Im currently trying to balance the time it takes to equip and unequip gear, and Im wondering how long other roguelikes take to do it... Its not always obvious with the "turns" that are displayed on the screen, especially when I suspect that for most games, the clock that everything is scheduled to runs at least 10 cycles per standard turn (as mine does): that is it takes 10 units of time to walk in a given direction, attack etc... once differing player speeds enter into it its even less obvious...
So what do you all think? 3 standard turns for most gear, 5 for body armor, and 1 or less for quickswap? should the player's speed modifier have an impact?
On Jul 18, 2:49 pm, Numeron <irunsofastineedafinonmyh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Im currently trying to balance the time it takes to equip and unequip > gear, and Im wondering how long other roguelikes take to do it... Its > not always obvious with the "turns" that are displayed on the screen, > especially when I suspect that for most games, the clock that > everything is scheduled to runs at least 10 cycles per standard turn > (as mine does): that is it takes 10 units of time to walk in a given > direction, attack etc... once differing player speeds enter into it > its even less obvious...
> So what do you all think? 3 standard turns for most gear, 5 for body > armor, and 1 or less for quickswap? should the player's speed modifier > have an impact?
> -Numeron
I dont know why armour is always more, it seems like a "lets add some reality here" thought. The time it would really take to put on armour, you would be dead 10 time over. For reality how about "you forgot to buckle your armour in your haste and it falls around you ankles" or "you attempt to put on your gloves and you little finger get stuck in the wrong hole" or "you attempt to put on you boots of speed but last time you forgot to untie them" etc.
Just make every thing 1 (or 1.5) and a quick-swap .5 (or 1) turns. Shorter the better, players dont want to see the red dragon and then rumage through there pack for that ring of fire resistance only to be killed by its breath. They want to react and prevent their death. You cant expect the player to know whats around the corner. Unavoidable deaths will make players stop playing which is a bad thing. Of course in a game where you know you are going to face this can be different.
As long as the value is short and deterministic the player will be happy.
On Jul 18, 1:49 am, Numeron <irunsofastineedafinonmyh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Im currently trying to balance the time it takes to equip and unequip > gear, and Im wondering how long other roguelikes take to do it... Its > not always obvious with the "turns" that are displayed on the screen, > especially when I suspect that for most games, the clock that > everything is scheduled to runs at least 10 cycles per standard turn > (as mine does): that is it takes 10 units of time to walk in a given > direction, attack etc... once differing player speeds enter into it > its even less obvious...
> So what do you all think? 3 standard turns for most gear, 5 for body > armor, and 1 or less for quickswap? should the player's speed modifier > have an impact?
I'm generally opposed to player speeds in the first place. A 10% increase in player speed really just means "one in ten moves you get a double attack" against normal speed opponents. Turn based comments means you either get your turn or you don't.
POWDER makes everything a single turn. Moving is a turn, equipping a turn, etc. Swapping is also a turn, despite consisting of a dequip and an equip internally. My logic is that since the user made a single UI decision, they should only expend a single turn. Having a single UI decision take many turns is fraught with perils - you then need to support interrupting, support half-eaten bread, etc.
The interesting question is *why* you make things take longer or shorter. The usual logic is that allowing too fast a swap allows people to min/max their equipment for each battle. Ie, see a red dragon, quickly dig out all the fire resist items, then switch to ice resist for the next white dragon. Long equip times don't, I think, really eliminate the problem. Instead, it becomes see a red dragon, run for a closet, then switch. If I'm able to face the red dragon with my default equipment, I'm much more likely to just slug it out than pay the UI cost of switching. That's the other half of the equation - spending keystrokes has a cost just like spending in-game turns. Of course, each player has their own balance of what they want to spend. But, I'll point out that making it expensive in turns to switch items could easily be for naught if you give me a single key press to do the undress/redress maneuver.
The best argument against making long equip times to prevent equipment optimization is to point out that the real culprit is the zany roguelike dragons where you encounter alternating red and white dragons in the first place. A more thematic dungeon context can solve the problem with stashes and limited inventory. This is the more *band solution - using scrolls of recall and a stash at home so you can switch to lightning armour "instantly", but at enough of a UI cost that you don't do it lightly. -- Jeff Lait (POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)
On Jul 18, 12:49 am, Numeron <irunsofastineedafinonmyh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Im currently trying to balance the time it takes to equip and unequip > gear, and Im wondering how long other roguelikes take to do it... Its > not always obvious with the "turns" that are displayed on the screen, > especially when I suspect that for most games, the clock that > everything is scheduled to runs at least 10 cycles per standard turn > (as mine does): that is it takes 10 units of time to walk in a given > direction, attack etc... once differing player speeds enter into it > its even less obvious...
