![]() There's a big difference between a game that allows you infinitely scum for most inferior gear and one that forces you down whether you are ready or not.įrom a game design standpoint, you can actually make a spectrum between "tight" and "loose." A maximally "tight" game will give you exactly what you need in order to progress. Inflation is inflation, but it doesn't force you to do anything. As such we're missing out on a whole range of exploratory space for players to run around in.įorced descend by definition is not player choice. Whereas, now the edit files act like a surgical tool, where you can change a single parameter or monster with ease, it's more difficult (you need to recompile) to change some of the larger features of the game. Stuff like monster spawn rates, OoD levels, item drop curves, vault parameters, level size, monster/loot density, etc etc. The idea here would be it would allow the player to really modify some important features of the game without compiling. (Once it's started and I figure out how to do it, or see how someone else did it, it'll be easy to replicate). And if I ever get the motivation to start it, it would be great. I had asked Nick about pulling a lot of the game constants out into an edit or namelist file. Unfortunately, it takes far more time to play a game of angband, than it does to make a few in game modifications. Turns out that that wasn't true, and the only way to figure that out was to play a few games with it. There was a ton of theorizing, somewhat convincingly, by Eddie and others that if it was a bolt, it would force players to use ASCs and summoning would be too overpowered. This is also how I motivated for some game changes like making teleport other a bolt. "Hey, I did X to the game, and I really like how it plays, you should try it out" is a lot more convincing than "I think doing X would be a good idea". I suspect that "mini-variants" wouldn't get an especially large player base, but they would serve as good test-beds for new changes. And while there will still be a standard (erm, Vanilla) Angband which is the one that's released, I will be encouraging people to mess with stuff and see whether they like it better. Don't like hounds, or identify, or the mage spells? Change 'em. So one of my big goals is to make the game easier to modify. Rule 2: How you play Angband is up to you.īack in the days of rgra, there used to be a standard pattern when anyone complained about some aspect of the game: a small amount of discussion, and then if they were still complaining, someone would say "You should make a variant". I'd certainly feel a bit silly telling someone like Timo how to play, and if it's like that for Timo, why should it be any different for a new player? Which brings us to Now I'm taking the responsibility for maintaining Angband, but that doesn't make me the boss of it. So if you're "cheating", you're only cheating yourself (unless you're playing in a competition where there are defined rules and an honour system and you go against that). ![]() Rule 1: Angband is a game you are playing against yourself. ![]() There are two fixed objectives, and how you achieve those is very largely up to you. It seems to me that one of the big strengths of Angband is the freedom of choice it gives to its players. This (and maybe even follow-up posts) will be an attempt to be a bit more thorough. I have outlined a few of my ideas about maintaining, but probably not very coherently.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |