What is the worst monster placement you have ever seen in a WAD?

Vermil said:

Eh? ZDoom saves may not be compatabile between different versions of the port, but most other port's save games are compatible between port versions.

PrBoom-Plus does not bother about savegames compatibility. I do not change it often (probably few times only), but I even do not try to make it compatible and I deleted all compatibility crap come from PrBoom. Vanilla PrBoom tries to support old savegames at least between major version numbers and it looks like that:

Some magic by cph:

      /* cph 2006/07/30 - see comment below for change in layout of mobj_t */
      save_p += sizeof(mobj_t)+3*sizeof(void*)-4*sizeof(fixed_t);

        ...

      /* cph 2006/07/30 - 
       * The end of mobj_t changed from
       *  boolean invisible;
       *  mobj_t* lastenemy;
       *  mobj_t* above_monster;
       *  mobj_t* below_monster;
       *  void* touching_sectorlist;
       * to
       *  mobj_t* lastenemy;
       *  void* touching_sectorlist;
       *  fixed_t PrevX, PrevY, PrevZ;
       * at prboom 2.4.4. There is code here to preserve the savegame format.
       *
       * touching_sectorlist is reconstructed anyway, so we now read in all 
       * but the last 5 words from the savegame (filling all but the last 2
       * fields of our current mobj_t. We then pull lastenemy from the 2nd of
       * the 5 leftover words, and skip the others.
       */
      memcpy (mobj, save_p, sizeof(mobj_t)-2*sizeof(void*)-4*sizeof(fixed_t));
      save_p += sizeof(mobj_t)-sizeof(void*)-4*sizeof(fixed_t);
      memcpy (&(mobj->lastenemy), save_p, sizeof(void*));
      save_p += 4*sizeof(void*);

Ok. I thought it was just ZDoom that didn't. My mistake.

Graf Zahl said:

Guess what: It was never intended for pistol start and therefore not or only poorly tested as such. Don't judge a WAD by a play style it wasn't made for.

Oh, and another one: if it was designed NOT for a pistol start, then why didn't you or anyone else make some ACS measures to give the player weapons if not having any??

printz said:

Oh, and another one: if it was designed NOT for a pistol start, then why didn't you or anyone else make some ACS measures to give the player weapons if not having any??

Why didn't anyone in Rogue made some measures to give the player weapon and quest items if not having any??

Gez said:

Why didn't anyone in Rogue made some measures to give the player weapon and quest items if not having any??

Quite indeed. Only later this became common practice.

People saying that they restart maps from pistol start anytime they die absolutely boggles my mind. I think the last time I did that was playing through the Doom 1 shareware almost two decades ago. Please note that at this time I was also maneuvering with the keyboard, not running most of the time, and strafing wasn't even a gleam in my eye yet.

Snakes said:

I'm not saying that the atmosphere or level design was bad. On the contrary, the spectre level (I think there was only one) had great atmosphere, but the fact that it leaves out the possibility for infighting (except for hitscanner levels, of course) is something I find remarkably frustrating. To me, infighting is perhaps the best tactic usable in Doom.

There was actually two of them, but I think you were talking about map 15 (Spook House).

As for 1monster, yeah it was an experiment, and there were a few stinkers in there. Other than the maps I made myself (19, 24, almost all of 15), there were quite a few maps where I altered the monster placement, and in some case, the architecture. For instance, map 13 originally used zombie. It wasn't good at all then, so I made it into a chaingun guy map, and I think it turned out quite well. Unfortunately, not all maps turned out so well. Map 11 for instance. I tried to salvage that thing as much as I could, but...meh.

Anyway, I think what you don't like about 1monster isn't so much the monster placement, but the lack of variety of monsters in each map. That was the whole point of it of course, but hey...you can't please everyone.

And by the way, I think the whole 1monster experiment turned out rather well in the end, and I'm glad it was finished at least. There was another attempt made recently (the thread is in Skulltag), but that one failed.

Meanwhile, my pick for a map with bad monster placement: Heretic's E5M1.

Ichor said:

Anyway, I think what you don't like about 1monster isn't so much the monster placement, but the lack of variety of monsters in each map. That was the whole point of it of course, but hey...you can't please everyone.

That's probably a better way of putting it, yeah. It was really a matter of personal taste for me. I just ran Map15, and that was the one I was talking about. Good call.

Oh ok, sorry snakes, yeah I am not angry or anything, I was just genuinely curious and wanted to listen and learn.

Thanks Ichor for clearing that up.

Personally I remember when the project first started and everyone had the hots for it. Suddenly we changed project managers like 4 times and were left with very few mappers, at that point it was a long haul... but we got it done.

As for the topic, I would have to say that I am not partial to Hoards of monsters unless it is co-op, so wads like HR and AV towards the end are not very fun Single player wise. Anything that requires more than 10 mins in a single AREA of a map turns me away.

Other than various slaughter maps, I can't think of too many maps that fit this description.

Gez said:
So... Basically, neither type of play (retry from a pistol start or reload a save) should be considered illegitimate or wrong. What was The One True Way as intended by the original developers? Both!

This discussion started with someone dismissing the importance of pistol starts and all replies pointing out their importance are addressing that. So that's not the question, but rather what use these two existing features have in play. That they exist doesn't mean they can be taken as equivalents. Any carpenter's toolbox has a hammer and a saw. Does that mean either is good for driving nails? No one said saving was wrong in some absolute sense, but that pistol starting is important, how save gaming can get in the way of it and what non-intrusive use saves can have when pistol starting is implemented and used well.

Even if you wanted to consider the mere existence, out of all other context, the pistol restart is the only thing you can do after you die, using one of the very keys used during play, without going into the menu and choosing among options.

Sophistry.

You cannot say that playing through a level with saves and playing through a level with pistol-resurrections are fundamentally different things like driving a nail and cutting a board.

Well, you replied before I edited, as I noticed that image alone was not going to be enough to illustrate my point. Saves let you interrupt a game and go out to dinner, for example. That is something quite different to what pistol starting offers; to continue the game, linearly and with the immediate in-game controls, once you die.

And you can also interrupt your game to go to dinner and resume it with -warp or idclev. Same thing.

I'll quote myself back:

And likewise, if they didn't intend for the maps to be played with saves and reload, they probably wouldn't have implemented having a save and reload menu in the game... (It's not like the concept of a game that automatically save in a single slot when you quit, and offers you the choice only between resuming your game and starting a new one when you run it again, did not exist at the time. Some RPGs like the old Dungeon Hack (1993) even had a feature that automatically deleted your save if your character died, so that it was a "real death". So the concepts existed. But Id went and made a game with several save slots, and Quick Save/Quick Load keys.

If saves were there only for quitting the game, you would not have had a save menu nor a load menu, you would not have had several slots at your disposal, and you would not have had quicksave and quickload keys. The presence of these features incites a save-and-reload gameplay as much as the presence of the arcade-like level-reset-with-pistol incites trying again from scratch.

You were arguing that:

most players will get the idea by themselves from the very structure of the game, its mechanics

And I'm just pointing out that the mechanics of the game present these two types of gameplay on equal footing.

Which is probably why some people might find the idea of making one of these two options irrelevant to be kind of odd.

The great thing about Doom is it's immediacy as a game and the fact that you can play a marathon session or just jump in for a quick blast. Having both the save option and the pistol start option caters to both of these. Why change it?

Yeah, there's no need to change anything in the game; we're just discussing the relevance of the features and their use.

Gez said:
And you can also interrupt your game to go to dinner and resume it with -warp or idclev.

You'd be cutting off part of the progression, unless you were to wait quit after dying, and that may not be practical. Granted, we're likely thinking of a long dinner with a movie afterward or something, as otherwise the guy could just pause the game :p

And I'm just pointing out that the mechanics of the game present these two types of gameplay on equal footing.

That I contested at the end, specifically. The mechanics make reloading the level from scratch more immediate. Had a save game been loaded with use instead, as some newer games or source ports provide, it would have been the other way around. It is undeniable that novices will get frustrated and use saves, regardless of what they were placed there for, as a means to progress, and it is undeniable that saves were added to video games for interruptions first, and then, being there, were taken by some more and more as "part of the gameplay progression".

