• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

[Mechanic] Placing Rooms

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dec 9, 2012
6
3
120
29
#1
I'm VERY certain people are going to disagree with me, because you think the most possible convenience is best. (you're wrong)

But let me ask you this, what do you think was going through the mind of the designer during Dungeon Keeper 1? Do you think he accidentally made placing rooms tedious? I don't think it was an accident or oversight. You can hold click to tag dirt in DK1, he could have easily made rooms build the same way.

Why do you think he did this? Why does the screen shake and play a sound effect when you place each individual tile of a room? I believe it was to make building rooms more meaningful than drawing a rectangle twice (DK2). In DK2 tagging dirt and placing rooms is effortless and casual. Imps take time to claim, rooms should take time to build.

I really hate to bring up minecraft (I don't like that game) but I believe a reason it became successful was because you place each block individually, rather than allowing you to place things super fast.

HOWEVER, I recognize the tediousness of rapidly clicking in a game like this. I suggest the midpoint between placing rooms in DK1 (rapidly clicking) and DK2 (drawing rectangles), which is holding left click to place/draw rooms. Holding click to tag dirt in DK1 works great, the same could apply to rooms.

I'm sure you'd all rather the game play itself though. Enjoy your impersonal rectangles. :)
 

Joe

Blood Imp
Nov 10, 2012
16
2
10
29
#2
Great attention to detail! I agree, though I'm not sure I see the need for compromise ;P

Emphasising the importance of how the living quarters for the creatures of real distinction are layed out seems to bring the focus back to the underlords burden of crafting the ultimate dungeon.

Sure gameplay wise people want convenience, but since when was being an underlord convenient?
Does he have to do everything himself?
Lazy bloody imps.. *slap*
 

Honn

Blood Imp
Dec 8, 2012
25
11
10
36
Stockholm, Sweden
#3
I like my impersonal rectangles :p

If we want placing rooms to feel more important I think making it less streamlined for the user is the wrong way to do it. A better way would be to have build-time for rooms, either by making it so that workers have to construct it or just it general. Not sure that fits, but it might.
 
Likes: iggii
Dec 10, 2012
131
31
170
30
Willenhall, UK
#5
I think the idea of having a sort of 'build-time animation' as AvatarIII suggested would be a good idea, certainly better than the original DK method of having to build each room block individually. This could also be tied into the actual size of the room instead of room-type. So for example bigger rooms could be more effective/give certain bonuses (maybe?) but they would take longer to actually build.
 
Jan 7, 2012
446
171
340
23
#6
The building over time idea sounds good (although that would mean alot of extra work for the animator)
If this gets implemented it should work for bridges too. The Suddenly dis/appearing DK2 lawa bridges made some tasks way too easy, like killing heroes with lawa, stopping enemy troops and trapping these three princes.
Also, rapid room building in dk2 prevented enemy keepers from building traps and claiming fast enough, which is fine exepts when the rooms popping out of the ground like crazy moles.
 

Robofish

Necromancer
WFTO Founder
Dec 1, 2012
507
262
415
29
Surrey, laughing at how rubbish Sussex is.
#7
I like click and drag as it was in DK2, but I also like the idea of a timed construction. I think if you build tile by tile however, construction time should not countdown until there are enough tiles to produce functional equipment, e.g. 3x3 for most rooms, or 3x1 against a wall. Each piece of equipment should have its owner timer for building rather than the entire room as a whole.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom