Posting mode: Reply
Password(Password used for file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 3072 KB.
  • Images greater than 250x250 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Read the rules and FAQ before posting.
  • このサイトについて - 翻訳

  • After four months of being ad-free, we're running some ad tests. We ask that you bear with us as we filter out the shitty ads and see what works. Also, please don't block them, and be sure to click those that interest you. Thanks!

    File :1233282320.png-(17 KB, 577x383, Screen.png)
    17 KB Brainstorm Thread CrawlDrof, the /tg/ roguelike 01/29/09(Thu)21:25 No.3558307  
    I normally do this after midnight, but let's try an evening thread for a change. Pic is the current progress - you can kill shit now (though they don't hit back).

    Project overview:
    Dwarf Fortress and similar sims are good games. Crawl and other roguelikes are good games. By combining them, I believe it is possible to make a game that is better than each separately - they're two great tastes that taste great together.

    Fluffy Setting:
    On a particular world, in a particular nation, at a particular time, there once was a Dungeon. This dungeon attracted people of all walks of life, even animals and the more mobile forms of plant life. Those enthralled by the Dungeon had no reason for their compulsion, they just had to go, like a "This dungeon, it was made for me" kind of thing. The first fifty years of the Dungeon's existence saw a huge influx of people bent on plumbing its depths... and no one coming out.

    You're one of the first of the new breed of explorers. The Dungeon has called to you your entire life, and you *will* meet your end within its endless halls, but you can resist it for a time. You can leave with your loot (at first), but you'll be back. The Dungeon has you.
    >> CrawlDrof, the /tg/ roguelike 01/29/09(Thu)21:25 No.3558313

    Crunchy Gameplay:
    Like roguelikes, the entire game is set within the confines of an extremely large dungeon, and getting to the end is one of the principle goals. Unlike roguelikes, once inside the dungeon there's no particular impetus to push deeper. You're encouraged to bunker down and establish a mostly-permanent base of operations, which you can use as a safe point for deeper exploratory raids. Your own personal minetown, basically, complete with homemade traps, defenses and buildings.

    Like DF you can attract followers who join your cause, be it for gold, glory or god. Unlike DF, once your base is up it won't be boring as shit, and I'm going to try my best to keep fortresses from being *completely* self-sufficient; there should always be a reason to explore deeper and/or protect trade caravans.

    I'd like to spend this evening talking about buildings. The only thing I've really got fleshed out is a complicated trap interaction system, accessible by '^.' If you've picked up a half dozen spears, you should be able to make a spear trap and load them in, or reload a trap if there's one already. But enough about that.

    If you were to streamline Dorf Fortress, which buildings would you keep? Which would you get rid of? Is there anything you'd add? Anything special you'd like to see, given the roguelike environment?
    >> Anonymous 01/29/09(Thu)21:31 No.3558379
    How big of a fort are we talking? Farm plots and wells? Or just a place to sleep, cook, and protect yourself in?
    >> Squashmonster !!YzKAMLHEhyW 01/29/09(Thu)21:38 No.3558466
    I'd cut things like making tables, chairs, crafts, and clothes, but keep the ability to make armor, food, tools and weapons.

    Try to add features like DF's mechanisms and canals where a handful of mechanics can lead to a large variety of implications. Anything where you can say "what happens if I chain a bunch of these together" will be more interesting.
    >> CrawlDrof, the /tg/ roguelike 01/29/09(Thu)21:39 No.3558481
    I could go either way, though I'd prefer to lean towards larger forts. From some of the previous threads we've already brought up fungus farming, though it wouldn't be sufficient to feed you unless you find - or with difficulty, make - a spot where they'll grow fruitfully. Also there'd be various poisonous fungal and vermin infestations to worry about with that.

    I'd like to avoid wells, though. Booze is a great addition to DF gameplay, having to secure a supply of fresh water every map really isn't. Also ther

    Namefag cancels bitch on the internet: getting drink. (x3)
    >> Anonymous 01/29/09(Thu)21:46 No.3558556
    >On a particular world, in a particular nation, at a particular time, there once was a Dungeon.
    This is just a fluff preference, but it would be cool if it was instead presented as a planet, moon, or continent of itself, with a self-supporting ecosystem and all.

    >I'd cut things like making tables, chairs, crafts, and clothes, but keep the ability to make armor, food, tools and weapons.
    You need clothes. Armor wouldn't be very comfortable without them. In fact, I would suggest a penalty to wearing armor without clothes (like maybe DEX or DEX equivalent penalty) to encourage making/wearing them. Could also be used for things more insidious, like acid that eats through cloth though it isn't effective against metals.
    >> CrawlDrof, the /tg/ roguelike 01/29/09(Thu)21:47 No.3558558
    >>keep the ability to make armor and weapons.

    Well I was thinking, if your ability to make armor and weapons in the dungeon was limited (because all the crafters get eaten pretty quick), there'd nearly always be something you'd want to stockpile from traders, who in DF generally exist to try out your newest flood room. Maybe you could easily make a shank, or cobble together some crappy plate mail from actual plates, but if you want a suit of +5 badassery you'll have to buy it from the people outside, who *don't* have things trying to kill them all day.

    That said, it'd still be worth making stuff for your followers, who normally don't have anything. Maybe they could also get a safety+loyalty bonus from wearing armor with your name on it.

    How's that sound?
    >> Anonymous 01/29/09(Thu)21:50 No.3558595
    If you can build up a good crafting skill, I don't see why you shouldn't be able to make a relatively badass weapon. That is, if you can come up with a good balanced way to increase skills (which DF and Crawl do in pretty much the same chunky sort of way).
    >> Squashmonster !!YzKAMLHEhyW 01/29/09(Thu)21:59 No.3558731
    Oh, yeah. I neglected to think about finding equipment for your workers in the dungeon. If there's little you can make on your own, it gives you more reason to organize raids, which could work better.

    Another direction you could go in would be making your followers quite competent at making equipment, but making the means of production very difficult to obtain.

    That way, the player would have to make a difficult dive into the dungeon for, say, an anvil, then provide a follower with enough raw materials to get his skill up. But the eventual reward would be some very powerful equipment.
    >> CrawlDrof, the /tg/ roguelike 01/29/09(Thu)22:02 No.3558776
    >>On a particular world, in a particular nation, at a particular time, there once was a Dungeon.
    >This is just a fluff preference, but it would be cool if it was instead presented as a planet, moon, or continent of itself, with a self-supporting ecosystem and all.

    Care to writefag it for us then? One of the advantages to roguelike-as-lifeform-attractant is a good explanation as to why there's all these different creatures in the dungeon, and why it just happens that they get stronger as you go deeper.

    >You need clothes.
    Another bit of DF I'm leery about including. I can see the desire to have clothing for completionist purposes, but when have they ever actually helped? The only role clothes have ever served for me is an extra workshop chain to set up, another reason for civvies to swarm battlefields in the middle of fights, and to clutter the everloving fuck out of everything.

