Legalized items/exp farming

[Rickton]

And yet I wouldn't mind having 'autokill' option for enemies that no longer are a threat to the character. As traveling from D:15 to stash at D:5 might be somewhat annoying.

I think a better option would be for enemies that are no longer a threat to the character to run away from them.
But I'd be OK with something like that, too. It's a significantly different mechanic than the original post proposed though.

[Xecutor]

How about instead of automating tedious actions, you take them out the game.

Different people have different opinion of what is tedious and what is fun.
Some are totally okay with digging kilometers of tunnels in minecraft, but some are installing mods where bots/minions/golems are doing this for you.

If you start removing every potentially tedious things from the game, you might end up without the game at all

[Gr3yling]

So, Vanguard mentioned that we should just remove mindless, repetitive parts of gameplay from the game.  But I think Xecutor is right in asking whether that is really always possible.  Sure those parts wouldn't be there in an ideal game, but can anyone name a game that has no parts like that whatsoever?

Also, I think one problem here is that we are overlooking what types of input the sessions of simulated play would require from the player.  Anyone who thinks that these simulation aspects would just be an "easy mode" or play the game for you should think more about how they would actually be implemented.  Presumably, the player is going to have to put some thought into editing algorithms which would determine the behavior of the PC during the period that behavior was automated, at least if they want the PC to survive. 

Heck, if nothing else, the player has to specify what conditions will return direct control of the PC to them, right?  Otherwise the simulation would go on forever.  Those conditions could be that a certain amount of time had passed, or, more importantly, they could be that the PC had lost a certain amount of health. 

But that's just the beginning.  A lot of other algorithms would need to be adjusted too.  How low does the PC's HP need to get before they rest, use a healing item, retreat from battle, etc.  When should they use melee vs ranged combat vs magic?  What monsters should they avoid entirely?  I could go on, but all you have to do is try playing Final Fantasy XII to see that there is a lot of strategy involved in setting up and editing these types algorithms.   

I don't buy the idea that playing a game using preset algorithms is somehow not really playing the game, either.  This is the kind of argument that was used against Final Fantasy XII when it first came out, for instance. The algorithms really don't do anything for you that you couldn't do for yourself already, albeit more tediously.

You girls/guys also mentioned that you should take tedious elements out of the game rather than using Xecutor's ideas to make them more palatable.  But, you know what parts of many roguelikes are trivial and repetitive?  most of what you do in them.  How much strategy is really involved in going up to a monster and pushing the arrow key to kill it?  Not much, and that is what you do in combat, more often than not.

That's not to say that, overall, gameplay isn't cerebral and doesn't involve a lot of resourcefulness and skill.  It definitely does.  There are just also a lot of times where you do things that you don't really have to think about.  I mean, there are times when my PC's die from what could be called my own boredom, because I was doing something I had done so many times before that I wasn't really paying attention. 

You know I think that part of people's reaction to this kind of automation comes from some sort of deep feeling that a series of preset algorithms couldn't possibly capture the nuance of their play style.  Sort of the "there's no way a computer could ever replace me" mindset. 

But, I disagree with that.  I think that by setting relatively few conditional statements, you could "play" a character better than a human using the hands on approach.  I mean, you guys who are so into min-maxing seem like you would really be interested in exploring that line of thinking.  Has anyone tried to come up with a "program" for ideal roguelike play? 

[Gr3yling]

Another way of looking at it is this:  I think that the premise of Vanguard's and Xecutor's arguments are basically mirror images of each other.  Vanguard's argument seems to basically be: "why simulate boring parts of the game when you can remove them entirely?" and Xecutor's argument seems to be: "why remove boring parts of the game entirely when you can just simulate them?".

And I think that ultimately both approaches have the same goal in mind (to eliminate boring parts of games) and both might ultimately both be useful, rather than either being "bad" or "wrong".  They are ultimately complimentary.

EDIT: Minor wording changes.

[Vanguard]

But, I disagree with that.  I think that by setting relatively few conditional statements, you could "play" a character better than a human using the hands on approach.  I mean, you guys who are so into min-maxing seem like you would really be interested in exploring that line of thinking.  Has anyone tried to come up with a "program" for ideal roguelike play?

