What's your opinion of Die-by-Trying WADs?

[Havok]

I'm referring to WADS where the whole level(s) or just several enemy encounters on Ultra Violence are so hard that you have zero chance of surviving the first few times of trying it and you have to reload your save to try it several times or many, many times before you can figure out how to survive the encounter. Assuming the player is a Doom veteran of average skill who knows how best to kill each enemy and all the glitches such as Arch-Vile jumps, etc. So the difficulty could be 8-10 out of 10.

 

You could argue they're not really fair or they hurt the flow of the map but I think they're fun as they're essentially combat puzzles as you need to figure out a strategy to survive the enemy encounter. I don't know if there's any way to figure out the strategy until you try and get killed?

 

I'd like to know what people think so I know how best to have the difficulty of my own WAD. I'm thinking that for a slaughter map I'd want about 25% of the rooms/areas to be beatable the first time or after a few tries and the rest to take several tries but I think anything after 20-30 tries or so (difficulty of 9-10 out of 10) is too much and just becomes annoying. I'm not sure how to make the difficulty of the rooms in a normal non-slaughter map?

 

Also, is "Die by trying" the right name for what I'm referring to?

Edited August 26 by Havok

[TuomasGaming]

Depends on the level of unfairness, ig...

 

If the encounters don't require TAS-level skills to pull off, or just plain luck, then it's fine, even if I'm not a personal fan of such levels.

 

Also, the amount of enemies and the selection of enemies also matters. Putting like 20 Cyberdemons in a room is challenging in all the wrong ways.

 

Also, make sure the difficulty of the encounters get increasingly harder, don't make the first room literal Hell.

[NiGHTS108]

I feel like that with making hard maps in general, and especially hard slaughter maps, there’s a degree to which slowly figuring out the challenge of a specific fight is necessary without veering into rewind spam RNG nonsense. I’d find it hard to really argue it’s unfair necessarily, as the strategy element is almost a fundamental part of hard maps. It’s also worth noting that it’s hard to exactly measure difficulty in “attempts” so to speak, as naturally getting better at the game also means you’re spending less time on trying to figure out a fight, simply because you have a better perception of how the monsters work.

[Havok]

3 minutes ago, NiGHTS108 said:

I feel like that with making hard maps in general, and especially hard slaughter maps, there’s a degree to which slowly figuring out the challenge of a specific fight is necessary without veering into rewind spam RNG nonsense. I’d find it hard to really argue it’s unfair necessarily, as the strategy element is almost a fundamental part of hard maps. It’s also worth noting that it’s hard to exactly measure difficulty in “attempts” so to speak, as naturally getting better at the game also means you’re spending less time on trying to figure out a fight, simply because you have a better perception of how the monsters work.

 

Well I've seen Decino who is highly skilled at the game retry the same fights for over 1 hour before he figured out how to beat it. It doesn't matter how good you are if a fight is so hard due to the number of enemies, different type of enemies and being unlucky due to the high damage roll.

[Havok]

20 minutes ago, TuomasGaming said:

Depends on the level of unfairness, ig...

 

If the encounters don't require TAS-level skills to pull off, or just plain luck, then it's fine, even if I'm not a personal fan of such levels.

 

Also, the amount of enemies and the selection of enemies also matters. Putting like 20 Cyberdemons in a room is challenging in all the wrong ways.

 

Also, make sure the difficulty of the encounters get increasingly harder, don't make the first room literal Hell.

 

I don't mind Cyberdemons when there's a point to them but people just putting lots of them in map just for sake of it is annoying.

[NiGHTS108]

1 minute ago, Havok said:

Well I've seen Decino who is highly skilled at the game retry the same fights for over 1 hour before he figured out how to beat it. It doesn't matter how good you are if a fight is so hard due to the number of enemies, different type of enemies and being unlucky due to the high damage roll.

 

Sometimes fights really are just hard because of the techniques you have to pull off too. Difficult combat is a bit of a balance between skill and strategy in my eyes, both kinda inform the other in a sense. I can beat every individual fight in Sunlust MAP18, for example, perfectly fine but recording the UV-Max of that map has still been a tough time. Also, even with the right strategy it definitely would take most people quite a bit longer than an hour to do the kind of things it takes decino an hour to do. It's not always 100% just about knowing what to do.

