Golel, a Dungeon Crawler RPG.

[Rean]

That's pretty revolutionary.

 

[Dadd]

What do you think of damage types and damage resistance?
Each damage type has a also a resistance level for every monsters.

So Fire damage.
The monster has either 0%(neutral) resistance, something between 0% and 100%, and 100%(immune).
In addition there could be negative values, which makes the monster vulnerable to the fire damage.

The same thing can be with any other type of damage:
Let's say undead is vulnerable to "Holy damage", but immune to "unholy damage".
Let's say, and angel is immune to holy damage, and vulenrable to "unholy damage".
I could even go further and make so instead of immune, the monster that has more than 100%, can also heal from that damage?

Does that make sense?

Basically it modifies the damage dealt for that damage type.

Have you played the underground classic, Diablo II? 100% immunes are annoying and jarring. They should be limited to extremely strong enemies.

 

[Eirinjas]

What do you think of damage types and damage resistance?
Each damage type has a also a resistance level for every monsters.

So Fire damage.
The monster has either 0%(neutral) resistance, something between 0% and 100%, and 100%(immune).
In addition there could be negative values, which makes the monster vulnerable to the fire damage.

The same thing can be with any other type of damage:
Let's say undead is vulnerable to "Holy damage", but immune to "unholy damage".
Let's say, and angel is immune to holy damage, and vulenrable to "unholy damage".
I could even go further and make so instead of immune, the monster that has more than 100%, can also heal from that damage?

Does that make sense?

Basically it modifies the damage dealt for that damage type.

I think it is reasonable for certain enemies to have a specific immunity. Fire elementals should obviously be immune to fire damage. Conversely, if you have an enemy with a specific immunity, it should have a counter vulnerability. So, our fire elemental should naturally be vulnerable to water. A bloated corpse creature in a bog should have some resistance to fire, but not immunity. I think resistances and immunities are fine, so long as they make sense and come with countervailing vulnerabilities.

 

[PompiPompi]

I am talking about mechanically if it is annoying.
For instance, it makes sense that a skeleton is vulnerable to "holy damage".
A slime vulnerable to fire.
A fire elemental, cannot be damaged by fire and etc.

Immunity is rare. And it is for monsters that need to be dealt with in special ways.

Otherwise, all the weapons and spells are just different animations to the same damage etc.

Of course you should never die because you don't have the tools to even hit the enemy. Or no way to escape it.

I am just asking mechanically.
Let assume that every encounter has a decent way to deal with it.
Which ever class you select, which ever spells, and which ever monster.

Is it still annoying to have like "holy spell" that deals ONLY or maybe More damage to undead?

I am asking when it gets annoying.
Like, maybe at some place the holy damage is worthless?

Is it annoying to have an ability that becomes worthless some place?

If you are a fire mage, and you go to a fire level, are you gonna get screwed?

 

[PompiPompi]

I could do for instance, that a fire bolt still damage a fire elemental, it's just the elemental doesn't catch fire. So the damage is from the force of impact.
So I could do like, every weapon has at least two types of damage.
Or at least 1 damage, and 1 effect.

 

[Eirinjas]

I am talking about mechanically if it is annoying.
For instance, it makes sense that a skeleton is vulnerable to "holy damage".
A slime vulnerable to fire.
A fire elemental, cannot be damaged by fire and etc.

Immunity is rare. And it is for monsters that need to be dealt with in special ways.

Otherwise, all the weapons and spells are just different animations to the same damage etc.

Of course you should never die because you don't have the tools to even hit the enemy. Or no way to escape it.

I am just asking mechanically.
Let assume that every encounter has a decent way to deal with it.
Which ever class you select, which ever spells, and which ever monster.

Is it still annoying to have like "holy spell" that deals ONLY or maybe More damage to undead?

I am asking when it gets annoying.
Like, maybe at some place the holy damage is worthless?

Is it annoying to have an ability that becomes worthless some place?

If you are a fire mage, and you go to a fire level, are you gonna get screwed?