Especially in SSCrawl, where it's the world's speed that gets adjusted during slow or haste effects.
> So what do you all think? 3 standard turns for most gear, 5 for body > armor, and 1 or less for quickswap? should the player's speed modifier > have an impact?
Floppy time model: just make it 1 turn for most gear and body armor, and maybe 0.1 turn for quickswap.
Strict time model, where turns are defined in terms of RL time: use the turn duration as an inverse scaling factor. E.g., the *bands generally use 10,000 normal speed turns/100,000 time ticks as 1 day, so a strict time model for a *band would require 1 turn for a pair of gloves or helmet, 2 turns for a pair of boots, 1-2 turns for a shield. And (pulling from D&D): at least 7 turns for even the lightest body armors, maybe 60 turns for plate mail etc.
On Jul 18, 6:49 am, Numeron <irunsofastineedafinonmyh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Im currently trying to balance the time it takes to equip and unequip > gear, and Im wondering how long other roguelikes take to do it... Its > not always obvious with the "turns" that are displayed on the screen, > especially when I suspect that for most games, the clock that > everything is scheduled to runs at least 10 cycles per standard turn > (as mine does): that is it takes 10 units of time to walk in a given > direction, attack etc... once differing player speeds enter into it > its even less obvious...
> So what do you all think? 3 standard turns for most gear, 5 for body > armor, and 1 or less for quickswap? should the player's speed modifier > have an impact?
> -Numeron
My belief is that any element of a game should be as simple as possible unless it is an integral part of gameplay. Therefore in a turn based game, either a) all atomic actions take exactly one unit of time, or b) time management is an integral part of gameplay. Try to decide which of these applies to your game. Is the player constantly weighing up the value of different actions in terms of their time cost? If not, probably time is not important and time costs should be equal.
Of course, this only applies if you're putting gameplay first. It's a perfectly valid approach to let gameplay come second to accuracy of simulation, as interacting with a complex and realistic system has a joy of its own. In this case, 60 turns for plate mail is good as the previous guy said.
Jeff Lait <torespondisfut...@hotmail.com> writes: > On Jul 18, 1:49 am, Numeron <irunsofastineedafinonmyh...@hotmail.com> > wrote: >> Im currently trying to balance the time it takes to equip and unequip >> gear, and Im wondering how long other roguelikes take to do it... Its >> not always obvious with the "turns" that are displayed on the screen, >> especially when I suspect that for most games, the clock that >> everything is scheduled to runs at least 10 cycles per standard turn >> (as mine does): that is it takes 10 units of time to walk in a given >> direction, attack etc... once differing player speeds enter into it >> its even less obvious...
>> So what do you all think? 3 standard turns for most gear, 5 for body >> armor, and 1 or less for quickswap? should the player's speed modifier >> have an impact?
> I'm generally opposed to player speeds in the first place. A 10% > increase in player speed really just means "one in ten moves you get a > double attack" against normal speed opponents. Turn based comments > means you either get your turn or you don't.
I don't think there's any reason not to have player speed, as long as it's something the player can pretty much ignore (for example, the player gets turns at a constant rate and NPCs are awarded turns at a rate proportional to it). If a slow NPC only attacks every two or three player turns, or if on most player turns a fast NPC performs two actions, it won't disrupt play. And with that implemented, you get neat stuff like speed potions and fast vehicular travel for free, as well as faster speed from stat boosts and speed penalties for exceeding your carry weight or wearing bulky armor.
> POWDER makes everything a single turn. Moving is a turn, equipping a > turn, etc. Swapping is also a turn, despite consisting of a dequip > and an equip internally.
I'm all for that. Multi-turn actions are too much complication for no payoff. And I'd make "quick swaps" free.
In article <58df0039-9fca-49ea-9068- 015cb1ea6...@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, torespondisfut...@hotmail.com says...
> The interesting question is *why* you make things take longer or > shorter. The usual logic is that allowing too fast a swap allows > people to min/max their equipment for each battle. Ie, see a red > dragon, quickly dig out all the fire resist items, then switch to ice > resist for the next white dragon. Long equip times don't, I think, > really eliminate the problem. Instead, it becomes see a red dragon, > run for a closet, then switch. If I'm able to face the red dragon > with my default equipment, I'm much more likely to just slug it out > than pay the UI cost of switching. That's the other half of the > equation - spending keystrokes has a cost just like spending in-game > turns. Of course, each player has their own balance of what they want > to spend. But, I'll point out that making it expensive in turns to > switch items could easily be for naught if you give me a single key > press to do the undress/redress maneuver.
