It should be theoretically possible to ascend any character

[dpeg]

zxc23: Yes, that's a good question. But I think these are actually less deadly than most players think, so removing early adders, say, would indeed decrease depth.

I am absolutely fine with distortion-wielding kobolds on D:1. Hey, it is D:1! And if you win that fight (for example, because you can throw something), you now have a distortion dagger! What's not to like?

Luring, pillar-dancing, stair-dancing: Yes. I really hope we can do something about these... sooner or later. (And for me, luring is the worst.) Not only do they make the game less fun to play (for some of us at least), they're part of the reason why winrates are so high. (Another reason is that Crawl showers the player with tools, but that's much, much less of a fundamental design problem.)

[kuniqs]

The game shouldn't generate amulets of rage, dragon armours, rings of slaying, plate mails, auxiliary armour and anything that gives tall poppies unfair advantage before Lair. Trog shouldn't be avaliable at D1, too.

[Hurkyl]

I am absolutely fine with distortion-wielding kobolds on D:1. Hey, it is D:1! And if you win that fight (for example, because you can throw something), you now have a distortion dagger! What's not to like?

What's not to like? The likely RNG death on D:1, obviously.

I can see the point that it's usually not much of a tragedy if a player gets an 'unfair' death on D:1 because at that point players usually aren't invested in the character, but to suggest this is a good state of affairs takes things way to far.

Or... belies a very different notion of what a "game" of crawl is. Is it:

• A game with permadeath that begins when a new character enters the dungeon and ends when the player dies, quits, or escapes with the orb?
• A continuous thing where you respawn in a new dungeon with a new character after every death or quit

Leaning towards the second puts you on a very slippery slope, since it basically implies, for example, that start scumming is a strategy for playing a game of crawl (and presuming it is somewhat effective, that good players should use it).

[Sar]

people already startscum...

[dynast]

A continuous thing where you respawn in a new dungeon with a new character after every death or quit

How is it possible when you dont carry anything from the previous game to the next one? This is not rogue legacy.

I would be glad to see traps go, which seems its not gonna happen because traps are interesting and the game is boring otherwise, somehow...

[Sixo]

zxc23: Yes, that's a good question. But I think these are actually less deadly than most players think, so removing early adders, say, would indeed decrease depth.

...

Luring, pillar-dancing, stair-dancing: Yes. I really hope we can do something about these...

I am so confused by this line of logic I decided to sign-up. Assuming you truly believe the poisoning of the well in the beginning, allow me to break it down how I see it. The reason for the prevalence of these 'shallow' tactics is the absurd situations one can find oneself in on the early dungeon. Rather than address the root cause of this behaviour you seem to be attacking the symptoms. There really is no depth on the first few floors of the dungeon to lose. You encounter an enemy. You can't fight multiple enemies. You bring it back slightly, murder it, butcher it and hope for some consumables to allow you options the next time. You could sum this behaviour up with a small flowchart. Something you could easily program a bot to play optimally, excluding some ultra-rare scenarios. Addressing luring, pillar dancing or stair dancing would not significantly alter this monotonous flowchart. If anything, it'd reduce the complexity.

It's not fun or rewarding to die early on, it's simply a failure to follow the flowchart or you rolled the dice poorly. I'd be happy with some of the proposed speed changes (made in the powercreep thread) if you could somehow increase player choice in the early dungeon. As is you can't remove the only tactics a player has and lie to yourself you're increasing depth. The reason I keep coming back to crawl over the 4 or so years I've been playing is its considerable depth. Tactical and strategic depth is generated through the choice and consequences allotted to the player. There is little depth to rolling the dice and being in a situation impossible to win, all choice converges on the same point. I think this should be minimized as much as possible as a way of avoiding shallow situations rather than adding some intangible goal of overall depth.

Personally, I've been trying to achieve greaterplayer status for some time. I've encountered so many situations where my character has just died and I've felt no way around it. This hasn't felt fun, like learning, or tactically interesting, just frustrating. Predominantly in the first few floors. Much like yourself I find the tactics of luring, pillar-dancing and stair-dancing tedious. But I find constantly rerolling new characters until I find something OP on the first few floors significantly more tedious and cheap.

[kuniqs]

If the game becomes 'solvable' by good tactics then people will complain that crawl gets harder every release and devs cater only to superplayers who know everything and previously even great players died in early game and...

[lethediver]

quote]
lethediver, you are quite new to crawl and to this forum. Please consider that most people who answered to your topic have much more experience than you.

