[IDEA] creatures require resources

[charlie]

The gorgeous looking Lizardman model got me thinking about a gameplay flaw with the original DK as well as a logic flaw with the general DK-style of game.

The gameplay flaw was that each level essentially played out the same. You mined the gold, built rooms in similar shapes, and as the game wore on it became tedious as there was no challenge to build your dungeons in a different manner. The only challenge was to get walled in before the heroes came so you could get to maximum strength.

The logic flaw is that all creatures have the same needs. You give them a bed and/or gold and they're happy. (Well, you did have to massage the ego of a few creatures by feeding them in DK/DK2 but they were not necessary to win.)

Let's take the lizardman as the example. He's a reptile, and perhaps amphibious. Let's say he's amphibious (semi-aquatic). He needs regular water dips. He should have a happiness meter. The longer he spends away from water, the less happy he gets, until ultimately he quits. You could even extend this idea. Lizardmen could come from water. No access to water? No lizardmen. Then strategically placed resources, such as water, become a tactical gamble. Go for the water? Maybe it's too far away or too hard to defend.

All stronger creatures should have a resource requirement. Perhaps lava for dragons, as another example.

You could even make it more entertaining - if creatures become sufficiently unhappy (i.e. they can't leave) then they become rogue enemies. Or perhaps can be bribed by an opponent.

[svenskmand]

Interesting, thats like the initial round of Settlers of Catan where you have to be very strategic when placing your first and second house

[TheAncientGoat]

Er, Charlie, creatures /did/ have requirements like that in the original DK. Certain creatures needed a lair next to water or lava, some required certain buildings to be built, others didn't get along with other creatures well. That was the entire brilliance of the series, and I'm not quite sure how you didn't realize it...

[svenskmand]

Which creatures require lava, and whic require water?

[Bodsda]

In DK2, I don't remember any special requirements for keeping any 1 creature happy, beyond the basic needs of sleep, food and pay. The only thing that does spring to mind is that if you converted a heroe, you had to put them in a seperate lair or else your creatures would become unhappy.

Whilst I like the general thoughts that charlie has brought up, I would dislike the game to go down the route of micromanaging creature needs

I definately think we should implement the certain creatures being further attrtacted by the terrain you control. DK2 tried to do this with lava/salamanders.

Bodsda

[TheAncientGoat]

In DK 1 tentacles needed water tiles, and dragons got benefits for having a lair next to lava tiles. Spiders fought with beetles and flies, skeletons fought with bile demons, wizards fought with vampires. You needed a library for wizards, workshop for bile demons, a training room for goblins and a watchpost for orks, a torture chamber for mistresses and a graveyard for skeletons and vampires. Along with a lot of other variables... But yeah, it wasn't straight forward

[StefanP.MUC]

Yes, DK1 had complex creature needs. Some creatures only came when some rooms had a specific size AND a specific location (near water, lava, etc). Horny came if you sacrificed three specific creatures and he only stayed for longer if he had his rooms all for his own.

The gameplay shouldn't become to complex. This is distracting for players (especially new players): who wants to read 100 pages of a strategy manual when he only wants to play a quick round of evil fun?

There should be something like ~5 basic need for any creature: Gold, Sleep, Room, list of Likes and list of Dislikes. The Likes and Dislikes include things like: Availability of specific terrain (water, lava, ...), creatures, enemies, ... - everything that is not on either list is Neutral to this creature (doesn't affect it at all).

[TheAncientGoat]

I don't agree there, TBH. Complexity /should/ be there, it allows for depth. Just because there are complex rules doesn't mean that there can't be a learning slope; or that you can't have different rulesets.

However, the needs you listed do make sense though, but you forgot food

[StefanP.MUC]

Of course, there can be internal calculations that are more complex than what the user sees. But there shouldn't be a screen full of 100 different numbers and switches for each creature that the user has to care about. Also the internal complexity shouldn't allow unwanted and unlogic behavior ("a bit of this number and a bit of this probability and - oh, now the fly likes to take a bath in lava" ).
I, as a player, would be very much distracted by an overkill of complexity.

[TheAncientGoat]

Sure, but the original DK didn't have numbers/switches and things either?

[charlie]

How can you suggest that adding depth to a game makes it unfriendly to new players?

Players should find it easy at first, but only at first. To achieve bigger and better things in the game should take skill and planning. As long as all knowledge is discoverable and not hidden ("internal calculations" are the worst) then you can make a game quite complicated without impacting on fun. Part of the fun is conquering strategy.

Nobody is suggesting a screen full of 100 different numbers and switches for each creature. What is being suggested is making it non-trival to have all different creatures in your dungeon, forcing a player to make tactical decisions as to which creatures to build up and rely upon.

[StefanP.MUC]

Nobody is suggesting a screen full of 100 different numbers and switches for each creature. What is being suggested is making it non-trival to have all different creatures in your dungeon, forcing a player to make tactical decisions as to which creatures to build up and rely upon.

But that's exactly how it is now (more accurate: how it is planned and partly implemted). Then I maybe misunderstood your idea. I thought you meant going far beyond the complexity of DK1/2 and OD.

By the way, the're currently going on a discussion about a similar topic in the OpenTTD community.

[TheAncientGoat]

OpenTTD is waaay to easy. Management games have reason for switchy kind of complexity

[Bodsda]

I'm not sure what others think, but I preferred dungeon building, excavating, exploring, fighting rather than making sure my bile deamons had food. If you have to manage every aspect of a creatures life this would turn the game more into a pet sim.

I completely agree and like having complex prereqs for certain creatures, and having 'some' (limited) likes/dislikes to tend to, but over-and-above that would start to get annoying. Imagine just starting a huge battle to take an enemies stronghold, then 50% of your creatures decide to turncoat because they were stood next to the guy who said something nasty about their mum last night in the pub; which didnt have their favourite beer, and an uneven pool table with pockets too small for the balls that werent circular and reminded them of that terrible night when he woke up in a field tied to a scarecrow that looked like his pet goldfish that accidentally took a swim in that laval pit that the guy your stood next to put their after talking to your mum...

Bodsda

[Danimal]

LOL
I agree on pre-requesites to get some advanced units, but i like more the DK1 approach, mostly based on room types and sizes. While DK1 is fun to play, DK2 get irritating because of creatures complaining of hunger just cause they can drag their asses fast enough to the hatchery (and all the other reasons). I say keep it simple, if for example a tentacle enter your dungeon, make it happier if he has water to take a dip, but as long as he has his basic needs covered he shoulnd be unhappy.

[svenskmand]

In DK2, I don't remember any special requirements for keeping any 1 creature happy, beyond the basic needs of sleep, food and pay. The only thing that does spring to mind is that if you converted a heroe, you had to put them in a seperate lair or else your creatures would become unhappy.

Whilst I like the general thoughts that charlie has brought up, I would dislike the game to go down the route of micromanaging creature needs

I definately think we should implement the certain creatures being further attrtacted by the terrain you control. DK2 tried to do this with lava/salamanders.

Bodsda

Yes I also would hate to have micromanagement, then you might as well play StarCraft, that game can really stress you out, I do not want that with OD. OD should be a game where a well thought strategy can make you win, almost no matter how slowly you perform it, i.e. if you give the strategy to a newbie he would win. Then the fun lies in changing you strategy depending on the conditions and the intelligence you have gathered. This is also a strong quality of Shogun Total War, with the right strategy you can win over an army twice you own armys size, see that is what I call a awesome game

In StarCraft a well thought out strategy gives you nothing if you do not perform it very very very accurately.

In DK 1 tentacles needed water tiles, and dragons got benefits for having a lair next to lava tiles. Spiders fought with beetles and flies, skeletons fought with bile demons, wizards fought with vampires. You needed a library for wizards, workshop for bile demons, a training room for goblins and a watchpost for orks, a torture chamber for mistresses and a graveyard for skeletons and vampires. Along with a lot of other variables... But yeah, it wasn't straight forward

Ok some of it was noticeable, but I never knew that I get tentacles from water tiles. Also I liked that demon spawn will turn into dragons after level 10.

Yes, DK1 had complex creature needs. Some creatures only came when some rooms had a specific size AND a specific location (near water, lava, etc). Horny came if you sacrificed three specific creatures and he only stayed for longer if he had his rooms all for his own.

The gameplay shouldn't become to complex. This is distracting for players (especially new players): who wants to read 100 pages of a strategy manual when he only wants to play a quick round of evil fun?

There should be something like ~5 basic need for any creature: Gold, Sleep, Room, list of Likes and list of Dislikes. The Likes and Dislikes include things like: Availability of specific terrain (water, lava, ...), creatures, enemies, ... - everything that is not on either list is Neutral to this creature (doesn't affect it at all).

What I do not like about the old DK was that once you knew how to sacrifice a bile demon a troll and a mistress you could always get a hornet reaper. It is like being able to press and insanely long combo in Tekken. Once you know it and can do it, it will work every time. In Shogun a well thought strategy can be a completely disaster if the enemy notice what you are doing and counters it, and you do not counter back.

It think the magic words we are looking for here is: "Easy to learn, difficult to master", that is a quality I also like about FPS games. Anybody can learn the basics very easy, but to be a good player really takes experience.

LOL
I agree on pre-requesites to get some advanced units, but i like more the DK1 approach, mostly based on room types and sizes. While DK1 is fun to play, DK2 get irritating because of creatures complaining of hunger just cause they can drag their asses fast enough to the hatchery (and all the other reasons). I say keep it simple, if for example a tentacle enter your dungeon, make it happier if he has water to take a dip, but as long as he has his basic needs covered he shoulnd be unhappy.

Yes I also vote for keeping the creature likes and dislikes simple, like DK.

