Have wads gotten harder?

[Da Werecat]

Chezza said:

Although to be fair, TimeOfDeath claimed I'm a lazy player who doesn't practice enough at first before I judged his comment.

To be fair, you claimed that slaughtermap authors are lazy mappers who don't want to bother with allegedly more noble ways of creating good maps.

[NuMetalManiak]

the most revered/hyped mapsets of this year and the last have been these sets that get ultra-hard at some point. you know, the one's that have a ton of monster crowds, and/or rather villainous placement of them? plus there's been more traps than usual, so...

[purist]

I would say making slaughtermaps that are challenging and fun (to the target audience of slaughtermap players) is harder than providing the same experience with lower counts of strategically placed and resource management.

It's very easy to put a lot of monsters in a map but to arrange them in a way that they cannot be cheesed by funnelling or infighting and leave it without the boring grindy clean up once the main threat is over is not an easy skill. I don't make many slaughterish fights so for the really big ones playtesting alone must be exhausting.

Therefore I do not consider author's of slaughtermaps to be lazy or taking the easy option for difficult making WADs. Unless they are authors of bad slaughtermaps of course, but this should quite clearly be besides the point.

[Sokoro]

Slaughtermaps are fine, they are good playground for overpowered weapon mods.
But you should make more 90's difficulty wads too, and some other wads too... so better if you increase your productivity at least by 300%.

[NuMetalManiak]

Chezza said:

I don't approve of common slaughter maps. It turns the game from an enjoying fast paced Doom experience to a stressful THINK FAST OR DIE, RUN! MANAGE YOUR AMMO! NO YOU IDIOT YOU SHOULD OF SAVED WHILE YOU HAD A BREATHER! YOU IDIOT YOU TOOK THE ORB BEFORE YOU GOT AMBUSHED! HA YOU RAN FROM THE ARMY OF REVENANTS AND INTO 2 CYBERDEMONS!

eh, I don't think that the harder maps mean all slaughterfests either. most of the new wads I break my keyboard over are more "scrambler" style, characterized by action starts, "working" to get weapons, constant exposure, chance of instant death upon screwing up, etc. those require a lot of practice on my end, and even on ITYTD getting swamped is no fun. enemy placement often gets devious in these maps, especially arch-viles, hitscanners, and fuck, even imps.

as for slaughterfests, I at least am treated fairly enough, usually getting my weapons at the proper moments (or just right at the beginning of the map in the harder cases).

[Chezza]

Da Werecat said:

To be fair, you claimed that slaughtermap authors are lazy mappers who don't want to bother with allegedly more noble ways of creating good maps.

Fair point, I can't argue with that.

I have recently completed playing a Megawad called Valiant (just made a review on it too). I was legitimately impressed with it all the way through despite the difficulty of the last few chapters, which I had to literally lower in order to complete in a timely fashion. In the middle of the campaign was a Slaughter-map which overwhelmed me. By the time I killed every monster I was drained of enthusiasm for the next level. But I was pleased to see it was the only map with 1700+ monsters and therefore formed the view that Megawads should stick with only one slaughter map, somewhat like an equivalent to a Boss fight but in a form of the map.

And regardless of only one slaughter-map the following levels were still very difficult, requiring fast reflexes and minimal mistakes while offering the player plenty of room to move. Valiant is a great example of excellent monster placement for high difficulty without breaking the 300 monster mark (well most of the time anyway). Although I'm not into high difficulty maps myself unless it's the last few.

The first 2 chapters I loved, it had the perfect balance of challenge and fun for me.

[Maes]

Just pit the player against Doom 2-class monsters in close quarters without the SSG. Actually, without anything more powerful than a RL. TA-DAH: instant hard WAD ;-)

This particular way of ramping up the difficulty is subtle and efficient: you can even be lavish with the ammo, if you wish, but if you remove from the player the ability to kill things quickly (if not at great risk to himself), everything suddenly acquires a new meaning. You can even be lavish with health (but not armor), but it will matter little if most monsters can corner you and kill you in 2 hits at any time.