Im not offended, just baffled. What does that have to do with anything? Also, I have stopped using that screen. Keepcalmandspamtab is my new one.

Experience does not make someones point have more, or less, validity. If someone is talking about their credibility or suitableness for a job position, then it matters. If making a logical point in an argument using abstract topic, then its strength of the argument that matters, and all else is ad hom.

But imo it's interesting how this discussion went on. You started with adders / centaurs / shafts being the main problems in early game, zxc23 elaborated your ideas with more precision. This topic could result in reducing unavailable deaths in early games.

Thanks. I will be making many more such topics in the weeks to come.

And another thing: if you have problems with duvessa's posts either ignore them or put duvessa on your foe list.

Again, why? Your reasoning is not evident to me. I do not look to the left when I post btw, I do not know duvessa's posts from anyone else's. Using internet for a long time has persuaded me that its better if i do not look at screen name and treat each post on its own merits.

[lethediver]

zxc23: Yes, that's a good question. But I think these are actually less deadly than most players think, so removing early adders, say, would indeed decrease depth.

I am absolutely fine with distortion-wielding kobolds on D:1. Hey, it is D:1! And if you win that fight (for example, because you can throw something), you now have a distortion dagger! What's not to like?

Luring, pillar-dancing, stair-dancing: Yes. I really hope we can do something about these... sooner or later. (And for me, luring is the worst.) Not only do they make the game less fun to play (for some of us at least), they're part of the reason why winrates are so high. (Another reason is that Crawl showers the player with tools, but that's much, much less of a fundamental design problem.)

"But I think these are actually less deadly than most players think, so removing early adders, say, would indeed decrease depth."

How, exactly, would this decrease depth? Decrease deadliness in part of game that is already the most deadly, and have the least tactical options, does not equate to decrease depth.

I believe the gain from really good player not dying due to humanly unavoidable circumstance in the early game far outweighs the decrease (if it really is a decrease) in depth from making 99 adder spawn in a game instead of 100.

[dpeg]

In a nutshell: I want the game to be harder rather than easier. In particular, I am very certain that making every game 100% winnable is a really, really bad move. Crawl is already awfully close to this, and in my opinion we should walk in the other direction.

Let us look at the two extreme cases:

(1) Games are basically not winnable, the best you can hope for is getting as far down as possible. In this setup, player skill is measured by dungeon depth: the better you are, the deeper you get (taking averages). This has approach has the potential for a lot of depth.

(2) Games are 100% winnable. All else being equal, in this setup there is a cap on depth: if you learn/figure out the skills necessary to win a game, you can effectively win every game (assuming you have the willpower).

In my opinion, Crawl is almost (2). So I am in favour of changes that go towards (1), and against changes towards (2).

[savageorange]

Im not offended, just baffled. What does that have to do with anything? Also, I have stopped using that screen. Keepcalmandspamtab is my new one.

Experience does not make someones point have more, or less, validity. If someone is talking about their credibility or suitableness for a job position, then it matters. If making a logical point in an argument using abstract topic, then its strength of the argument that matters, and all else is ad hom.

That is neither true nor practical. People with experience don't have infinite time to explain to you all the relevant things they've learnt through experience, and you don't have infinite time to understand it. This doesn't grant their individual points more validity, but it does mean they are likely to understand much better how their ideas actually relate to the game. Which, in short, makes their arguments more trustworthy than someone less experienced.

[Hurkyl]

In a nutshell: I want the game to be harder rather than easier. In particular, I am very certain that making every game 100% winnable is a really, really bad move. Crawl is already awfully close to this, and in my opinion we should walk in the other direction.

Let us look at the two extreme cases:

(1) Games are basically not winnable, the best you can hope for is getting as far down as possible. In this setup, player skill is measured by dungeon depth: the better you are, the deeper you get (taking averages). This has approach has the potential for a lot of depth.

(2) Games are 100% winnable. All else being equal, in this setup there is a cap on depth: if you learn/figure out the skills necessary to win a game, you can effectively win every game (assuming you have the willpower).

In my opinion, Crawl is almost (2). So I am in favour of changes that go towards (1), and against changes towards (2).

...

Just to clarify, you really mean what you're saying, that having unwinnable games is actually a goal? I.e. you truly desire for crawl to be the sort of game that randomly plays a "you lose" card, so that victory requires not only skill but also dumb luck?

[savageorange]

Which, in short, makes their arguments more trustworthy than someone less experienced.

In my, well, experience, people who understand things only through experience,

That wasn't the subject of discussion. Having experience or not having it was.