    Well, I also intend to add in magic, which includes enchantment crafting of various sorts. Would you settle for several smaller, customizable bonuses? I've always found it a bit silly, frankly, to expect a novice weaponsmith to be able to churn out masterwork swords with a few months of practice. Particularly if your fortress doesn't have any highly skilled swordsmen who could teach the smith what a badass sword should be like.
    >> Anonymous 01/29/09(Thu)22:03 No.3558777
    Useful Alchemist's Laboratories.

    Like magical potions and shit.
    >> CrawlDrof, the /tg/ roguelike 01/29/09(Thu)22:04 No.3558794
    Oh my god you're right. That's going fuckin' in there, right after the traps.
    >> CrawlDrof, the /tg/ roguelike 01/29/09(Thu)22:14 No.3558924
    I think it would help to more clearly define material workflows when talking about workshops. For example:

    rotting corpse[Item] + spore sac[Item] --> Fungal Bloom [Building] --> Cave Fungus [Food]

    Blank Paper [item] + Scrollery [Building] --> Magic Scroll [Item]

    Or something of the sort. If DF has a standard for doing this already, we can use that instead.
    >> Anonymous 01/29/09(Thu)22:15 No.3558929
    >Another bit of DF I'm leery about including. I can see the desire to have clothing for completionist purposes, but when have they ever actually helped? The only role clothes have ever served for me is an extra workshop chain to set up, another reason for civvies to swarm battlefields in the middle of fights, and to clutter the everloving fuck out of everything.
    I'm pretty sure clothing used to give a bonus to "layering" (which allows creatures to work in lower temperatures if it is higher, or higher temperatures if it is lower - sort of like a homeotherm modifier, I think). But that could just be something I made up that he didn't do. Either way, they ARE buggy right now. But I think it would be neat to have clothes make you more or less uncomfortable/make some places downright unaccessible depending.

    You're right though, you could do without, I was just thinking in a simulationist Dorf Fort mindset.

    Simple example: A full eskimo get-up will let you go into some damn cold places, but if you try to go somewhere too hot you will dehydrate quickly and face debilitating/deadly consequences like shock.

    Also, the idea of writefagging sounds fun, but I dunno if I could. I could certainly put some ideas out there for you and other anons to pick apart though.
    >> Anonymous 01/29/09(Thu)22:18 No.3558960
    I like the thought of having a few properties on items that can be combined to make alchemical stuff, kind of like a scaled down Elder Scrolls alchemy.
    >> Anonymous 01/29/09(Thu)22:23 No.3559003

    Farming from the rotting bodies of your enemies?

    >> Anonymous 01/29/09(Thu)22:33 No.3559116
    Combines the 'actual' farming of DF and the corpse farming of Crawl. It's DOUBLE brilliant!
    >> CrawlDrof, the /tg/ roguelike 01/29/09(Thu)23:48 No.3559892
    Quick question - how much magical jewelery do you want to be able to wear? The classic solution is one amulet, two rings... but fuck that, I wanna go all Hal Jordan with 'em.
    >> Anonymous 01/29/09(Thu)23:51 No.3559916
    At least one ring per finger. Which, incidentally, means you want to keep all your fingers intact.
    >> CrawlDrof, the /tg/ roguelike 01/29/09(Thu)23:59 No.3559999
    That raises another question. What damage model should I be planning for: DF's OCD part-based model or the usual hit point system?
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:01 No.3560017
    I actually like the part based system. Maybe not to the level of DF where you need to worry about your internal organs being bruised...but you should be able to lose hands and such.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:03 No.3560039
    IMO, DF's OCD part-based damage system is incredible and much preferable to straight hit point damage (though blood acts much like HP in some respects).

    Any other anons want to chime in?
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:05 No.3560052
    My madness is expressed fully when I become the "Acolyte of the Boom", leading the Church of the Holy Explosion to fill the dungeon with dangerous explosives and fuse ourselves in the energy wave after detonation.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:09 No.3560080
    I'd love to see a damage model that's seventy percent as detailed as Dorf Fortress'. Being only able to use one handed weapons due to the loss of an arm would be interesting, though it has to be balanced by something like potions and spells that can regenerate or prevent the loss.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:10 No.3560093


    Can you start your own religion? =D
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:10 No.3560096
    I'd a recommend a somewhat lighter version of DF's model. The ability to make healing potions should help with the 'you are injured and may never fight again' problem.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:11 No.3560108
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:12 No.3560122
    Grafting would be fuckwin for necromancer types, but I don't think you really mean it.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:13 No.3560128
    It is said that a bright light once appeared among the stars in the night sky, one that grew brighter and brighter over time until, for just a moment, it was like a second sun.

    Then the comet fell, and the impact tore up the landscape for miles around as it pushed its way down deep into the earth.

    Soon after, many creatures who had witnessed the comet's approach felt the irresistible urge to seek it out. No spell could dissuade them, and none could explain the strange compulsion.

    Those that delved into the twisted tunnels leading to the buried star learned quickly that the same alien energies that empowered them could easily tear apart their frail mortal frames, if they did not fight the siren's call long enough to acclimate to the strange energies emanating from below.

    good fluff?
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:14 No.3560135
    This is a fucking awesome idea.

    Imagine losing your legs, or even cutting off your own legs, ripping one off of a raptor corpse and grafting them on your own. You now have RAPTOR DEATH-SICKLE FEET

    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:16 No.3560164
    That would be awesome, as would the magic artificed arm. You'd have to keep replacing the grafted arm as it rotted over time.

    I suggest using more or less a hitpoints system with the addition of limb loss. Not sure how that'd work mechanically.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:17 No.3560176

    In fact, for an awesome twist, make the final floors of the dungeon be the fused wreckage of an alien space craft. Go all Sci Fi right at the end.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:18 No.3560190
    >the same alien energies that empowered them could easily tear apart their frail mortal frames, if they did not fight the siren's call long enough to acclimate to the strange energies emanating from below.

    I don't think that's quite right. The dangerous part comes just as much from the other creatures as it does the ambient wierdness.

    I do like the fluff though.
    >> CrawlDrof, the /tg/ roguelike 01/30/09(Fri)00:19 No.3560200
    Okay, it looks like it's ideally the DF model then. Would anyone be a doll and code it up? I suspect that I have enough on my plate to last the next few weeks as it is.

    The whole thing is being done in python, btw. Creatures follow a simple inheritance model, currently Item->Creature->Humanoid->Player (or enemy). If your stuff roughly matched that it shouldn't be hard to work in.

    Speaking of multiple coders, it's high time I start shopping around for code hosting sites. Does anyone have any suggestions, preferably something which makes contributions as easy as possible?
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:20 No.3560208
    Raptor feet.
    Mechanical laser arm
    dragon's eyes and wings
    Magical RIP AND TEAR arm
    Archanotech hyperdextrous arm
    Troll's blood
    Steampunk BASHAN arm
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:21 No.3560216
    FUND IT! Awesome ideas
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:22 No.3560234
    Rather than DF's "build room" system, I'd prefer to just be able to designate areas or pieces of furniture as being specific to one type of job. It makes a bit more sense than having every workshop be exactly 3x3, and it'd make it easier to mass-produce your mediocre peasant-made goods.

