[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 120: preg_filter(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 120: preg_filter(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 120: preg_filter(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
QCF Design Community • View topic - Should the player be able to die?
Page 3 of 5

Re: Should the player be able to die?

PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 4:00 am
by Leotamer
I would just prefer a "Are you dumb" warning to come up. Or atleast be able to toggle bewteen the 3.

Re: Should the player be able to die?

PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 5:04 am
by squirrelnest
I feel like the player being able to die is more of a flavor element than one of gameplay. DD seems less like a roguelike to me and more like a puzzle game with rpg coloring. I'm not terribly sure how that factors into the discussion, but its my one thought on the subject.

There was one time I clicked on a monster with a combat prediction of death intentionally. I was playing a a rogue and was totally out of resources. I needed two more hits on the boss to kill it, and I didn't have dodge prediction. I figured a 10% chance of victory was probably better than just heading home. (It didn't work out.)

Is there any other time when you would want to attack a monster with a combat prediction of death?

Re: Should the player be able to die?

PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 5:13 am
by The Avatar
Only when you absolutely MUST. Basically if through WETWUT or something you get cut off from an exit you must kill yourself.

Re: Should the player be able to die?

PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 5:22 am
by booooooze
I'm a grumpy old man, sure.

I read everything. My apologies if I come off harsh/condescending.

I view the game as a hybrid of nethack and minesweeper. Much easier than either. I die in both of those maybe 95% of the time. Actually, now that I think of it, nethack has an explore mode. Perhaps that is a happy compromise? You can have your risk-free game, but it doesn't count for anything.

Why do I care? I don't know. I'm just a grumpy old man, I suppose.

Re: Should the player be able to die?

PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 5:23 am
by booooooze

Re: Should the player be able to die?

PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 5:30 am
by Leotamer

Re: Should the player be able to die?

PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 9:48 am
by Lujo

Re: Should the player be able to die?

PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 10:48 am
by Bloggorus
Hey I have an idea that would please everyone!

How about a new kind of preparation; Modifications.

Kingdom icon would be a goat (of course), maybe with a cockney accent.

Preps would be:

I'm Feeling Scared:
Players have the option to resurrect upon death, no gold or items carried out of the dungeon.

Knifey Spooney:
Players start with whatever items they want at the start of the dungeon. All items removed from locker, replaced with spoons.

Anabolic:
Players start the game with an extra 20 of every stat. In subsequent runs all enemies become drug testing officials (cursed, poison, mana burn, corrosive, weakening)

Pay to Win:
Completes every dungeon with every badge and every class and race combination. $500 dollars sent automatically from your bank account to QCF game design, no refunds.

Mario Mode:
Engage AI helper. All clicks are changed to the most efficient one as determined by the computer. No real downside, apart from RSI.

Hardcore:
Death in the game deletes your save. Finishing Vicious Gaalan Tet gets you a on the front page of the New Yorker, a million dollars and all the cheap floozeys this side of the river.

Jehora Hardcore:
All clicks have a random chance to hit a few pixels away in a radius around the cursor. All monsters spill confetti instead of a bloodstain.

Rage Quit:
Locks you out of the game for 24 hours, slight boost to damage and reduction of mana on all subsequent runs.

Real Desktop Dungeons:
Takes a screenshot of the game, sets it as your background and alt-tabs to the desktop without you noticing.

Get a Life:
Wonder why you made this post in the first place.

Re: Should the player be able to die?

PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 11:11 am
by Lujo
Some of those are awesome. No, all of those are awesome, except I like some better than others.

But avatars idea is still probably quite necessary to implement.

Re: Should the player be able to die?

PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 11:18 am
by TigerKnee
I don't think anyone here is asking for Vicious dungeons to be "made easier" so 99% of the players can complete it or something. (that's another topic altogether. For the record, I don't care how hard those dungeons are, I only care that 3 classes are gated behind them)

What we're talking about here is... well, let's use an analogy.

Imagine if you're playing a game of chess and you accidentally knock over a piece while moving another. Suddenly your opponent flips the table over and says "AHA, YOU LOSE NOW!"

Because that's what most of the deaths in DD is like right now. I want to "die/lose" because the dungeon has defeated me because I didn't manage my resource properly (analogy: being outplayed in chess), not because of manual accidents.