Crate, for example, has lots of experience and can explain crawl well.

Duvessa has a pretty good understanding but is not necessarily so good at conveying it.

Neither of these persons have infinite time to explain, no matter how good their explanations would be. It doesn't grant their bad arguments immunity from criticism. It just means that all other things being equal, if they make an argument that seems to make sense, it probably is an actually good argument.
(ie. they get a certain amount of leniency on 'showing their work' because we know from experience that they can and it's typically solid work)

To be fair, I wouldn't trust someone like SharkMan to the same degree, because while he has plenty of wins, he hasn't clearly demonstrated an overall understanding of the game (here in Tavern, at least). So I might have moved the goalposts a little there.

Just to clarify, you really mean what you're saying, that having unwinnable games is actually a goal? I.e. you truly desire for crawl to be the sort of game that randomly plays a "you lose" card, so that victory requires not only skill but also dumb luck?

A more charitable interpretation would be "Currently, you can reliably avoid causing your own doom if you are willing to behave in a tedious enough way. I'd like to make that less true."

[Hurkyl]

Just to clarify, you really mean what you're saying, that having unwinnable games is actually a goal? I.e. you truly desire for crawl to be the sort of game that randomly plays a "you lose" card, so that victory requires not only skill but also dumb luck?

A more charitable interpretation would be "Currently, you can reliably avoid causing your own doom if you are willing to behave in a tedious enough way. I'd like to make that less true."

I can put words into his mouth too -- prior to that post I would have interpreted it as meaning that the existence of unwinnable games are a lesser evil than what would be required to eliminate them -- but I think there's actually a decent chance of there being a fundamental difference of opinion here.

[Turukano]

Im not offended, just baffled.

I'm sorry that you have been baffled, that was not the intention of my post.

[lethediver]

In a nutshell: I want the game to be harder rather than easier. In particular, I am very certain that making every game 100% winnable is a really, really bad move. Crawl is already awfully close to this, and in my opinion we should walk in the other direction.

Let us look at the two extreme cases:

(1) Games are basically not winnable, the best you can hope for is getting as far down as possible. In this setup, player skill is measured by dungeon depth: the better you are, the deeper you get (taking averages). This has approach has the potential for a lot of depth.

(2) Games are 100% winnable. All else being equal, in this setup there is a cap on depth: if you learn/figure out the skills necessary to win a game, you can effectively win every game (assuming you have the willpower).

In my opinion, Crawl is almost (2). So I am in favour of changes that go towards (1), and against changes towards (2).

This is excellent point. Really good point, and I would be interested to see a game set up to get progressively more difficult to test player skill.

But, the problem with this point is that you are refuting yourself. Because if true, the first few floors should have LESS opportunity for death, and certainly not any unavoidable death, while the later floors should have more.

[lethediver]

Im not offended, just baffled.

I'm sorry that you have been baffled, that was not the intention of my post.

Your apology is accepted. You can take it a step further and clarify your view, or dont, but given that you have not, my point stands. You say "keep in mind people have experience" but not what to do with the knowledge when it is in my mind. Show deference? Blindly accept other opinion without question?

[lethediver]

Im not offended, just baffled. What does that have to do with anything? Also, I have stopped using that screen. Keepcalmandspamtab is my new one.

Experience does not make someones point have more, or less, validity. If someone is talking about their credibility or suitableness for a job position, then it matters. If making a logical point in an argument using abstract topic, then its strength of the argument that matters, and all else is ad hom.

That is neither true nor practical. People with experience don't have infinite time to explain to you all the relevant things they've learnt through experience, and you don't have infinite time to understand it. This doesn't grant their individual points more validity, but it does mean they are likely to understand much better how their ideas actually relate to the game. Which, in short, makes their arguments more trustworthy than someone less experienced.

Untrue? Give proofs please. An experienced person can be wrong, and an inexperienced can be right - that is fact. Nothing is gained from not questioning experienced people - it make everyone dumber. One should learn by thinking critically and ask questions, not refrain from ask questions and keep silent because of blind deference. If you do not have time to answer questions, feel free to not post. But criticize me for asking questions is not rational. Even a genius still asks questions each day.

If I am showing disrespect, or questioning the experience of those who have more than me, by all means call me out. I have not though, I am questioning their statements and reasoning. Btw, experience in playing a game not the same as experience in game design. If anyone deserve deference, it is devs, not "experience forum member" or "guy who have played for years but have never coded or published a game, or wrote game for audience." Forum vets have good knowledge of etiquette. Gamers have good knowledge of game balance, difficulty etc. Neither has special knowledge about "SHOULD a game be winnable every time".