[DiavoJinx]

Not a fan.

A well designed video game level if it's going to include something different than the normal gameplay should give a smart player the chance to figure out how to tackle the new problem/boss right then and there.  Only actual rogue-alikes are meant, by design, to be replayed over & over until you get passed it.

 

Example: if a boss fight has a boss that's only vulnerable on their belly and only at certain points, classic the weak spot glows when it's vulnerable. That's part of gameification (is that a word?).

 

Other examples off the top of my sleep head:

 

Portal 1's final "boss fight" was so well designed, because having a "boss fight" was unlike the entire rest of the game's constant puzzle solving... at first. Then you quickly realize you've simply got to use all the skills the game taught you to be familiar with, and you can do it. The only actual new thing is the timer ticking down... but really you've been involved with timed situations already too.

 

Diablo 3's final bosses of each Act, IMHO, are the bad version of this I've used as an example for years. Throughout the game you're mowing down many, weak enemies ((because D3 is basically an arcade game and barely an RPG at all)) and build your character to optimize for that... then you get to big boss fights and your necessary "AoE build" style is completely useless: weak and counter to how the entire rest of the game is.

Likewise, though I enjoy the SoulsBorne games, their boss fights aren't great either. One imperfect dodge and you're completely dead, start again from scratch. Keep dying until you've memorized movesets and perfected dodges. Good luck! (Not a fan of any of those boss fights, otherwise love the games especially Bloodborne.)

 

To show how an excellent actual boss fight can be designed, I point to the mantis lords in Hollow Knight!

First you fight one mantis, and you can absolutely kill her on the first go if you're quick with your jumps. After you kill her, 2 identical bosses take you on at the same time... with the exact same moves.  Fighting one-on-one just taught you how to fight these bugs, so you're familiar with how to take on 2 at once.

[Laocoön]

I'm in favour, but I wouldn't want to play only maps like that. Variety is the spice of Doom.

[Sneezy McGlassFace]

• Know your audience.
• Make the maps you'd like to play. 

If you make a hard map, i think it's fair to assume you have beaten and balanced it properly. Like NiGHTS said, counting number of attempts doesn't seem like a very sensible metric. The best balance is to your own skill level, imo. 

1 hour ago, Havok said:

I don't know if there's any way to figure out the strategy until you try and get killed?

In sunlust or fractured worlds you often find puzzles introduced with imps in the first stage, and then the difficulty increases when you're shown the rules. 

1 hour ago, Havok said:

I'm not sure how to make the difficulty of the rooms in a normal non-slaughter map?

This is a bit of a red flag, honestly. There are so many ways you can make non slaughter situation difficult by managing the player's resources or the geometry and strategic thing placement, hurtfloors, visibility, obstructions.. how do you want to make puzzles if you don't have a thorough understanding of the game mechanics? 

[whybmonotacrab]

8 minutes ago, DiavoJinx said:

Not a fan.

A well designed video game level if it's going to include something different than the normal gameplay should give a smart player the chance to figure out how to tackle the new problem/boss right then and there.  Only actual rogue-alikes are meant, by design, to be replayed over & over until you get passed it.

It's a puzzle. Failure is part of figuring out the puzzle. If you can instantly work out a puzzle without any thought, it's probable not a very well designed puzzle.

 

 Also... one missed dodge roll in a souls game and you're dead? Do you just like wear no armour and put negative points into your health stat? You can almost always take a few hits in those games - it's why you have healing items. If you're good at a souls-like you can beat a lot of the bosses first try without memorizing anything.

 

 I want to make it clear here: there is nothing wrong with disliking a style of game or not being the most skilled player in the world, but saying they're poorly designed because you're not good at them isn't helping anybody.

[yakfak]

they're good

[Havok]

40 minutes ago, Sneezy McGlassFace said:

• Know your audience.
• Make the maps you'd like to play. 

If you make a hard map, i think it's fair to assume you have beaten and balanced it properly. Like NiGHTS said, counting number of attempts doesn't seem like a very sensible metric. The best balance is to your own skill level, imo. 