    No lasers, but clockwork would probably be fine.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:22 No.3560238
    Instead of having a 'building' workshop like dwarf fortress does, have just a room filled with tools. Technically, a "workshop" is just a tool, the place you use it in, and the materials you use said tool at said location with.

    So when you make your "leather workshop" you basically place leather-working like tools inside of a room, and then tell your NPC buddies, if any, what that room is and for, and that "these tools" should not be moved from "this area" where "this area" is, whatever the player told the NPC it is.

    Furniture then would play an important role in the dungeon: Chairs and tables make working easier, and some tools when attached to furniture, function better. (like a clamp that attaches to a table + another item) Doors would also be even more important then, for distinguishing borders between what is "a workshop" and what isn't "a workshop"

    If creatures have thoughts about things, they should be happier about working with a neatly sorted table/bench/door 'room', then working in a rough rocky, cramped and messy alcove 'room'.
    Also, neat/messy would be defined as the average number of items per tile, per certain factors. 10 items piled into the same tile would be "very messy" for a creature that was nearby it or had to walk through it, but not very messy if those 10 items were spread out over 30 tiles.
    >> Cocks 01/30/09(Fri)00:22 No.3560240
    google SVN
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:24 No.3560257
    Lasers could come from debris from the hypothetical crashed spaceship.
    >> No.3560234 01/30/09(Fri)00:25 No.3560262
    Workshopmind. Bro fist.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:25 No.3560265
    How about something like this:

    DF-like part-based battle damage, including the blood. However, like Crawl, you can "see" your blood as HP. Blood spills from wounds (which, going even more OCD, might need to be bound) or slowly builds in bruises, which you see as a constant HP loss.

    Different parts are given different blood weights, so if you lose, say, a finger, you have a minor max HP penalty, while an entire arm/leg will be a relatively large one. Getting pierced in the heart or a lung causes much more bleeding than most areas. Some organs are just plain vital, with perhaps the exception of grafting (unless brain).

    I'm being liberal here in how crazy I assume CrawlDrofGuy is.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:27 No.3560287
    > Blank Paper [item] + Scrollery [Building] --> Magic Scroll [Item]

    To re-state this example of yours with >>3560238

    "Scroll + pen + ink + being able to see the scroll = scroll writing" which can be done anywhere, but is improved if you don't write on a bumpy stone floor and instead, write on a table. And if you sit in a chair at the table, your writing gets steadier. And you can put a candle on the table, freeing a hand to hold the paper in place. Etc
    >> Captain Failmore !NDYuTsQuY. 01/30/09(Fri)00:28 No.3560292
    On base building:

    This probably clashes with the setting in a big way, but what if your 'base' could move? More importantly, what if it was your primary means of traversing levels?

    Think of it as a wagon, only it's... whatever you need it to be. A wagon, a truck, a rocket ship, a boat, whatever. It appears in each level as a part of that level, and anything built in it goes with it. Maybe your objective could involve, say, gathering a certain number of points or a certain resource so that you can fuel it to provide passage to the next level for whatever reason. (Making it so you can travel backward for free would be nice.)

    Think of it like the landing craft from X-Com in a way.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:29 No.3560300
    If he goes with that, I imagine getting down there would be an accomplishment on par with beating dungeon crawl. Not a place to scavenge for parts.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:31 No.3560331
    Eh, pretty sure the entire point is to have an immobile fortress.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:31 No.3560337
    I think the laser arm guy was making fun of the concept of Megaman, to which I say right on. Fuck lasers, fuck magitech. If you're having magic and technology, go Arcanum with it.

    Though this grafting idea, I really do like. Maybe making it tied in to your constitution or equivalent stat, so that you need to be pretty robust for your system to not reject the graft.

    Also, I am imagining a troll blood transfusion and getting a nerd boner.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:32 No.3560341
    Could be a piece that fell off and ended up in a higher level of Dungeon, where it is worshipped as a god. Of killing things with beams.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:34 No.3560359
    A truck and a rocket? I figured the setting was more general fantasy like DF/Crawl, in which case those wouldn't be very fitting.

    But a wagonboat is totally dorfy.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:34 No.3560361
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:34 No.3560365
    Also, voting that the area is simply called Dungeon. not the dungeon, or the dungeon of whatever, simply Dungeon.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:34 No.3560367
    Dude suggesting lasers = troll
    No one likes SLASHEM and the random-styled cancer that is Nethack's enemies.
    >> Lord Licorice 01/30/09(Fri)00:36 No.3560387

    Seconded on SVN


    That's even more OCD than DF. It did raise a good point about NPC happiness; like Dungeon Keeper, some creatures will require certain things to keep them happy. I don't know about this stockpiles business - if we're going for DF Lite™ you might want a general "everything" stockpile/treasury/storeroom with an easily-sorted menu system - but some creatures will probably require certain buildings and leave if conditions are too shitty.

    I'll get back to ideas for things that keep creatures happy, but I was just struck with an idea for having intelligent monsters able to be hired, bribed or tamed into joining you. Not everything in the dungeon's going to be a dumb beast, and plenty of them are probably friendly with the adventurers that pass through, providing nifty items from the surface they'd otherwise never see.

    This can lead to conflict between your "party members", as zombies probably make tireless workers but the living won't be happy at the same workbench, and demonic creatures will piss off your clerics pretty quickly. The player will need to carefully pick and choose from a wide pool of potential candidates to work for him, and keep the bickering to a minimum (or build enough creature comforts to keep the factions within his little community happy regardless). This will also provide players with variety for replay, in terms of game variation; one playthrough they can go all-human, another all-monster, all-evil, all-celestial, etc. etc. ...
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:40 No.3560410
    When you do get to the bottom of the dungeon and defeat the aliens, you notice that they spent all this time to make the "dungeon" a mobile spacecraft with its own ecology attracted by a beacon at the bottom level - what drew you to go down the dungeon in the first place.

    Then you discover that the ship isn't hard to operate at all, and somehow can archieve FTL travel. This is when you notice the "CrawlDorf" you played so far was a mere prologue. Equipped with essentially a spaceship-planet, you go on to conquer the galaxy as the OP movie to CRAWLDORF 40K plays.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:40 No.3560412
    At the very least, the crashed spaceship actually sounds like a pretty cool idea. And when enemies can shoot ice and fire, light isn't much of a stretch, is it?

    I don't really like the idea of theme-less, do-everything type enemies either. But if it's kept coherent and not randum, why not?
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:40 No.3560414
    >Would anyone be a doll and code it up?

    lol yes of course implementing a game like dwarf fortress is easy and with the few half-assed suggestions we have in this thread it should truly be trivial, i'll get right on it
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:41 No.3560422

    Because of this (the need to explain why things get tougher as you go deeper)


    ^ that's why I added the energies bit
    >> Lord Licorice 01/30/09(Fri)00:43 No.3560441
    I just raised a lot of questions for myself, so I'll just throw them out in no particular order:

    - Player's direct party: Will you be able to have multiple adventuring creatures alongside you? How will you control them, or at least set their priorities? A Secret of Mana-style attack/defense slider grid thing could work.