Yes, for example, Rog-O-Matic plays Rogue on par with the best human players.

[Z]

There are already some roguelike features which automatize parts of the game, but we are so used to them that we do not see them as that. For example:

• drawing the map automatically
  
• keeping track of the identified stuff
  
• "world map" like the one in ADOM
  
• having an "alternate weapon set" so that you can switch between a sword and a bow with a single keypress
  
• casting spells from a list, instead of requiring the player to memorize the spell (cf. Malachite Dreams)
  
• automatically taking care of the player character's physiology, organizing his pockets and packs into an "inventory", etc.

[akeley]

I`m not a great fan of the "automation" idea. At least not in cases where it regards the gameplay itself... so the example contained in OP sounds terrible to me. You simply no longer play the game, it plays itself.

The beauty of a good roguelike is the fact that you never know what might happen in the cave from the OP. What if a powerful monster wanders in or a trap is sprung?

But, I wouldn`t like it even in a non-RL - in these games if I consider some task a tedious chore, then there`s something wrong with the game itself - it`s not for me and I won`t indulge. Conversely, if the game is good (which encompasses combat/gfx/general ambience etc) - then I don`t have problem with killing 10 bats. I`m on a quest to clear a cave, and I`m gonna do it because I`m enjoying the game. I`ve broken approx several million pots/cut acres of grass in  Zelda games but it was never a chore.

Having said that, one is of course free to experiment and if that was included in a game I`d have a look - it`s just I doubt I`d enjoy it. It might also raise a question of "fairness" - for example somebody invests lots of time and effort into building a castle in Minecraft, whereas another just automates it, is the end product "equal"?
(There`s also a dangerous recent trend in mainstream games, where paid DLC often contains some super items or treats that fast track the game avoiding gaining XP and such by the means of "normal" gameplay. It`s quite disgusting, really, and puts a question mark on how commercial games are planned these days.)

There are already some roguelike features which automatize parts of the game, but we are so used to them that we do not see them as that.

Sure, but your examples mostly regard the interface, not gameplay itself. Though one could argue that messing with the interface is a part of gameplay ;)

Recently playing Caves Of Qud I switched off the default automatic eat/drink mechanism, because I felt like something is missing. Paraphrasing Xecutor, if you start automating parts of gameplay you might end up with no gameplay at all ;)

[Vanguard]

Heck, if nothing else, the player has to specify what conditions will return direct control of the PC to them, right?  Otherwise the simulation would go on forever.  Those conditions could be that a certain amount of time had passed, or, more importantly, they could be that the PC had lost a certain amount of health. 

But that's just the beginning.  A lot of other algorithms would need to be adjusted too.  How low does the PC's HP need to get before they rest, use a healing item, retreat from battle, etc.  When should they use melee vs ranged combat vs magic?  What monsters should they avoid entirely?  I could go on, but all you have to do is try playing Final Fantasy XII to see that there is a lot of strategy involved in setting up and editing these types algorithms.

This sounds like a bad formula for a permadeath game.  You'll eventually narrow down your formula to something more or less ideal, and end up having to input the same thing again for every character.  At best the game will remember your settings and you'll just end up ignoring that part of the game.

I haven't played final fantasy 12, but from what final fantasy games I have played, I know that most of the series is ultra shallow.  Roguelikes can and should do better than that.

You girls/guys also mentioned that you should take tedious elements out of the game rather than using Xecutor's ideas to make them more palatable.  But, you know what parts of many roguelikes are trivial and repetitive?  most of what you do in them.  How much strategy is really involved in going up to a monster and pushing the arrow key to kill it?  Not much, and that is what you do in combat, more often than not.

There's a lot of potential thinking involved in even that.

Is it safe to attack this enemy?  Is it worth it?  Which enemy should you attack?  How badly do things have to go before you stop attacking?  If things do go badly, do you run away?  Use an item?  Cast a spell?  Did you plan out your escape in advance?  Are you familiar with this enemy?

I mean, obviously there are games that screw it up, and even in good games you run into trivial situations, but the premise is solid.

I guess "autofight" systems where your dude just autoattacks until the fight is over are a harmless form of automation.  I never use them though, and imo if fights last long enough or trivial fights are common enough that they're necessary, the game designer has done something wrong.  Quick, brutal fights are inherently more interesting than long drawn out ones anyway.

[zasvid]

Quick, brutal fights are inherently more interesting than long drawn out ones anyway.

Not necessarily. True for an average roguelike with a lot of opponents or lack of focus on fighting, but it's not a universal truth.

[Gr3yling]

This sounds like a bad formula for a permadeath game.  You'll eventually narrow down your formula to something more or less ideal, and end up having to input the same thing again for every character.  At best the game will remember your settings and you'll just end up ignoring that part of the game.

I'll have to think more about what to say to this.

There's a lot of potential thinking involved in even that.

Is it safe to attack this enemy?  Is it worth it?  Which enemy should you attack?  How badly do things have to go before you stop attacking?  If things do go badly, do you run away?  Use an item?  Cast a spell?  Did you plan out your escape in advance?  Are you familiar with this enemy?

If you are familiar with the enemy (which you will be if you play the game regularly), and it is one that is substantially weaker than the PC, you don't have to think much about the things you just mentioned.  If you want me to I can give you a LOT of examples of those kinds of situations from ADOM. 

Maybe it doesn't happen as much in other roguelikes.  I pretty much only play ADOM, so I can't comment on them.  But in ADOM what I said is true.

Let me point out again that I understand there are situations where a lot of strategy is involved in playing roguelikes.  But, I think most confrontations do not require a lot of strategy.  Think about how many goblins/bats/rats you kill in a roguelike.  Those battles very quickly become non-strategical, wouldn't you say?

And I really don't see how you can remove those types of trivial encounters from an open-world game like ADOM without resorting to some sort of scaling (which I am generally against).  Maybe weaker enemies could avoid the PC?  I think someone mentioned that already, but that tends to be annoying if you need to kill them for supplies. 

These sorts of under-challenging conflicts usually happen when you are revisiting old territory, so maybe better transportation systems would help somewhat?  I just don't see how they could be eliminated entirely, although maybe someone else can come up with better ideas.

[Gr3yling]

This sounds like a bad formula for a permadeath game.  You'll eventually narrow down your formula to something more or less ideal, and end up having to input the same thing again for every character.  At best the game will remember your settings and you'll just end up ignoring that part of the game.

Yes, that's the point, that you would be able to ignore parts of the game that were so trivial you would essentially be mindlessly performing a task.  I could turn that argument around and say this: In a roguelike with no option to automate gameplay, you will narrow your (manual) input down to something more or less ideal, and then end up having to (manually) input the same thing again for every character.  At best you will remember your previous (manual) input and just end up mindlessly playing that part of the game.

Sure, but your examples mostly regard the interface, not gameplay itself. Though one could argue that messing with the interface is a part of gameplay

Yes, that's exactly what I would argue.  These are parts of the game used to require manual input, and are now automatically performed and integrated into the interface. 

I would imagine that some of these features would once have been seen as a charming part of the gameplay experience before they were integrated.  I bet there were people who used to love drawing maps of dungeons, and really thought something had been lost when automapping became standard.  And maybe they were right, I'm not trying to put them down.  But I, personally, am glad I have the option to automap.

Recently playing Caves Of Qud I switched off the default automatic eat/drink mechanism, because I felt like something is missing. Paraphrasing Xecutor, if you start automating parts of gameplay you might end up with no gameplay at all

Yes, and that's another point, these would all be optional features.  You wouldn't have to simulate anything.  You could kill all those bats yourself if you wanted to.

Also, this whole argument could be resolved if someone would just put forth an idea that would make trivial encounters unnecessary.  Assume an open world game like ADOM where some backtracking is necessary.

[akeley]

Yes, that's exactly what I would argue.  These are parts of the game used to require manual input, and are now automatically performed and integrated into the interface. 

Well, I wasn`t entirely serious, because once you go down that route, it becomes a minefield of silliness. As in, we could also say then that we`re really playing a pen & paper game because everything else - computers et al is just automation. Hell, even the paper is - otherwise you`d have to do calculations in your head.

