Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1411274 Posts in 69323 Topics- by 58380 Members - Latest Member: bob1029

March 28, 2024, 03:39:41 AM

Need hosting? Check out Digital Ocean
(more details in this thread)
TIGSource ForumsDeveloperDesignDesigning a One Dimensional Dungeon Crawler (Again)
Pages: [1]
Print
Author Topic: Designing a One Dimensional Dungeon Crawler (Again)  (Read 816 times)
Password
Level 0
***


Troy and Abed in the Morning~


View Profile
« on: December 21, 2015, 04:38:43 PM »

Well, let's just jump right into it, shall we?

A while back, I made a game called Rogueline, which was, as the title implies, a one-dimensional dungeon crawler. I made a topic in the design forum asking for help, which can be found here. I never really finished the game, but a few months ago, I decided that I would reboot the project. And thus, Rogueline 2: Electric Boogaloo was born. And once again, I'd like to ask the TIGForums community to help me out.



Above is what the game looks like right now. The core gameplay is your character moving to the right and interacting with the various obstacles in front of him, including enemies, treasure chests, altars, etc. When you reach the end of the screen, you move on to the next level, with another randomly generated string of "tiles". Currently, there are four tiles that you can run into (although there are only three shown in the image above). Those are:

Enemies - deals damage to you, but you gain mana in the process
Chests - gives you money
Altars - spend your mana on upgrades
Shops - spend your money on items

Now, let's talk about the enemies. During an "encounter", you have three options:

1. Attack the enemy. You take damage, but you also gain 25 mana. The amount of damage you take is equal to the enemy's "danger value" (the number displayed under the enemy) MINUS your attack strength (the number next to the sword at the top). So, for example, the enemy right in front of the player in the above screenshot would deal 40 - 10 = 30 damage.
In the previous version of this game, combat was more of the traditional RPG style, in which you would attack the enemy, and then it would attack you, and rinse and repeat until either of you dies. I simplified it down to simply pressing a button because, essentially, that's all combat is in this game. There aren't really any decisions to make during a battle, unlike in, say, Pokemon, where you can choose which move you want to use, or if you want to switch out to a different Pokemon. It simply boils down to attacking the enemy until it dies, and taking damage in the process. The reason your attack strength makes you take less damage in combat is that, the more damage you deal in a fight, the faster you can kill an enemy, and the less damage you take in the process. This is what differentiates having high health and having high damage. If you have a lot of health, then you can survive more battles, but if you have a lot of damage, then the battles themselves don't hurt you as much.
Of course, if the only thing you could do to an enemy was walk into it and take damage, it wouldn't be a very interesting game. That's why you have two more options, the second of which being...

2. Use magic to kill it. This costs 25 mana, but kills the enemy instantly, and you take no damage in the process, although you also gain no mana from it. This is a good way to save yourself in a pinch if you're running low on health, but using it too much is detrimental in the long term.  Why? Well, the only reward that enemies drop upon death is mana, and killing it with magic essentially means you gained nothing. This will overall decrease your mana gain, and since enemies get stronger and stronger with each passing level, having enough mana is essential to keeping yourself alive, buy buying upgrades and restoring your health at altars, which we will discuss later.
Using magic, then, is basically a last resort, in case simply attacking the enemy would result in your death. This moves us onto the third and final option...

3.Push it one tile back. This was a suggestion made by valrus in my previous design thread, and probably the most interesting and dynamic tool at your disposal. When you push an enemy, it reacts differently depending on what you pushed it into. If you pushed an enemy into a chest, its threat level drops to 0 and you can kill it without taking any damage, but the chest is destroyed in the process. If you push an enemy into an enemy of the same type, they combine to form one big enemy that is much stronger, but also gives you more mana from killing it. Every push has its advantages and disadvantages, and it's up to the player to weigh the pros and cons, and decided whether to push or not. After pushing an enemy, you cannot push again until you kill an enemy. This prevents you from just pushing every enemy back again and again until you reach the end of the screen.

Chests and shops are pretty simple. Chests simply give you money when you walk over them, and shops are where you go to spend that money to be items, such as health potions, bombs, etc., which are nice short-term benefits.

