time to actually get to the awesome settings like Anor Londo or Ash Lake.
I was seriously considering quitting Crawl more or less for good after this run. With an answer like that, I think that's a nail in that coffin.

Sadly, the devteam is merely mortal and they have a limited amount of work-hours to devote to the game as a whole. What parts of the game, then, should they focus those precious hours on? All of the parts of the game get some attention; recent changes to the post-endgame include all those demonspawn you saw running around Pan, everything in Tomb that isn't a mummy, and a bunch more vaults. There's also the recent Ziggurat changes, which goes to show that even the very least deserving part of the game still gets some attention.

The temptation in these circumstances is to keep doling more loving attention on the cool endgame bits so the very best players get a constant influx of new content, and leave the starter areas as they are because hey, newbies haven't actually seen enough to be jaded anyway. This is a common pitfall in professional game design, as you've noticed, and I appreciate that the devteam makes a conscious effort to pay attention to the needs of new players.

Probably a good chunk of your disappointment with the difficulty was just that you happened to have a well-geared character for the task. TSO is very good at helping you through Hell, perhaps too much so, and you also had 11 Runes worth of good equipment drops helping out. If you try again with a different character build, you are likely to have a very different experience.

That said, there are definitely issues with the current version that I hope are somewhere on the design queue for repair. Hell Effects could use a good pruning at the very least, to get rid of the more obnoxious possibilities. Additionally, there are too much chaff monsters generating, both normally and through Hell effects, that aren't plausibly threatening to any character that is likely to be there. There really isn't any reason to be throwing around wight packs at this point in the game.

[dpeg]

Many useful comments have been made (thanks!).

Hell has existed as long as I can remember (so before DCSS 0.1). It is bonus stuff, so gets less developer attention than the core game. (That does not mean nothing happens: new Hell:7 maps get added from time to time, they are refined/adapted occasionally; the hell effects are constantly discussed and occasionally modified; the serpents of hell have been recently added).

The branches try to achieve a different playing styles than usual Crawl branches: constant pressure through Hell effects, easy to get out, harder to go deeper. I think the basic premise is worthwhile. Certainly, the mechanics can be improved. (Just one random idea: instead of fixed downstairs we're frantically searching, hells could spawn a "stairs monster", and killing it would get you one level deeper.) If people think hells are too bad, I'd rather keep the length and reduce the number of hell branches per game. In any case, it is intentional that there is little loot on Hell:1-6. Perhaps this should be made more clear?

Vaults are welcome, and easy to make! You don't need to code for this, and you don't need to install anything, simply editing .des files with any text editor is enough. For hells, we appreciate new Hell end maps (these are big, so take a lot of work, and also some experience to the threat level right). For the other hell levels, monster vaults are interesting.

[Pollen_Golem]

it is intentional that there is little loot on Hell:1-6. Perhaps this should be made more clear?

Maybe in the description of the vestibule of hell, something like "These hollow domains hold little other than the most fearsome evils known to all. No sane being would ever spend a moment longer than necessary in Hell. The bottom of every Hell contains a rune (and a few trophies, scavenged from past intruders?)."

[asdu]

If people think hells are too bad, I'd rather keep the length and reduce the number of hell branches per game.

Please don't. There's nothing particularly interesting about the first 6 Hell floors, particularly because most players (at least most players that have gone through the extended branches more than a couple times) already treat non-rune Pan floors the same way (on that note, I'd love if the demonic rune was announced as well, so that there's nothing preventing me from going into full speedrun mode in Pan), as well as Slime, and, of course, the Abyss. Even the slowest, most farm-happy players have had more than enough uninteresting floors to stroll through by the time they get to Hell. In fact, at that point in the game I'm so eager to dive that the Hell effects, far from creating a sense of urgency, only annoy me by slowing me down with wave after wave of irrelevant popcorn (and the threat level is not the issue here; there's already enough thrills to be had on the rune floor. I don't care to be challenged on the way there).

[mps]

@dpeg: +1 to fewer, say 2, hell branches per game, but more or less the same as they are now.

[Sandman25]

@dpeg: +1 to fewer, say 2, hell branches per game, but more or less the same as they are now.

I don't get it. If you don't like to do all 4 branches, can't you just pick 2 (or 1, or 3) that you enjoy the most with current character and ignore the other 2? It can even add a bit of strategy to the game, you know.

Lately GDD is full of "I don't like Foo, let's remove/"fix" it". If you don't like something optional, ignore it. Usually there are players who enjoy exactly what you hate. How would you like "Let's have 25 hell branches and make all those runes required to enter Zot"?

[duvessa]

If you don't like to do all 7 Elf levels, can't you just pick 3 (or 2, or 4) that you enjoy the most with current character and ignore the other 4? It can even add a bit of strategy to the game, you know.
If you don't like to play all 3 dwarf species, can't you just pick 1 (or 0, or 2) that you enjoy the most with current character and ignore the other 2? It can even add a bit of strategy to the game, you know.
etc.

Doing 4 hell branches is optional. That doesn't mean that having the option there couldn't possibly be unhealthy for the game.

[mps]

@dpeg: +1 to fewer, say 2, hell branches per game, but more or less the same as they are now.

I don't get it. If you don't like to do all 4 branches, can't you just pick 2 (or 1, or 3) that you enjoy the most with current character and ignore the other 2? It can even add a bit of strategy to the game, you know.

Lately GDD is full of "I don't like Foo, let's remove/"fix" it". If you don't like something optional, ignore it. Usually there are players who enjoy exactly what you hate. How would you like "Let's have 25 hell branches and make all those runes required to enter Zot"?

I don't do extended unless I intend to do all of it. Players who are interested in speedrunning and/or high scoring do not view "just do whatever you feel like" as an option.

[dpeg]

@dpeg: +1 to fewer, say 2, hell branches per game, but more or less the same as they are now.

I don't get it. If you don't like to do all 4 branches, can't you just pick 2 (or 1, or 3) that you enjoy the most with current character and ignore the other 2? It can even add a bit of strategy to the game, you know.

Yes, sort of. Especially since we're talking about optional content anyway. On the other hand, suppose we had 100 hells -- all runing would be an ordeal. My point is that the basic concept is interesting but perhaps it suffices to have two instances rather than four? (To be clear, I have done each hell a few times, but I don't do them regularly. Most recently I did Gehenna for Gozag testing. I have no idea what a sweet spot is.) In order not to lose content (hell end vaults, monster sets, hell lords and their special items), one could use a branch roulette.

Lately GDD is full of "I don't like Foo, let's remove/"fix" it". If you don't like something optional, ignore it. Usually there are players who enjoy exactly what you hate. How would you like "Let's have 25 hell branches and make all those runes required to enter Zot"?

As mps has said, cannot ignore these branches for all-runing and speed-running purposes (and score is sort of a thing in Crawl, can't pretend it's meaningless like in Nethack).
I agree that there's quite a bit of "let's remove it" from players... In some sense, that makes me happy, as we have players that can enjoy nerfs and reductions. On the other hand, baby, bathwater, etc.

[Sandman25]

If you don't like to do all 7 Elf levels, can't you just pick 3 (or 2, or 4) that you enjoy the most with current character and ignore the other 4? It can even add a bit of strategy to the game, you know.
If you don't like to play all 3 dwarf species, can't you just pick 1 (or 0, or 2) that you enjoy the most with current character and ignore the other 2? It can even add a bit of strategy to the game, you know.
etc.

Doing 4 hell branches is optional. That doesn't mean that having the option there couldn't possibly be unhealthy for the game.

7 "floors" in Elf would be fine if every floor had its own entrance from Orc and wasn't connected to other Elf "floors". Every hell branch is optional, I don't see how it is possible to call Elf 2 optional provided it is required to reach Elf 3.
3 dwarf species are fine if they are already coded.

[Sandman25]

I don't do extended unless I intend to do all of it. Players who are interested in speedrunning and/or high scoring do not view "just do whatever you feel like" as an option.

You realize that removing a level from Lair branches made it impossible to compare 0.17 games with 0.16 games, don't you? Do you want to put 2 Hell runes into Orc and Elf to beat Sapher's high score?

[Sandman25]

Yes, sort of. Especially since we're talking about optional content anyway. On the other hand, suppose we had 100 hells -- all runing would be an ordeal. My point is that the basic concept is interesting but perhaps it suffices to have two instances rather than four? (To be clear, I have done each hell a few times, but I don't do them regularly. Most recently I did Gehenna for Gozag testing. I have no idea what a sweet spot is.) In order not to lose content (hell end vaults, monster sets, hell lords and their special items), one could use a branch roulette.

I think Hell branches are different enough from each other, at least 3 of them. If I had to remove some content (why, to save some XP?), I would make Pan have 5 floors, that would make speedrunning more enjoyable and fair. Currently an otherwise great speedrun can be destroyed by bad luck, when player spends too much time trying to generate unique runes or to find that annoying demonic rune.

[archaeo]

I'm curious: why would it be better to outright axe two full Hell branches rather than shorten all of them? That seems like the babies getting tossed with the bathwater (why do we still use this idiom, when is the last time you threw out bathwater), if anything. The individual Dis, Geh, Coc, and Tar:7 maps all feel pretty distinct, and I don't think I've ever minded any of those half as much as I've loathed the 4th time I have to wander through a mid-hell snoozefest.

You realize that removing a level from Lair branches made it impossible to compare 0.17 games with 0.16 games, don't you? Do you want to put 2 Hell runes into Orc and Elf to beat Sapher's high score?

There have been so many changes between versions that comparing scores across them already runs into problems, and future changes, including the often-whispered-about aut scoring, will only make it dicier. It would probably be better if we had individual scoreboards for each version, but even if we don't, this just isn't a compelling reason to keep the game the same instead of making it better.

If I had to remove some content (why, to save some XP?)

Does it really need to be pointed out that people who propose removing content are doing so with the sincere belief it'll make the game better?

[wheals]

I'm curious: why would it be better to outright axe two full Hell branches rather than shorten all of them? That seems like the babies getting tossed with the bathwater (why do we still use this idiom, when is the last time you threw out bathwater), if anything. The individual Dis, Geh, Coc, and Tar:7 maps all feel pretty distinct, and I don't think I've ever mind any of those half as much as I've loathed the 4th time I have to wander through a mid-hell snoozefest.

Which would you prefer, all four lair branches appearing every single game, each one level long, or as currently but each with 2 levels? It's the same amount of time/XP (well, not really, because endings increase both, but I'm sure you get the idea), but they're obviously very different solutions. In other words, you can get more per-game and cross-game variety by restricting the set of things that you see rather than tossing everything together and chopping off levels until you get to the "ideal" length.

[archaeo]

Which would you prefer, all four lair branches appearing every single game, each one level long, or as currently but each with 2 levels? It's the same amount of time/XP (well, not really, because endings increase both, but I'm sure you get the idea), but they're obviously very different solutions. In other words, you can get more per-game and cross-game variety by restricting the set of things that you see rather than tossing everything together and chopping off levels until you get to the "ideal" length.

I don't know, if the non-swamp branch endings didn't all feel so same-y every game, I might not consider this a bad option! I'd rather play interesting levels with content and stuff over transitionary levels that only exist as part of a path from point A to point B. I also take your point w/r/t "cross-game variety," but doesn't this only restrict "per-game" variety? Maybe I'm not getting the distinction. Either way, taking this philosophy to its logical endpoint would suggest S-branch-ifying a lot more of the game. Why do we even need two branches? Just having one gives more per-game and cross-game variety, etc.

I mean, I'm not going to nail any theses to the door of the Church of Crawl over losing two rune subbranches, even if I have been accused recently of being a Crawl theologian. But I see 4 interesting levels and 24 uninteresting levels, and I'd much rather save the former than the latter. Not to mention that "won the game...with 13 runes" is just not as good as 15!

[Sandman25]

Which would you prefer, all four lair branches appearing every single game, each one level long, or as currently but each with 2 levels? It's the same amount of time/XP (well, not really, because endings increase both, but I'm sure you get the idea), but they're obviously very different solutions. In other words, you can get more per-game and cross-game variety by restricting the set of things that you see rather than tossing everything together and chopping off levels until you get to the "ideal" length.

I believe it is wrong to treat "ideal" length as something that exists. There is nothing preventing player from getting 3 Hell runes and nothing else, do you really want to make Hell have the same XP/length as Lair/Orc/Elf/Vaults?
Crawl has random spells and more importantly random items. I would be very sad if crawl had only 3 runes generated in every game, especially when I find some fun item like Shield of the Gong or Maxwell's PA. There is nothing wrong with all 4 Lair branches generated in every game, I should not restart if I want to play En in Snakes but Spiders was generated instead.

[Sprucery]

I would actually like it if all Lair branches were generated but only two of them contained a rune! Random selection, course.

(I do realize that I might be the only player who would enjoy this.)

[dpeg]

I believe that hells should have a certain length because that's good for something. If you can think of better ways to try to get characters in not-always-ideal shape to the rune level, tell us. I think something could be done to improve the current "find a pretty short staircase path to Hell:7". Random placement of staircases or (mentioned above) staircase on a new monster type, or perhaps each backtracking (flee to Vestibule) resets staircases. Perhaps there could be a set of special hell effects, one of which is rolled whenever you go down a level.

If each hell was just one level, accessible from the vestibule, characters would be as prepared as in Tomb:$, Vaults:$ etc. Of course, nobody knows what the best length is either. If you only like Crawl for its branch end levels, then that indicates you're unhappy with the random stuff (layout, monsters). But that's supposedly the meat of a roguelike. I don't think that's going away.

When regular hell stormers tell me the hells are boring, then my first inclination is to try and keep the defining characteristic, but reduce the scale -- hence: fewer branches, same length. That way we keep all the content (though not in every single game) and the mechanic.

Then again, this is the extended game. There will be no further Pan or Hell runes, so it's not like urgent actionis required.

[archaeo]

I believe that hells should have a certain length because that's good for something. If you can think of better ways to try to get characters in not-always-ideal shape to the rune level, tell us.

I think that if this is the goal of the long dive, then there should be no way to get out once you enter. As it is, it's trivial to get to 7 and immediately leave so you can make a fast break for the bottom. Simply make it so that picking up the rune is the only way to get back to the vestibule.

If you only like Crawl for its branch end levels, then that indicates you're unhappy with the random stuff (layout, monsters). But that's supposedly the meat of a roguelike. I don't think that's going away.

I like the random stuff! My only complaint is that getting to those branch ends in Hell is very repetitive, rarely dangerous for a character you're actually bringing to extended, and serve mainly to pad out the length. While I favor cutting out some of those levels rather than having two branches per game, either one would be preferable to the status quo, which is 24 levels of hide-and-seek. The "random stuff" here is not random enough.

[Sar]

Players who are interested in speedrunning and/or high scoring do not view "just do whatever you feel like" as an option.

clearly the solution is to remove scores and turncounts from the game then

[mps]

I don't do extended unless I intend to do all of it. Players who are interested in speedrunning and/or high scoring do not view "just do whatever you feel like" as an option.

You realize that removing a level from Lair branches made it impossible to compare 0.17 games with 0.16 games, don't you? Do you want to put 2 Hell runes into Orc and Elf to beat Sapher's high score?

Well, I'm not sure removing a level from lair branches made huge difference, but it's true that different versions ought to be scored separately on CAO etc.