    - Are you going to put creatures, traps, spells, components, etc. into raws like DF to allow player modification?

    - Will fortress mode be played in a similar manner as DF (giving autonomous creatures orders) or more menu-based (ala Liberal Crime Squad, another Bay12 game)?

    - Monster communities: Will you just come across random creatures hanging around each level or were you thinking of occasional setpieces, e.g. a monster town? Will they be like shops or sub-dungeons where you can walk around and talk to people or kill them?

    Also, I really don't like the spaceship idea personally, but the comet idea's not bad. Demonic/Celestial artifact, or a slain god struck down from the heavens, whose body is slowly regenerating over countless eons, attracting mortals that could gain his strength, power, or favor from the dessicated remains... or other gods that would want to see him finished off but can't act due to celestial laws, and so much act through their followers.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:43 No.3560442
    >Simple example: A full eskimo get-up will let you go into some damn cold places, but if you try to go somewhere too hot you will dehydrate quickly and face debilitating/deadly consequences like shock.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:44 No.3560450
    > That's even more OCD than DF

    Not really. Currently dwarf fortress makes a difference between a bowyer's workshop, a carpentry workshop, and a crafts workshop, despite they're all being involved in wood-working to some degree. Meanwhile, just having a few basic "wood working" tools would simplify it greatly; a full set, and any type object can be made.
    >> Captain Failmore !NDYuTsQuY. 01/30/09(Fri)00:45 No.3560455

    Something like Howl's Moving Castle from the movie of the same name would also be... somewhat appropriate. Flying/walking magical fortress that requires MacGuffins to traverse the world.

    A theme-agnostic explanation would be this: A persistent base of operations that is also used to move between levels, and may also move between them itself. (If it doesn't move between them, that might be an incentive to build your base? Maybe the whole goal is to support a base that will fulfill X-requirement to advance?)
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:45 No.3560458
    >When you do get to the bottom of the dungeon
    That brings up an idea I was playing with: Has it been agreed or said that there WILL be a bottom level? If not, should there?

    A Labyrinth style infinite dungeon could be cool, and would certainly be in the spirit of DF.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:46 No.3560465
    Have you ever been in a natural cave?

    It can range from downright frosty in areas to REALLY FREAKING HOT.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:47 No.3560468
    The answer to all these questions: your idea is at least as good as the OP's.

    This is because nothing will come of this game. There will be no Crawl/Dwarf Fortress hybrid. This thread is just an idea wank by somebody who's on a manic phase because he forgot he has school tomorrow. Making a game at the scale of Dwarf Fortress is a major undertaking, but nobody here is willing to put more than an hour into actual coding.
    >> Captain Failmore !NDYuTsQuY. 01/30/09(Fri)00:47 No.3560474

    Urist Minerbeard cancels dig: Warm Stone Located
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:47 No.3560476
    When I suggested LASERS I mean more of the fantasy magical ray types.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:49 No.3560496
    >a slain god struck down from the heavens

    I like this. The dungeon is the result of a little piece of heaven falling from the sky. That's why everyone wants it so bad.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:51 No.3560515
    This >>3560442
    And: If this dungeon works something like Crawl's (and something like DF's), there will be more than just "Cave". Between underground features and Crawl-esque environments, it could be quite varied.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:52 No.3560520
    A fortress builder that has the player controlling a single adventurer is a colossally bad idea even before wringing it through design-by-committee.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:54 No.3560534

    A squad game, on the other hand, would actually be workable.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:55 No.3560543
    So? You're still talking about implementing a system that tracks temperature and its biological and psychological effects. Do you want to be the one who implements the algorithm that spreads temperature around between magma and glaciers, or has the AI look around for extra clothes to wear when they get cold, or determine what the exact effects of frostbite are, all of which have EXACTLY NO RELEVANCE to the core gameplay, which I might remind you DOES NOT EXIST AT THIS TIME?
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:56 No.3560555
    Sure. I for one will enjoy my short attention span whatever comes of this. These brainstorm sorts of threads are part of the lifeblood of /tg/. If you really don't like that, there are other boards for you.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:58 No.3560568
    Why would it be workable? You're still giving individual commands per turn in a game that takes place in a larger time scale. You're still going to end up pacing back and forth while masons set up walls and blacksmiths reforge scrap metal. There is absolutely no potential for playability when you are determining what someone does every second, when all the interesting things in the game take place in hours or days.
    >> Lord Licorice 01/30/09(Fri)00:59 No.3560579

    I agree with that, I was mostly referring to the clean/messy preferences. If shit gets auto-moved/auto-sorted this won't be an issue, and the more things that are abstracted the better.

    If this game's going for a combination of DF and Crawl, it's not necessary to go to the same lengths as either game. Abstract the shit out of most of it to get the flavor of DF while utilizing some of the fun core mechanics in a Crawl-like setting.

    Also, I think the OP needs to focus (read: decide) on the core gameplay elements before he goes any further. It sounds like we're going for a roguelike where you can build temporary or permanent homes, but you can also go back to the surface and sell your shit. He (or we) need to determine why building a home base at level 10 is superior to simply running all the way back to town every time you hit your weight limit, for example.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)00:59 No.3560582
    Those are all things Dorf Fort has, though I think you are overstating the complexity of them. And it's part of making suggestions in general to understand that they don't always go through, or aren't always implemented with the exact intent or detail you proposed them with. If you don't get that, you probably shouldn't bother wasting thought on it.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)01:00 No.3560595
    Github (dot com) or bitbucket (dot com). For git and mercurial, respectively. Distributed version control is a must, don't listen to those old-fashioned svn luddites.
    >> Lord Licorice 01/30/09(Fri)01:02 No.3560608

    Also agreed. Leave the emergent gameplay and total world simulation to Toady. This is about making a Crawl with DF flavoring, not a DF clone.


    You've actually got a pretty good point. So, given this problem, what would you suggest as a resolution?
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)01:05 No.3560638
    Shit like that is why DF is complex as fuck. It's honestly not relevant. We're not trying to approach this with the same simulationist mindset that DF carries. Or at least, we shouldn't be.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)01:06 No.3560651
    >>He (or we) need to determine why building a home base at level 10 is superior to simply running all the way back to town every time you hit your weight limit, for example.
    How about: Creatures will eventually wander back into the area's you cleared out, making the return journey a crawl in itself.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)01:09 No.3560679
    Differentfag, but I have a solution. When you return to your base, you could go to a sort of Sim City/DF mode; not controlling your adventurer, just giving orders for things to be done around the fort.

    You can't leave the dungeon. At least, not for long. He didn't really emphasize it as much this time, but when he says "you'll be back" he means it. You're addicted to it, essentially. Eventually you can't even leave.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)01:09 No.3560685
    And it would be less correct to characterize it as DF with Crawl flavoring? But I digress. I am not devoted to the thought, it's just that temperature and environment in general being relevant to gameplay is one of those things that makes DF so great, especially in the core theory (implementation isn't perfect, but isn't lackluster either).
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)01:10 No.3560692
    I would not lodge the dungeon in any existing setting, if only a implied setting. The Dungeon exists for the player and for itself.

    You have fought the minor perils all your life, all since your parents died in an attack. Now it is time to bring peril to the peril itself.

    Luckily not everything is out there to kill you. Are you bad enough adventurer to make the peril itself peril itself?
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)01:11 No.3560704
    I'm not suggesting that there necessarily is a solution to this problem. So far, it looks like the idea is basically just Incursion with better AI. Recruit some dwarves and have them use the forge, recruit some cultists and have them do cultist stuff at the altar, etc. If the player is in control of a single adventurer, though, all that stuff is going to be in the background. You can set up a little base and tell your guys to make you your favorite kind of weapon, but from a game development standpoint you're talking about having a game that's 10x as complicated as a regular roguelike for very little payoff.

    The other way of doing it, then, would be to have indirect control of the creatures, but then you would have something more like Dwarf Fortress or The Sims. That fixes some problems, but adds in a lot more. Until someone is really willing to face these issues, though, it really isn't worthwhile to weigh these alternatives.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)01:12 No.3560712
    Sounds a lot like a roguelike version of Dungeon Keeper to me, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The only thing that seriously bothers me though is that
    by the time the player gets deep enough into the dungeon it will become extremely tedious to make their way back to their fortress. Here are a few solutions off the top of my head:
    -Upon reaching the end of every level you're allowed to carry over a certain number of followers and items to the next floor. There is no way to ascend back, so establishing a proper stronghold always becomes your first priority.
    -Spawn a new dungeon community every few levels that the player can befriend.
    -Introduce a townportal/waypoint system similar to Diablo 2. Every few levels the player gets a free ride back to town to check how things are going.

    As a side note, I really hope you'll make a tile version. /tg/ has plenty of drawfags, so once the the game becomes playable enough you shouldn't have any trouble recruiting a few sprite artists.
    >> CrawlDrof, the /tg/ roguelike 01/30/09(Fri)01:13 No.3560718
    >>Are you going to put creatures, traps, spells, components, etc. into raws like DF to allow player modification?

    The whole thing will be open source, once I have enough done to get past the "yet another stub project" phase. Nearly there - I'd at least want enemies to fight back. That's why I was asking around for code repositories. The big ones - sourceforge and google code - both require you to sign up for one of their respective accounts before you can submit code or really use their site. This is 4chan, which means the barrier to code submission needs to be as low as possible (ideally anonymous submissions should be supported) if people are going to be coaxed into helping.

    >>Will fortress mode be played in a similar manner as DF (giving autonomous creatures orders) or more menu-based (ala Liberal Crime Squad, another Bay12 game)?

    You'll spawn jobs (like "make some fucking potions") and locations ("make the fucking potions here"), that friendlies in the area can see. Then they will ignore you and walk into walls.

    >>Monster communities: Will you just come across random creatures hanging around each level or were you thinking of occasional setpieces, e.g. a monster town? Will they be like shops or sub-dungeons where you can walk around and talk to people or kill them?

    I certainly hope so. I've had good luck with faction-based hostility in the past, where the only difference between an enemy and an ally is a tag that says what side he's on. My biggest concern at the moment is making a level generator good enough to spawn a working fort which still feels random. The rest is cake compared to that.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)01:14 No.3560724
    I think it would be less correct. That'd just give us DF adventure mode in an endless dungeon, and that's not really what this should be about.
    >> Lord Licorice 01/30/09(Fri)01:26 No.3560820
    >Then they will ignore you and walk into walls.

    See, for anyone that thinks this project will never come to fruition, we've clearly got achievable programming goals in sight.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)01:26 No.3560822
    Let's make a full-featured roguelike game that has a complex town simulation that the player will interact with 1% of the time.

    >> CrawlDrof, the /tg/ roguelike 01/30/09(Fri)01:28 No.3560834
    The current plan is to have multiple regions connected by portals. Each region's levels will have similar themes, but region to region they'll vary a lot. Themes can range from cavish structures (see attached) to standard room-and-corridor dungeons to mindfuckery where physics breaks down, all depending on the generator used for the level.

    >>Also, I think the OP needs to focus (read: decide) on the core gameplay elements ... He (or we) need to determine why building a home base at level 10 is superior to simply running all the way back to town every time you hit your weight limit

    Oh, I have my own ideas, trust me. I try not to gush too much about them because I want to know yours, I'm already familiar with the pros and cons of mine.

    * Going back up - in the early parts of the game you can leave the dungeon (which is usually a hilarious insta-death on other roguelikes) and access a much wider selection of trade goods than the traders you'll find wandering in. eventually you won't be able to leave at all, just like everyone else, so use it while you can. Since the traders who enter ought to be at least partially dependent on how much wealth you've taken from the dungeon, leaving to trade kickstarts that as well as selling you exactly what you need to survive. In game terms, you'd be presented with a "Dungeon calls ya back" screen, followed by a shop screen and level 1 again.

    * Depth of forts - shallow forts have an easier access to traders and settlers, but you'll have to go much farther for decent loot. Also, settlers may desert more often to explore on their own. Deep forts have good access to loot and naturally occurring food, but will be more dangerous and you'll probably have to end up guarding the trade caravans down if you want to buy stuff from them.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)01:29 No.3560851
    I'd say that's nearing DF-level AI right there. Just substitute walls with parties and it's perfect.

    My poorly formed point was that it shouldn't be more heavily weighted either way. After all, CrawlDrof has never suggested that influence from one is to be favored over the other.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)01:31 No.3560859
    Make a basic tileset too. Nothing too fancy. Not to knock acsii but it does get hard on the eyes.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)01:33 No.3560881
    It seems to me that it'd be a good idea to set up outposts as you went down - is that possible? Kind of like mini forts?
    >> CrawlDrof, the /tg/ roguelike 01/30/09(Fri)01:34 No.3560887
    I wouldn't even insist that it be a linear combination of the two. There's room for influences from all over in this.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)01:36 No.3560896
    I think it's a bit too early to be worrying about that. We don't even have a game yet.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)01:39 No.3560918
    Or even an idea for a game beyond some ridiculous fluff and a few gimmicks.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)01:41 No.3560942
    DVCS e.g. git and mercurial, using github or bitbucket for repository hosting, are ideal for anonymous development as no concrete accounts are needed for committing. Work is shared through pushing and pulling of sets of commits, which can happen completely anonymously by cross-pulling from public repositories or less anonymously by sharing push access.

    If you're hellbent on using SVN, go ahead. It's a bad choice.
    >> CrawlDrof, the /tg/ roguelike 01/30/09(Fri)01:45 No.3560972
    I don't see why it wouldn't be possible.