Finally, there's the altars. Mana is used for two things in this game: killing enemies, and spending it at an altar. There's a guaranteed altar on every level, because altars are the primary way you regenerate health. The only way to regain health in this game is either through health potions, which don't heal you for very much, or buy spending mana at an altar. If you pay 100 mana (the equivalent of four enemies), your fully restore all your health. This is why you don't want to spend too much mana on enemies; which it may save you some damage in the moment, ultimately the only way to keep surviving is by saving enough mana to buy a health restoration at an altar. You can also buy health and damage upgrades at altars, which become increasingly necessary as the enemies grow stronger and stronger.

This game, like many other roguelikes, is really a sort of resource management game. In this case, you have three main resources: health, mana, and money. The strategy comes from juggling these three resources, and using them all efficiently.

However, I notice a few issues with the game that I was hoping you guys could help me with. For instance, chests are boring. They are the only type of object where you basically don't have any decisions. All you do is walk into it and get money. I'm not sure what I can't do to make it more interesting, but it definitely needs something.

Sorry for the long wall of text, but I'd really like some feedback and constructive criticism. What do you guys think? Does it sound like something you'd play? Do you have any suggestions on how to give the game more depth, or any mechanics to implement? I'd really appreciate any comments or advice.  Smiley

(I'll be uploading an alpha as soon as I'm finished with it. It's very bare bones, and is really more a proof of concept than a game at this point, but it might help to further illustrate how the game plays.)
Logged

JWK5
Guest
« Reply #1 on: December 21, 2015, 06:25:16 PM »

Look at games like Oregon Trail, I am sure there are ideas there you can probably make use of. Try looking at slot machines and various casino games, since this sort of linear resource management is pretty similar in essence (i.e. making resource gambles). Finding new ways for the player to "press their luck" will likely go a long ways towards making the game fairly worthy of replaying. Looking at card battle games and board games could also help.

As for the treasure chests, maybe you could have 3 options: Use a key (random mid-to-high gold yield), pick the lock (random low-to-mid yield), or break the lock (random low-to-high yield). Using a key is the optimal option but keys are limited (perhaps randomly dropped by enemies or acquired for beating milestone enemies), picking the lock is safe but generally yields the lowest gold, breaking the lock could potentially yield a lot of gold but also has the possibility of triggering a trap instead that damages they player's health.

In this manner treasure becomes a gamble. When you have health to spare breaking the lock will be an attractive option but becomes much more tense when you are balancing low health with a need for more gold. Picking the lock is your "better than nothing" option and keys are always nice to have.

Perhaps each chest could vary in the amount of gold it holds (wood chests hold the least, iron chests hold moderate amounts of gold, golden chests hold the most) so that saving your keys for gold chests is ideal but when you're hurting for cash it is tempting to throw them at whatever chest is available.

Maybe the better the chest the more dangerous its trap making breaking the lock an even more tense gamble (especially at low health). Picking the lock obviously becomes less favorable with the more lucrative chests since you know this is your chance to rake in the gold, you might find yourself wrestling with wanting to break the lock and wanting the safety of picking it (at least when no key is available).
Logged
starsrift
Level 10
*****


Apparently I am a ruiner of worlds. Ooops.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 22, 2015, 12:10:41 AM »

However, I notice a few issues with the game that I was hoping you guys could help me with. For instance, chests are boring. They are the only type of object where you basically don't have any decisions. All you do is walk into it and get money. I'm not sure what I can't do to make it more interesting, but it definitely needs something.

You could do a combo lock minigame for chests. I wouldn't use numbers, use runes or something much simpler with a total of 3 or 4 possibilities per position, and offer a couple of free fails. Mastermind lite.
That is a punishment strategy, "Get it right or lose out". If you want a reward or gambler's strategy, offer perks under the guise of equipment that the player has to choose between, that improves their character in some way (see: most roguelikes these days).

But honestly I don't think this idea is destined for much. I mean, if you want a one-dimensional RPG, that's what Final Fantasy is these days, and it got panned for it, hard. Sad
I mean, if you can't pull this idea off with 3D cutscenes and crazy animation work and top quality scoring etc, why would you try to do it, indie style? On the other hand, if you're not really looking for success and only accomplishment, good luck to you! Smiley
Logged

"Vigorous writing is concise." - William Strunk, Jr.
As is coding.

I take life with a grain of salt.
And a slice of lime, plus a shot of tequila.
JasonPickering
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 24, 2015, 04:17:04 AM »

Glad to see this it back. I would maybe look into these games.

