|
the best explanation is that adom is bad
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 10:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 02:09 |
|
|
I know but it was my first roguelike and I still love it. I just want it to get a little less bad. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 10:42
|
|
|
ADOM is good, and rations that weigh 2,800 pounds make incredible amounts of sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 10:44
|
|
|
ADOM was fun, if a little grindy, when you could break it in a variety of weird ways. In the recent versions most of that kind of thing has been patched out. Much to its detriment, imo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 10:54
|
|
|
What's the score on the new Ultra Nihilist ending anyhow? Don't believe I've seen any chatter on it per se, though I guess if I waded deep enough in the ADOM forum at least bits and pieces would manifest. I'm pretty sure it got implemented, I think, before this current phase of Steam polish that they've been going all in on while the remainder of the planned content additions are on the backburner.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
ADOM was the first roguelike I played a ton of, and it really is just kinda bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
Could someone explain how to achieve the Titanium Man challenge mentioned here: http://www.adomgb.info/challenge.html ? Seems otherworldly. Don't you get exp also from your allies' kills?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
 Finally! After 164 hours and countless Roguelike difficulty deaths, I switched to Adventure mode and beat the game with the first Archmage I tried! http://te4.org/characters/143687/tome/0d0fb09e-5e75-4171-b975-8696b6c2ce79 I had to use all of my lives too. Feeling so good right now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
Quidnose posted:Pokemon Mystery Dungeon? That reminds me I was wondering if there was a game like pokemon with the combat system like it is and loads of monsters to catch/train etc, except if one of your creatures died it was gone for good. I mean I guess you could do that with pokemon by just not using a pokemon once it has died, but, Pokemon isn't for PC. I think I saw a streamer doing what I mean, although I only watched for a few minutes so I am not sure if that is what he was doing or not, but when two of his pokemon died he put them both in the PC, so I assume that is what he was doing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Skwee posted:That reminds me I was wondering if there was a game like pokemon with the combat system like it is and loads of monsters to catch/train etc, except if one of your creatures died it was gone for good. I mean I guess you could do that with pokemon by just not using a pokemon once it has died, but, Pokemon isn't for PC. That would be grindy as gently caress, but if you really hated yourself and wanted a challenge run it could be interesting. You'd really have to rely on more than two or three tough pokemon, as you'd need to spread the damage around a fair amount. Potions would become more critical as well. I think you'd probably want to ban the resurrection item too? Why am I still thinking about this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
RickVoid posted:That would be grindy as gently caress, but if you really hated yourself and wanted a challenge run it could be interesting. You'd really have to rely on more than two or three tough pokemon, as you'd need to spread the damage around a fair amount. Potions would become more critical as well. I think you'd probably want to ban the resurrection item too? Skwee said a game like Pokemon except with permadeath; presumably it would also be rebalanced around the idea that your "units" could die permanently. Sort of like a cross between X-COM and an RPG.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
dis astranagant posted:There hasn't been a good TJ&E game since the first one so I really don't have my hopes up. Panic on Funkatron is a fine platformer.  New game still looks ugly as sin, though. Great thing about Kickstarter is other people can pay for it and I can buy it if by some miracle it turns out good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Skwee posted:That reminds me I was wondering if there was a game like pokemon with the combat system like it is and loads of monsters to catch/train etc, except if one of your creatures died it was gone for good. I mean I guess you could do that with pokemon by just not using a pokemon once it has died, but, Pokemon isn't for PC. So basically Darkest Dungeon?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Eschatos posted:So basically Darkest Dungeon? Yeah that is what gave me the idea, but afaik darkest dungeon doesn't have a ton of different units, and I am not sure if you collect them e: i mean it didn't give me the idea, it assisted in the idea generation, since at the time of watching someone play it I had been thinking about wanting to play pokemon again
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Skwee posted:That reminds me I was wondering if there was a game like pokemon with the combat system like it is and loads of monsters to catch/train etc, except if one of your creatures died it was gone for good. I mean I guess you could do that with pokemon by just not using a pokemon once it has died, but, Pokemon isn't for PC. That would be what is known as a Nuzlocke challenge. There are a whole bunch of variants.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
ADOM is good and I suggest you kiddies go back to Dredmore and Halo if you're going to besmirch it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