You could literally gate progress on maps by having an enemy that requires the use of a specific item or spell that needs to be found before defeating them is possible. I don't think this is annoying, I think it makes for a more interesting experience. I guess it depends on whether you are aiming for your game to be more like Dungeon Siege or more like Ultima Underworld.

 

[PompiPompi]

I am talking about mechanically if it is annoying.
For instance, it makes sense that a skeleton is vulnerable to "holy damage".
A slime vulnerable to fire.
A fire elemental, cannot be damaged by fire and etc.

Immunity is rare. And it is for monsters that need to be dealt with in special ways.

Otherwise, all the weapons and spells are just different animations to the same damage etc.

Of course you should never die because you don't have the tools to even hit the enemy. Or no way to escape it.

I am just asking mechanically.
Let assume that every encounter has a decent way to deal with it.
Which ever class you select, which ever spells, and which ever monster.

Is it still annoying to have like "holy spell" that deals ONLY or maybe More damage to undead?

I am asking when it gets annoying.
Like, maybe at some place the holy damage is worthless?

Is it annoying to have an ability that becomes worthless some place?

If you are a fire mage, and you go to a fire level, are you gonna get screwed?

You could literally gate progress on maps by having an enemy that requires the use of a specific item or spell that needs to be found before defeating them is possible. I don't think this is annoying, I think it makes for a more interesting experience. I guess it depends on whether you are aiming for your game to be more like Dungeon Siege or more like Ultima Underworld.

Well yea, that is not what I mean though.

I mean... your are selecting spells, skills, weapons, equipment.
Now the spell you invested many points at, is useless in this fire level.
Isn't that annoying?
How you avoid having spells that are useless in certain places?
Or spells against undead, in a level with no undead?

 

[Eirinjas]

I am talking about mechanically if it is annoying.
For instance, it makes sense that a skeleton is vulnerable to "holy damage".
A slime vulnerable to fire.
A fire elemental, cannot be damaged by fire and etc.

Immunity is rare. And it is for monsters that need to be dealt with in special ways.

Otherwise, all the weapons and spells are just different animations to the same damage etc.

Of course you should never die because you don't have the tools to even hit the enemy. Or no way to escape it.

I am just asking mechanically.
Let assume that every encounter has a decent way to deal with it.
Which ever class you select, which ever spells, and which ever monster.

Is it still annoying to have like "holy spell" that deals ONLY or maybe More damage to undead?

I am asking when it gets annoying.
Like, maybe at some place the holy damage is worthless?

Is it annoying to have an ability that becomes worthless some place?

If you are a fire mage, and you go to a fire level, are you gonna get screwed?

You could literally gate progress on maps by having an enemy that requires the use of a specific item or spell that needs to be found before defeating them is possible. I don't think this is annoying, I think it makes for a more interesting experience. I guess it depends on whether you are aiming for your game to be more like Dungeon Siege or more like Ultima Underworld.

Well yea, that is not what I mean though.

I mean... your are selecting spells, skills, weapons, equipment.
Now the spell you invested many points at, is useless in this fire level.
Isn't that annoying?
How you avoid having spells that are useless in certain places?
Or spells against undead, in a level with no undead?

Yes, you could absolutely make the force of a fire spell inflict a small amount of damage on a fire elemental. Or, you can make it do some healing to it. I think testing will help determine what is best for game balance. And sure, it can be annoying to fight enemies that you are not optimally skilled to deal with, but isn't that a fundamental aspect of RPGs? Maybe you could make a demo with combat scenarios that the community could play and give you feed back on.

 

[PompiPompi]

I am talking about mechanically if it is annoying.
For instance, it makes sense that a skeleton is vulnerable to "holy damage".
A slime vulnerable to fire.
A fire elemental, cannot be damaged by fire and etc.

Immunity is rare. And it is for monsters that need to be dealt with in special ways.

Otherwise, all the weapons and spells are just different animations to the same damage etc.

Of course you should never die because you don't have the tools to even hit the enemy. Or no way to escape it.