In sunlust or fractured worlds you often find puzzles introduced with imps in the first stage, and then the difficulty increases when you're shown the rules. 

This is a bit of a red flag, honestly. There are so many ways you can make non slaughter situation difficult by managing the player's resources or the geometry and strategic thing placement, hurtfloors, visibility, obstructions.. how do you want to make puzzles if you don't have a thorough understanding of the game mechanics? 

 

Do you have a link to those puzzles you're talking about please so I can learn?

[Stabbey]

I think it's generally fine. I save often and take multiple attempts and approaches. But I'm not the best player, and at a certain point it's not worth spending more time on, so sometimes I will cheat.

[Jacek Bourne]

Make stuff you can beat consistently. Do whatever you want. Make whatever is fun to you but make sure it can be beat say 80% of the time. If you need to practice a fight to achieve this level of consistency that's fine but if you want fights to be balanced, you must be able to beat them without the reliance of luck. That way you can ensure that they are fair.

[Deadwing]

Not much a fan but they're legit

[Mr. Alexander]

1 hour ago, Havok said:

 

Do you have a link to those puzzles you're talking about please so I can learn?

Fractured Worlds and Sunlust. Note that these are challenge wads made by and for people who love hard maps, so you will almost certainly need to change your mindset wrt "die and try" maps if you want to get far into them. Pretty much any "hard" wad, and any wad above your own skill level even if it isn't a challenge wad, will test you in the trial-and-error way.

 

As far as your own maps, make maps that you enjoy and build them so you can find reasonably consistent strategies for UV-Maxing them yourself without saves. Don't worry about attempt counts as much as the consistency and enjoyability of the strategies you find.

[Sneezy McGlassFace]

1 hour ago, Havok said:

Do you have a link to those puzzles you're talking about please so I can learn?

The one absolutely genius example is what Nirvana made in Fractured Worlds MAP03.

Here's vile's uvmax run on youtube with a timestamp to the particular fight.

Note: The teal water is damaging. The teal cybers only have 1000hp. And blood doesn't hurt.

This fight is all about balancing when you're allowed to push against the enemies, and clear space for yourself, and when you have to fall back.

These waterfalls right here are slowly raising and falling to indicate when the floor changes from damaging to safe and back. There is a safe space behind but that's where all the enemies pour in from, so you can't be there. And the little islands are so small you can't dodge projectiles while trying to stay on them. So the only thing you can really do is what is intended - dance on the blood floor, clearing as many enemies as you can, carving a path to safety, and be ready when it switches to teal to make your move. You can't just stand there and take the damage, you can't hide somewhere and cheese it, you have to engage with it as a puzzle, and play at a high level to survive.

Now, I'm not saying everything needs to meet this standard, this is creme de la creme, chef kiss. I'm saying that Nirvana has a very clear understanding of all the moving parts in doom to even come up with something like this, and lots of experience to convey the information so clearly, balance the fight so it's hard enough you can't brute force it but just simple enough you can win when you know what you're doing. No doubt it was tested countless times with many people, and iterated over and over to make it as good as it is.

 

A good puzzle doesn't need to be this elaborate mechanism, it can be a handful of monsters in a room but the understanding of doom's mechanics, what each monster's and weapon's strengths and weaknesses are, how monsters behave in crowds... MAP05 of Sunlust and the other early ones for random examples of that. Tight design with a goal in mind can be a great little puzzle. You die at first but you're expected to poke the situation, see it from multiple angles and make choices to survive. The early levels may not be ball-busters and have some leeway but are just as delicately and deliberately designed.

 

edit: I should add, I'm by no means an authority. These are just my opinions, feel free to disregard

[Antroid]

I'm fine with them, but only if I know they're coming. When a wad is fine to play blind but then after many levels it switches to this, that's annoying.

[Havok]

1 hour ago, Sneezy McGlassFace said:

The one absolutely genius example is what Nirvana made in Fractured Worlds MAP03.

Here's vile's uvmax run on youtube with a timestamp to the particular fight.

Note: The teal water is damaging. The teal cybers only have 1000hp. And blood doesn't hurt.

This fight is all about balancing when you're allowed to push against the enemies, and clear space for yourself, and when you have to fall back.

