1
Skyward Collapse / Is there a way to see edicts during game?
« on: May 04, 2013, 03:42:08 PM »
I can't seem to find where to see my edicts in game. Is this not working yet or am I being blind?
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
Skyward Collapse LPs/AARs / Alpha Feedback
« on: May 03, 2013, 09:49:55 PM »
I played until I got a "Fatal Error" (I'll attach the error file to a Mantis entry).
I didn't have that much trouble figuring out how stuff worked and the tooltips were pretty helpful for the most part.
It feels like the player might need a bit more information though, mainly what has already been built and how many resources total each side has. Fortunately, there seems to already be a Mantis for the former.
(heh, resources are shown at Town Center, I must have missed that somehow
)
I did notice something rather interesting.
It is possible to build a faction's buildings at the opposite faction's town. This results in most of or at least a good portion of the opposing faction's units to turn back to kill it and can work as a way to temporarily "hold" units in town until the building is destroyed or you smite it.
It doesn't really seem like a problem or anything unbalancing yet, but I haven't played far enough to what affect it might have mid or late game.
I also ran into an amusing situation where one of the Greek "archers" (whatever they're called) found his way behind a few mountains and started picking off people in the Norse town. The Norse weren't doing anything about it and he was causing quite a bit of trouble, so I tried plopping down mountains to block his line of sight. It delayed him a bit but not by much.
I didn't have that much trouble figuring out how stuff worked and the tooltips were pretty helpful for the most part.
It feels like the player might need a bit more information though, mainly what has already been built and
(heh, resources are shown at Town Center, I must have missed that somehow
)I did notice something rather interesting.
It is possible to build a faction's buildings at the opposite faction's town. This results in most of or at least a good portion of the opposing faction's units to turn back to kill it and can work as a way to temporarily "hold" units in town until the building is destroyed or you smite it.
It doesn't really seem like a problem or anything unbalancing yet, but I haven't played far enough to what affect it might have mid or late game.
I also ran into an amusing situation where one of the Greek "archers" (whatever they're called) found his way behind a few mountains and started picking off people in the Norse town. The Norse weren't doing anything about it and he was causing quite a bit of trouble, so I tried plopping down mountains to block his line of sight. It delayed him a bit but not by much.
3
AI War / Quick question on nebula.
« on: April 15, 2013, 07:53:46 PM »
Are nebula present in-game whether there are champions present or not?
If not, if a game is started with no champions then either a normal + champion or champion player is added will there be nebula?
I haven't played many games without at least one champion since the Ancient Shadows expansion so I'm completely unsure.
If not, if a game is started with no champions then either a normal + champion or champion player is added will there be nebula?
I haven't played many games without at least one champion since the Ancient Shadows expansion so I'm completely unsure.
4
Shattered Haven / Stuck in Rainy Industrial Site
« on: March 19, 2013, 12:48:48 AM »
I've started a new game and I can't seem to get past the Rainy Industrial Site level.
I can't seem to find the last few grays, but I noticed there a couple of the red thorn-like things are sparkling. However, I can't find the tools needed to destroy these to see what's hidden in them in this level.
I attached a screenshot.
I can't seem to find the last few grays, but I noticed there a couple of the red thorn-like things are sparkling. However, I can't find the tools needed to destroy these to see what's hidden in them in this level.
I attached a screenshot.
5
A Valley Without Wind 1 & 2 / Moving blades, lunatic difficulty. (funny)
« on: February 09, 2013, 12:00:20 AM »
"I'm almost to the perk tokens! Onward!"
"Wait, WHAT IN THE NAME OF..."
"Um... I think I understand..."
"Dammit JUMP!"
"AWWWW... ...too slow."
This slice was just so hilariously intimidating at first glance that I had to post about it.
"Wait, WHAT IN THE NAME OF..."
"Um... I think I understand..."
"Dammit JUMP!"
"AWWWW... ...too slow."
This slice was just so hilariously intimidating at first glance that I had to post about it.
6
A Valley Without Wind 1 & 2 / Random idea for bosses. (maybe short and simple?)
« on: February 08, 2013, 11:41:29 PM »
This is a bit of a random thought.
