Print

Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Benkyo]

DoomRL has always had a tendency to obscure information that forces players to look online for answers. Once someone looks at a wiki for essential information it's hard to resist looking at spoilers too.

First there were hidden trait prerequisites, thankfully those are now open.

Now there are hidden assembly patterns, which every player of DoomRL has consulted the wiki to find out.

There's also quite a bit of confusing or hidden information that I think new players could benefit from such as: Accuracy drop-off rates for distance and darkness. Shotgun splash area, with '+0 accuracy' and descriptions for items with hidden abilities, especially really hidden info like which things are moddable and by who.

I'd like to see a version of DoomRL that doesn't obscure essential information. Failing this, at least give the player access to the information they've unlocked. A key to view 'known assemblies' during play would be a step in the right direction, showing all assembly paths (not necessarily what they make) from the beginning would be nice too. % chance to hit a given targeted creature would be nice, or at least a % chance to hit at maximum visual range in addition to point-blank. Shotgun splash area shown as highlighted squares, perhaps colour-coded for damage drop-off would be nice too. Beefing up item descriptions would be very easy to do.

Unfortunately I suspect that most, if not all, of the hidden information in DoomRL is the result of design choice and is 'working as intended'. I can only hope that decision gets overturned eventually...


Sorry for the long whinge, and of course thanks to everyone involved in making this fantastic game!

[Klear]

Now there are hidden assembly patterns, which every player of DoomRL has consulted the wiki to find out.

Speak for yourself. So far I've discovered all the basic and half advanced assemblies by guessing/armory schematics. It's actually very nice to discover the assemblies one at a time, so you can experiment with each one as it becomes available. When I see a schematic posted here on forums, I do my best to forget it.

A key to view 'known assemblies' during play would be a step in the right direction, showing all assembly paths (not necessarily what they make) from the beginning would be nice too.

There is a key to do that. The "A" key.

[thelaptop]

One thing to note is that the Wiki is a community-based project -- dev-team doesn't usually contribute material there, unless it is with respect to specific implementation-related material useful for modders.

So things like damage-drop off, % chance of hitting... you don't need those just to play the game.  But, play the game however you want: if you don't like to use the Wiki, then don't.

It's like telling SquareEnix to please incorporate the spawn rates, the drop rates in-game as opposed to putting it in a book and selling that.  O.O

[Zecks]

I've never assembled anything more complex than a power armor. :>

[Klear]

I've never assembled anything more complex than a power armor. :>

Really? With three diamonds? I suppose it isn't from lack of schematics, right?

[Zecks]

I've spoilered the schematics already. It's mostly the poopy builds I'm doing. Also bad mod luck and just generally not bothering with whizkid/finesse since I'm always punching everything to death anyway and also tactical shotty I guess.

It's kinda a bad habit.

[Creaphis]

I never made even a token attempt to discover the assemblies the "intended" way.

It's like telling SquareEnix to please incorporate the spawn rates, the drop rates in-game as opposed to putting it in a book and selling that.  O.O

An interesting analogy!

I'm not at all interested in secrecy in games - I would consider it an outmoded trend, popularized partly by the lovable but profoundly flawed RPGs made by SquareEnix. If your game is a strategy game (RPGs and Roguelikes fall into this category), then the player needs information to strategize, and the fun of playing comes from strategizing correctly. If you're hiding important info, then the player can't strategize as well, and will have less fun as a direct and obvious result.

Also, one side effect of hiding information from the player is that, if something is actually not working as intended, then this takes a long time to be discovered, because the players don't know how the feature is supposed to work. There are SquareEnix examples I could list here as well.

[Ashannar]

Speak for yourself. So far I've discovered all the basic and half advanced assemblies by guessing/armory schematics. It's actually very nice to discover the assemblies one at a time, so you can experiment with each one as it becomes available.

This. I only recently found the last of the basic assemblies. And I have one advanced assembly. A few I guessed, but most I found at the armory. I'm looking forward to finding only advanced assemblies now. :)

I like it. Think of it as a longevity-based reward rather than a merit-based one. It turns whizkid and scavenger into more 'veteran' traits. I sort of like having some traits that get better with age.

[Game Hunter]

I think a lot of this discussion has to do with what kind of game wants to be played. If you're the kind of player that wants a world to explore, you're going to discover what the game has to offer at your own pace and, thus, winning becomes the metaphorical exclamation point of the journey when you reach it. If you're the kind of player that wants to win as quickly/efficiently as possible, you're going to want (more or less) a database of information in front of you that allows you to calculate the best move, each move, and don't want to waste time gathering it yourself. Certainly these are very different games (and one can play both, over time) and I don't know if we should necessarily deny either experience.