I am just asking mechanically.
Let assume that every encounter has a decent way to deal with it.
Which ever class you select, which ever spells, and which ever monster.

Is it still annoying to have like "holy spell" that deals ONLY or maybe More damage to undead?

I am asking when it gets annoying.
Like, maybe at some place the holy damage is worthless?

Is it annoying to have an ability that becomes worthless some place?

If you are a fire mage, and you go to a fire level, are you gonna get screwed?

You could literally gate progress on maps by having an enemy that requires the use of a specific item or spell that needs to be found before defeating them is possible. I don't think this is annoying, I think it makes for a more interesting experience. I guess it depends on whether you are aiming for your game to be more like Dungeon Siege or more like Ultima Underworld.

Well yea, that is not what I mean though.

I mean... your are selecting spells, skills, weapons, equipment.
Now the spell you invested many points at, is useless in this fire level.
Isn't that annoying?
How you avoid having spells that are useless in certain places?
Or spells against undead, in a level with no undead?

Yes, you could absolutely make the force of a fire spell inflict a small amount of damage on a fire elemental. Or, you can make it do some healing to it. I think testing will help determine what is best for game balance. And sure, it can be annoying to fight enemies that you are not optimally skilled to deal with, but isn't that a fundamental aspect of RPGs? Maybe you could make a demo with combat scenarios that the community could play and give you feed back on.

Good idea about combat scenario. Many game developers create "areanas" to test combat.

 

[PompiPompi]

Redoing logger and Lizard Man video, but updated, and ambient monster audio!

 

[PompiPompi]

This is almost the complete gameplay of the playtest build.
It is heavy with spoilers.
There are still many issues, but it can demonstrate the kind of gameplay.
Also the NPC dialogs didn't work for some kind of a reason:

 

[luj1]

I could even go further and make so instead of immune, the monster that has more than 100%, can also heal from that damage?

Does that make sense?

yeah, its called spell absorption

many games have that, but I never saw it implemented like your solution (above 100 res) which is very elegant, I like it

 

[luj1]

most games have a separate stat for that

 

[Eirinjas]

This is almost the complete gameplay of the playtest build.
It is heavy with spoilers.
There are still many issues, but it can demonstrate the kind of gameplay.
Also the NPC dialogs didn't work for some kind of a reason:

Looks good! I like how the slime passed through the closed gate.

 

[PompiPompi]

Some improved graphics screnshots.
Notice the difference?

 

[bionicman]

Doesn't look bad but what's with the cursor?

 

[PompiPompi]

Doesn't look bad but what's with the cursor?

Yea, I need to change that, there is stil a lot of work to do.
What do you suggest to do with the cursor?
Right now it's like a 3D ray, because of optional VR, but even in VR it looks bad.

 

[PompiPompi]

Gnome battle!
What do you think?

 

[Eisen]

first time i want to play a game from Pompi

 

[PompiPompi]

 

[Cryomancer]

Have you played the underground classic, Diablo II? 100% immunes are annoying and jarring. They should be limited to extremely strong enemies.

Diablo 2 exaggerated in immunities. Every mob has one or two immunties.

Players also lack dual damaging types except few builds like Wind Druid(physical and cold)

 

[Baron Tahn]

Regards the cursor, again have a look at Arx Fatalis as that is a game looks similar to yours. In that and some other games of the time you had your 'actions screen' where you do your combat/interaction with the world, then a hotkey would switch to your cursor for interacting with inventory/spellbook/quest log etc.

Might work for you and adds great depth. Quite immersive too because the game doesnt pause while you shuffle in your bags - you have to find safe places to store excess items. Some of those safe cubbies are very memorable to me because its organic and individual to each player. It was one of the things Grimrock did well - excess items and food got stashed in boxes and left somewhere to come back to if I needed them. Its a thing that goes back to Dungeon Master, arguably the pioneer of the genre.

 

[PompiPompi]

I am trying to add support for daylight...

 

[PompiPompi]