PDA

View Full Version : Youth or experience?


Nick
December 30, 2007, 23:35
I like Eddie's patch so far, and would recommend giving it a try. I've been thinking about game balance a lot recently, and coming to the conclusion that it doesn't make sense to talk about it without specifying a turn-count.

My apologies for grabbing this quote from a ladder dump :)

The point I wanted it to help me make is that (roughly speaking) there are two types of players - those who have ever won Angband or a variant and those who haven't. The quote, IMHO, only makes sense for players of the second type. For a player who hasn't won, the basic game-balance question is whether the game is possible to win by any means at all.

So who do we balance the game for? I say type 1 players.

Discuss.

Bandobras
December 30, 2007, 23:59
For me, the balance should be done mainly against boredom. This criterion is, of course, highly subjective. I don't even mind if the game is unwinnable or trivial, if it's not boring. Of course, most kinds of unwinnability (always killed on DL1) or triviality (just press arrow keys randomly) lead to a boring game. But if levels 1--20 are highly replayable I don't mind if I never get any deeper (which mostly the case with me through boredom or death :)).

aeneas
December 31, 2007, 00:26
My apologies for grabbing this quote from a ladder dump :)

The point I wanted it to help me make is that (roughly speaking) there are two types of players - those who have ever won Angband or a variant and those who haven't. The quote, IMHO, only makes sense for players of the second type. For a player who hasn't won, the basic game-balance question is whether the game is possible to win by any means at all.

Hmm- I'm not quite sure I follow you, and from the way you've phrased it I'm wondering if you might have inverted your formers and latters. Are you saying that that quote only makes sense for those who have won, or for those who haven't? I should also mention that I'm talking about V specifically- I haven't played Faangband, for instance, but I gather that it is very different from V. And Ironband, or Ironman mode in V, has built in limits as long as you don't sit on a level waiting for things to be generated.

Nick
December 31, 2007, 01:10
Hmm- I'm not quite sure I follow you, and from the way you've phrased it I'm wondering if you might have inverted your formers and latters. Are you saying that that quote only makes sense for those who have won, or for those who haven't?

Aaargh! Yes, I got that the wrong way round. I meant that the quote only means anything to those who have already won. And that players who haven't won won't care about turncount.

I should also mention that I'm talking about V specifically- I haven't played Faangband, for instance, but I gather that it is very different from V. And Ironband, or Ironman mode in V, has built in limits as long as you don't sit on a level waiting for things to be generated.

V is the one that's most important to get balanced right, because it's likely to be the one that new players will start with. So, priority one is to get V balanced to be possible to win.

I'm not sure if I actually have a point or not.

Lipa
December 31, 2007, 11:01
For me, the balance should be done mainly against boredom. This criterion is, of course, highly subjective. I don't even mind if the game is unwinnable or trivial, if it's not boring. Of course, most kinds of unwinnability (always killed on DL1) or triviality (just press arrow keys randomly) lead to a boring game. But if levels 1--20 are highly replayable I don't mind if I never get any deeper (which mostly the case with me through boredom or death :)).

I couldn't express my feelings any better than the above post by Bandobras. I completely agree with him. I've never won V so far, but I don't mind - as long as I'm having fun!:D

darkdrone
December 31, 2007, 18:16
i havent won ever - but i cant say ive been bored!! even dying 40 times for IronBand , i cant say i've thrown the Iguana against the wall ...