What if all or some of the "bosses" released a certain enemy type when they teleported away, and each boss used a different one?
It's a bit of a common cliche in some other games that a boss summons a common enemy type associated with them when fighting, so I thought to having the bosses do something similar upon teleport would kill three birds with one stone in a way.
-It would do a little bit lore-wise if an enemy type were associated with a certain boss ("Oh, so he/she has been putting those things everywhere").
-It would give the bosses another "attack".
-It would reinforce the idea that you're not really "killing" the bosses over and over again but that they're teleporting away. It would be sort of like a ninja that disappears in a puff of smoke and leaves bombs or traps behind.
It could be neat, but it may or may not be a bit much to do with release so close. It was an interesting thought so I thought I'd throw it out there.
What if all or some of the "bosses" released a certain enemy type when they teleported away, and each boss used a different one?
It's a bit of a common cliche in some other games that a boss summons a common enemy type associated with them when fighting, so I thought to having the bosses do something similar upon teleport would kill three birds with one stone in a way.
-It would do a little bit lore-wise if an enemy type were associated with a certain boss ("Oh, so he/she has been putting those things everywhere").
-It would give the bosses another "attack".
-It would reinforce the idea that you're not really "killing" the bosses over and over again but that they're teleporting away. It would be sort of like a ninja that disappears in a puff of smoke and leaves bombs or traps behind.
It could be neat, but it may or may not be a bit much to do with release so close. It was an interesting thought so I thought I'd throw it out there.
7
A Valley Without Wind 1 & 2 / Does the platforming/combat side need something else?
« on: January 28, 2013, 04:43:58 PM »
Something I've noticed is that the platforming and combat sort side of the game is pretty ordinary.
This isn't really a bad thing, but a lot of other platformers these days have some sort of odd mechanic to spice up the moment-to-moment gameplay a bit and it makes AVWW 2 feel a bit too "platformer/shooter played straight" by comparison. I feel like there could be room for such a thing in AVWW 2 that doesn't interfere with everything else too much.
More specifically I thought it would be nice if there was some mechanic that gave the player room to refine and gain an advantage by becoming better at using it, but at the same time wouldn't stop them from proceeding if they didn't pay too much attention to it.
Thoughts?
This isn't really a bad thing, but a lot of other platformers these days have some sort of odd mechanic to spice up the moment-to-moment gameplay a bit and it makes AVWW 2 feel a bit too "platformer/shooter played straight" by comparison. I feel like there could be room for such a thing in AVWW 2 that doesn't interfere with everything else too much.
More specifically I thought it would be nice if there was some mechanic that gave the player room to refine and gain an advantage by becoming better at using it, but at the same time wouldn't stop them from proceeding if they didn't pay too much attention to it.
Thoughts?
8
A Valley Without Wind 1 & 2 / Is keeping the balance and controls worth it?
« on: January 25, 2013, 11:27:31 AM »
I guess before I say anything else, I prefer the game's controls the way they already are and I think they fit the game very well in it's current state.
However, this isn't going to be about making the game better, as bizarre as that may sound.
Regardless of all the improvements that have been made, there is still the problem that the controls do not have a positive reception anywhere but here, at least none that I've noticed. (if there is, please mention so)
In fact, unless I'm missing something (I could be), the game has been dismissed a lot elsewhere because the controls are the way they are, regardless of how the game may be balanced for them.
Opinions may REALLY vary on this (again, discuss), but I do not expect this to magically change with release. I expect a large portion of potential players rejecting the game within the first few minutes of play based on the controls alone. The thing is, no amount of gameplay balance will matter if the player won't give the game a chance to begin with.
As a single customer I honestly wouldn't mind that much. I like that the game works as is and if it stays that way I'm personally fine with it.
That perspective isn't really fair to everyone though, so I feel like I should at least put this out there for discussion.
Specifically, I want to put out there for discussion the idea that maybe re-introducing mouse-aim would be beneficial to the game's reception regardless of the ruinous effects it may have on gameplay and balance.
This is not an argument for a change that I believe would make the game better, in fact I would expect it to do quite the opposite.
Personally I would actually prefer that the controls stay the way they are, but at this point it is something I think should at least be put out there for discussion even if only to (hopefully) be shot down right away.
However, this isn't going to be about making the game better, as bizarre as that may sound.
Regardless of all the improvements that have been made, there is still the problem that the controls do not have a positive reception anywhere but here, at least none that I've noticed. (if there is, please mention so)
In fact, unless I'm missing something (I could be), the game has been dismissed a lot elsewhere because the controls are the way they are, regardless of how the game may be balanced for them.
Opinions may REALLY vary on this (again, discuss), but I do not expect this to magically change with release. I expect a large portion of potential players rejecting the game within the first few minutes of play based on the controls alone. The thing is, no amount of gameplay balance will matter if the player won't give the game a chance to begin with.
As a single customer I honestly wouldn't mind that much. I like that the game works as is and if it stays that way I'm personally fine with it.
That perspective isn't really fair to everyone though, so I feel like I should at least put this out there for discussion.
Specifically, I want to put out there for discussion the idea that maybe re-introducing mouse-aim would be beneficial to the game's reception regardless of the ruinous effects it may have on gameplay and balance.
This is not an argument for a change that I believe would make the game better, in fact I would expect it to do quite the opposite.
Personally I would actually prefer that the controls stay the way they are, but at this point it is something I think should at least be put out there for discussion even if only to (hopefully) be shot down right away.
9
A Valley Without Wind 1 & 2 / Difficulty and consequences.
« on: January 16, 2013, 05:57:01 PM »
This is something I'm starting to notice is that the game is starting to get somewhat difficult.
AVWW 2 currently has a permanent consequence for death. It's not a big one mind you, but it is a permanent one.
This is rather unusual because the way a lot of metroidvania or other adventure-like platformers are played tends to involve a lot of save/checkpoint scumming. Traditionally, people tend to pick whatever difficulty they want and if it's too difficult or they get stuck, then they tend to die and re-do until they get themselves un-stuck. This isn't really that practical in AVWW 2.
I'm not saying that is a bad thing, not at all. I actually think it's rather cool part of the game and it sets the game apart from some others in the genre.
What's interesting about this is that being able to slam your head into a wall until it passes through has been a part of the genre for a long time, so subverting it like this may have some interesting side-effects, both positive or negative.
Thoughts?
AVWW 2 currently has a permanent consequence for death. It's not a big one mind you, but it is a permanent one.
This is rather unusual because the way a lot of metroidvania or other adventure-like platformers are played tends to involve a lot of save/checkpoint scumming. Traditionally, people tend to pick whatever difficulty they want and if it's too difficult or they get stuck, then they tend to die and re-do until they get themselves un-stuck. This isn't really that practical in AVWW 2.
I'm not saying that is a bad thing, not at all. I actually think it's rather cool part of the game and it sets the game apart from some others in the genre.
What's interesting about this is that being able to slam your head into a wall until it passes through has been a part of the genre for a long time, so subverting it like this may have some interesting side-effects, both positive or negative.
Thoughts?
10
A Valley Without Wind 1 & 2 / Movement polish
« on: January 09, 2013, 02:52:05 PM »
I'm pretty sure this is going to be a rather subjective topic and there are going to be a lot of conflicting opinions about it, but who know maybe something nice might come out.
I think there are a few little things that might improve how the movement feels in the game, but whether they would be improvements is debatable of course.
-I think there should be a short acceleration/deceleration from standing when the player moves left or right. It shouldn't be too much, just a tiny bit. Maybe the character moves the character's width before reaching full normal walking speed. A lot of platformers have a tiny bit of this (it's often rather subtle) and I find it helps with making small adjustments to your position as only briefly tapping left or right doesn't move quite as fast as holding, and it might make the movement feel a bit more fluid.
Ok scratch that one, apparently it's already somewhat like that but my previous character had such a speed boost that the acceleration wasn't noticeable. I started over with a new one and it seems to work this way now.
On the other hand, maybe it might need to be made a bit more apparent in that case? Eh, not really sure on this one.
-Related to the above crossed out item. I tried several characters and it seems that modifiers for movement speed and jump may have unintended side effects on how the movement feels in the game. When the player starts a game for the first time, they won't know what the effects of these values will be, and since each game will use only one main character they won't know until they start another game. I'm slightly concerned that some people's impressions on the game's movement may be adversely affected by this.
I don't remember what stats my previous character had, but I'm now using one without any movement related bonuses and penalties and it feels MUCH more natural than my previous one while my previous one felt rather clunky.
-I'm not that sure about this, but I'm starting to think the player character falls bit too fast. It feels a bit difficult to line up shots when jumping because of how quickly the character rises and falls and the way they accelerate. I also notice that the way jump height is controlled feels a bit all or nothing (is it?). I think it might be beneficial from being a bit slower and slightly more "floaty" (is that word appropriate?), and how long we hold the jump key should perhaps influence jump height more.
Thoughts?
I think there are a few little things that might improve how the movement feels in the game, but whether they would be improvements is debatable of course.
-
Ok scratch that one, apparently it's already somewhat like that but my previous character had such a speed boost that the acceleration wasn't noticeable. I started over with a new one and it seems to work this way now.
On the other hand, maybe it might need to be made a bit more apparent in that case? Eh, not really sure on this one.
-Related to the above crossed out item. I tried several characters and it seems that modifiers for movement speed and jump may have unintended side effects on how the movement feels in the game. When the player starts a game for the first time, they won't know what the effects of these values will be, and since each game will use only one main character they won't know until they start another game. I'm slightly concerned that some people's impressions on the game's movement may be adversely affected by this.
I don't remember what stats my previous character had, but I'm now using one without any movement related bonuses and penalties and it feels MUCH more natural than my previous one while my previous one felt rather clunky.
-I'm not that sure about this, but I'm starting to think the player character falls bit too fast. It feels a bit difficult to line up shots when jumping because of how quickly the character rises and falls and the way they accelerate. I also notice that the way jump height is controlled feels a bit all or nothing (is it?). I think it might be beneficial from being a bit slower and slightly more "floaty" (is that word appropriate?), and how long we hold the jump key should perhaps influence jump height more.
Thoughts?
11
A Valley Without Wind 1 & 2 / Does the player character still need to work this way?
« on: January 08, 2013, 11:22:43 PM »
This is a bit on the trivial and nitpicky side, but it's been bugging me a bit for a while so I guess I might as well bring it up.
Does AVWW 2 still need the choice of several main characters?
Considering how long we're going to end up sticking with the same character and how set the stats are now, it seems a bit unnecessary in this game, at least to me. It seems like most of the customization is going to come from mage class or perks, so the character choice and rolls at the beginning of the world seem even less necessary than in AVWW 1
Also, because the portraits are the same as those used by the NPCs, there's also the possibility of having the talking NPC be the same portrait as yourself. That's not really a significant issue really, but it looks jarring and corny as heck.
It seems like the game wouldn't lose much if there was just a male and a female named character to choose from. If there were only a couple choices of main character they could be separate from the pool of characters used as NPCs (avoiding the above mentioned "I'm talking to a guy that looks like me!" weirdness), and maybe you could do a little bit more with the dialogue and story. It also seems like it would be easier to get two possible player characters to look better portrait, sprite, and animation-wise.
I dunno, this is a bit on the picky side so consider this low priority I guess.
Does AVWW 2 still need the choice of several main characters?
Considering how long we're going to end up sticking with the same character and how set the stats are now, it seems a bit unnecessary in this game, at least to me. It seems like most of the customization is going to come from mage class or perks, so the character choice and rolls at the beginning of the world seem even less necessary than in AVWW 1
Also, because the portraits are the same as those used by the NPCs, there's also the possibility of having the talking NPC be the same portrait as yourself. That's not really a significant issue really, but it looks jarring and corny as heck.
It seems like the game wouldn't lose much if there was just a male and a female named character to choose from. If there were only a couple choices of main character they could be separate from the pool of characters used as NPCs (avoiding the above mentioned "I'm talking to a guy that looks like me!" weirdness), and maybe you could do a little bit more with the dialogue and story. It also seems like it would be easier to get two possible player characters to look better portrait, sprite, and animation-wise.
I dunno, this is a bit on the picky side so consider this low priority I guess.
12
A Valley Without Wind 1 & 2 / Do we need to be able to run while shooting? (alternative 8-way)
« on: January 08, 2013, 02:23:11 PM »
Ok, this one might be a bit odd but I think it might be worth considering.
I remember some platformers having 8-way aim, but they had it so that you can't run while shooting (at least not with weapons that would need to be aimed). Instead you stand still for as long as you have the "shoot" button held down and you use the arrow keys to aim diagonally up/down or straight up.
The nice thing about this is that it doesn't use any extra keys, and it tends to make sense right away since you are using the arrow keys to "aim", and it doesn't interfere with the usual method of jumping and shooting. (you'd still be able to jump while shooting)
Of course, the negative to this is that you can't run while shooting. However, being unable to move while attacking isn't that alien of an idea and a lot of games have situations where they briefly "stop" the player in order to use the movement keys for something else.
Also, the idea that you have to stop attacking in order to defend yourself (in this case dodge) is a very common idea in a lot of games in general.
There are other reasons why I think it might fit AVWW 2's case more specifically:
-Most of the slower current enemies take multiple shots to kill, so in a lot of cases you're trying to position yourself in a good spot to get in a lot of shots in a short amount of time anyway.
-When we had 8-way aim, I noticed that in most situations that called for diagonal aim you didn't move while shooting very much.
-It creates this easily understandable need to quickly trade back and forth between offense and defense that I think would work well with a lot of the current enemies (with the possible exception of bats).
-With bosses it creates the need to alternate between dodging and positioning to shoot, so you're either dodging or attacking but usually not both. This opens up opportunities for some interesting patterns.
-It might be a bit cop-out, but it avoids the current animation issues related to running while shooting.
This could also give an opportunity to create more differences between attacks. Area of effect attacks that do not need to be aim could allow for use while on the run, while straight shooting attacks would need to be stop-and-aim. Perhaps some secondary shooting attacks could even retain the current 4-way run-and-shoot behavior as an alternative to have them differ from the primary.
Any thoughts?
I remember some platformers having 8-way aim, but they had it so that you can't run while shooting (at least not with weapons that would need to be aimed). Instead you stand still for as long as you have the "shoot" button held down and you use the arrow keys to aim diagonally up/down or straight up.
The nice thing about this is that it doesn't use any extra keys, and it tends to make sense right away since you are using the arrow keys to "aim", and it doesn't interfere with the usual method of jumping and shooting. (you'd still be able to jump while shooting)
Of course, the negative to this is that you can't run while shooting. However, being unable to move while attacking isn't that alien of an idea and a lot of games have situations where they briefly "stop" the player in order to use the movement keys for something else.
Also, the idea that you have to stop attacking in order to defend yourself (in this case dodge) is a very common idea in a lot of games in general.
There are other reasons why I think it might fit AVWW 2's case more specifically:
-Most of the slower current enemies take multiple shots to kill, so in a lot of cases you're trying to position yourself in a good spot to get in a lot of shots in a short amount of time anyway.
-When we had 8-way aim, I noticed that in most situations that called for diagonal aim you didn't move while shooting very much.
-It creates this easily understandable need to quickly trade back and forth between offense and defense that I think would work well with a lot of the current enemies (with the possible exception of bats).
-With bosses it creates the need to alternate between dodging and positioning to shoot, so you're either dodging or attacking but usually not both. This opens up opportunities for some interesting patterns.
-It might be a bit cop-out, but it avoids the current animation issues related to running while shooting.
This could also give an opportunity to create more differences between attacks. Area of effect attacks that do not need to be aim could allow for use while on the run, while straight shooting attacks would need to be stop-and-aim. Perhaps some secondary shooting attacks could even retain the current 4-way run-and-shoot behavior as an alternative to have them differ from the primary.
Any thoughts?
13
A Valley Without Wind 1 & 2 / Some other adjustments for 4-way aim.
« on: January 03, 2013, 10:00:28 PM »
I'm more or less satisfied with the current control setup, though I wanted to put out for discussion a few adjustments I think might help it along.