I really dont understand this whole jaunt into realm of elitism because I have the nerve to discuss game design in the GAME DESIGN DISCUSSION board. Am I angering people by doing so? Explain please. Other guy has apparently given up. How many years of experience do I need to get permission to talk?

[savageorange]

Im not offended, just baffled.

I'm sorry that you have been baffled, that was not the intention of my post.

Your apology is accepted. You can take it a step further and clarify your view, or dont, but given that you have not, my point stands. You say "keep in mind people have experience" but not what to do with the knowledge when it is in my mind. Show deference? Blindly accept other opinion without question?

This is a false dichotomy, as there is a reasonable answer here: "Think about the fact that they have experience, and try to think of what their reasons for saying that might be.". Rather than accepting it blindly or rejecting it blindly, try to notice points where you didn't know that you didn't know something, and fill in those gaps if possible.

Perhaps this illustrates that I am not at all opposed to asking questions? Since my reply was not at all addressed at whether one should ask questions or not, I'm not sure why that came up. It was mainly a criticism of blithely dismissing everything that is not "the strength of the argument", throwing away information about context.

[dynast]

having unwinnable games is actually a goal?

If the game is supposed to have any replayability then yes, even spelunky have unwinnable games and unavoidable deaths. But spelunky adresses that by giving the player a starting ammount of bombs and ropes, while in crawl you never start with any potion or scrolls(unless you play wanderer, warper or fighter) and odds are you die poisoned before you find a single curing because adders are faster than you, which i also believe is a balance issue since later you come across scorpions which are easier to avoid. And i believe the only reason to that is to preserve the identification game, that gets more trivial with each update.

[duvessa]

If the game is supposed to have any replayability then yes, even spelunky have unwinnable games and unavoidable deaths.

I don't think that's true, considering the way Spelunky's level generator works and the extremely small role of RNG after level generation.

[Shard1697]

Yeah, I have never ever seen an unwinnable situation in Spelunky. If you're at least mildly careful and understand the different objects it's very possible to have 100% winrate, especially if you don't kill shopkeepers.
The main difference, of course, is that Spelunky is not turnbased(and incentivizes score/speed for leaderboards/records, with no incentives for streaks), and so the reason that you don't really see players doing this is because their execution/reaction time wasn't good enough, not because it was impossible.

[crate]

The main difference is that Spelunky doesn't use randomness in its combat (damage rolls etc.) and in particular there's no randomness involved in whether you hit or get hit by attacks. Additionally you don't really have to kill things in Spelunky, whereas in crawl you more-or-less have to so you can increase your maxhp.

It's entirely possible to construct a turn-based game (even a roguelike) that is winnable regardless of what rng events you get. The vital thing is that combat cannot be heavily dependent on rng (well, assuming the game has any semblance of challenge ... you could construct a roguelike with heavy rng-reliance in combat that is also perfectly winnable, but it would be completely trivial in practice). Crawl, of course, has tons of randomness involved in its combat, and it's not possible to ensure that you never get attacked during a game of crawl.

[Shard1697]

I agree(and you're probably right that the rng is the most significant aspect there), but I think that the actual suggestions along the lines of "move adders and gnolls out of d1" are very reasonable and those particular situations are usually not very fun.

If just d1 becomes more fair, it becomes much more reasonable to avoid random deaths because if you survive d1 you get access to stairs, the most powerful tool in the game

[crate]

Well I was still coming from lethe's standpoint of "theoretically winnable" as in, can you win the game even if you get the worst possible rng. As I said earlier, it's impossible to ever win crawl if you get the worst possible rng.

With realistic rng I think crawl is more than 90% winnable with strong combos and very good play.

[dynast]

I don't think that's true, considering the way Spelunky's level generator works and the extremely small role of RNG after level generation.

I once started a jungle level next to a boomerang dude who immediately shot me and i bounced into spikes. Of course that only happened once.
My point is that without starting bombs and ropes unavoidable deaths would be more common, but because you start with them, unavoidable deaths are pretty much inexistent.

[Quazifuji]

In a nutshell: I want the game to be harder rather than easier. In particular, I am very certain that making every game 100% winnable is a really, really bad move. Crawl is already awfully close to this, and in my opinion we should walk in the other direction.

Let us look at the two extreme cases:

(1) Games are basically not winnable, the best you can hope for is getting as far down as possible. In this setup, player skill is measured by dungeon depth: the better you are, the deeper you get (taking averages). This has approach has the potential for a lot of depth.