These waterfalls right here are slowly raising and falling to indicate when the floor changes from damaging to safe and back. There is a safe space behind but that's where all the enemies pour in from, so you can't be there. And the little islands are so small you can't dodge projectiles while trying to stay on them. So the only thing you can really do is what is intended - dance on the blood floor, clearing as many enemies as you can, carving a path to safety, and be ready when it switches to teal to make your move. You can't just stand there and take the damage, you can't hide somewhere and cheese it, you have to engage with it as a puzzle, and play at a high level to survive.

Now, I'm not saying everything needs to meet this standard, this is creme de la creme, chef kiss. I'm saying that Nirvana has a very clear understanding of all the moving parts in doom to even come up with something like this, and lots of experience to convey the information so clearly, balance the fight so it's hard enough you can't brute force it but just simple enough you can win when you know what you're doing. No doubt it was tested countless times with many people, and iterated over and over to make it as good as it is.

 

A good puzzle doesn't need to be this elaborate mechanism, it can be a handful of monsters in a room but the understanding of doom's mechanics, what each monster's and weapon's strengths and weaknesses are, how monsters behave in crowds... MAP05 of Sunlust and the other early ones for random examples of that. Tight design with a goal in mind can be a great little puzzle. You die at first but you're expected to poke the situation, see it from multiple angles and make choices to survive. The early levels may not be ball-busters and have some leeway but are just as delicately and deliberately designed.

 

edit: I should add, I'm by no means an authority. These are just my opinions, feel free to disregard

 

I do like the die-by-trying encounters as they're fun and challenging. It's just weird that it seems to be a general rule that you should avoid making die-by-trying fights even though it seems to be a rule that has exceptions a lot of the time so much so that maybe it shouldn't be a rule?

Edited August 26 by Havok

[bofu]

The implementation of skill levels also matters to me. I’m very forgiving if something is “try by dying” on UV but is more forgiving in HNTR.

 

(It actually really bugs me when people complain something is too hard but then you find out they only played on UV and don’t bother trying to dial down the skill level once they hit a wall, but that’s a rant that’s been done to death here numerous times.)

 

But honestly, as long as it’s not just random cheap deaths because you walked across an instakill floor with no warnings or a crusher comes out of nowhere, I’m fine with this trope in general. I have a low frustration tolerance that makes me unable to enjoy a lot of try by dying things like soulslikes, but Doom has lots of ways to mitigate that, like saving.

[Havok]

2 minutes ago, bofu said:

The implementation of skill levels also matters to me. I’m very forgiving if something is “try by dying” on UV but is more forgiving in HNTR.

 

(It actually really bugs me when people complain something is too hard but then you find out they only played on UV and don’t bother trying to dial down the skill level once they hit a wall, but that’s a rant that’s been done to death here numerous times.)

 

But honestly, as long as it’s not just random cheap deaths because you walked across an instakill floor with no warnings or a crusher comes out of nowhere, I’m fine with this trope in general. I have a low frustration tolerance that makes me unable to enjoy a lot of try by dying things like soulslikes, but Doom has lots of ways to mitigate that, like saving.

 

What is "soulslikes?"

[Novaseer]

38 minutes ago, Havok said:

 

I do like the die-by-trying encounters as they're fun and challenging. It's just weird that it seems to be a general rule that you should avoid making die-by-trying fights even though it seems to be a rule that has exceptions a lot of the time so much so that maybe it shouldn't be rule?

Because a lot of the "die-by-trying"-ness of difficult fights comes from figuring out the strategy the fight requires of you... which you'll know automatically if you're the one making the map. If you're making a fight that doesn't feel consistently possible to you even when you know exactly what you need to do, that's when you need to tone it down.

24 minutes ago, Havok said:

 

What is "soulslikes?"

Games like Dark Souls, Bloodborne, Sekiro, Elden Ring, etc.

[magicsofa]

3 hours ago, whybmonotacrab said:

It's a puzzle. Failure is part of figuring out the puzzle. If you can instantly work out a puzzle without any thought, it's probable not a very well designed puzzle.