Now that the game uses 4-way aim, I think it might be beneficial to make the straight projectiles for a lot of the mage classes larger to facilitate jumping and shooting. I remember a lot of games with 4-way aim tended to have pretty large projectiles relative to the size of the character, maybe even half as tall to just as tall.
I also noticed that holding "down" still inhibits jumping high. I think this should be removed since we'll be jumping over enemies and firing down more, and that's a bit tricky the way it is now.
This last one is a bit more drastic and might require some more significant re-balancing, but would it be OK to make the jumping physics a bit more "floaty"?
I'm not saying that the characters should jump higher, but I feel like it would be nice if we got a bit more air time to make jumping and shooting a bit more natural. Maybe have a bit more inertia in general.
Thoughts?
Now that the game uses 4-way aim, I think it might be beneficial to make the straight projectiles for a lot of the mage classes larger to facilitate jumping and shooting. I remember a lot of games with 4-way aim tended to have pretty large projectiles relative to the size of the character, maybe even half as tall to just as tall.
I also noticed that holding "down" still inhibits jumping high. I think this should be removed since we'll be jumping over enemies and firing down more, and that's a bit tricky the way it is now.
This last one is a bit more drastic and might require some more significant re-balancing, but would it be OK to make the jumping physics a bit more "floaty"?
I'm not saying that the characters should jump higher, but I feel like it would be nice if we got a bit more air time to make jumping and shooting a bit more natural. Maybe have a bit more inertia in general.
Thoughts?
14
Off Topic / The Dark Mod, a Thief inspired total conversion mod.
« on: October 24, 2012, 09:15:57 AM »
http://www.thedarkmod.com/
The Dark Mod is single-player a total conversion mod for Doom 3 inspired by the Looking Glass Studios stealth games Thief: The Dark Project and Thief 2: The Metal Age. It's designed to mimic the gameplay of those games as well as feature a number improvements to the design.
If you liked the first two Thief games you owe it to yourself to play this, as The Dark Mod probably the closest thing to a modern equivalent of the earlier Thief series there is.
Some missions I recommend:
-Knighton Manor
-Tears of St. Lucia
-Return to the City
-Glenham Tower
-William Steele: In The North (difficult)
-A Score to Settle (difficult)
-The Heart of Lone Salvation (difficult)
Some missions recommended for beginners are The Crown of Penitence, The Outpost, The Parcel, and Too Late. I suggest playing at least one of those missions first even if you've played the original Thief games, as The Dark Mod is often considerably more difficult than Thief.
Trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3v1YupBC3Y&hd=1
A Let's Play of "William Steele: In The North" I recorded recently:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf_NdVr8ulU&hd=1
A video of the mission "Too Late" by someone else without narration, in case you find my voice too annoying.
:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFUnbXFvrgM&hd=1
15
A Valley Without Wind 1 & 2 / The case for slowing down.
« on: July 03, 2012, 09:33:41 AM »
This might turn out to be a somewhat unpopular suggestion, but I feel I should put it out there.
Right now there are a lot of complaints about enemies, traps, certain room features being "tedious" or "annoying" and there have been several micro arguments over the fine tuning of such features. However, I think there is something that can be done to address these complaints in a more general way.
I propose changing the game's balance to significantly reduce the average speed at which the player passes enemies and obstacles.
Wait I'm not crazy (maybe) don't lynch me yet!
The reason I believe this will help is because I feel that the pace of the game is such that players are burning through enemies, traps, and rooms quickly enough that it is unnecessarily increasing the occurrence of repeating room, enemy, and obstacle combinations and creating a need for repetition.
Lets say you have a room full of traps and enemies that the player needs to take a significant amount of time to navigate through. If hypothetically you were to look at such a room by itself out of context, these would seem like valid obstacles that the player should have fun navigating. However, I don't think this holds up as well in the game itself.
I think this is because when the player is playing the game, they have built up the expectation that anything they do will have to be done many more times within a given trip or playing session.
Everything the player would have done by the time they encounter a new obstacle would strongly suggests that any obstacles they traverse will have to be done many more times before they reach their immediate goal. Every enemy, trap, or other obstacle in the game is seen in this context. Because of that it is very easy for such obstacles to feel "annoying" or "tedious".
