Zaratustra wrote:So you're saying you won't take back your position on no takebacks?
Seems pretty logical to me.
Zaratustra wrote:So you're saying you won't take back your position on no takebacks?
Robotrek1000 wrote:As I play the game - I became more accurate, neat and careful. I even do some calculations, but the game gives practically all information needed, so calculation is very rare needed.
First I play the game fast and agressive - but that's not type of strategy to play the game. You need to be, as I said earlier, more neat and carefull and make your every move with caution.
Lots of races, classes and bonuses gives a game a freedom of choice.
All game areas (except special puzzles) can be handeled with individual approach - and that's a freedom a game gives to a player.
As for now I more think that there is no need of death confirmation, but I was very very very angry about absence of this feature when I began playing.
So - all comes with gaming experience, as you get closer acquainted with the game
But still Death Confirmation would be a nice feature for the beginners
Alweth wrote:The reason I want a death confirmation is because, among other things, unintentional deaths, prevent me from learning something. That is, they don't tell you where you might have gone wrong because the death wasn't part of your strategy, it was just a misclick, lack of paying attention, or, more recently, a UI bug.
When you're forced to retire or kill yourself, then you know that you made a mistake. But when you unintentionally die from a predictable death, the only lesson you learn is, "Double-check the DEATH message," which is pretty much redundant after your first such death.
In short, players learn when they retire, not when they die; lack of death confirmation actually ruins learning opportunities. If you want to force people to die, take away the retire option and add a death confirmation.
Furthermore, "Double-check the DEATH message" is a lesson that undermines the "Fight your way through fantasy dungeons in 10 minutes or less" concept of the game, because it adds overhead to almost every move in the game.
Finally it's a double-whammy because the lack of a death confirmation both lengthens a dungeon time while occasionally making you accidentally lose a whole dungeon run. Losing 10 minutes of your time is not as frustrating as losing 20 minutes. So the "lesson" you learn from lack of death confirmation actually makes you play in a way that makes lack of death confirmation more punishing.
Wargasm wrote:Alweth wrote:The reason I want a death confirmation is because, among other things, unintentional deaths, prevent me from learning something. That is, they don't tell you where you might have gone wrong because the death wasn't part of your strategy, it was just a misclick, lack of paying attention, or, more recently, a UI bug.
Only in the case of the UI bug is it not 100% your fault. If you don't choose to take a lesson from that, that is also 100% your fault.
Wargasm wrote:When you're forced to retire or kill yourself, then you know that you made a mistake. But when you unintentionally die from a predictable death, the only lesson you learn is, "Double-check the DEATH message," which is pretty much redundant after your first such death.
Obviously not, if you keep doing it.
Wargasm wrote:In short, players learn when they retire, not when they die; lack of death confirmation actually ruins learning opportunities. If you want to force people to die, take away the retire option and add a death confirmation.
Except there's immense gaps of difference in what happens between retiring and dying, and in this game, dying is almost always 100% your fault. Somewhere along the line, you made a bad decision and paid for it.
Wargasm wrote:Furthermore, "Double-check the DEATH message" is a lesson that undermines the "Fight your way through fantasy dungeons in 10 minutes or less" concept of the game, because it adds overhead to almost every move in the game.
If you have to double check "almost every move in the game" for the DEATH message, you're doing something wrong. Either you're grossly exaggerating, paying little to no attention to the combat predicting yellow lines, not learning from mistakes, or clicking around nearly at random.
Wargasm wrote:Finally it's a double-whammy because the lack of a death confirmation both lengthens a dungeon time while occasionally making you accidentally lose a whole dungeon run. Losing 10 minutes of your time is not as frustrating as losing 20 minutes. So the "lesson" you learn from lack of death confirmation actually makes you play in a way that makes lack of death confirmation more punishing.
So what you're saying is that frustration is more frustrating when you know deep down it came from you doing something you know full well you shouldn't have? Well good! Then maybe the lesson will be learned.
Wargasm wrote:I'm really trying to let this topic drop, but I feel impelled to reply when the death-confirmation-supporters are stating their opinions as if they were cold, hard facts and beyond questioning. They're not. They're opinions.
Wargasm wrote:I mean, I could see being frustrated because you open up a Vicious dungeon and are immediately met with two level three + monsters with no resources to move around or eliminate them, having paid 200+ gold in preps, and being forced to immediately flee for whatever amount you could get selling some of those preps back, because that was completely beyond your control and you got screwed. I can't fathom that dozens of people can get themselves worked up because the devs refuse to protect them from stuff that's their own fault though. I don't get that mentality at all.
Lujo wrote:Words words words.
Alweth wrote:You're completely missing the point. I don't think anybody is suggesting that misclicks and not paying close attention is the games fault. What people are saying is that they don't want to "learn" the "lessons", (ie. adopt the behavior) "Don't play this game except in a distraction-free environment," "Always check the DEATH message," etc., because they're not fun. Just because it's avoidable doesn't mean it's fun or good game design. When people want to test their skill at navigating a UI they play real-time games. People play games like Desktop Dungeons because they want to make interesting tactical decisions, and there is nothing interesting about the decision, "Should I attack the guy that will certainly kill me?" The answer is always no. (Unless you've stopped trying to win.)
Good UI design says, if your UI is telling you that the user is trying to do something that is they know is the wrong thing to do 100% of the time, you at least double-check that that's really what they want to do. Even chessdoesn't allow you to check yourself.
Furthermore, you're conveniently ignoring the bug. Even if there weren't such a bug, good UI design proactively guards against such bugs from being able to kill you. That's one of the reasons the above UI design rule is important.
Since I started playing again with the release, in the 60+ dungeon runs I've done, I've died unintentionally exactly three times and two of them were because of the UI clicking bug. Yet it doesn't matter. It's the fact that that kind of death can happen that annoys me because it makes me have to play the game a way I don't find as fun. I don't want to always have to be thinking about the obvious.
Everything you've said here is equally true of retiring. What's your point?
Obviously, at the beginning of a run, it doesn't make as much sense to be so careful.
But no matter how good you are at this game, it's always possible that you misread something, temporarily forgot something, miscounted something, etc.
The combat prediction is good because it prevents the player from having to double-check their calculations to make sure that what they think is going to happen is actually going to happen. However, there are many situations where the player is confident enough of the outcome that they don't feel they even need to check the combat prediction.
This is a good thing,
and for experienced players they're right almost every time.
Nevertheless, because of possible little mistakes like accidentally clicking a different enemy than you thought you were,
etc., at the end the player should double-check it because it's not worth wasting 10-15 minutes over. However, it would be better if they could just rely on their experience and not sweat the 1% corner-case.
You know that there's more possibilities than, indisputable fact, and pure opinion, right?
By this reasoning, killing the player whenever he pressed a keyboard key would be a perfectly fine design decision because, "Hey, it's your own fault." Do you see how completely insufficient this argument is?
dislekcia wrote:
Beginner players who keep dying need that disappointment to start playing the game differently. If they never died, never lost their dungeon progress suddenly, why would they learn?
Robotrek1000 wrote:I absolutely agree with you.
And I don't understand why this post has become so huge - it may be all of anger of beginner players.
But now I'm enlightenedand see no use of continuing this post.
The game is hard - I play it from time to time - not for 8 hours without a break - but for an hour - then i die - then I rest, sometimes rethink my strategy and after some time - play another hour, then die, rest, play another hour and so on by circle - I think it's the way game should be played.
Game as is it is is near perfect - Developers made a great job!![]()
![]()
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 8 guests