Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Memfis

Radiation suit + 20% damage floor

Recommended Posts

Is it ever a good idea to force the player to walk on a 20% damage floor with a radiation suit if it still hurts him sometimes? Fucking bullshit rule.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm glad that it didn't happen to me while doing Speed of Doom Map04 UV Max/Reality... Anyway, it's a funny design at the first place. If this is used in a map, it doesn't really bother me unless that map has absolutely no health.

Share this post


Link to post

It's not bad if you have health/armor available somewhere or plenty of radsuits to afford mistakes or non-intuitive progression. It's bad when there are no radsuits, or when your only health available is ON damaging floor type worst.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Memfis said:

Is it ever a good idea

If running over the damaging area was optional, but doing so gave the player some advantage (shortcut across the map, space to avoid enemy attacks), the mapper could let the floor do occasional damage to motivate the player not to exploit that advantage too much.

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, scifista42 said:

the mapper could let the floor do occasional damage to motivate the player not to exploit that advantage too much

DTWID has quite a few maps that do this. I do think it's a bit frustrating when you have both 100% health and armor and step in some slime for too long. It's probably an OCD thing.

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/31/2017 at 1:08 PM, Memfis said:

Is it ever a good idea to force the player to walk on a 20% damage floor with a radiation suit if it still hurts him sometimes? Fucking bullshit rule.

No. I think the "leaking" radiation suit was a terrible idea. Doom is not Baldur's Gate and does not need random RNG fuck-you damage.

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, Arctangent said:

I get the feeling a lot of you guys absolutely hate getting hit by revenants.

Hmm... is this an inside joke that I can't get? Or you mean people just universally hate being hit...?

Share this post


Link to post

Revenant rockets deal 1d8 x 10 damage.

 

So there's an 12.5% chance to take only 10 damage, and a 12.5% chance to take 80 damage, give or take a bit due to Doom's PRNG not having an even distribution of values. All entirely RNG driven.

Share this post


Link to post

I dislike anything that does >50% damage because of red screen, so I compensate by getting hit by such things infrequently. :) Also, armor. 

 

Even the rev's wide damage range is intrinsic and deterministic (provided you have to fight revs, you can generally avoid getting hit by revenant rockets altogether), whereas the damage from radsuit leakage feels somewhat extraneous and nondeterministic (provided you have to cross 20% damaging floor with a radsuit, you are subjected to possible damage). 

 

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Arctangent said:

Revenant rockets deal 1d8 x 10 damage.

 

So there's an 12.5% chance to take only 10 damage, and a 12.5% chance to take 80 damage, give or take a bit due to Doom's PRNG not having an even distribution of values. All entirely RNG driven.

I would say the difference between a Revenant's 80% damage rockets and 20% damage floor is that you can prevent the 80% damage hit from happening if you are avoiding the rockets altogether, whereas the 20% damage floor can be forced to be walked on and you are at risk of 20% damage even with the radiation suit. In short, it sucks to lose control and more when it harms you at random.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, rdwpa said:

Even the rev's wide damage range is intrinsic and deterministic (provided you have to fight revs, you can generally avoid getting hit by revenant rockets altogether), whereas the damage from radsuit leakage feels somewhat extraneous and nondeterministic (provided you have to cross 20% damaging floor with a radsuit, you are subjected to possible damage).

Pretty much this. If a skilled player can avoid damage, then it's fair. If a skilled player cannot avoid damage, then it's unfair.

 

Of course, the exact definition of "skilled player" is probably somewhat arbitrary...

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, 42PercentHealth said:

Pretty much this. If a skilled player can avoid damage, then it's fair. If a skilled player cannot avoid damage, then it's unfair.

 

Of course, the exact definition of "skilled player" is probably somewhat arbitrary...

It's especially arbitrary when you consider that this is entirely based on map design, considering it's completely realistic to design a map where a smart player can avoid any leak damage via risk avoidance.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Arctangent said:

It's especially arbitrary when you consider that this is entirely based on map design, considering it's completely realistic to design a map where a smart player can avoid any leak damage via risk avoidance.

I don't have any problem with map design like this. But then why give the rad suit at all if sector damage is avoidable? My problem is with maps like Mt. Erebus that give you a rad suit and then expect you to stroll around in 20% damaging lava for a while. (To be fair, I don't remember if that map actually required walking in the 20% damaging sectors in order to progress, but you get my point.)

 

The OP asked, "Is the leaky rad suit mechanic a good idea?" My answer is "no." My reason is that all damage should be avoidable at some level of skill. The leaky rad suit mechanic adds an unnecessary exception to what seems like a logical solution for damaging floors, and this exception is entirely RNG-based.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, 42PercentHealth said:

I don't have any problem with map design like this. But then why give the rad suit at all if sector damage is avoidable?

There's options in between "damage floors small enough that you can avoid damage without a radsuit" and "damage floors you swim in for twenty seconds with radsuit," y'know. Options that make it so that you have to have the luck of a stabbed potato to get a leak.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, 42PercentHealth said:

But then why give the rad suit at all if sector damage is avoidable?

For instance, to make platforming more forgiving, and giving people a pickup to mitigate some damage from the hurt floor they were supposed to avoid. Or, you have a fight that involves some sectors with hurt floor, where early on you wanna be fast, and move directly to certain locations, while later on the hurt floor becomes more of a concern as some sort of "soft obstacle". That's why having both avoidable hurt floor and rad suits can make a hell of a lot of sense, if you design fights for that, which will then become more interesting by something I'd call a change in dynamics.