- Munchkin
- Dungeon Roll
- Welcome to the Dungeon
- Card Crawl

They all have this resource management feel to them. And they let you use Items in different ways. Like a potion should heal you, but also kill a skeleton. A bomb destroys the next guy but also anything behind it too, so do you need that treasure chest? You also might want to think about dropping your numbers. Is there any reason you need to gain 25? would 2 mana be just as effective and then all spells are just cheaper. I would say that for every choice in the game there needs to be two choices each with its own drawback. You make a pokemon reference but maybe that might be good. give the player 3 attacks that do different things, and then let the player decide. you can even tie them to equipment. like shield, sword, helmet.
Logged

Password
Level 0
***


Troy and Abed in the Morning~


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: December 24, 2015, 10:36:55 AM »

Thanks for all the feedback, guys!  Smiley

Look at games like Oregon Trail, I am sure there are ideas there you can probably make use of. Try looking at slot machines and various casino games, since this sort of linear resource management is pretty similar in essence (i.e. making resource gambles). Finding new ways for the player to "press their luck" will likely go a long ways towards making the game fairly worthy of replaying. Looking at card battle games and board games could also help.

As for the treasure chests, maybe you could have 3 options: Use a key (random mid-to-high gold yield), pick the lock (random low-to-mid yield), or break the lock (random low-to-high yield). Using a key is the optimal option but keys are limited (perhaps randomly dropped by enemies or acquired for beating milestone enemies), picking the lock is safe but generally yields the lowest gold, breaking the lock could potentially yield a lot of gold but also has the possibility of triggering a trap instead that damages they player's health.

In this manner treasure becomes a gamble. When you have health to spare breaking the lock will be an attractive option but becomes much more tense when you are balancing low health with a need for more gold. Picking the lock is your "better than nothing" option and keys are always nice to have.

Perhaps each chest could vary in the amount of gold it holds (wood chests hold the least, iron chests hold moderate amounts of gold, golden chests hold the most) so that saving your keys for gold chests is ideal but when you're hurting for cash it is tempting to throw them at whatever chest is available.

Maybe the better the chest the more dangerous its trap making breaking the lock an even more tense gamble (especially at low health). Picking the lock obviously becomes less favorable with the more lucrative chests since you know this is your chance to rake in the gold, you might find yourself wrestling with wanting to break the lock and wanting the safety of picking it (at least when no key is available).

I really like the picking/breaking the lock on the chest idea! It's a nice gamble for the player to make.

I'm also intrigued by how you focus on inspiration from casino games, and "pressing your luck". Originally I was trying to make a simplified dungeon crawler that focused on strategy, ala Desktop Dungeons, with minimal RNG elements (although some are simply unavoidable, considering it is a procedurally-generated roguelike). However, luck definitely has its place in games, and as long as it doesn't make the game just a glorified dice roll, I'll consider adding more of it. I'll also check out those games you mentioned.


However, I notice a few issues with the game that I was hoping you guys could help me with. For instance, chests are boring. They are the only type of object where you basically don't have any decisions. All you do is walk into it and get money. I'm not sure what I can't do to make it more interesting, but it definitely needs something.

You could do a combo lock minigame for chests. I wouldn't use numbers, use runes or something much simpler with a total of 3 or 4 possibilities per position, and offer a couple of free fails. Mastermind lite.
That is a punishment strategy, "Get it right or lose out". If you want a reward or gambler's strategy, offer perks under the guise of equipment that the player has to choose between, that improves their character in some way (see: most roguelikes these days).

But honestly I don't think this idea is destined for much. I mean, if you want a one-dimensional RPG, that's what Final Fantasy is these days, and it got panned for it, hard. Sad
I mean, if you can't pull this idea off with 3D cutscenes and crazy animation work and top quality scoring etc, why would you try to do it, indie style? On the other hand, if you're not really looking for success and only accomplishment, good luck to you! Smiley

Well, I think it's important to consider the scope of a game. Not every game has to be a 50 hour epic, and that's certainly not what this game is trying to be. I haven't really played Final Fantasy, but get the general gist of it, and I think the reason people were disappointed with it is because they were expecting more out of a full priced triple-A game. This game, on the other hand, aspires to be nothing more than a fun little time waster, and there's nothing wrong with that. Plus, "one-dimensional RPG" is such a vague term, and I think my game will be considerably different than Final Fantasy!  Wink


Glad to see this it back. I would maybe look into these games.