    I like git, but skimming the site, github would require me to manually add the usernames of anyone who wants to add any code. That probably works fine for most projects and anal retentives, but it seems like a very un-4chan way of doing things.
    >> CrawlDrof, the /tg/ roguelike 01/30/09(Fri)01:47 No.3560999
    >>are ideal for anonymous development as no concrete accounts are needed for committing. Work is shared through pushing and pulling of sets of commits, which can happen completely anonymously by cross-pulling from public repositories or less anonymously by sharing push access.

    What this? Explain how!
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)01:48 No.3561008
    Geez, if you want to use a fancy code-sharing site, just make an account and post the username/password here.

    Although it might be helpful to actually have a game design that programmers could act on, rather than some vague theorizing about how the game would act in some corner cases.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)01:48 No.3561018
    Thing is single persons need not to push their changes to the main repository. Nor would that be ideal, as then anyone could push arbitrary stuff in there, for instance trojans.

    The thing DVCS enables is having several repositories for each developer (or mutually trustworthy developer coven), from which others can pull from in an anonymous manner. You can't have that without distribution. Now each repository user is responsible for the contents of one's repository, and no unreviewed change goes through to the main one.
    >> CrawlDrof, the /tg/ roguelike 01/30/09(Fri)01:52 No.3561057
    Oh, okay. So I'd have a list of a few people's repositories, they make their changes over there and I cherry-pick what goes into the main repo? That could work.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)01:52 No.3561062
    Pull access is read-only and as such easily done anonymously. Developers keep their own copies of repositories, pulling others' work in from public repositories, anonymously again.

    These public repositories have one or more trusted, known keeper who pushes their own changes there. This includes others' work the keeper has previously pulled for review.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)01:54 No.3561077
    Yes, that's how it goes for persistent contributors. One-shot or more occasional developers send patches to you or any repository owner by E-mail as usual.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)01:56 No.3561103
    I hope you realize how ridiculous it is to be talking about code distribution at this stage. As in, you literally must either be a troll or be completely deranged.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)01:59 No.3561121
    I'm serious. Development infrastructure is hilariously relevant to any project.
    >> CrawlDrof, the /tg/ roguelike 01/30/09(Fri)02:00 No.3561132
    We're all mad here. Speaking of, I really ought to get around to settling on a name for this monster. Someone above mentioned "Dungeon," which sounds fine to me for now. Anyone have any other suggestions?
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)02:02 No.3561142
    Except this ISN'T a project. Until you at least get enough ideas that someone can ATTEMPT a real design, all you have is a bunch of brainstorming. Nobody should even be considering putting down code at this point, but at the same time nobody's really put any serious effort into developing the idea well enough that this 'game' is any more than a weekend pipe dream.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)02:05 No.3561170
    OP had plenty enough of an idea that he could have started coding before he ever considered posting about it here and it would have been perfectly "legitimate". Now he has even more of a direction. That you honestly have a problem with this suggests that you are either a troll or just angry that someone has an idea for something that for whatever reason you don't like.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)02:06 No.3561175
    He did start coding before letting us know?
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)02:08 No.3561192
    Well, there you go.

    But I think he started the coding after his first thread was successful. Not sure, but hey, CrawlDrof will know.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)02:11 No.3561204
    Well if that's your attitude, go ahead. I'd like to encourage you to re-read the OP, pull out whatever sort of design you think you see in that, and waste some time writing python code on a project that has literally 0 chance of success. Your time is obviously not valuable enough to spend doing anything else, because you honestly believe that there is potential in this project.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)02:12 No.3561216
    >My point is better if I say it more insultingly.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)02:15 No.3561233
    Dipshit, 4chan doesn't lend itself to posting long-ass design documents.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)02:16 No.3561240
    Reminder: we're talking about a design-by-committee hybrid of Crawl and Dwarf Fortress with almost all the features of both games, 'designed' by someone who obviously has no exposure either to roguelike gaming in general (such as Incursion, which actually has relevant features) or strategy gaming in general. This game is meant to be developed in Python by the audience of an anonymous image board.
    >> Lord Licorice 01/30/09(Fri)02:16 No.3561242

    All I'm hearing is "baw how dare you try to organize your project before you begin it, real projects don't discuss things like methods of contribution until the project is already underway!"

    Seriously, what's wrong with discussing code repositories during the planning stages of a game? Just because you think there's isn't enough code to warrant a repository yet - emphasis on *yet* - doesn't mean discussing the merits of various systems is detrimental.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)02:18 No.3561250
    >Final destination
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)02:19 No.3561261
    Anyone who is competent enough at programming to develop even a small part of something at this scale would know that what we have in this thread is NOT sufficient design to be able to move forward with implementation in an intelligent way. How is that even controversial?
    >> CrawlDrof, the /tg/ roguelike 01/30/09(Fri)02:19 No.3561264
    I think someone's had a little too much software engineering lately. You should lie down until it passes.

    I'm working on this because it's fun. I'm starting brainstorming threads because they're fun to read, and they motivate me to keep working on the basics so we can eventually do all this stuff we're talking about now. I'm trying to get a development infrastructure settled so that in case anyone wants to help, it'll be that much easier. If you don't think it'll ever get off the ground, well, no hair off your back. Go make a 4e thread or something.

    >> Lord Licorice 01/30/09(Fri)02:21 No.3561279

    I think you forgot your sage. Isn't there a Halo thread you're supposed to be trolling over in /v/? It's past your bedtime by a wide margin, anyway. Might help if you hit the hay lil' guy, you'll feel better in the morning, and tomorrow's Friday so you'll get to stay up late *tomorrow* night on Xbox Live.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)02:23 No.3561303
    - Monster communities: Will you just come across random creatures hanging around each level or were you thinking of occasional setpieces, e.g. a monster town? Will they be like shops or sub-dungeons where you can walk around and talk to people or kill them?

    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)02:24 No.3561305
    Any code is good enough for inclusion in version control.

    If only for powerful undo capabilities.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)02:25 No.3561315
    I wish to play this game if only to set up shop in an anti-magic zone and lure magic creatures into it.
    >> CrawlDrof, the /tg/ roguelike 01/30/09(Fri)02:25 No.3561316
    Oh god, people might be wasting their time on 4chan! This can't be allowed to happen!
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)02:26 No.3561319
    If you actually worked on the basics, though, you might have something to show for it. As is, you're acting like a novelist who kinda-sorta thinks that he wants to write a crime story, so he's spending his time trying to think up a title and what kind of paper it should be printed on. It's just not productive to be thinking about the distribution of the code when there is nothing anyone could do to add to it.

    Nice job on the 4e and Halo insults, though, guys, even though I obviously know enough about roguelike games and game development to add to the discussion, if it wasn't blatantly a pipe dream circle jerk.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)02:27 No.3561335
    He is working on the basics you stupid pile of shit. What the fuck?
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)02:28 No.3561340
    Oh, shut up. How is anybody supposed to work with anybody if they can't easily exchange code? I'm not even working on this project and you're driving me nuts.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)02:28 No.3561341
    How about graphics?
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)02:28 No.3561342
    > even though I obviously know enough about roguelike games and game development to add to the discussion
    Critical ego-pump fail. Anyone who has something potentially relevant and valuable to contribute does not talk like this, period. You honestly reek of "playing grown-up".
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)02:30 No.3561359
    How about them?
    >> Lord Licorice 01/30/09(Fri)02:31 No.3561370

    I'll have you know I hold two PhDs in game design from Fullsail University and a third degree in Pullingshitoutofmyass from Harvard.