[Wahaha]

I don't think you should base your entire experience of Hells off of one playthrough. I agree with the opinion that they are the most dangerous branches. I've had a good number of climactic boss fights and remember their events distinctly. And I remember lots of encounters in Hells in general because they create exceptionally dangerous situations.
But it is true that it can be a slog fighting through endless spawns of flying skulls and zombies. I think that if hell branches are too long, it would be better to cut the size of each floor in half or more, and only then, if it's still too long, reduce the number of floors. I think that smaller floors would create a "smoother" experience where staircases are found quickly and there is a sense of constant progression downwards.

[tabstorm]

For me, the ends are fun, but I wish there were less floors for each Hell. I assume that there are 7 floors to ensure that the player is hit sufficiently often with Hell effects. You could accomplish this just as well by slightly increasing the frequency of effects, or making them more powerful, and reducing the number of floors. At the point when most characters do Hell, their chances of dying outside of a vault are extremely low, so if anything I think increasing the frequency or power of Hell effects would make the branches more dangerous. It's not overly enjoyable to search for downstairs for 6*4 floors when I am mostly not in any danger just to get to the fun part, but I think Hell would feel like even more of a slog if all 24 padding floors were dangerous.

I also don't overly like some of the effects (petrify, random stat drain that can kill you instantly but it's your fault for not taking extra str/int before Hell) but those are only minor complaints.

[Sar]

The problem with hell effects is that you usually get hit with them while resting. Well, it's not that much of a problem I guess since Hells are supposed to limit resting, but I think Hell effects that are either dangerous on their own or that happen during fights are the most interesting ones.

[Siegurt]

We could also shrink the 1-6 hell floors somewhat, but reduce the down stairs to one, I would also love some flavored vaults with the tormented in them.

[Lokkij]

Looking through the vaults for the hells, there seem to be very few vaults which include stairs. Since the stairs are probably the most important parts of the Hell:1-6 levels, could a number of vaults that include stairs be interesting? This also makes it more likely the player actually encounters and notices the vaults.

[Blobbo]

Hell effects are super-unfun. Surely there are better ways of putting pressure on the player than piling on rot, and various minor impediments that force you to rest more to recover from them and thus accumulate more rot. Rot/stat drain just plain sucks and makes me want to stop playing and just get the orb and win, because it's this unavoidable, gradual, non-lethal erosion of your character's strength that just makes the game increasingly tedious to play rather than more interesting/fun/challenging.

Suggestions:
- Increase spawn rate outside of player LoS (like during the orb run), thus making the area impractical to clear completely.
- Randomly Mark the player for brief periods ensuring that you can never just find a safe place to rest.
- Randomly Noise centered on the player
- Randomly teleport the player like in the abyss

Actually I'd be happy with just removal of the Rot effect from the effects list, but the above are some ideas.

[triorph]

I... what the actual hell. How can this argument even be made? Each new version adds in enough new stuff that begs for its own balance changes, will the game ever be "ironed out" enough to work on Hell? I've been playing this game for ten years, and I have to assume that Hell has been around since then.
I was gonna make a sarcastic remark, but I really don't want to be the demanding fan. Still, playing this game for ten years and finally getting to the penultimate areas and then getting a justification for their mediocrity like that is just... it feels like spitting in my face. Just because a small percentage of players are never going to experience the area isn't a justification for not putting effort into it; quite the contrary, I believe that players should be rewarded for their effort and dedication with some really fantastic areas. Take a game like Dark Souls, for example: many of the early areas - areas which many players will not ever progress past - are quite bland (thematically, at least), and it takes a very long time to actually get to the awesome settings like Anor Londo or Ash Lake.
I was seriously considering quitting Crawl more or less for good after this run. With an answer like that, I think that's a nail in that coffin.

In dark souls, when you die you're still in the same area. This means that once you get to this area you're going to stay in this area for a long time. It makes sense to reward the dedication/effort with some fantastic areas.

In crawl, when you die you're back to the start of the dungeon. This means you're going to be in the early dungeon most of the time. It makes sense to focus on this area instead.

[GlassGo]

@dpeg: +1 to fewer, say 2, hell branches per game, but more or less the same as they are now.

