Labyrinth brainstorming


Although the central place for design discussion is ##crawl-dev on freenode, some may find it helpful to discuss requests and suggestions here first.

Dungeon Master

Posts: 1531

Joined: Saturday, 5th March 2011, 06:29

Post Saturday, 5th May 2012, 17:59

Re: Labyrinth brainstorming

@cerebovssquire @molari: The counter examples you used are entirely different (not to mention that Doroklohe is a ludicrous thing to compare anything to). You are talking about broken features, that's a whole different bag to whether something is optional or not; and yes if something is broken it should be fixed or removed. Are labyrinths broken? I think not, at least not in any clear cut way, and certainly not balance-wise. Would I care if they were removed? Not particularly, and I also don't think that any of the ideas in this thread would really improve anything. Labyrinths are a very short diversion. Calling them "grinding" is a bit over the top to be honest; grinding usually implies a heavily time-consuming and infinitely repeatable activity.

Lair Larrikin

Posts: 29

Joined: Wednesday, 14th September 2011, 23:30

Post Monday, 7th May 2012, 12:07

Re: Labyrinth brainstorming

mumra wrote:You are talking about broken features, that's a whole different bag to whether something is optional or not; and yes if something is broken it should be fixed or removed. Are labyrinths broken? I think not, at least not in any clear cut way, and certainly not balance-wise.


I don't want to make too many assumptions about developer definitions of 'broken or 'grinding' etc. but in their current form ignoring a labyrinth is only 'optional' in the sense that not taking a God is optional i.e. you're making a deliberately poor choice rather than weighing up pros and cons (in gameplay terms). Labyrinths can have spectacular loot with essentially no risk (minotaurs are really rather wimpy) so the only real reason not to do them is because the current mechanics are fiddly or tedious rather than balancing out pros/cons in strategic or tactical terms. I would have thought, and my assumption could be way off, that this is against the developers wishes.

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 3037

Joined: Sunday, 2nd January 2011, 02:06

Post Tuesday, 8th May 2012, 00:14

Re: Labyrinth brainstorming

It takes two minutes to finish a labyrinth. 'Grinding' is not a legitimate descriptor for a two-minute task that cannot be repeated in the same game, so I'm left to conclude that the people using the term are just trying throw out a dogwhistle to get around the fact that they don't have a legitimate argument. Repeating jargon from the Crawl design philosophy document is only useful if the jargon is relevant. It is not a magical chant you can cast to win internet arguments.

For this message the author KoboldLord has received thanks: 2
Grimm, njvack

Dungeon Master

Posts: 1531

Joined: Saturday, 5th March 2011, 06:29

Post Wednesday, 9th May 2012, 12:11

Re: Labyrinth brainstorming

molari wrote:
mumra wrote:You are talking about broken features, that's a whole different bag to whether something is optional or not; and yes if something is broken it should be fixed or removed. Are labyrinths broken? I think not, at least not in any clear cut way, and certainly not balance-wise.


I don't want to make too many assumptions about developer definitions of 'broken or 'grinding' etc. but in their current form ignoring a labyrinth is only 'optional' in the sense that not taking a God is optional i.e. you're making a deliberately poor choice rather than weighing up pros and cons (in gameplay terms). Labyrinths can have spectacular loot with essentially no risk (minotaurs are really rather wimpy) so the only real reason not to do them is because the current mechanics are fiddly or tedious rather than balancing out pros/cons in strategic or tactical terms. I would have thought, and my assumption could be way off, that this is against the developers wishes.


Generally "broken" means "a feature that breaks the game". As in, Tomb of Doroklohe made the player virtually unkillable, removing all challenge from the game, hence breaking it.

An example of a "grinding" feature is random spawns - you could spend forever on D:1 killing popcorn until your character reached XL:27. It's not fun or interesting, so steps were taken to prevent this.

I have died to the minotaur with an underpowered character; so it's not strictly a no-brainer. Yes, it is usually worth it and could stand to be made more risky! But we have to be realistic about how serious a problem is or even if there is one before
any sane attempt at fixing it can be made.
User avatar

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 5832

Joined: Thursday, 10th February 2011, 18:30

Post Wednesday, 9th May 2012, 20:48

Re: Labyrinth brainstorming

Grimm wrote:I have a notion to make the Lab more interesting by adding a Theseus-style aspect in which you somehow leave a trail and this gives you an advantage in finding the Mino sooner or being able to leave. I can't figure out how it would actually work though.


I figured it out and it works with shifting walls.

If you move, any wall you contact gets "chalked", both sides of a hallway, or three sides in a dead-end.

The chalk doesn't go away, or falls off randomly (expires) after 1000 turns, maybe.

If the map shifts, walls "rotate" or get replaced (I don't know how it works, do walls come up from the floor / down from the ceiling, or rotate or what?). Any wall alteration comes un-chalked. The process of moving a wall removes the chalk.

The opposite sides of wall squares you have chalked are not chalked unless you pass them by per normal chalking rules.

Clear and Metal walls cannot retain chalk; they are too smooth.

Alternately, the floor is chalked in a line based on player movement. Left to right, it gets a horizontal line, vertical, it gets a vertical line, t or cross section, etc. Not sure how to represent this in non-tiles, other than marking the floor as '-','|', '+' (for all cross and t-sections). '/' and '\' on angles, and '*' for any cross+angle. Labyriths become special cases.
"Be aware that a lot of people on this forum, such as mageykun and XuaXua, have a habit of making things up." - minmay a.k.a. duvessa
Did I make a lame complaint? Check for Bingo!
Totally gracious CSDC Season 2 Division 4 Champeen!

Dungeon Master

Posts: 1531

Joined: Saturday, 5th March 2011, 06:29

Post Thursday, 10th May 2012, 00:46

Re: Labyrinth brainstorming

minmay wrote:Well, this is going by the manual's definition of grinding: "These are activities that have low risk, take a lot of time, and bring some reward." Of course, labyrinths have already been claimed exempt from the design goals anyway. I was just saying that "it's optional" is a terrible argument.


Labyrinths don't take a lot of time. Therefore it's entirely exempt from that definition.

On the other hand, I agree with your analysis of these Theseus-flavoured ideas; they are performing a function identical to the minimap and I don't see how they add anything new.

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 6393

Joined: Friday, 17th December 2010, 18:17

Post Friday, 11th May 2012, 21:44

Re: Labyrinth brainstorming

IronJelly wrote:Rather than remove them, what if they were made a tad more dangerous? Rather than a single minotaur, what if about a half dozen minotaurs that go berserk at the sight of the player were wondering around the maze? Now every corner you take, you have a possible risk that a minotaur could charge you. This would also serve to provide corpses, giving those of faster metabolism a chance to survive, and since they would berserk, they would be a challenge, especially in the off-chance you come upon two of them, maybe even one in each direction.

How about, the Lab maze is made relatively simple, 2 square corridors, maprot is removed, and multiple minos are put in as per this suggestion. No need to berserk them necessarily. Reduce corpse drop if possible.

The idea is that autoexplore would not really be that helpful because you want to find the center quickly, without facing too many minos, and autoexplore wouldn't do that. You can't tune autoexplore to "find the runed walls". So it would become necessary to explore by hand, with a potential threat around every corner, and no guaranteed final threat.

Dungeon Master

Posts: 553

Joined: Wednesday, 22nd December 2010, 10:12

Post Friday, 11th May 2012, 23:41

Re: Reasons to remove the Labyrinth

I don't like labyrinths because I think they are simultaneously easy and boring (a terrible combination), so nowadays I only enter them if I have a good source of digging. Part of this is my problem... I tend to be rather capricious when it comes to quitting games, so a few minutes of boredom can actually be pretty dangerous. I don't think I've ever suggested removing them, but I have thought they should be revamped. In particular, I'd like them to be made much smaller and have more enemies. The "maze solving" aspect would become a fairly superficial element. I'd also remove maprotting and allow autoexplore, possibly at the expense of random wall shifting. I think I posted something like this about a year ago.