While I don't go around saying that ultrahard maps are poorly designed, I also disagree with the blanket statement "it's a puzzle" as a justification for them. Slaughter often has a puzzle element. Determining where to go first, who to aggro, places to lead or stuck the monsters, etc are puzzle elements.

Requiring really good dodging and shooting skills is not a puzzle element. It just means your mechanics need to be very good. It doesn't really matter how much you sit and think about being good at mechanics. You get better by physically practicing and performing difficult movements. There might be some analysis you can do regarding your techniques, how to avoid certain mistakes, how to react to different enemies... but I wouldn't count that toward the puzzly-ness of the map itself.

This justification almost feels like you are trying to obscure the fact that you do need twiddle fingers in order to not suck at slaughter. 

[Shepardus]

I don't think it's "unfair" unless your idea of "fair" is that you play everything exactly once.

 

You'd also be surprised how quickly good players can pick up on the essence of a fight. When I watch people like Vile stream their first playthrough of a WAD, I see them trigger a monster closet and at a glance know which targets they want to focus down and where to run, and end up clearing the fight on their first try without a hitch. To a less experienced player that fight might seem like it requires foreknowledge or is even luck-based, but you can see that happen only so many times before having to conclude that it is in fact a skill issue, so to speak.

[DynamiteKaitorn]

If I'm going through a map and I'm having fun chilling and suddenly I'm expected to survive against a massive horde of Revenants, I'll just quit. If it's a slaughtermap, I'll try to push through.

 

Basically, if I expect really harsh challenge I'll give it a few tries. If not, it'll put me off fast.

[bofu]

3 hours ago, Shepardus said:

I don't think it's "unfair" unless your idea of "fair" is that you play everything exactly once.

 

You'd also be surprised how quickly good players can pick up on the essence of a fight. When I watch people like Vile stream their first playthrough of a WAD, I see them trigger a monster closet and at a glance know which targets they want to focus down and where to run, and end up clearing the fight on their first try without a hitch. To a less experienced player that fight might seem like it requires foreknowledge or is even luck-based, but you can see that happen only so many times before having to conclude that it is in fact a skill issue, so to speak.

 

That’s very true. Watching someone like Vile shred through a level with maybe one or two deaths at only a few particularly challenging points while that same level gives most players dozens upon dozens of death simply reiterates how broad the range in player skill can be in the community. Some players will not see something as “try by dying” because they simply have a skill level and familiarity with the game mechanics, mapping tropes, and such that makes even the most seemingly unfair trap that they didn’t see coming feel like a bump in the road.

[VeryRandomMan]

I like enjoying games so, i guess i don't like it

[LadyMistDragon]

I don't really have an issue with it. It's kind of how console games used to be and they didn't even have saving for the most part. At least in Doom, I can compensate for my crappy muscle memory with a couple of different methods so I don't spend too much time thinking about. That said, it does get a little tiresome when I've played the sixth map in a row that just throws in 200 Revenants and it basically becomes a more complex method of the same strategy. Maybe I won't spend my time with it, maybe I will :P

[ItsPower303]

If they're well made, they're good, like all kinds of WADs

[whybmonotacrab]

12 hours ago, magicsofa said:

While I don't go around saying that ultrahard maps are poorly designed, I also disagree with the blanket statement "it's a puzzle" as a justification for them. Slaughter often has a puzzle element. Determining where to go first, who to aggro, places to lead or stuck the monsters, etc are puzzle elements.

Requiring really good dodging and shooting skills is not a puzzle element. It just means your mechanics need to be very good. It doesn't really matter how much you sit and think about being good at mechanics. You get better by physically practicing and performing difficult movements. There might be some analysis you can do regarding your techniques, how to avoid certain mistakes, how to react to different enemies... but I wouldn't count that toward the puzzly-ness of the map itself.

This justification almost feels like you are trying to obscure the fact that you do need twiddle fingers in order to not suck at slaughter. 

I was referring more to combat puzzle maps than large scale slaughter. Yeah, you still have to have a level of mechanical mastery, but a lot of it is working out order of operations and how to manipulate enemies. This is how I build a lot of my maps, and I build them like that because I'm influenced by a lot of people who do the same. Puzzle platformers are still puzzle games even if you need a degree of mechanical mastery to finish them.