Think also of the game's design history. DOOM is a successor to Wolfenstein 3D, and that game had lives. It's easy to see how saves kill the lives idea. You can't really die because you can always load the game again, so saves kind of intrude into the game play. Now, in DOOM they decided to remove lives, or sort of, as the reload on use function is essentially "infinite lives". They arguably removed lives to bring the player closer to the player character, and also because they noted saves had already kind of killed the lives function. In DOOM the lives function was reintroduced more internally with supercharges and armor, and the reload function was retained for immediate progression.

As for restricting saves as in the Dungeon Hack example, that in itself may have negative implications and implies more work. Why bother trying to correct the behavior issues of newer players? Keep Carmack in mind here, as he's always been something of a feature minimalist that didn't like to nitpick game design.

I remember a christmas wad I played a while ago (it was made somewhere in 1995 or something). There was a little bonus level that was extremely cramped (it looked like a snowy garden, as far as I can remember) and had little houses here and there. But once you opened these doors, hordes of Revenants, Mancubus and Chaingunners attacked you from every angle and I died within seconds. How someone can think that such a monster placement is fun puzzles me.

myk said:

That I contested at the end, specifically. The mechanics make reloading the level from scratch more immediate. Had a save game been loaded with use instead, as some newer games or source ports provide, it would have been the other way around.

One key, two keys, it's not much different. You'd be surprised to know how fast a computer player can hit F8/F9 (depending on game) then Y even before his character has finished dying.

Oh yeah, that's another part. People don't necessarily reload because they're dead. Some may reload because they found they performed poorly and want to redo. Might even be needed in some cases (i.e., you have only one chance of getting the soulsphere in Command Control). Or say you fell in an inescapable pit like those in Toxin Refinery. There quickloading is more immediate because you don't have to wait until death first.

myk said:

Think also of the game's design history. DOOM is a successor to Wolfenstein 3D, and that game had lives. It's easy to see how saves kill the lives idea. You can't really die because you can always load the game again, so saves kind of intrude into the game play. Now, in DOOM they decided to remove lives, or sort of, as the reload on use function is essentially "infinite lives".

Exactly. They moved away from what you insist is the Only Intended Way That Real Gamers Use Because Saves Are For Wussy Noobs(tm). Think about it.

myk said:

As for restricting saves as in the Dungeon Hack example, that in itself may have negative implications and implies more work. Why bother trying to correct the behavior issues of newer players? Keep Carmack in mind here, as he's always been something of a feature minimalist that didn't like to nitpick game design.

You can't do more minimalist than having a single save slot that is automatically written when quitting the game and loaded when starting it again. Deleting it if the player dies may be overkill, sure (and is easily thwarted by players making copies of the file anyway). Adding a full-fledged save/load menu with quicksave and quickload is not minimalism.

Gez said:
One key, two keys, it's not much different.

It is different, especially when that key is bound to the players usual playing commands (use). It's so immediate that I often end up reloading the level by accident because of this.

People don't necessarily reload because they're dead.

So? The reason we're going over what they do when they are dead is precisely because the pistol start function is tied to it in a linear way.

There quickloading is more immediate because you don't have to wait until death first.

It's faster in that case. By immediacy I was talking about how the program is designed, not how under a certain relative circumstance something might be faster to do.

Exactly. They moved away from what you insist is the Only Intended Way That Real Gamers Use Because Saves Are For Wussy Noobs(tm). Think about it.

Hi there, Maes. By proper game play I am referring to sticking to a defined progression and balance. If anything, they moved towards that. With limited lives, your game ends when they are over, which may incite you to use saves at arbitrary points to bypass the restriction. With unlimited lives, you can continue playing and don't need to resort to saves out of fear of dying.

Adding a full-fledged save/load menu with quicksave and quickload is not minimalism.

"Not minimalism" would be some more contrived mechanic integrating saving to game balance. Something that may require more thought and tuning. Multiple saving slots can also accommodate multiple players.

first of all - i don't get how the discussion shifted from 'why there's no pistol spawns' to 'why there shouldn't be saves'. myk is proficient with words, but i believe he got baited on a strawman.

second - refusing saves is perhaps obsolete, but they make the game very cheap. gez says there might be no retries for certain moments. well, that's where the challenge lies, right? try to survive even after you fucked up and didn't get all the goodies you wanted. extensive save&loading allows weak players to progress further in a perfect fashion even on difficulty levels they shouldn't be touching. it's anyone's choice to use them or not, but they are there, basically a way to cheat and destroy the intent/atmosphere the mapper was setting up. next time someone cries about unfair chaingunner traps and too much cyberdemons - well, look into your heart and ask yourself: aren't they just a measure the mapper takes to counter your 10sec interval save&loading?