Is it some kind of trolling, mixed with omerta? You can't be serious.

[GlassGo]

I think that if this is the goal of the long dive, then there should be no way to get out once you enter. As it is, it's trivial to get to 7 and immediately leave so you can make a fast break for the bottom. Simply make it so that picking up the rune is the only way to get back to the vestibule.

Great point! I'm agree!

[archaeo]

Is it some kind of trolling, mixed with omerta? You can't be serious.

I don't think mps is trolling; I think there are a fair number of people who find Hell to be a little overlong, and s-branchifying it would be one way to reduce the length and add some game-to-game variety. I think I prefer shortening/shrinking the diving levels to cutting out two per game, but either one would be preferable to the status quo, in my opinion.

[Pollen_Golem]

You could also conceivably randomize the number of floors a hell has, e.g. to 2+1d9 (average 7), although "7 floors" has mythological appeal.

[Arrhythmia]

You could also conceivably randomize the number of floors a hell has, e.g. to 2+1d9 (average 7), although "7 floors" has mythological appeal.

i don't think the right answer to "hells are too long" is "sometimes make hells longer"

[Pollen_Golem]

But just as often "make hells shorter" - you just wouldn't know for sure whether the next level is the bottom, unless you're on floor 10.
A better answer to "hells are too long" might be to make them have 1 + 1d5 floors, which is 2-6 floors, average 4.

[Sandman25]

i don't think the right answer to "hells are too long" is "sometimes make hells longer"

Right answer to "hells are too long" is "make them optional". Oh, wait...

[Arrhythmia]

i don't think the right answer to "hells are too long" is "sometimes make hells longer"

Right answer to "hells are too long" is "make them optional". Oh, wait...

Which is why elf is still 7 levels long, right?

[Sandman25]

Which is why elf is still 7 levels long, right?

I am not sure what you are asking here. Yes, sometimes devs do weird things like trying to balance game by changing optional branches lengths instead of introducing explicit difficulty levels.
So good/speedrunning players can win the game without entering Crypt/Elf etc. while bad/optimal players want all XP they can get.

Edit. Sorry, devs, I am probably stupid but this is how I feel about explicit difficulty levels.

[Sar]

I think reducing Elf length had little to do with difficulty and a lot to do with elves not being diverse enough enemies to justify 7 floors being dedicated to them.

[Sandman25]

I think reducing Elf length had little to do with difficulty and a lot to do with elves not being diverse enough enemies to justify 7 floors being dedicated to them.

I guess the issue here is that last elf levels were too easy. Personally I would be more happy with 4+ Elf levels. 1 level is good, it has only 1 upstairs so teleporting is dangerous. 2 level is good, it has Hall of Blades so teleporting is dangerous again (and escape hatch form elf 3 is dangerous if you haven't cleared Hall of Blades). 3 level is good, teleporting is dangerous because of end vault. As you can see we don't have a level where teleporting is not dangerous, so there could be an extra level between Elf 1 and Elf 2, it would be really different from other levels.

[Sar]

Personally I would be happy with one less Elf level. Elves are mostly trivial by the time it is optimal to fight them but some of them are also very annoying (invisible ones, summoners who swarm you with weak creatures and blink).

[dowan]

Elf 4 could be the same as elf 3, except the walls aren't diggable, and weak elves aren't generated. Obviously the demonic rune should be moved here. Obviously pan level generation should be changed to generate pan lord levels more often as well, since you wouldn't go there for the demonic rune anymore.

And that's how you make the game shorter while adding a new level.

[archaeo]

I feel like it's worth pointing out that, for me at least, it's not necessarily about making the game shorter; I don't really mind the length of Crawl at all. The thing that should be focused on is the game's flow. Hell has very same-y content, four times in a row, with relatively minor facelifts. You could certainly retain the length if the content was more varied, but that seems like a harder problem, so cutting it down a bit seems like a solid decision.

[johlstei]

Instead of closing off hell once you pick up the orb, open it for the first time once you pick up the orb.