 

1 hour ago, 42PercentHealth said:

The OP asked, "Is the leaky rad suit mechanic a good idea?" My answer is "no." My reason is that all damage should be avoidable at some level of skill.

Nope, not all damage should be avoidable. Playing with "guaranteed damage" and deliberate item placement to create some sort of pressure, in example something akin to a timed puzzle, is absolutely fair game, and it has been used to varying effects in the past already, but some of these outcomes were pretty interesting and made for a nice change of pace.

Share this post


Link to post

20% damaging floors is obnoxious for everything except death exits. The amount of damage doesn't matter -- the lowest damage floor accomplishes the same "if you stand here, you will get hurt" effect as any of the other damage types. There's no fair reasoning to use anything except the lowest damage type.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, 40oz said:

20% damaging floors is obnoxious for everything except death exits. The amount of damage doesn't matter -- the lowest damage floor accomplishes the same "if you stand here, you will get hurt" effect as any of the other damage types. There's no fair reasoning to use anything except the lowest damage type.

 

 

Absolutely disagree, the low damage floors are (in stereotypical use) a mere nuisance if you stay calm, especially if you have armour. The 20% floors are a true emergency situation cause you know you definitely should not be in that area and death is imminent if you fuck up and don't escape quickly regardless of how much health you have. I don't think you can reasonably claim that any damaging floor type doesn't have situational uses, even the 10% floor. This is true especially when you have damaging floors in combat areas, you can massively influence player movement by their use (e.g. removing camping spots by putting a highly damaging floor there).

 

To address the question in the OP, no, i don't see why 20% floors and rad suits should be combined, the 20% floors are simply there to try and kill the player very quickly in my view, they don't mix with radsuits.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, 40oz said:

There's no fair reasoning to use anything except the lowest damage type.

My reasoning is that damaging floors are only one threat in the game, and scaling their damage helps to balance them against other threats. For example, when the player faces an incoming enemy attack and can choose to avoid it by going onto a damaging floor, the amount of both the attack's and the floor's damage determines which of the options will cause less overall damage to the player.

Share this post


Link to post

Trust me, ive thought about this a lot. ive watched lots of FDA demos. Doom is far too dynamic to ever be caught between a 50:50 chance of eating a fireball and stepping in damaging liquid with no other possible outcome. I'm not even entertaining that possibility because youre already deliberately making a shitty map at that point so theres no reason you'd seriously be considering the question raised in this thread.

 

I've watched speed demos where runners deliberately walk on damaging floors and sometimes take lots of damage from it only because they know there's a megasphere at the end that pays off the damage. If were going to get into semantics about this question we have to agree on some context:

 

1. "is it a good idea" reads "is it a good idea to implement in your next map?" Were not talking about maps that already exist because they are not being changed. Were talking about future maps which will inevitably be played by someone for the very first time.

 

2. As a player, you can't know how much damage a floor does until you take damage from it once already. The only thing we can use as a reference is if the map is designed to parallels features from another map. (The blood hurts in MAP25: Bloodfalls and this map looks like bloodfalls so this blood probably hurts.) Stripped from the reference, the effect is already insidious

by design.

 

3. Were assuming the average player doesn't watch demos of the map being played or reviews it in the map editor prior to playing it. That said, the player can't know if there is going to be health later to compensate for the damage.

 

With those conditions in mind, the lowest damaging floor achieves exactly the desired effect of using negative consequences to repel the player off of standing on that floor. The amount of damage doesn't do anything but disable the player from absorbing more damage further down the line. The conditions of playing a map blind for the first time make the amount of damage proportionate to how frustrating it is for no good reason. The lowest damage already exercises exactly the kind of effect the mapper could possibly use damaging floors to influence the gameplay. If the mappers goal is to make the players experience more

frustrating, its not a good idea.

Edited by 40oz

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, 40oz said:

Trust me, ive thought about this a lot.

And others didn't? If I have a choice between 2-3 dmg ticks from a 20% floor and a cybie rocket, guess what I'll pick.

 

13 minutes ago, 40oz said:

I'm not even entertaining that possibility because youre already deliberately making a shitty map at that point so theres no reason you'd seriously be considering the question raised in this thread.

Also let's not entertain the idea that putting people under some form of time-pressure that doesn't revolve around flooding the area with monsters could possibly make for anything that remotely resembles something like potentially interesting gameplay, because who would want to get creative with hurt floors to begin with? Creativity is highly overrated anyways...

 

15 minutes ago, 40oz said:

1. "is it a good idea" reads "is it a good idea to implement in your next map?" Were not talking about maps that already exist because they are not being changed. Were talking about future maps which will inevitably be played by someone for the very first time.

 

2. As a player, you can't know how much damage a floor does until you take damage from it once already. The only thing we can use as a reference is if the map is designed to parallels features from another map. (The blood hurts in MAP25: Bloodfalls and this map looks like bloodfalls so this blood probably hurts.) Stripped from the reference, the effect is already insidious

by design.

Maps don't need parallels. If I see platforms and lava beneath it, I know enough to try and avoid falling down. If I see liquids and obvious ways to avoid it, I know it's probably wise to do just that. Hurt floors are soft obstacles which say "You probably shouldn't be here", and the more damage they do, the louder they speak. And if speedrunners just blaze over hurt floor to grab the next megasphere, that's down to how the map was made, and it doesn't say anything about how "good" hurt floor is or not.

 

22 minutes ago, 40oz said:

The amount of damage doesn't do anything but disable the player from absorbing more damage further down the line.

Working as intended.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×