A map with a quite moderate number of monsters can become a nightmare, if you can't do more than tickle them a bit each time, and every new encounter forces the player to run away/backtrack.

[Dave The Daring]

If you're one of those players who refuse to play on anything other than UV, but you lack the required skills to play consistently at that level, you're gonna have a bad time. It's not called Ultra Violence because it's easy.

Mappers are entitled to make their maps as difficult as they want on UV, but as I mentioned earlier, if they want to cater for as many people as possible, they should take the time to implement proper difficulty levels. It is possible to make an interesting map on ITYTD.

Slaughtermaps are a different beast entirely, but to be fair, it says what they do on the tin. Granted, they're not my cup of tea, but I wouldn't call people who make them 'lazy' by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, making a decent slaughtermap takes a certain set of skills that I lack entirely.

So to sum up, when you're implementing your hard-as-balls UV settings, remember the crap Doom players.. Remember me.

[40oz]

I think its worth mentioning that more monsters doesn't really correlate with being more hard. A room with an archvile and no cover is hard despite being one monster. A trap monster closet with chaingunners behind it that is activated when the player picks up a berserk pack, making him exposed to gunfire while the player arbitrarily fiddles with his weapons is hard.

This is more questioning a trend in which the average mapper feels more inclined to kill or sometimes frustrate their player with unforgiving traps, minimal health and ammo resources, and tough monsters in lieu of wimpy cannon fodder ones.

I like it because I think it will encourage mappers to be more careful about implementing skill settings, and encourage more players to either play on easy or play in coop instead, which I feel is a pretty good thing IMO.

[Maes]

But that's the beauty of DooM: in one WAD, you can mindlessly keep the fire button pressed, as your BFG just vaporizes hordes of Barons and Cyberdemons. You. Are. Their. GOD. And nothing seems able to stop you.

But in the next, you find yourself battling for vital space and resources inch-by-inch as you're sieged and persecuted by monsters that can rip you a new one in a couple of seconds, with all of your speed and firepower advantages negated. Again, that's the Beauty Of DooM (TM). What other game can be so flexible?

So monster numbers and their placement is just one side of the equation. The other is the player (intended as the equipment he gets and the way his movement is constrained, individual talent or lack thereof notwithstanding).

Even in the "one room, one archvile" scenario, it will be easy if the player is given a BFG, or even a plasma rifle, assuming he can't simply walk out of the door, or the room has enough health and armor for him to survive.

[Angry Saint]

40oz said:

I think its worth mentioning that more monsters doesn't really correlate with being more hard.

Yes, and in addition a huge amount of monsters is not direct sign of a slaughterwad. You can have 1000 monsters not in hordes of cannon folder but in an high number of carefully planned 1 vs 1 battles.

Ok, this may be an extreme example as 1000 battles can be boring... or not?

[Gez]

Map sets like Sunder or Sunlust are absolutely gorgeous even if they're so full of monsters that I completely ignore the authors' claims that it's for pistol starting each map and also am unashamed in save-scumming through the hairiest arenas.

[Dime]

It really depends on the slaughtermap. I feel like sunder "hag's finger" is a perfect example of a map filled with great and poor encounters. Some of the fights literally pose no threat but are a total grind fest.

Extra bodies are fine to me if they have a purpose but otherwise it can hinder the map big time by slowing it down to a snail's pace.

[mouldy]

This seems to be an issue with any gaming community over time. I find that with a lot of custom content for other old games, you think "oh cool here are some more levels to play", and then find that they are balls hard and require intimate knowledge of the gameplay mechanics and the ability to do various tricks that only a veteran would have mastered.

Doom has the advantage of having various difficulty settings, but even so you will probably find they all get relatively harder over time. Players are just expected to know things and know how to deal with certain situations. When i started playing custom wads I didn't even know how to strafe jump, which made some wads impossible. There are conventions, like "that texture will always be a lift" or "that texture means you need a blue key", which will stump a lot of new players. I played a lot of doom before I knew the importance of infighting, and chaingun tapping I only discovered in the last couple of years, and yet modern mappers may be testing their maps using these techniques and adjusting ammo accordingly.