I recently saw elliptic say something similar on irc: he suggested making them smaller, adding monsters, and increasing the random shifting. Someone (it might have been him) brought up widening some corridors as well. I kind of like keeping them 1-wide though (while it is usually optimal to fight in corridors, if you are stuck in a branch where everything is a corridor, this can actually be dangerous with the right monsters).

Slime Squisher

Posts: 375

Joined: Sunday, 15th January 2012, 16:59

Post Saturday, 12th May 2012, 00:02

Re: Reasons to remove the Labyrinth

If you remove maprot and allow explore I'd be fine with them because I could just ignore the maze part and do the food->loot trade with minimal tedium. Adding more monsters and stuff would turn it into an actual portal vault instead of a loot dump, so that would also be good.

If maze is an "optional minigame," then why are players prevented from skipping past it without losing out on its benefits? Reverse what XuaXua said before; people who like mazes can just not use autoexplore. Don't like it, don't use it. This way, people who enjoy mazes get to enjoy their maze and people who enjoy crawl and don't enjoy mazes get to be at an equal level with the former. It's also more consistent with Crawl's design philosophy.

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 3037

Joined: Sunday, 2nd January 2011, 02:06

Post Saturday, 12th May 2012, 00:22

Re: Reasons to remove the Labyrinth

One-Eyed Jack wrote:If you remove maprot and allow explore I'd be fine with them because I could just ignore the maze part and do the food->loot trade with minimal tedium. Adding more monsters and stuff would turn it into an actual portal vault instead of a loot dump, so that would also be good.


Brevity is a really important reason why Labyrinths are within the bounds of tolerance. If too many monsters are added, Labyrinths become an xp award as well as a loot award, and that means chasing down all the monsters in all the tunnels, spending lots more time in the mazes. Even with autoexplore available, I'd expect the net change in fun to be a reduction if I ended up incentivized to use autoexplore to chase down stray monsters all over the Lab.

Note that monster-filled tunnels don't work very well for Nethack's Gehennom, and that game has a lot more terrain-modifying options available to the player and monsters to mitigate the stale terrain. Crawl does not provide very many tools to make a map full of narrow tunnels tactically interesting; the only type of fight supported is the one-on-one duel. One such fight is plenty.

For this message the author KoboldLord has received thanks:
mageykun

Dungeon Master

Posts: 1613

Joined: Thursday, 16th December 2010, 21:54

Post Saturday, 12th May 2012, 00:44

Re: Reasons to remove the Labyrinth

evilmike wrote:I recently saw elliptic say something similar on irc: he suggested making them smaller, adding monsters, and increasing the random shifting.

I think something along these lines would be an improvement too, yeah.
User avatar

Abyss Ambulator

Posts: 1189

Joined: Friday, 28th January 2011, 21:45

Post Saturday, 12th May 2012, 04:21

Re: Reasons to remove the Labyrinth

evilmike wrote: if you are stuck in a branch where everything is a corridor, this can actually be dangerous with the right monsters).


Fill the Labyrinth with Slime Creatures and feast on the delicious tears of the playerbase. :twisted:
The best strategy most frequently overlooked by new players for surviving: not starting a fight to begin with.

Dungeon Dilettante

Posts: 2

Joined: Sunday, 13th May 2012, 07:41

Post Sunday, 13th May 2012, 10:08

Re: Labyrinth brainstorming

Hello. I am a relatively new/bad player so sorry if the following post seems stupid.

I agree with dpeg that having exploration challenges as well as combat and character building challenges would be really nice. It's a part of the game that is largely automated (not that that is a bad thing). This is why I can appreciate and like on some level that the Labyrinth exists. However, as said before, it is also fairly easy and is abit boring to pass through. It is not optional the same way that selling things to the shop is not optional (should it be implemented); it gives you loot essentially for free (with a little food cost) and skipping it would be intentionally shooting yourself in the foot, forcing you if you wanted to play optimally to always do it. It becomes a decent reward for very little risk and involvement.

However, I feel that shifting the focus of the labyrinth to involve more monsters would lose "the point" of the labyrinth, having an exploration-based challenge. When I personally think exploration-challenge, I think either 1) Stealth Runs or 2) Speed Runs or 3) Both. To this end, I would like to offer some ideas that, while they might need tweaking, might be helpful in keeping that feel. For these, I assume the creation of a much tougher monster than the basic minotaur which I call the LabMinotaur.

1) Have multiple paths leading to the central loot hub. Of these paths, have 1/3 with visible but dangerous mechanical traps, 1/3 with sleeping monsters with status effects (for example ugly things) or zot traps and 1/3 with a clear but winding path with a hungry ghost. This way, you have a choice between avoiding combat but taking your chances with traps or dealing with a slow and status-effected death while avoiding the traps, both of which can be subverted by trying to find a path that actually a) is clear of enemies and traps and b) gets you closer to your goal but needs you to keep trying to find a fast way to get to the centre. Map rot should be decreased/removed. Dead ends are probably not preferred, rather several paths lead to the centre or loop back around, theyre just all dangerous in some way.

2) Make the Labyrinth as small as the Ossuary. but more "cramped". LoS is reduced (my idea was to 3 squares but this might be too drastic). At 50% of the intersections, there is "crunchy glass" covering the branching points of the intersection. Stepping on the glass alerts the LabMinotaur, who is awake and can triangulate your position with some effort. Similarly, the LabMinotaur who is normally hidden, reveals his direction and distance whenever he steps on the crunchy glass. No map rot. You are aware of your starting point in relation to the maze when you enter. (preferably always at a corner) with the loot always in the center. In this case, the LabMinotaur is meant to find you and kill you as opposed to being a guardian. Alarm traps don't work for giving the location. Noise scrolls could be handy decoys as an aside.

3) The Labyrinth is actually a trick maze, like The Lost Woods in Legend of Zelda and has no real way to get to the center unless you find the relevant key, pressure plate, trick to getting in, which are in vaults. The vaults can be tracked similar to caravans and things, "You hear the sound of a key jangling nearby." The vaults can have combat.

4) Instead of making it a hunt to find the loot/minotaur/exit, make it a chase. To expand on what some have suggested earlier, instead of giving the player the trail of breadcrumbs, give it to the minotaur and have him start about 10 squares in front of you or something. The minotaur is decked out in all the gear and loot and you have to kill him to get it off of him. On that note, the minotaur tries to reach a pre-determined point on the map that is incredibly hard to break into (water, single corridor for him to shoot you as you approach him, mechanical traps) that also has the exit. Your aim is to follow the minotaur, using his trail and take detours from the main path in an attempt to cut him off before he gets to this point because if he does so, he can just camp and wait for you to show up. For example, he starts off with the melee loot and the ranged weapon loot spawns inside his bastion.

These are four different ideas that hopefully show how movement and careful exploration can still be a theme for the Labyrinth, at least as I could see it happening. I feel that if you try and solve the Labyrinth problem by just throwing in more monsters, there is no real differentiation between this and the normal dungeon apart from the corridors.

I don't know how hard they will be to implement, they're mostly just to give a take on it and some justification to the idea that exploration can still be a thing around which the portal can be based. I'm particularly biased towards (2). It feels like the most urgent and the trickiest of them.

Also, I'm sensing I'll be quoted on badwiki for this. Just make it a good one. :|
User avatar

Dungeon Master

Posts: 332

Joined: Friday, 15th July 2011, 22:43

Post Sunday, 13th May 2012, 19:52

Re: Labyrinth brainstorming

Here's a simple idea: what if the labyrinth simply boots you out after a set number of turns, or has "dead-end vaults" that, once entered, seal up and have an exit portal? Should have undiggable walls so that escape isn't too trivial, but if players want to blow a teleport to have another go at it, they can. If the "dead end" vaults show up more frequently the longer you're in the lab, it would make it harder to brute force a solution.

I think this could retain the "exploration challenge" aspect without turning it into another combat challenge or adding too many new features. Also, it would make "free loot from labs" less of a sure thing.
Previous

Return to Game Design Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 234 guests

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