Compared to other side-scrolling that have similar enemies and obstacles, in AVWW player encounter such obstacles very fast and very frequently. There are some games that are exceptions where this happens even more quickly and frequently, but they tend to be much shorter or have a significant advantage in content density.
Imagine if you took a traditional side-scrolling adventure game and gave it twice as many rooms, but made it so you could pass through them in half the time. You'd be going through similar content within the same amount of time, but it would probably feel more repetitious and everything would feel rather diluted.
To sum up the above, everything can seem "annoying", "tedious", or "repetitive", if you know that you will probably do it ten more times within the next hour.
AVWW is inevitably going to repeat things until the player finally feels like they've had enough of the game. However, I think the sense of repetition can be reduced if the number of reps per span of time was reduced.
What I'm suggesting is re-balancing the enemies, obstacles, rooms, and other elements of the game so that the average speed at which the player gets to their immediate goals is much lower. At the same time, because the player is moving slower, you would be able to safely multiply the amount of reward given at the player's various "destinations" so that they don't have to reach for said "destinations" nearly as many times.
By doing this you could reduce the occurrence of repeating combinations within a given span of time, reduce the number of trips in the same area before the player moves to a different area, and open up more opportunities to apply more complex traps and enemies more effectively.
Imagine if on your way to anything in AVWW you spent twice as much time in each room, but only had to go through half as many rooms to get something. Do you think the game would feel better?
Right now there are a lot of complaints about enemies, traps, certain room features being "tedious" or "annoying" and there have been several micro arguments over the fine tuning of such features. However, I think there is something that can be done to address these complaints in a more general way.
I propose changing the game's balance to significantly reduce the average speed at which the player passes enemies and obstacles.
* Professor Paul1290 ducks head for incoming "BOOOOOOOOOOOO"
Wait I'm not crazy (maybe) don't lynch me yet!
The reason I believe this will help is because I feel that the pace of the game is such that players are burning through enemies, traps, and rooms quickly enough that it is unnecessarily increasing the occurrence of repeating room, enemy, and obstacle combinations and creating a need for repetition.
Lets say you have a room full of traps and enemies that the player needs to take a significant amount of time to navigate through. If hypothetically you were to look at such a room by itself out of context, these would seem like valid obstacles that the player should have fun navigating. However, I don't think this holds up as well in the game itself.
I think this is because when the player is playing the game, they have built up the expectation that anything they do will have to be done many more times within a given trip or playing session.
Everything the player would have done by the time they encounter a new obstacle would strongly suggests that any obstacles they traverse will have to be done many more times before they reach their immediate goal. Every enemy, trap, or other obstacle in the game is seen in this context. Because of that it is very easy for such obstacles to feel "annoying" or "tedious".
Compared to other side-scrolling that have similar enemies and obstacles, in AVWW player encounter such obstacles very fast and very frequently. There are some games that are exceptions where this happens even more quickly and frequently, but they tend to be much shorter or have a significant advantage in content density.
Imagine if you took a traditional side-scrolling adventure game and gave it twice as many rooms, but made it so you could pass through them in half the time. You'd be going through similar content within the same amount of time, but it would probably feel more repetitious and everything would feel rather diluted.
To sum up the above, everything can seem "annoying", "tedious", or "repetitive", if you know that you will probably do it ten more times within the next hour.
AVWW is inevitably going to repeat things until the player finally feels like they've had enough of the game. However, I think the sense of repetition can be reduced if the number of reps per span of time was reduced.
What I'm suggesting is re-balancing the enemies, obstacles, rooms, and other elements of the game so that the average speed at which the player gets to their immediate goals is much lower. At the same time, because the player is moving slower, you would be able to safely multiply the amount of reward given at the player's various "destinations" so that they don't have to reach for said "destinations" nearly as many times.
By doing this you could reduce the occurrence of repeating combinations within a given span of time, reduce the number of trips in the same area before the player moves to a different area, and open up more opportunities to apply more complex traps and enemies more effectively.
Imagine if on your way to anything in AVWW you spent twice as much time in each room, but only had to go through half as many rooms to get something. Do you think the game would feel better?