(2) Games are 100% winnable. All else being equal, in this setup there is a cap on depth: if you learn/figure out the skills necessary to win a game, you can effectively win every game (assuming you have the willpower).

In my opinion, Crawl is almost (2). So I am in favour of changes that go towards (1), and against changes towards (2).

I think case 1 makes sense in theory, but I'm not sure how it works in practice. Particularly in the context of this thread, we're discussing "unavoidable deaths." Generally, two different definitions of this have been used: either a situation where the character is guaranteed to die regardless of player skill, or a situation where the player cannot guarantee survival regardless of skill. In either case, we're also assuming no action could have prevented the player from arriving in that situation. In both cases, we have a similar result: such situations may kill a player no matter how skilled they are.

If you make a game essentially "unwinnable" by making these situations more common, then you're not really filtering for player skill, because these situations, by definition, can kill players who play optimally. If you have a game where reasonable non-psychic optimal play can result in the player unavoidably dying on D2, then it doesn't matter whether the person playing is me, Elliptic, or someone playing their first game ever. And in that case, the fact that the person died on D2 doesn't measure their skill at all.

If you want a game where even the best players can't win 100% of the time, and where a player's skill is measured by the average depth their characters reach and not by their win rate, then what you want isn't a game that isn't winnable 100% of the time with optimal play. What you want is a game that's so incredibly challenging, that punishes mistakes so heavily, that even a player like Elliptic can't win most of their games. But a game where making every decision perfectly doesn't always result in a win doesn't filter for skill. Because a situation that kills a player who is playing perfectly specifically does the opposite - it's a roadblock that levels the playing field by killing everyone no matter how skilled they are.

I'm not saying that making every Crawl game theoretically winnable is an achievable or worthwhile goal. I think people have made very good arguments in this thread that the randomness of crawl will inherently make some games effectively unwinnable. And I think the goal of making wins dramatically rarer so that player skill is measured by average depth of death, not win rate or streaks or score, is a perfectly fine one. But making it so that not all games are theoretically winnable is not the way to accomplish that, in my opinion.

[zxc23]

To a large degree this thread has been getting bogged down in theory which bears little resemblance to the actual game. I know that making crawl 100% winnable all the time is an unrealistic goal, but I'm pretty sure everyone can agree that, all else being equal, a game with fewer RNG deaths is a better one. It all seems rather simple to me.

A few rather minor tweaks to the very early game only would dramatically lower the number of RNG deaths. I believe this would result in negligible loss of depth to the game, if any. Continue making the mid-game and late-game more challenging, as this is a good direction to go in.

[duvessa]

To a large degree this thread has been getting bogged down in theory which bears little resemblance to the actual game.

Well, geez dude, the thread has "theoretically" in the title, what were you expecting

[Hurkyl]

(I basically agree with everything above, but want to expand on the following)

And I think the goal of making wins dramatically rarer so that player skill is measured by average depth of death, not win rate or streaks or score, is a perfectly fine one.

Games can work that way, and work well, but tend to have a vastly different feel to them (and have a whole different set of design challenges). I am not of the opinion that the main mode of crawl is of the sort that would work that way. At the very least, the game would have to be vastly overhauled -- a separate gameplay mode would be more appropriate, I think.

[dpeg]

(1) Games are basically not winnable, the best you can hope for is getting as far down as possible. In this setup, player skill is measured by dungeon depth: the better you are, the deeper you get (taking averages). This has approach has the potential for a lot of depth.

(2) Games are 100% winnable. All else being equal, in this setup there is a cap on depth: if you learn/figure out the skills necessary to win a game, you can effectively win every game (assuming you have the willpower).

I think case 1 makes sense in theory, but I'm not sure how it works in practice.

Note I said extreme cases. I never said I want (1) outright, but rather that Crawl sits too far at the other end of the spectrum, for its own demerit.

Next, I don't believe that (1) is theoretically superior -- in fact, that very old philosophy section contains a clear statement on that: in an ideal world, Crawl games would be winnable by pure skill. My point is that this goal is delusional, and we get a better game, with greater depth, if we accept some more unavoidable deaths: by allowing more near-death situations, we provide more potential for skill. We almost certainly also provide more unavoidable deaths. All I say is that moving a little bit in this direction improves the game (in my opinion -- there is obviously no clearcut correct answer to this problem). What would constitute a good increase of challenge is then a major piece of "local design".

