Interview Dungeon Lords Q&A at GameZone

[Saint_Proverbius]

Tags: Dungeon Lords; DW Bradley; Heuristic Park Inc.

<A href="http://www.gamezone.com/">GameZone</a> has an <A href="http://www.gamezone.com/news/07_02_04_12_18PM.htm">interview</A> with <b>DW Bradley</b> covering mostly the combat in <A href="http://www.dungeonlordsgame.com/">Dungeon Lords</a>, which I'm tired of reading about, so here's something else:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote><b>Q: Is this game a somewhat linear dungeon crawl, or will the players have several paths they can take to the end-goal?</b>
<br>
<br>
D.W. Bradley: The tale in Dungeon Lords weaves two separate storylines that crisscross throughout the game and are ultimately connected, and is further interlaced with numerous optional side-mission quests that players may or may not discover or choose to pursue. Beyond the first town, players are free to choose which direction in the world they go, which quests they wish to undertake, and so forth, and although certain storyline events occur that give impetus and direction to the player’s ultimate goals, each player is otherwise free to explore the realm in a non-linear fashion. <u>Dungeon Lords automatically balances and adjusts enemy encounters in relation to the level and strength of the hero’s party (whether playing in single player mode with or without recruited allies, as well as in multiplayer mode)</u>.</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
So, like <a href="Http://lionheart.blackisle.com">Lionheart</a>?
<br>
<br>
Spotted at: <A HREF="http://www.bluesnews.com">Blue's News</A>

 

[Vault Dweller]

http://www.rpgcodex.com/phpBB/viewtopic ... 05&start=0

Blue's News hasn't been very reliable lately

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Fucking Blue's news.

 

[Crichton]

I'm not too thrillled with the sound of this game (or any other game where you can't both control multiple units and pause the game to give orders), but in general, why wouldn't you want the encounters to be level-balanced? Without level balancing, you're stuck with the random encounters of arcanum or the mid-level enemies of ToEE, nothing but fodder by the time you encounter them unless you skip everything else and go straight to the temple.

 

[space captain]

he hasnt mentioned how dialog is handled ONCE yet - to me that is a big part of the RPG depth... if your dialog tree is non-existant, then whats the fucking point??? give me options or give me death

but then again, DW stuck with the text parser WAY longer than anyone else, so I still hold out hope this game could be hot

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

I'm not too thrillled with the sound of this game (or any other game where you can't both control multiple units and pause the game to give orders), but in general, why wouldn't you want the encounters to be level-balanced? Without level balancing, you're stuck with the random encounters of arcanum or the mid-level enemies of ToEE, nothing but fodder by the time you encounter them unless you skip everything else and go straight to the temple.

I dunno, at level 10, I expect to be able to kick a rat's ass naked and blindfolded, but that's just me.

 

[Crichton]

But where's the fun in squashing enemies far below your power level? Any tactical combat relies on some measure of parity between the two sides, anything else is just playing quake on god-mode, the tactics become irrelevant because the enemy can't punish you for your mistakes.

For an example of this done wrong, see the human guards in ToEE, the fights were a complete waste of time and electricity. For an example of it done right, take a look at Final Fantasy Tactics, even random encounters could be interesting both because the tactical system had a lot of depth to it and because the enemies matched levels with you. I'm no huge fan of the idea of levels, but if the game does include them, they should certainly be kept in line with those of the enemy.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Not every enemy should be able to punish you for your mistakes. In fact, it should be a huge mistake for some enemies to try to take you on at some point just because you've surpassed them. In cases like these, those enemies should probably size you up and run the hell away from you rather than having you have to fight them. The idea of having Level 10 Rats is a far sillier suggestion than having rats being rats.

 

[Crichton]

Why should any enemy encounter ever be a hopeless struggle for either side? It makes no sense either from a realism standpoint (even the best swordsman on earth can slip on some mud and get run through) or from a gaming standpoint, why have an encounter that doesn't challenge the player? atmosphere? so the player can feel some sense of accomplishment about having clicked on enough sprites to become "level 10", is there some kick other people get about being able to kill goblins in one hit? Yipee-ki-yi-yay. If the fights aren't going to be interesting, you might as well skip them all together and just have a little message flash across the screen that reads "You PWN 23 Goblins! Congrats" Though, I'll admit, I'd take the message over another ToEE encounter with ghouls who shuffle across the room in large numbers only to miss repeatedly, a simple "You PWN 12 Ghouls!" would have saved about 20 minutes of my life in some cases.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Exactly, yeah. Encounters like these shouldn't happen in the first place. In FFTactics and similar games, you don't often fight Level 20 "Insert weak monster here" when you hit that level, because, I suppose - those monsters tend to avoid you. At that level, you shouldn't be facing rats at all. It should be the designer's mandate to make sure that doesn't happen, and if it does, those rats shouldn't be the same level as you - because it makes no sense for there to be a bunch of level 20 rats scurrying around and being an actual threat to your party. Where the hell did they come from?