Surely there are plenty of ways to number-crunch in the original game (as the Doom Wiki's statistics clearly show) but I don't think most people would have wanted a bunch of GUI clutter in order to do it during the game, nor would it have made much of a difference. Where do you propose we should put this information? I guess a bit can be added to the help manual (especially constants like accuracy penalties and running stats), but there's also all of the monsters: HP, armor, damage, damage type, accuracy, speed, and quite a few more. All of these things can be valuable information but there's no good place to put most of them without severely cluttering the message buffer. As far as I know, Kornel wants to keep both the graphical and console versions completely compatible with each other, so there are limits as to what can be done with a 80x25 screen.

Anyway, from what I can tell and have experienced, you don't need to know game stats to win on the easier difficulties. The game is pretty forgiving, save a couple of things that should probably be balanced out more, and a lot of ITYTD or HNTR victories can be achieved simply by following an effective build and making good use of your surroundings. If you want to handle the tough stuff then yes, you'll certainly want to take whatever advantage you can get, but by then you're already playing a very different game.

If your game is a strategy game (RPGs and Roguelikes fall into this category), then the player needs information to strategize, and the fun of playing comes from strategizing correctly. If you're hiding important info, then the player can't strategize as well, and will have less fun as a direct and obvious result.

That's assuming the game is entirely about dealing with strategy. Many of the SquareEnix games aren't solely designed around winning them, as the aesthetics and plotlines that come with the game prove quite nicely. A great deal of fun can be derived not only from solving, but from learning as well.

[Creaphis]

Fair enough. I realized after posting that I can't speak for people who enjoy games differently, as whenever I try to play a Final Fantasy game for its gameplay I find it simultaneously dull and frustrating, yet it's one of the most popular franchises out there. (For the record, I do enjoy some styles of RPG - Fire Emblem is much more up-front with most important information and it rewards elegant play, as carelessness results in permanent character death).

I disagree, however, that there's "no good place" to put some of the information that you mention. All monster statistics could easily fit on the monster description screens (which currently have nothing but an ASCII picture and a snippet of flavour text). If the percentage chance of hitting your target was added to the message buffer it could be written simply as "(XX%)", taking up less space than "(wounded)". Whether or not you want this in your message buffer could be chosen in a config option, like the  other message config options. I think it would also be useful to see which squares will be hit by a shotgun blast, which could be shown through some kind of highlighting rather than a message.

[Zalminen]

I would have absolutely hated trying to find the assembly patterns by guessing or by Armory grinding. If it wasn't for the Wiki, I would have just skipped WK completely.

Maybe there could be a configuration option whether to hide the assemblies or not? And another one for the medals?

[Benkyo]

Good to know about the A key, thanks for that! I assume that's a fairly new feature?

I should have known better than to write 'every' player, because that is guaranteed to get all the 'oh but I didn't' players to jump on the thread. I would be very very surprised if the vast majority of DoomRL players hadn't checked the assembly wiki page at least. It's currently the only page that I consider required viewing, the rest depends on how spoiled you like things.

I think I'm actually quite careful about not spoiling my own game too much, I do like discovery and I love the Roguelike idea of the player getting better being much more important than your character getting better - it is, after all, a key element of what distinguishes roguelikes from grindy RPGs and MMOs. That's why I think that in this age of the internet and wikis the balance between given information and hidden information has to be very carefully considered. I really really want to be able to play any given roguelike without EVER consulting a wiki for anything. So far the only really fleshed out roguelikes that have got the balance right for me are DCSS and Brogue... Brogue being the perfect example and DCSS barely scraping a pass. DoomRL is just too far out on a limb with all its deliberately hidden information and really hard to grasp mechanics. It really worked with it's simple coffee-break origins when all you were trying to do was kill the cyberdemon, but now it just makes things confusing for new players and diamond badge hunters alike.

I do agree that GUI clutter should be avoided. I agree that spoiling the limited selection of monsters would be pointless - you can get a feel for how to handle them very quickly. There is a lot of unused space in menu screens that could be put to better use without them feeling 'cluttered' though.

I also agree that the game is forgiving enough to let you win without any spoilers, but I disagree with the implications of "If you want to handle the tough stuff then yes, you'll certainly want to take whatever advantage you can get, but by then you're already playing a very different game." You should be able to attempt diamond badges using only the information provided in-game, and I don't believe that is currently really feasible for most people.

I've played hundreds and hundreds of games, and I still don't really understand shotguns, despite them being my favourite weapon. That's wrong. I think I die more often with a plasma shotgun than a shrapnel one because I never know if I'm going to destroy walls or not, and sometimes when I'm sure I've got all those lost souls covered I haven't, I die and that sucks. I've got all the basic assemblies and two advanced assemblies, but having looked at the wiki I can see there's no way I'd ever be able to guess all the remaining ones, especially with all the purple mods required. That's wrong. I've shot perhaps hundreds of thousands of bullets and yet I still have only the faintest hunch of a feeling as to how my point-blank hit % relates to hitting a monster at the edge of my vision. I think sniper packs are good...? They must be, right? Anyway, I think I've over-stated my case a little too vehemently and I doubt it'll make much difference so I'll let it drop, but I really hope the designers at least think a little on these points, as I'd love to see DoomRL become as polished as Brogue one day.

[LuckyDee]

Personally, I'm in love with the wiki; I'm a sucker for achievements, and as 2DeviationsOut recently demonstrated, it takes about 3 months of continuous playtime to get them all. IMO, the game leaves enough randomness - especially with so many challenge modes - not to suffer from reading through the spoilers; most of the time, you'd only be surprised the first time around, and since there's no way of backtracking this will usually mean another run if the surprise is deadly enough.

If I find an item of which I'm unsure what it does, I'd rather check the wiki than attempt to use it to blow up the Cyberdemon just to find out it's actually a healing item. Having 2 kids means I don't get to play for days on end, so I'll gladly not redo an entire run because I had to guess at something and guessed wrong.

[Game Hunter]

I'd love to see DoomRL become as polished as Brogue one day.

Brogue comes across to me as having way too much information given to the player (e.g., the enemy info screen). Throwing tons of explanations at the player slows the pace for beginners by a lot, and perhaps some people just want to dig in and figure things out for themselves without the constant bombardment of data. As far as I know, there's no way to actually turn this off, so becomes rather annoying to always see these large blocks of text on the screen, whether you're new and don't want to know or you're experienced and don't have to see it.

On the other hand, the game is designed to be challenging even if you know every last detail about the game, so it's important that players ARE given all of this information, because they're going to be screwed early and often if they don't. This is where the gameplay of Brogue and DoomRL differ: Brogue has a single, challenging difficulty, which encourages players to exploit everything they can in order to achieve victory; DoomRL has a wide selection of difficulties (especially when including challenge modes), in which easier difficulties allow the player to experiment and discover, while the harder difficulties expect a certain level of understanding. To this extent, I can't ostracize Brogue for its choice of user interface, since it's specifically created under the assumption that even the best players should be adequately challenged. DoomRL just takes a different approach.

I do think that we can make some adjustments that at least allow for some basic understanding of certain topics, like shotgun mechanics and accuracy. Maybe it was just me, but it didn't take a Wiki to figure how that shotguns do less damage from far away and that different shotguns do better at different ranges, or that your shots are less accurate from far away and also a lot less accurate outside of your vision. The exact numbers are harder to realize, but unless you're playing on UV or N! it's not a huge deal. This said, I don't think directly showing accuracy at a given tile, or shotgun spread and damage decay, would negatively impact the game's pace, so I don't see why we shouldn't at least try including it.

So yeah, DoomRL could use some data-presenting tweaks.

[tehtmi]

I'm probably in the minority and DoomRL shouldn't necessarily cater to what I enjoy, but I'm one of those people who likes to figure out game information/mechanics on my own -- by any means necessary (including going below the line of the user interface).

I think roguelikes cater toward this kind of mindset more than many mainstream genres, and finding out stuff was always part of DoomRL's appeal to me.  Of course, I liked the game anyway or else I wouldn't have been motivated to dissect it.  So there is something to be said for making the mechanics more accessible.

Most of the mechanics mentioned by the OP were partly/mostly spoiled on the wiki already when I started looking at DoomRL seriously, but deciphering the way accuracy worked would have been quite enjoyable to me otherwise.

However, I'll admit that I may not have thought to look at accuracy very carefully since it is ostensibly reported in the UI.  A qualitative indication that accuracy decreases with distance could be nice.