If you make a game essentially "unwinnable" by making these situations more common, then you're not really filtering for player skill, because these situations, by definition, can kill players who play optimally.

(Emphasis by me.) I think this is wrong. Only because some games have this bad characteristic, this doesn't not mean at all player skill is pointless. Very good players would still stand out: they would win more very close seeds, and their winrates would show it.

The main effect such a change would have is that streaks become more rare, and so less a yardstick of player prowess. I am fine with that, as for me, the presence of arbitrary long streaks is a clear sign that Crawl is broken. I think my reasoning on this is clear by now. (Again, I am not saying I own the truth on this matter. I thought about this issue for a bit, and I believe that depth would be increased if Crawl was less forgiving.)

If you have a game where reasonable non-psychic optimal play can result in the player unavoidably dying on D2, then it doesn't matter whether the person playing is me, Elliptic, or someone playing their first game ever. And in that case, the fact that the person died on D2 doesn't measure their skill at all.

Yes, but it's one game in many, and over the course of several months, say, the differences in player level would clearly be seen. I am not arguing to turn Crawl into a die game, I want it to be a little bit harder!

If you want a game where even the best players can't win 100% of the time, and where a player's skill is measured by the average depth their characters reach and not by their win rate, then what you want isn't a game that isn't winnable 100% of the time with optimal play.

This is one of the more complicated sentences I've read recently. I believe you think my position is much closer to (1) than I ever meant.

But a game where making every decision perfectly doesn't always result in a win doesn't filter for skill.

Like your sentence I emphasised above, I don't think this is true. Elliptic would perhaps stand out more in a harder Crawl. Sure, he would lose some games without chance. But he would get farther in those games than the pack, and there'd be more games that are really close, so his skill can shine.

Because a situation that kills a player who is playing perfectly specifically does the opposite - it's a roadblock that levels the playing field by killing everyone no matter how skilled they are.

You are making this statement for the third time, so let me finish with another thought experiment about extremes:

(A) Crawl as now, basically always winnable.

(B) Same Crawl, but when entering Depths, the game rolls a die and you die upon a 6.

In (B), there are plenty of stupid, unavoidable deaths. Elliptic would be affected like everyone else (who manages to reach Depths). Would we will still see that elliptic is an extremely good player? Of course we would! This bizarre toy model shows that your reasoning is flawed.

I'm not saying that making every Crawl game theoretically winnable is an achievable or worthwhile goal. I think people have made very good arguments in this thread that the randomness of crawl will inherently make some games effectively unwinnable. And I think the goal of making wins dramatically rarer so that player skill is measured by average depth of death, not win rate or streaks or score, is a perfectly fine one. But making it so that not all games are theoretically winnable is not the way to accomplish that, in my opinion.

(Emphasis mine.) This is another very problematic detail: I claim that it is extremely hard to prove "theoretical winnability" in a complicated and random rule set like Crawl's. So if you want to go there, you have to err on the side of the player, consistently and often. I say that what you then get is a game with a doubtful slogan ("every game is winnable" -- people in this thread have argued that this cannot be achieved as long as combat is random) and is less deep than it could be.


Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful reply, the thread was a bit ... out there already

[Quazifuji]

Okay, I think I understand what you're saying. It's not that you think "unavoidable" deaths help filter for player skill by making the game more difficult. It's that you'd like to increase the number of very dangerous situations that filter players by skill in the game. Basically, let's define an "intense challenge" as a situation that will kill all but the most skilled players, and an "unavoidable death" as one that will kill all players regardless of skill. The line between those two is effectively impossible to identify. As a result, It's effectively impossible to increase the number of "intense challenges" in the game without increasing the number of "unavoidable deaths" too. Similarly, you can't decrease the number of unavoidable deaths without decreasing the number of intense challenges. And you'd rather increase both than decrease both. I think I agree with that reasoning.

That said, I also agree with zxc23 that this discussion might benefit more from trying to discuss specific cases rather than theoretical ideas. Specifically, we can look at individual mechanics that have been discussed (D1 adders, shafts, D1 distortion weapons) and consider whether there are any that create significantly more unavoidable deaths than they do interesting challenges. The two may always increase or decrease together, but not every mechanic necessarily has the same ratio for both.

[dpeg]

Quazifuji: Yes, your summary is spot on. I only brought this up because the thread title is "it should be theoretically possible to ascend any character", which I consider very wrong.

For practical purposes, I am in favour of changes that make the game harder. Culling experience from the midgame, for example, or every little step against the extremely risk-averse tactics that are so useful right now.