    You "obviously" know jack fucking shit, and it's pretty clear you have no intention of doing anything to contribute to this project in a meaningful way other than declaring it dead before it begins. You haven't said one helpful fucking thing, and certainly haven't made any brilliant observations pertaining to this project in general, so please feel free to leave and not help at all - which is far more useful than the "help" you're providing currently.

    Seriously. He asks an idle question about repositories and you crawl (hurr) directly into his asshole and lay a baker's dozen of troll eggs. Just give up.


    I'd hire beholders to do all the jobs that required hands, just to see the tears in their multitude of eyes.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)02:32 No.3561374
    Anyone who has played ADOM or Incursion knows more about common roguelike features that are relevant to this game than the OP does. I'm not bragging- I'm just offering the fact that the OP has vast gaps in his creative foundation compared to an ordinary person.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)02:33 No.3561386
    You haven't done anything but bash the project. Silly troll go away.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)02:35 No.3561401
    So what you're saying is that you have nothing to contribute that the rest of us don't? Thanks for that insight, we hadn't noticed.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)02:35 No.3561405
    >even though I obviously know enough about roguelike games and game development to add to the discussion
    >Not bragging
    lol wut.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)02:36 No.3561408
    ADOM is shit and the jackass who made it reminds me of you. Incursion's features are sure as fuck not common, it's probably the most advanced rogue-like in existence.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)02:38 No.3561428
    I'm not interested in getting my hands dirty in the OP's baby, so all I CAN offer is to point out problems with the 'design'. The problem is that you kids get touchy when I point out that the vague ideas we have here do not form the basis of a good design.

    Is the game turn-based, like a regular roguelike, or is it controlled like Dwarf Fortress? What happens to prevent the game from losing its challenge when a level is cleared out? How is the game supposed to scale properly when the player could either have a rag-tag band of badly injured hangar-ons or a crack squad equipped with custom items? What motivation is there for the player to protect caravans when the entire point is to get their stuff? These aren't even the most pressing questions that have to be answered for the game design, these are just basics that you guys are hand-waving away as something that doesn't have to be addressed as long as you can get some random people to throw some code at it. So let me tell you what any first-year MIS student would say: PROGRAMMING DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)02:42 No.3561463
    Advanced as it is, Incursion just *barely* has forges that the player can use. It's easy to imagine what it would be like if the player could recruit specialist blacksmiths to work those forges, and I'd say (subjectively) that it would not be adding a lot of gameplay in exchange for *a lot* of work as a developer.

    Quality aside, ADOM does have a weaponsmith class, and it does have herbalism, so basically it's what the OP wants in a lot of ways. ADOM remains a standard dungeon crawl with a few gimmicks.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)02:43 No.3561474
    It's like you honestly believe that anything can get done without a lot of trial and error. Neither OP nor anyone else in this thread (INCLUDING YOU, JACKASS) has ever made a game of this type. The most important thing at this phase is to get to the middle of the problem right away, so that attempt #2, the keeper, can benifit from that experience.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)02:44 No.3561490
    To OP, how are you going to keep us posted on this?
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)02:45 No.3561496
    Even if you really just wanted to throw a bunch of shit on the wall and see what sticks, do you really think that having a bunch of random programmers adding in whatever they want is going to be helpful if that process is started before the game is playable in even a crude form?
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)02:48 No.3561523
    OP's pic indicates that it is crudely playable. And yes, I think having a bunch of programmers working on the code will be fine as long as there's a version control system in place. Which is where you came in, and are welcome to exit.
    >> Lord Licorice 01/30/09(Fri)02:49 No.3561533

    Isn't the point of a brainstorming session to come up with a bunch of ideas, then see which ones pan out? Half the concepts in this thread conflict with each other or go too far into minutiae to be useful.

    This discussion with you simply stamping your feet and declaring it's Not The Way Things Are Done is detracting momentum from the thread, which makes you by definition just a troll. Go away, troll. We get it, you've made your point, and you do have one, particularly regarding the core decisions like control and timeframe.

    We. Get. It. Go. Away. Stop posting.

    So OP, what are your thoughts on the timeframe issue?
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)02:52 No.3561564
    The momentum of the thread, though, has gone away from vital issues of design, which the thread did begin with and must be carried out until meaningful development can take place, into useless discussion of code sharing systems. Nobody has a clue what they could implement, and while brainstorming wouldn't necessarily solve those problems, it would at least help move in that direction.
    >> CrawlDrof, the /tg/ roguelike 01/30/09(Fri)02:53 No.3561574
    I'm an ascii man to the fucking core, but all the actual display code is pushed into a single object. It should be a fairly simple matter to redo it with tiles, or 3d animated whatchems or what have you.

    >>What motivation is there for the player to protect caravans when the entire point is to get their stuff?

    Although I see you trollin', this bit does merit an answer. Letting a caravan die and looting it would get you one caravan's worth of stuff, true, but future traders would be less inclined to venture in. It doesn't take much number tweaking for ambushing traders to ultimately be shooting yourself in the foot. If you're going to continue on this tack, at least take the time to distinguish between design and balance issues.

    *shrug* I've just been making threads about it every time I sat down to work. It's worked pretty well so far, though I think I prefer my original late-night posting timeframe. If I get a couple of people willing to help code, it might make sense to find project space (1d4chan could work). On the other hand, that's signaled the death knell for nearly all /tg/ projects.

    Uh. What timeframe issue?
    >> CrawlDrof, the /tg/ roguelike 01/30/09(Fri)02:58 No.3561622
    Except, no one's funding this. There are no deadlines, or project managers. We don't need design documents. This is not the first thread I've made here. This won't be the last. Everything does not have to be worked out right now, or in the proper order. There is yet time, young one.
    >> Lord Licorice 01/30/09(Fri)03:07 No.3561699

    The timeframe issue refers to making sense of turn-by-turn gameplay of a roguelike combined with the long projects (construction/smithing/etc.) undertaken in the fortress mode. Will there be a perspective shift, from turn-based to real-time? Will you just need to Wait X hours? etc. etc.

    There was some magazine (GamerPro or something) where a game designer said the best way to pitch a game is to give a two-minute (or a few paragraphs in this case) description of the gameplay of your ideal game. No mechanics, no depth beyond what's necessary to convey the play as if you were watching over the hypothetical player's shoulder.

    So what do you see when you think of this game? Outside of the additional suggestions in this thread, summarize the first hour or so of the player's experience. (You may not be here yet, since you may not have all the ideas fleshed out enough to even see the conflicts between certain concepts, but it's a good foundation.)
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)03:10 No.3561727
    I personally like the perspective shift. There's no reason for your character to be out adventuring at all times anyways, passing some time in fort mode would be nice.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)03:16 No.3561769
    Is there going to be a siege system like DF?
    If so, is it only when you actually have a stronghold?
    >> CrawlDrof, the /tg/ roguelike 01/30/09(Fri)03:32 No.3561896
    Regarding the perspective shift, I'm assuming you mean switching to an entirely different control scheme like DF's, right? Or would, say, an 'unpause' button accomplish the same thing?