SnowblindFatal posted:Could someone explain how to achieve the Titanium Man challenge mentioned here: http://www.adomgb.info/challenge.html ? You don't get XP or kill credit for things your pet kills. Bards can have their pets slaughter cats by the thousand and still get the Ring of the Master Cat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Space Bat posted:ADOM is good and I suggest you kiddies go back to Dredmore and Halo if you're going to besmirch it. So what sort of life do you have to lead to have an opinion this wrong?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
RickVoid posted:So what sort of life do you have to lead to have an opinion this wrong? The kind of life where you're lucky and think that people who aren't as lucky are lazy and unworthy? Like being born rich or something? Full disclosure: I don't know anything about Space Bat, and this is not meant to assume he has the above attitude.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
ADOM is good when you learn its rules. Which I did over a decade ago now. I would not suggest people pick up ADOM for the first time in 2015. Current status: Aimlessly wandering the ID praying for a ring or wand or amulet so I can do things. I wonder if I can kill steel golems safely yet and try gambling on some pools.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Dr. Dos posted:ADOM is good when you learn its rules. Which I did over a decade ago now. I would not suggest people pick up ADOM for the first time in 2015. Current status: Aimlessly wandering the ID praying for a ring or wand or amulet so I can do things. I wonder if I can kill steel golems safely yet and try gambling on some pools. Pools Ruin Runs. R.I.P. a potential ultra winner, he died because I forgot a pool erased by control teleport and I got ported out of Waldenbrooks after picking something up. Turns out if you sell him Sis all game Waldenbrook will eventually become a death god who makes 8 always critting, always penetrating attacks per turn. Kobold Sex Tape fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Feb 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
I've played a lot of ADOM back in the days, got a few ultra endings (best one was with a grey elf mindcrafter). Will probably try the new version once it's on Steam. Also found this:  A max level character going for ultra died because a jelly perma-paralyzed him (berserk mode, no dodge  ).
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
RickVoid posted:So what sort of life do you have to lead to have an opinion this wrong?  Should I have included something about Call of Duty and regenerating health to make it more clear I was joking?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
Space Bat posted:
Jokes... don't work in this thread. There are too many people that feel that wait and you failed to make the joke blatant so people assume you're serious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
Kobold Sex Tape posted:You don't get XP or kill credit for things your pet kills. Bards can have their pets slaughter cats by the thousand and still get the Ring of the Master Cat. But are bards any good otherwise? I mean, does the game expect you to take your bear buddies to fight in the tower, for example? Take the little puppy to fight molochs?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
ADOM is horribly designed and should never be played. That said, I'd like to play it and Ultra End it again one more time when it's in its final release. If it becomes moddable at all, then God save it because I'm going to maul the hell out of it to make it more fun.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
SnowblindFatal posted:But are bards any good otherwise? I mean, does the game expect you to take your bear buddies to fight in the tower, for example? Take the little puppy to fight molochs? Bards start with random skills so their combat effectiveness varies, but pets can let you get through the early game pretty safely and eventually they turn into omni-talented monsters (like every lategame ADOM character). Plus if you manage to start with the heir talent then dying at all early is pretty inexcusable. And you can use music to tame cats! My ultra bard used his pet up til the animated forest, but by then he had gotten enough loot to hold his own. Tower isn't too bad, you'll probably have slaying ammo and blankets by then, but if not there's still the guaranteed ring of ice and potions of cure corruption you can chuck at the ACW. I just left my pet at home but I suppose you could tame a drake or something. The most annoying thing about the pet for me was having him attack poo poo I was trying to sacrifice, and also pet kills don't count for Thrundarr's quest so you have to make sure your pet doesn't snipe those.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:I'm not sure if you're being facetious/trolling, but why is basing it on a random rare drop better than making it challenge-based? Why not for example put a guaranteed RoLS in the game but put it at the end of a very difficult dungeon that will kill most characters at pre-Kele levels? There has to be a more interesting option than Did you score a lucky RoLS drop Y/N? (I guess you can grind the ID forever but I couldn't be hosed with that before Biskup nerfed ID scumming much less now and that's not at all a more interesting option anyway.) This is actual kind of a fun question: is there room for challenges based on a strong combination of luck and skill? I say yes, because I hate to blanket anything with no. I mean, that's roguelikes broken down right? You can get pretty far on skill, but someday your number is gonna come up and luck is going to rear its ugly head. So, why is people like roguelikes and hate the challenge? I'm guessing its the reliance on luck, its very in your face. Your can say ah poo poo I got stunlocked should have had stun resistance or, ah x killed me I coulda y'd and it's not nearly so defined as being luck based, when luck probably had a lot to do with it. Probably it's just the amount of luck involved. Isn't there a good chance of getting a wish at some point in normal play though? Maybe it's the frustration of having a good run and tasting that coveted ending, and being unable to because of a factor out of your control. That said, I don't think anyone can deny that it feels more amazing to achieve it BECAUSE of the bullshit. It's not fun, I don't think that's the point. It's exclusivity for the sake of exclusivity and I can see the appeal in that. Water at the top of the hill always tasting sweeter, etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