Just skip them altogether. While I think level balancing should be in - there should be a degree to what it affects. It's no fun playing in single player and having to face off against a mob tailored for cooperative combat. I think Diablo II did it fairly well (but not completely well) when they made it so that monsters would get more health and do more damage and appropriately give more experience with more players in game. This didn't change the fact that fighting most monsters was a breeze as all you had to do was mow through them like a hot knife through brains.

Hopefully Dungeon Lords will get it right. Who knows?

But just as Saint said, if these rats are in, they shouldn't be able to punish the player for his mistakes. I mean, look - life isn't fair, and it isn't always a challenge either. Fighting a rat in real life is going to be a lot easier than trying to fight a crazed wrestler. While some people might argue that 'realism is poison for games', I completely disagree in this case. What's the point of having Killer Ninjas of Awesomeness and Crazed Monks of Doom Shadow Fists if they're going to be only as hard to defeat as your average rat? It more than certainly makes them feel like less of a threat, and eliminates any suspense you might have had. There should be a 'danger scale', each enemy ranking higher or lower than the next. It'd certainly make no sense for the rat to rank's danger level to be as high as the Ghost Samurais of Bleeding Death.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Why should any enemy encounter ever be a hopeless struggle for either side? It makes no sense either from a realism standpoint (even the best swordsman on earth can slip on some mud and get run through)

From a realism standpoint, it makes no damned sense that rats would be able to kill a apt swordsman who is concious, ready, and healthy. Nor would it make any sense for an apt swordsman to lose to a bunch of common street thugs, even if he slips in the mud.

or from a gaming standpoint, why have an encounter that doesn't challenge the player? atmosphere? so the player can feel some sense of accomplishment about having clicked on enough sprites to become "level 10", is there some kick other people get about being able to kill goblins in one hit? Yipee-ki-yi-yay.

It also makes no sense that creatures who are low level weak creatures would be able to put up a fight to match the player throughout the advancement of the player. When you face goblins at level 1, and you barely eek out a victory, you've just learned how tough those goblins are. If you run across them again at level 10, you already have a reference point on how weak they are, so you're not going to expect them to rise to the occation and beat you silly again.

That's one thing games need to be more than anything else, they need to follow some sort of consistancy. 10 Goblin Peons shouldn't be a challenge for a player throughout the game. At some point, you should be much greater than the goblin peons, and goblin peons should also be smart enough to know this. You wack a few of them in short order, the rest of them should flee with their tails tucked rather than inconsistantly boosting them to the player's level or forcing him to fight weaker opponents.

If the fights aren't going to be interesting, you might as well skip them all together and just have a little message flash across the screen that reads "You PWN 23 Goblins! Congrats"

Which is why I made the suggestion of having the AI know when it's time to run away. Lots of CRPGs have done this, and it works pretty well. Even animals know how to size up prey, and know when it's time to cut their losses and leave.

Though, I'll admit, I'd take the message over another ToEE encounter with ghouls who shuffle across the room in large numbers only to miss repeatedly, a simple "You PWN 12 Ghouls!" would have saved about 20 minutes of my life in some cases.

That's why most people have a cleric in the party.

 

[Crichton]

Dungeon Lords automatically balances and adjusts enemy encounters in relation to the level and strength of the hero’s party (whether playing in single player mode with or without recruited allies, as well as in multiplayer mode).

It says nothing there about the balancing of the encounters making a given monster stronger as opposed to substituting a different monster, so any argument based on level 10 rats is inherently invalid (though personally, I don't have any problem with level 10 rats).

If the encounter is going to consist of the enemy simply running off, why have the encounter at all? By the same token, consistancy doesn't neccesarily mean monsters being capped at a certain number of hit points, if a given monster maintains its relative strength compared to the party's, then the player always knows what to expect from it.

Although realism isn't relevent here, it was nothing but a bunch of wastrels that killed pizzaro, at the time probably the best swordsmen in the western hemisphere (though he hadn't had time to put his armor on).

And, while I always use at least one cleric in a D&D party, and often two, since I don't like any of the gods who grant the sun domain, I'm stuck, if I turn the ghouls, they simply run to the far corners of the room and the stupid fight sucks up even more time, by the time I could actually destroy them, I'd be like level 7 and I'd already have killed every ghoul in the game.

 

[jiujitsu]

I like becoming uber powerful and killing things in one hit. For me there isn't anything to look forward to if everything is as powerful as you are every time you fight it.

New abilites as you gain levels can give you an edge I suppose.

One of the most attractive things to me when I play an rpg is being able to mow through hordes of weak beasties when I get to a high level.

It is all personal preference I think. I would rather things stay weak in one place for the whole game instead of getting stronger. Someone else may not like that.