    I like the idea of a two-minute gameplay summary. I need to take a quick nap atm, but I'll get back to you in a half hour or so. In the meantime, how would your preferred gameplay would work?
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)03:36 No.3561917
    Switching over to more DF like menu system probably. Nothing too complicated, just enough to give them proper orders so they can get on to ignoring them and staring at walls.
    >> Lord Licorice 01/30/09(Fri)04:40 No.3562315
    >n the meantime, how would your preferred gameplay would work?

    I'm not really sure. On the one hand it feels like you want to be able to pick a corner of a dungeon, decide its placement would make a good place to store your crap, and start mining out walls or constructing ramshackle defenses out of crap you find in the dungeon. On the other, once you reach the stage where trade caravans start showing up and you've got a bunch of humans and dwarves smelting iron and forging longswords and breastplates, it needs to smoothly transition over to realtime.

    My concept may vary from others' concepts of how the game should look and act between the different stages. Actually, I think I might have just figured out, ideally:

    You're walking around in DF adventure mode with a bunch of town drunks and a maceman and hammerer you picked up somewhere. You hit Esc and select Start Fortress. The game then transitions directly over into standard Fortress Mode, with the local map going real-time and losing direct control over the adventurers in favor of a god-view. The guys chop down trees, build themselves a perimeter fence, and start making a craftshop.

    Suddenly a pack of wolves wanders up from the east. You can switch back to Adventure Mode if you want to personally fend them off, or just rely on your followers to walk into the wolves with swords as efficiently as they walk into walls. Once dispatched, your followers butcher the corpses for meat, fur and bones, and use them as raw materials for the craftshop.

    Once you've gotten them established, you head off in Adventure mode again to delve deeper into the nearby caves for more expensive things. You bring them back to your little shack, hand them off to one of your loyal followers, and command him to go off to the nearest town to sell your goods. You could send a couple others to guard him or let him go on his merry way solo if it's clear enough, but he's your liasion/trader.
    >> Lord Licorice 01/30/09(Fri)04:41 No.3562320

    Fast-forward a few hours of gameplay, you've got some now-skilled laborers creating some shit to sell. You've found a bunch of random magic crap that you don't want, have your craftsmen augment the things you do, and have discovered a nearby town to plunder or trade with for more exotic items (cash is nice and all but above-world traders don't have the good loot you'll need to survive the lower levels. Incidentally this solves the Angband "get shit, return to town, go back, get more" gold-grinding cycle while encouraging exploration).

    You've fought off a few minor excursions but the levels repopulate slowly, and the longer a settlement remains, packs of out-of-depth creatures begin to appear to try and raid your town, so safety isn't assured.

    Finally a named wizard and a duo of Balrogs smash their way through your fortifications and murder all of your craftsmen while you're away, then stunlock you when you come back to sell your crap because you don't have any paralysis immunity equipment.

    ... okay so that last is usually what happens to me in Angband and Crawl but that's what you get for submitting thyself to the almighty RNG. There's my gameplay demo.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)04:43 No.3562326
    You know what? I wouldn't mind seeing a roguelike Dungeon Keeper
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)04:48 No.3562345
    This is off-topic but just in case you've never heard of it, Startopia is the sequel to Dungeon Keeper II set in space. I have no idea why it isn't more well-known. Just one DK fan to another.
    >> Lord Licorice 01/30/09(Fri)04:53 No.3562362

    Me neither. A pared-down focused fortress mode with heavy emphasis on siege (over farming and craft producing), perhaps limited to a single z-level, would be fun. Something faster-paced, so you can go from starting a settlement to full-on war in an hour or two.

    I love DF and I absolutely don't mind the directions it goes to get to its goals, but I don't see anything wrong about taking a few core items and making a condensed awesomepile out of them.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)04:57 No.3562374
    It's a spiritual successor, not a sequel.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)05:03 No.3562403
    Way I imagine it, keyboard for adventuring, mouse for building.

    A sliding toolbar at top of screen for the mouse to select various buildings/tasks. You can select and order individual units/buildings.

    Adventuring is standard roguelike keyboard setup, I prefer Crawl's streamlined-ness.

    Keep in mind that roguelikes doesn't have to be mouse/ui unfriendly. Just look at Chunsoft's UIs. Following their lead I can imagine health/name bars and selection circles and destination lines/icons overlaid on the ascii. Would be kind of surreal I bet.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)05:09 No.3562438

    The setting is... just not it.


    The problem with DK I&II is the lack of open endness. Basicly it's only "Mission Mode".

    My pet dungeon was a fun mode but not exactly it.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)05:17 No.3562475
    Mouse has its use. Namely selection of objects and area, introspection of selected objects and complex spatial actions such as placement and patterns thereof. You see much more of this in build mode.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)05:20 No.3562489
    You know. Now I remember that back in 1996 I did assembler code for mouse-driven interface in text mode.

    I don't know if it's still doable
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)05:32 No.3562552
    Horse riding, light and heavy cavalry?
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)05:37 No.3562570
    Probably not but it's trivial to emulate text mode in 3d accelerated graphics. With bloom.

    You implement them.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)05:41 No.3562585

    I remember that coding the whole text mode was a big assembler hack with a lot of direct memory accesses, register juggling and port usage.

    But goddamn. It was one of the best things I've ever built.
    >> Lord Licorice 01/30/09(Fri)05:43 No.3562596
    I'm tempted to archive this just so I can see the responses from later on this morning... well, let me see if it's alre--

    > 3555447 - Flare Porn

    y u do dis ;_;

    Also archived under DorfCrawl until you have a better name for it.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)05:45 No.3562610

    Because some troll is archiving LOL RANDUM XD threads.

    You need to clean up the archives.
    >> Anonymous 01/30/09(Fri)06:08 No.3562688
    Here's my thoughts on the timeframe issue.

    What you see in normal adventuring view and what "happens" in your fortress are completely separate. You can give orders to your loyal minions, either via a command menu of some sort or just talking to them, but they don't actually get shit done while you're there. All you see is them running into walls.
    Now, when you leave your fortress to do shit elsewhere and later come back, time has magically passed. Upon re-entering the fortress you can see shit has happened - while you weren't looking, your minions got smart and did the stuff you asked. Buildings have been erected, potions have been brewed and can be found in the relevant stockpile etc. But now that you're back your minions are back to their old wallhumping ways. So you never actually see your minions doing shit, but it gets done anyway.

    This is a boring, lame way of handling it, but I'm thinking it's the easiest to implement and get working. It can be refined or replaced later on, but it should be fairly simple to do, and at this point I'd rather see things get implemented at all rather than wait ages for a perfect solution.

    Delete Post [File Only]
    Style [Yotsuba | Yotsuba B | Futaba | Burichan]