[oln]

I think these things actually have to be implemented and tested before we can make a final decision on how much this should influence gameplay.

[TheAncientGoat]

Saying "I like dungeon building" but then "I don't like to make sure my Bile Demon is fed" is kind of contradictory. Building your dungeon well ensures that your bile demon would get fed, that's the point, the challenge. DK /is/ a pet sim, and that's what separated it from being a dumb RTS, the reason why it is a classic game, much more than any other element.

If you don't like it, we could code in cheats or different game modes to disable such aspects, but I really, really, really think making a shallow game that doesn't have any challenge won't really be rewarding fun.

[Bodsda]

whoops double post

[Bodsda]

Saying "I like dungeon building" but then "I don't like to make sure my Bile Demon is fed" is kind of contradictory. Building your dungeon well ensures that your bile demon would get fed, that's the point, the challenge. DK /is/ a pet sim, and that's what separated it from being a dumb RTS, the reason why it is a classic game, much more than any other element.

If you don't like it, we could code in cheats or different game modes to disable such aspects, but I really, really, really think making a shallow game that doesn't have any challenge won't really be rewarding fun.

The bile deamon should feed himself, or else im gonna slap him till he's half dead and drop him in my prison until I hear that beautiful commentry "A creature has died in your prison, and has risen as a Skeleton.", or, I'll drop him and 5 goblins into a graveyard, lock the entrances and slap them till they are all dead... wait for a few minutes until they start to decay, then drop an imp in there to bury them all so I get Vampires (/me is now planning to play DK2 when he gets home )

You spent all your time watching to make sure your bile deamons where walking to the hatchery?

Yes DK had an element of pet sim, but it was not its primary goal by a long shot. You couldnt stroke your goblins and tuck them into bed. If you wanted them to sleep but they wanted to train, you got ignored. The fact that you could feed your creatures didnt mean you should feed all of your creatures by hand, it was just a fun element. Nothing negative happened if you didnt feed them yourself.

The reason (imho) that DK2 was such a success was the evil comic gameplay and the artwork. If you had to micromanage your creatures, the gameplay aspect has just been thrown out of the window.

Bodsda

[svenskmand]

Saying "I like dungeon building" but then "I don't like to make sure my Bile Demon is fed" is kind of contradictory. Building your dungeon well ensures that your bile demon would get fed, that's the point, the challenge. DK /is/ a pet sim, and that's what separated it from being a dumb RTS, the reason why it is a classic game, much more than any other element.

If you don't like it, we could code in cheats or different game modes to disable such aspects, but I really, really, really think making a shallow game that doesn't have any challenge won't really be rewarding fun.

The bile deamon should feed himself, or else im gonna slap him till he's half dead and drop him in my prison until I hear that beautiful commentry "A creature has died in your prison, and has risen as a Skeleton.", or, I'll drop him and 5 goblins into a graveyard, lock the entrances and slap them till they are all dead... wait for a few minutes until they start to decay, then drop an imp in there to bury them all so I get Vampires (/me is now planning to play DK2 when he gets home )

You spent all your time watching to make sure your bile deamons where walking to the hatchery?

Yes DK had an element of pet sim, but it was not its primary goal by a long shot. You couldnt stroke your goblins and tuck them into bed. If you wanted them to sleep but they wanted to train, you got ignored. The fact that you could feed your creatures didnt mean you should feed all of your creatures by hand, it was just a fun element. Nothing negative happened if you didnt feed them yourself.

The reason (imho) that DK2 was such a success was the evil comic gameplay and the artwork. If you had to micromanage your creatures, the gameplay aspect has just been thrown out of the window.

Bodsda

I again totally agree with Bodsda. I only used the manual feeding to boost a creatures health when I was too cheap (or did not have enough money) to heal it with a heal spell. And killing your annoying creatures, like flies and beetles to get vampires, skeletons and ghosts is also awesome

Another element that was truly awesome about DK was that you could dig into enemy 1, and annoy him but claiming some of his base. He then sends his army to get rid of my imps. Then I do the same with enemy 2, and lure both enemies into the same area, watch them kill each other, then I finally claim their bases and kill of what is left of their army and take all their gold. This is what DK was all about

[TheAncientGoat]

I wasn't advising manual feeding at all. I was advising ensuring that you have enough feederies, which should solve the hunger problem

[charlie]

I don't think anybody is asking to implement Sim Pet ideas where you must manually feed creatures. (Although the ability to manually intervene with unhappy creatures would be good as it would help provide a way to get between different stages in dungeon building - i.e. advanced players selectively micro manage to gain advantage; this happens in all popular RTS games.)

Just building bigger rooms and more of them should not be how to build bigger, more diverse dungeons. Every creature should have basic needs to be met and it should be difficult to accommodate all the needs of all your creatures. Accommodating needs should be about dungeon design and layout and choosing which resources (water, metal, gold, whatever-you-implement) to concentrate on.