It depends on what you intend for the gameplay.
I don't have armour in Lair, but I think it adds a touch of realism to have a time for wielding weapons. You can have four weapons wielded (one of each type) and switch between them without penalty. Wielding a new weapon takes 4 seconds which is enough to move four squares or hit once with a slightly slow weapon. If I had rings of resistance etc. they would be the same.
It's more for realism than gameplay to be honest. It does mean you have to choose between carrying the good wand with 4 shots or the mediocre wand with 1 shot left. (Actually I was thinking that it is a little hard on thieves, and I might allow them to switch darts in 2 seconds.) In the absence of protective gear, closets aren't an issue.
> The best argument against making long equip times to prevent equipment > optimization is to point out that the real culprit is the zany > roguelike dragons where you encounter alternating red and white > dragons in the first place. A more thematic dungeon context can solve > the problem with stashes and limited inventory. This is the more > *band solution - using scrolls of recall and a stash at home so you > can switch to lightning armour "instantly", but at enough of a UI cost > that you don't do it lightly.
Lair is based on non-return dungeons with a limited inventory, so you don't select gear for monsters, just make do with the best of whatever drops. Same as Rogue.
Rogue went wrong with not allowing bows and swords to be equipped simultaneously - there was basically no point in carrying a bow, or at least I thought so. Especially given the limited inventory. I would just drop my bow and throw arrows while wielding a melee weapon.
On Jul 19, 5:49 am, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
> Rogue went wrong with not allowing bows and swords to be equipped > simultaneously - there was basically no point in carrying a bow, or at > least I thought so. Especially given the limited inventory. I would > just drop my bow and throw arrows while wielding a melee weapon.
Agreed. A lot of games fall into the two handed bow trap. With POWDER I allow the bow to be in the off-hand so you can shoot arrows while wielding a sword. There is still a trade off - you give up 2 handed weapons and shields - but no equipment swapping nightmare. -- Jeff Lait (POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)
Jeff Lait <torespondisfut...@hotmail.com> writes: > On Jul 19, 5:49 am, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
>> Rogue went wrong with not allowing bows and swords to be equipped >> simultaneously - there was basically no point in carrying a bow, or at >> least I thought so. Especially given the limited inventory. I would >> just drop my bow and throw arrows while wielding a melee weapon.
> Agreed. A lot of games fall into the two handed bow trap. With POWDER > I allow the bow to be in the off-hand so you can shoot arrows while > wielding a sword. There is still a trade off - you give up 2 handed > weapons and shields - but no equipment swapping nightmare.
Isn't that where the bow always goes? Or do you mean, specifically, having it in your hand while there's a weapon in the other? Regardless, I'd like to see someone dual-wielding a sword and bow. I imagine with some work you could draw the bow with your teeth and achieve true dual-wielding.
> Jeff Lait <torespondisfut...@hotmail.com> writes: > > On Jul 19, 5:49 am, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
> >> Rogue went wrong with not allowing bows and swords to be equipped > >> simultaneously - there was basically no point in carrying a bow, or at > >> least I thought so. Especially given the limited inventory. I would > >> just drop my bow and throw arrows while wielding a melee weapon.
> > Agreed. A lot of games fall into the two handed bow trap. With POWDER > > I allow the bow to be in the off-hand so you can shoot arrows while > > wielding a sword. There is still a trade off - you give up 2 handed > > weapons and shields - but no equipment swapping nightmare.
> Isn't that where the bow always goes? Or do you mean, specifically, > having it in your hand while there's a weapon in the other? > Regardless, I'd like to see someone dual-wielding a sword and bow. I > imagine with some work you could draw the bow with your teeth and > achieve true dual-wielding.
I mean having bow in left hand and the sword in the right hand. With this configuration, you can attack with the sword and shoot with the bow with no change to your equipment. Note that this isn't dual- wielding - you still can't do both attacks in both turns. Instead, it is assumed that when you shoot with the bow you'll be putting your sword away to make the shot and vice versa. Much like one is assumed to have a free hand to open and drink a potion despite dual wielding two swords.
The alternative, as far as I see, is to have some quick-swap key and differential timing to support a fast swap. This is all a lot of extra code (and rules for the player to remember) and extra keystrokes when it is better abstracted away. Having the bow in your left hand on the paper doll isn't supposed to mean literally the bow is in your left hand every single second. Instead, it means that the left hand is readied for the bow. -- Jeff Lait (POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)