- Munchkin
- Dungeon Roll
- Welcome to the Dungeon
- Card Crawl

They all have this resource management feel to them. And they let you use Items in different ways. Like a potion should heal you, but also kill a skeleton. A bomb destroys the next guy but also anything behind it too, so do you need that treasure chest? You also might want to think about dropping your numbers. Is there any reason you need to gain 25? would 2 mana be just as effective and then all spells are just cheaper. I would say that for every choice in the game there needs to be two choices each with its own drawback. You make a pokemon reference but maybe that might be good. give the player 3 attacks that do different things, and then let the player decide. you can even tie them to equipment. like shield, sword, helmet.

Hey, it's JasonPickering! I stole the name of the game from you!  Grin

I like the idea of items having more than one function, since it would really make the player think about when to use an item. However, considering how simple the mechanics of the game are at the moment, it would become increasingly difficult to think of  ideas for items. At this point, I already have five items in mind:

Health potion - heals you
Bomb - kills the enemy in front of you
Mana potion - refills your mana
Steak - increases your damage for a level
Key - opens a chest risk-free

And I'm sure I can think of more. But if each individual item has two functions, then there would inevitably be less items, unless there are repeats (e.g. one item either heals you or kills the enemy in front of you, while another either heals you or refills your mana). It is an interesting idea, though.

About the numbers: the reason I chose such big numbers (100, 200, 25, etc) is because I wanted some of the numbers to increase incrementally, which is a lot harder with small, single-digit numbers. For example, the skeleton has a base of 40 damage, but increasing about 3 damage every level. If, say, the skeleton only had 4 damage, and consequently the player has 25 hp, then the lowest possible jump, from 4 to 5, would be a much bigger deal. And the reason I want the numbers to increase incrementally like that is because it adds another layer into the player's resource management, in how they use their mana. Right now mana has two functions: 1. They use it to kill an enemy, which could save your life if you're running low on health, and is a good short-term solution. Or, 2. they can spend it to upgrade their stats (i.e. health, damage). If they use mana too much on enemies, then they can't keep up with the increasingly stronger enemies as the levels pass by, but if they spend all their mana on upgrades and don't leave any left for combat, then they could find themselves in a situation where having some extra mana saved up would have saved them.

That was a bit of a tangent, but basically the idea is, enemies will gradually get stronger, and large numbers work better for gradual increases. However, I realize that the larger number do make the game more complicated, and in general it's better to have the game's choices work intuitively rather than with big calculations (i.e. this enemy does 45 damage, I have 159 health, and 23 damage, this item increases my damage by 16, and the enemy drops 45 gold, etc.), so any counter-ideas are welcomed.

Also, about last comment about "3 attacks that do different things": I would jump at the opportunity, but unfortunately I can't really think of what the "attacks" would actually do, and how they would differ in any way. And technically, there already is a choice in combat: you can either attack the enemy, use mana, or push it. But more choice is, in general, better, so if you have any specific ideas I'd love to hear them!  Smiley

Logged

JasonPickering
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 24, 2015, 04:34:22 PM »

I don't know if you thought about this, but have you thought about the liner part? Like maybe a weaker attack that hits three enemies. Or maybe monsters that buff or hurt monsters around them.
Logged

JWK5
Guest
« Reply #6 on: December 24, 2015, 05:06:24 PM »

In that regard, you could have enemies that can attack one or more spaces away ("chipping" away at the player), player abilities that can swap enemies (or objects around), abilities that stun, inflict poison, etc. to a group (buying you more time or softening them up before you get to them), abilities that poison the player (damaging the player each step he "moves ahead" for X moves). You have a lot of options to work with even despite it being "linear".
Logged
starsrift
Level 10
*****


Apparently I am a ruiner of worlds. Ooops.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 24, 2015, 11:19:54 PM »

This game, on the other hand, aspires to be nothing more than a fun little time waster, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I love this attitude.
Logged

"Vigorous writing is concise." - William Strunk, Jr.
As is coding.

I take life with a grain of salt.
And a slice of lime, plus a shot of tequila.
Pages: [1]
Print
Jump to:  

Theme orange-lt created by panic