Watching my brother get slaughtered on my maps made me realise how not even modern fps gaming skills will save you when you don't have those years of doom experience.

[Chezza]

There seems to be a legitimate love for intense Doom moments and challenge in this community. Thinking about it, the first chapter of my operation UAC wad is mostly filled with levels I love except for 6 (just to change the pace in order to keep it dynamic) it begins to take on the long distance turret monsters and requirement to run while watching your step at the same time. Map 6 might be the only level this community may enjoy the most.

Based on this thread and my experience with Valiant I might gradually take on the higher enemy count and dangerously placed monster turret design to gain interest. It is my goal to have notable differences in difficulty in chapters anyway. I suppose the final chapter can have my attempt on a slaughter-map.

*Edit* Haha Mouldy, I have been listening to a interview with you on Doom Radio just as you posted.

And you bring up an interesting point. I believe universally a good game / campaign design will help train the new players to gradually learn and become adept with various styles, challenges and tricks before it becomes expected of them. The other important trait would be to also maintain the interest of experienced players.

The only play testers I have used for my wad are my close friends who do not play doom, one of them never had in his entire life (and couldn't stop bitching about the 2D sprites). They got slaughtered in my Wad and I started modifying the levels to be easier to approach. Thinking about it I should be careful how friendly it is to newcomers. I mean who am I catering to other than myself? The new players? The Veterans? I feel I have to make an important decision on difficulty because of this. But perhaps I can eventually make a complete Megawad that effectively entertains / challenges veterans yet able to train and grow with the newbies.

[Job]

A lot of good points made here. I can see how there's a compulsion to push the envelope further or take Doom's gameplay to new heights. Between scripting, development of technique and even new genres (i.e. slaughter maps), I'd say that's been accomplished. That said, the maps I enjoy most recapture or build on my fondest memories playing Doom when I was younger. The PSX TC/Lost Levels is one example, that excellent PSX-style Hell map release a few months ago would be another (can't recall the name). There's also been some great examples of maps that took the gameplay of Thy Flesh Consumed and refined it, which were excellent. Taking what's good about Doom and making the subtle changes needed to improve it without changing it drastically is one way to do it the greatest honor. I think of it like an analogy where Guy Fieri douses a dish in ghost chili peppers, thinking over the top = amazing, whereas the quiet, restrained chef in the corner carefully adds black garlic and subtle herbs to taste.

[mouldy]

Chezza said:

Thinking about it I should be careful how friendly it is to newcomers. I mean who am I catering to other than myself? The new players? The Veterans? I feel I have to make an important decision on difficulty because of this.

My rule of thumb for difficulties is that UV is for giving me a challenge that I might eventually beat without saves on a good day, HMP is where I'd have a fair chance of surviving without saves every time if I'm careful, and HNTR is where I can blaze through it like rambo without coming close to death. You can only really judge these things in relation to your own skill, but getting your mates who aren't used to the game to test the lower difficulties might be more useful.

[Varis Alpha]

i don't mind slaughterwads. i suck at them, sure, but they're a decent challenge, and hey, i'm a save-scumming, cheating ass-wipe anyway. :p i play them to have fun, and it's quite the achievement to finish some ultra-hard levels by yourself, even if you reached that point by hitting quick-save a bazillion times. there is such a thing as difficulty-settings anyway: is it that hard to tone down the difficulty now?

[gemini09]

The last "grand" slaughter wad I played was DV2 and I had to part ways it. I guess my case is also a sign of old age, but I don't find it very tempting either to simply warp to the door-step of a bajillion monsters. Why should I bother?

[Varis Alpha]

gemini09 said:

The last "grand" slaughter wad I played was DV2 and I had to part ways it. I guess my case is also a sign of old age, but I don't find it very tempting either to simply warp to the door-step of a bajillion monsters. Why should I bother?

you don't have to? slaughterwads are not the be-all, end-all of content the community produces after all. there are still wads that have a more reasonable challenge in them. also, skill-settings, they are a thing.