Boinks posted:
I want to like ToME more than I do, but it just has a lot of stuff kind of piled in without any thought as to how it works together. Plus the way the level progression is so slow(relative to other roguelikes) which makes the early game more or less identical every time. Or how there are lots of game-ending random elements put in that end up getting balanced by abilities like telepathy designed to remove the randomness.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
Pladdicus posted:This is actual kind of a fun question: is there room for challenges based on a strong combination of luck and skill? The only time luck should EVER be relied on to create a challenge is the luck of degree. In that you're guaranteed something for a set action, like an Amulet of Life Saving at the bottom of a dungeon, but luck should adjust the relative difficulty of said task. Maybe the dungeon is slightly harder or easier, or the amulet takes a different form, while still being life-saving in nature (maybe it's an Anvil of Life Saving with 'bad' luck). If the entire challenge is only allowed by sheer chance in a yes/no binary, or demands excessive time and grinding to play the slot machine for another chance, then it's poorly designed tedium.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
Black August posted:The only time luck should EVER be relied on to create a challenge is the luck of degree. In that you're guaranteed something for a set action, like an Amulet of Life Saving at the bottom of a dungeon, but luck should adjust the relative difficulty of said task. Maybe the dungeon is slightly harder or easier, or the amulet takes a different form, while still being life-saving in nature (maybe it's an Anvil of Life Saving with 'bad' luck). But how does this address the fact that people legitimately enjoy the kind of challenge that requires fate, to some amount, to be on their side? I'm not really sure game design has to be utilitarian in nature.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
Pladdicus posted:This is actual kind of a fun question: is there room for challenges based on a strong combination of luck and skill? IMO games should never be "unwinnable" (for whatever definition) based solely on luck. In fact, luck should not be even a major component of determining your success! Obviously in any game with random effects, luck is going to play a factor, but games should largely use randomness to decide the initial conditions, and have relatively little luck in moment-to-moment events. Losing due to luck should be a "statistical impossibility" -- not entirely out of the question (since achieving that would likely require major design compromises), but still vanishingly rare. I know not everyone is going to agree with me on this. Case in point: the success of games like FTL where even highly-skilled players can't achieve a 100% success rate. I love FTL's concept but find it infuriating when I, say, have an entire sector with only two events of consequence (and thus I only play the game on Easy because then such things hardly matter). But other people love that kind of thing. If/when I design games with random factors, it's mostly to set up different scenarios or to keep the AI unpredictable. TooMuchAbstraction fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Feb 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
Space Bat posted:
I too was joking. Clearly we both failed. Black August posted:(maybe it's an Anvil of Life Saving with 'bad' luck) Quoting this for when Biskup inevitably adds this to the game. And makes it replicate like the Si.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
omeg posted:I've played a lot of ADOM back in the days, got a few ultra endings (best one was with a grey elf mindcrafter). Will probably try the new version once it's on Steam. You're supposed to have paralysis resistance for Andy to begin with. I would know because I forgot to take off the medal of chaos and put on my amulet of free action the one and only time I made it that far 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:IMO games should never be "unwinnable" (for whatever definition) based solely on luck. In fact, luck should not be even a major component of determining your success! Obviously in any game with random effects, luck is going to play a factor, but games should largely use randomness to decide the initial conditions, and have relatively little luck in moment-to-moment events. Losing due to luck should be a "statistical impossibility" -- not entirely out of the question (since achieving that would likely require major design compromises), but still vanishingly rare. We're not talking about a game being unwinnable, we consider a section of the game, an incredibly optional win condition in a game where win condition is a pretty lofty circumstance in and of itself. Now you said IMO and that's fine, but I'm curious, does the fact its optional change nothing, why/why not and is it inarguably worse for having such a win condition than if it didn't have it at all? Also we're not talking about it being literally impossible, just grindy if luck isn't on your side. But that's a very slim difference. I think I can side with you on FTL's case, I think it should be better balanced in randomness to ensure the player isn't in no-win situations, but that's to play the normal game, so I don't consider it QUITE the same. Because its far more frustrating to not be able to even get a 'win' whereas in ADOM that specific condition is so bizarre and obtuse that, without the guidebook, I'd say nobody on this forum would even know it existed. Which is the point of its strange mystique. To know, to be skilled, and then to have fate on your side. All of which make the challenge what it is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
