Author Topic: Can a Roguelike with only monsters be fun?  (Read 23791 times)

Pueo

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 263
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Can a Roguelike with only monsters be fun?
« Reply #45 on: December 21, 2011, 04:16:19 PM »
Sorry I should have explained better. I didn't actually add the 2 choice thing (move move, move attack). I was only saying I could add it. The only options now are Move, Attack, and Attack & Move.

Ok, that makes more sense. I think that's a little more balanced.
{O.o}
 |)__)
   ” ”   o RLY?

Hamish

  • Newcomer
  • Posts: 37
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Can a Roguelike with only monsters be fun?
« Reply #46 on: December 22, 2011, 10:40:18 PM »
I don't know if the kill then move thing is distinct enough as a player option. It does help that there is now more choice involved but i think the second move needs to be something that contrasts with the attack rather than a slightly improved attack. It also makes the lack of a skip turn option more jarring, because you have already entered into some quite fiddly movement rules (if that makes sense)


jasonpickering

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 274
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Can a Roguelike with only monsters be fun?
« Reply #47 on: December 23, 2011, 06:50:55 PM »
so what would suggest Hamish. I found that the skip turn really gets overused especially when the player just needs to get the monster next to them and many times i find myself in roguelikes just pounding the 5 key until a monster gets next to me then killing them.

aslo any suggestions for the movement? you said it seems fiddly, I guess I didn't follow.

Hamish

  • Newcomer
  • Posts: 37
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Can a Roguelike with only monsters be fun?
« Reply #48 on: December 24, 2011, 11:35:15 PM »
Sorry, if I appear negative. I think what you've made so far is so attractive and compact that it deserves an equally compelling mechanic behind it. What I meant by saying the movment was fiddily is that at the moment the player has a fairly arbitrary decision about their movment that has limited impact on how the level pans out.

What the game needs are meaningful choices for the player, and as the mechanic so far is about monster death effects the players choices should be about when and where those effects are triggered.

I think a good solution might be a combination of my and luleros suggestions.

So each turn the player could choose to:

A) move - one square only, with the ultimate aim of reaching the exit.
B) throw a rock - the player would have no melee attack, but instead can attack the monsters in any order. This would give the player options about which effects to trigger when.  If you limit the number of attacks for each island then they would have to come up with strategies to maximise their assets. For example you could freeze all enemies at a precise moment allowing you to sneak past a tough enemy, or trigger a monster that causes splash damage when it would do the most damage.
C) push a monster- instead of moving or attacking the player could push an adjacent mister away, this could be to create space to move, to reposition a monster powerup for better effect next turn, or to destroy an enemy by pushing them off the island (at the expense of their powerup)

each turn the player would have three distinct choices that would effect how the level would play out and would have the opportunity to stratagize.

If you add to those mechanics different monster types in different combinations on different island layouts you have an infinite set of puzzles.

I don't know, it might play like a load of crap, but its worth trying out.

Been, typing this on my phone, its taken ages :-)

jasonpickering

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 274
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Can a Roguelike with only monsters be fun?
« Reply #49 on: December 25, 2011, 08:22:11 PM »
Hamish: I didn't think you were negative at all. You were critical but many people mistake that for negativity. Actually all of those suggestions seem pretty good. I worry about a couple mechanic wise. But I do like the 3 fold move set. It gives the Player some decent choices. The move could be problematic. As it raises some questions about what happens when a monster is behind another monster.

Also this was on my phone too.

jasonpickering

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 274
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Can a Roguelike with only monsters be fun?
« Reply #50 on: December 26, 2011, 05:15:24 AM »
so I thought a lot about this and I think I came up with a solution that works fairly well. It uses a lot of different things that we have talked about in the past. I am going to try skills.

Its something I had talked about for a while. I will probably remove using items and just make them auto-use and limit their drop rate. The main thing will be skills. Realizing that the biggest part of the game is maneuvering yourself and the monsters into position,  we give the player 3 Skills, and base the skills off those ideas. so perhaps fireball. they can attack any monster on the board setting off its death effect. or push a monster back. or heal themselves one heart. they are very limited in how they can use these, but they can use them to their effect.

I would also remove the lunge command, but there would be other moves which allowed you to move around the board into position.

the one other idea is also skills are tiered 1 to 3 and that is their mana cost. so maybe tier 1 might be stun enemy, 2 might be fireball, and 3 is swap places with any monster, but I think a better idea is making all spells equal, and making them all effective in certain situations.

Control wise this is pretty easy to. I would go back to the fixed camera idea. tapping moves and attacks, tapping on the player opens the spell screen.

Edit: for an extra degree of choice I could also give the player a list of skills in the beginning to choose 3 from or make different characters with different skills. But that's stuff better used down the line.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2011, 05:18:15 AM by jasonpickering »

Hamish

  • Newcomer
  • Posts: 37
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Can a Roguelike with only monsters be fun?
« Reply #51 on: December 28, 2011, 11:29:49 PM »
That sounds like it would work just fine, but seems like a departure from the monsters only gameplay concept...

However you work it, i'm looking forward to the final product.

jasonpickering

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 274
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Can a Roguelike with only monsters be fun?
« Reply #52 on: December 29, 2011, 08:46:33 PM »
Yeah it does move away from my original idea of doing monster only spells, although my goal is for the player to use these sparingly, so they will still need to rely on the monsters

Here is a big Update

Try It

I removed the lunge attack and I have stuck with the original melee system. clicking on the player will open up your skill and clicking the arrows will close them, and the purple next to your hearts is your mana.

Now this build is an excellent vision of what the final game will be. (assuming I dont redo the combat system again) It needs a lot of balance, which seems to be the main problem now, but all the combat is in. The player has two skills. these are built in for now but eventually the player will be able to choose which two they head into combat with.

They main thing I am going to do now is try some balancing, weakening stuff that is to strong and strengthening stuff that needs it. the yeti freeze is to powerful so I either need to make it weaker and just an AOE or make the Yeti very Rare.

One other thing that I would like some feedback on is the skill system. right now all skills cost 1 mana. one idea I had is to increase the cost. so your first use of heal costs 1 mana, but the next time you use heal it will cost 2. Now this will cause the player to be a little more cautious about their use of skills, knowing that now they will need more mana for the next use.

jasonpickering

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 274
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Can a Roguelike with only monsters be fun?
« Reply #53 on: January 03, 2012, 05:06:36 AM »
I posted into the Early Development thread. Hoping to get lots of feedback so I can finish this up.

Pueo

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 263
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Can a Roguelike with only monsters be fun?
« Reply #54 on: January 10, 2012, 07:21:44 AM »
Bug: Monsters have the ability to 'hide' under items/the amulet, this surprised me quite a bit when a goblin walked out of the altar at the 'end' of the game.  I think this is just a layering/precedence thing.

I also think you should try and make the game always 'perfect' winnable, ie, make it so that the game can always be won without getting hit once.  I'm not sure how you would do this, specifically, but some basic points:
-Never let a creature spawn 2 squares away from the start bridge (making it impossible to move without getting hit)
-The above might be possible if there is a constant for mana potions: if you are guaranteed at least 1 potion by level two, you can spawn creatures 2 squares away (because they can use the fire spell to kill the monster)
-Never let a goblin spawn without a yeti (again, this can be allowed if potions are guaranteed)

I like the idea of a rising mana cost, the first costs 1, the second cast costs 2, etc.

I think this could be a great little time-waster, but only if you don't stray far from the puzzle element.  If it starts to become a randomized thing, people are going to end up just rushing in.  

Adding on to Jo's idea (in your other thread), maybe you can make it so that Level 1 has a 15% chance of an attack missing, while Level 6 has a 50% chance.  This is predictable (per your calculations), and adds a level of difficulty.  While on Island 1, you know you are almost guaranteed to hit.  However, as you progress, the creatures become more difficult, making it harder to hit them.
{O.o}
 |)__)
   ” ”   o RLY?