[7hm]

Difficulty can mean more than just combat. One area where older wads were more difficult is progression puzzles. There are very few mappers still carrying the Jim Flynn torch (valkiriforce, a couple Russian dudes). I'd love to see another Eternal Doom, but I'm kind of doubting that particular style will ever make a grand return.

[Fletcher`]

As the average length of time doomers have been playing increases it only makes sense that the general difficulty will also raise to accomodate their skill.

[RjY]

Budoka said:

H2H-XMAS in particular, one of the oldest megawads in existence, is surprisingly brutal

Maes said:

(but check out DMINATOR.WAD from 1994...)

I think it's worth noting both of these were intended for multiplayer. DMINATOR explicitly says it was made for co-op in its text file. H2H was a BBS for Doom multiplayer, I believe it stands for Head To Head. Of course people played them solo for the challenge and now here we are.

[Varis Alpha]

7hm said:

Difficulty can mean more than just combat. One area where older wads were more difficult is progression puzzles. There are very few mappers still carrying the Jim Flynn torch (valkiriforce, a couple Russian dudes). I'd love to see another Eternal Doom, but I'm kind of doubting that particular style will ever make a grand return.

honestly, i'd call that less difficulty and more frustration. Eternal Doom frustrates me to no end and i still haven't been able to beat it yet because of the increasingly obtuse puzzles. i had to cheat to finish Monster Mansion, and yet i got stuck at Silures later on and i have no idea what the fuck to do to progress. i'd rather not see that kind of obtuse puzzle-design become widespread again.

[Da Werecat]

Doomhuntress said:

Eternal Doom frustrates me to no end and i still haven't been able to beat it yet because of the increasingly obtuse puzzles. i had to cheat to finish Monster Mansion, and yet i got stuck at Silures later on and i have no idea what the fuck to do to progress.

[yakfak]

7hm said:

Difficulty can mean more than just combat. One area where older wads were more difficult is progression puzzles. There are very few mappers still carrying the Jim Flynn torch (valkiriforce, a couple Russian dudes). I'd love to see another Eternal Doom, but I'm kind of doubting that particular style will ever make a grand return.

I agree with you! but the famous saying, "Be the change you wish to see in the world" applies extra strong here, since nothing about the arcade trend of modern maps will ever revive teh Eternal ethos!

[40oz]

I'd like to see complex puzzles become more prominent in Doom mapping to break up extreme monster conflicts. Unfortunately coming up with an enjoyable puzzle in Doom is a puzzle in itself, given how basic the linedef actions are. I once made a pretty interesting base for a puzzle where there was a square floor and two switches. One switch rose the floor up to the ceiling, and the other switch closed a door on the same sector. then two other switches where one opens the door and the other lowers the floor.

if you press the close door switch and floor rise up to the ceiling switch one after another, the door and floor will stop where they collide. Then when you open the door, the floor stays, creating a platform suspended in some height between the floor and the ceiling. In a map with some platforming involved, this could be an engaging way of building your own platforming puzzle inside the game by timing the two switches right so the floor and ceiling collide at the height you want the floor to be.

I haven't yet used it in a map, but its the most interesting thing I've come up with to date :/

[VGamingJunkie]

It's easier to make a good puzzle if you don't mind your map requiring ZDoom or a port based off it. ACS adds a ton of depth to that.

[scifista42]

^^Sounds interesting indeed, 40oz.

^MetroidJunkie, ACS is powerful, but doesn't help to invent ideas for truly engaging puzzles, which are still hard to pull off well in an FPS game, even with decent scripting possibilities.

[VGamingJunkie]

Oh, I know it doesn't substitute creativity, it just gives the artist a bigger canvas and more colors of paint to work with. If it were possible to have a first person model where the player can see their own feet, it would at least give some possibilities of jumping and platforming puzzles.