Instead I prefer to separate concepts of interface & gameplay  (which is probably why these have different names too). And interfaces evolved over time from basic ones - due to being first on the block & also hardware limited - to more advanced, with some features being an obvious norm nowadays.

Yes, I`m one of these people who still likes to draw a map, but that`s totally different and would never work in a roguelike, for obvious reasons like randomization and general pace. Though I was thinking recently that taking away the map entirely could be an interesting option for making games much harder, raising the tension and maybe implementing new mechanics (breadcrumbs?)

that's another point, these would all be optional features.  You wouldn't have to simulate anything.  You could kill all those bats yourself if you wanted to.

Optional is fine...though it could become a bit worrying then, sort of like the "optional" ability to save that removes the permadeath threat. Say there was a game that had options to automate heavy chunks of gameplay - it`d be seemingly the same and yet I would be perhaps a bit distrustful of how serious its core mechanics are.

Also, this whole argument could be resolved if someone would just put forth an idea that would make trivial encounters unnecessary.  Assume an open world game like ADOM where some backtracking is necessary.

I think a better option would be for enemies that are no longer a threat to the character to run away from them.

I don`t really think it`s a problem - after all if an enemy is "trivial", you just steamroll it anyway -  but this solution is very nice, I `ve seen it already implemented in one non-RL RPG and it worked rather well.

[Vanguard]

I could turn that argument around and say this: In a roguelike with no option to automate gameplay, you will narrow your (manual) input down to something more or less ideal, and then end up having to (manually) input the same thing again for every character.

This shouldn't happen in roguelikes.  That's one of the genre's most important features - content needs to stay interesting through repeated playthroughs.  If you can't do that you shouldn't make roguelikes.

Basic automation for simple tasks is fine.  Autofight and autoexplore don't do any harm (though better design makes them less necessary).  But if you're seriously contemplating automation for quests and other complex tasks, you need to reevaluate your design decisions.

[Trystan]

These sorts of under-challenging conflicts usually happen when you are revisiting old territory, so maybe better transportation systems would help somewhat?  I just don't see how they could be eliminated entirely, although maybe someone else can come up with better ideas.

How about monsters that continuously respawn? If the respawned species is chosen by what creatures currently live, then you can have natural selection make it so the most difficult creatures become more common. Or creatures come back undead? Another possibility is not have boring open spaces in your map to begin with. There's also challenges that aren't creatures such as traps, puzzles, or resource costs. I've tried most of these things in my roguelikes and they did keep things from becoming boring - at least in my opinion.

Under-challenging conflicts also have a lot to do with the overall power curve. If I start as a bumbling adventurer and end up as a god-like killing machine then it will be difficult to make something that's interesting in the beginning and end of the game. But if I start as a mediocre adventurer and, with the right loot and skills, end up as a fairly good adventurer, then some of the early challenges can still be interesting.

[Gr3yling]

How about monsters that continuously respawn? If the respawned species is chosen by what creatures currently live, then you can have natural selection make it so the most difficult creatures become more common. Or creatures come back undead? Another possibility is not have boring open spaces in your map to begin with. There's also challenges that aren't creatures such as traps, puzzles, or resource costs. I've tried most of these things in my roguelikes and they did keep things from becoming boring - at least in my opinion.

Under-challenging conflicts also have a lot to do with the overall power curve. If I start as a bumbling adventurer and end up as a god-like killing machine then it will be difficult to make something that's interesting in the beginning and end of the game. But if I start as a mediocre adventurer and, with the right loot and skills, end up as a fairly good adventurer, then some of the early challenges can still be interesting.

Those do sound like good ideas.  It's somewhat ironic that you mentioned increased respawning, though, because I was thinking another solution might be to actually decrease respawn rates.  That way when you returned to an area you had already cleared, those trivial monsters would not be there.  It would also prevent grinding.  That seems like it might be a fairly easy to implement solution?

But, yeah, your idea does sound more interesting than mine.  Dungeon ecology in general is an interesting thing to think about. 

I do see what you are saying about the power curve also.