Pladdicus posted:We're not talking about a game being unwinnable, we consider a section of the game, an incredibly optional win condition in a game where win condition is a pretty lofty circumstance in and of itself. Now you said IMO and that's fine, but I'm curious, does the fact its optional change nothing, why/why not and is it inarguably worse for having such a win condition than if it didn't have it at all? As an example of a not dumb harder optional ending, you can look at going to hell and killing Yama in Spelunky. It requires a ton of things to be done by the player: -find the key and the chest to get the eye in the mines, -use the eye in the jungle to find the black market and bomb your way in, -pay 50,000 to get the ankh or kill the shopkeepers to steal it, -survive with the ankh until the ice caves and then die on the level with the giant head to respawn inside it to get the headjet, -get to temple and kill anubis to take his sceptre, - find the golden door further in temple and use sceptre+headjet to open it and enter the city of gold, -bomb your way into the chamber that contains the necronomicon and kill anubis II, -make your way to olmec and then use the necronomicon to find the door beneath the stone and not just kill olmec, but kill him in that specific spot, -and then jump on his head to finally enter hell and start the hidden postgame. It is very hard, and chance plays a part. However, no part of it relies on a random spawn which may just not happen for you in a game, thus locking you out of even the chance of testing your skill by shooting for the hardmode ending. Theoretically, a skilled player could go to Hell every time if they made all the right decisions/had the capability to avoid death at each of those goals. And that's good, because having a very difficult branch defeat players is very different from not even letting them try based on random chance. If I am not good enough to complete something, so be it. But I want to at least make the attempt, and arbitrarily gating that is not fun. Not to mention I think you can make the case that players going for a normal win and a more difficult win(ala DCSS 15-rune, spelunky hell etc.) are essentially playing two variations of the same game-one player is playing a game that ends with a normal win, the other is playing a game that ends with a postgame win. The first being literally unwinnable is worse than the second being unwinnable, but in either case it's lame as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
Pladdicus posted:We're not talking about a game being unwinnable, we consider a section of the game, an incredibly optional win condition in a game where win condition is a pretty lofty circumstance in and of itself. Now you said IMO and that's fine, but I'm curious, does the fact its optional change nothing, why/why not and is it inarguably worse for having such a win condition than if it didn't have it at all? The fact that it's optional doesn't really change anything, because when you have an optional "super win", invariably there will be a section of your player base that considers the super win to be the only real win. I would say it's okay to have optional, super-obtuse things that depend on luck as long as the game doesn't base any of its evaluation of your performance on achieving those things. So, say if you happened to get a .1% drop of a Snot-Stained Handkerchief from one of the beggars in the starting town, and if you carried it through the entire game and threw it at the final boss, it went "Ewwww! Why would you even do that?" but had no other effects? That's totally fine. It stops being fine once "threw a snotty rag at the final boss" shows up on your list of accomplishments on the death screen, though. And it especially stops being fine if throwing that rag has actual in-game consequences, like enraging the boss and causing them to switch to their super form that otherwise never shows up. EDIT: also take a look at The Binding of Isaac (the original). The unlock condition for reaching the Chest level and fighting the Blue Baby boss is beating the Isaac boss while carrying the Polaroid trinket. Originally the Polaroid dropped randomly, so it was pure luck whether or not you'd be able to go to the Chest. This caused such a huge fan backlash that the Polaroid became a guaranteed drop from Mom. That changed the game from being predominantly a luck-based thing (will the key item I need drop) to being predominantly a skill-based thing (am I actually capable of making it through the game to beat the superboss). TooMuchAbstraction fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Feb 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
I don't think I've ever seen someone who considered an Ultra ending the only real win. I've seen several people who never go for them even if they get the required items, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
Imagine if sometimes runes just didn't show up in DCSS. Or if you went to fight cerebov and instead of casting firestorm he was like "Hold up. Did you bring me 27 chokos? If 27 chokos didn't spawn in your game, I'm afraid the run's just over now. But hey, 14 runes is pretty close to 15!"Kobold Sex Tape posted:I don't think I've ever seen someone who considered an Ultra ending the only real win. I've seen several people who never go for them even if they get the required items, though. DCSS is possibly the only game that is an exception to that because most of postgame is just tedium for most characters. LazyMaybe fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Feb 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 02:09 |
|
|
Dr. Dos posted:You're supposed to have paralysis resistance for Andy to begin with. Oh I know.  http://pastebin.com/MCn7eXtA
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 02:59
|
|