i liked what aliens vs. predator did in the 1999 game. it gave you a limited number of saves per map and you got less and less with increased difficulty level. you could throw them out of the window at the beginning or save (heh) them like a family treasure. that is WAY more immersive AND practical than stupid mechanical autosaves/checkpoints. perhaps there's a way to implement this as a feature into some zdoom wads? i have no idea, tbh. :)

third - pistol starts allow to play just a certain map, because doom is very fragmented in this way. even 'loading daemons' had a similar effect like 'get psyched!' on me. if i'm required to play progressively, i want to know why. a good story helps, perhaps a strong element of discovering new weapons and items that have to be used later... but 'cause you won't have enough ammo otherwise' isn't a convincing reason to me.

dew said:
first of all - i don't get how the discussion shifted from 'why there's no pistol spawns' to 'why there shouldn't be saves'.

I agree they can be useful for anyone to resume a game, and understand motivations from id to provide them in a simple manner to avoid complicating game behavior, which incidentally allows newer or weaker players to ease their game indiscriminately. Most players interested in the game challenge will ignore saves or just use them like "TAS" in demos, after all, which leaves them for their most obvious function (to save because mom or the wife is calling) or for the more casual players to abuse as they please.

It's about what Chris Crawford refers to between game and toy. DOOM becomes more of a toy if saves are used as an immediate part of game play.

LOL failure at basic reading comprehension. The provided link doesn't say what you say it says.

Why not? What is it you think I said it says?

Saves dilute the challenge by letting the player mess with the action, replaying from arbitrary states indiscriminately. Anyone who wants to use DOOM for other purposes than that challenge can serve themselves with saves to bypass the inconvenience of being stopped by monsters or obstacles.

myk said:

Why not? What is it you think I said it says?

Saves dilute the challenge by letting the player mess with the action, replaying from arbitrary states indiscriminately. Anyone who wants to use DOOM for other purposes than that challenge can serve themselves with saves to bypass the inconvenience of being stopped by monsters or obstacles.

Yes, except it does nothing to diminish the goal-oriented nature of Doom, so by Chris Crawford's definition, it becomes no less a game.

Saving isn't cheating in anyway more than freelook, jump, gamma in dark rooms etc. and I think you'll find many slaughter maps will agree...especially those that need advanced tactics to defeat.

It's also pure logic - if you've spent 30-45 mins clearing to a difficult set-piece at the end of a map and then get hammered by a impossible trap (the sort you can't beat unless you know it's coming), would you really waste another 30-45 mins clearing the whole map again just to have a more prepared crack at it?

Not everyone is a demorunner, and those who aren't are certainly not cheats if they use saves.

The Ultimate DooMer said:
Saving isn't cheating

Not sure why you bring that up. Cheating generally means doing something that is not allowed, and we aren't talking about what people must or must not do, rather about the implications of doing things one way or the other. I think saves, except when used in an auxiliary manner (see below) can degrade the game challenge, but there are no rules of what you can do with DOOM. As I implied above, I agree someone can even use it much like a toy, if they want (going to perhaps even more extremes than merely using saves to skip progression points in some way).

It's also pure logic - if you've spent 30-45 mins clearing to a difficult set-piece at the end of a map and then get hammered by a impossible trap (the sort you can't beat unless you know it's coming), would you really waste another 30-45 mins clearing the whole map again just to have a more prepared crack at it?

After you've practiced that brutal area (starting from a save game is convenient here) and developed a strategy to go through it you should be able to see if you can tackle it consistently and in combination with the rest of the level. If you still can't, it may be time to consider questioning the level's balance, due to thing placement, length, or a mix, or to use a less demanding difficulty setting. In any case, you are pointing to one of the issues in bigger levels (the others are performance drops on many systems and testing difficulties). Why play some titanic level that consumes so much time and doesn't give you consistent stopping and starting points, when a series of smaller levels would supply similarly tough challenges in a more replayable and exercisable manner? If large maps offer anything, it is the challenge to coordinate a series of encounters dynamically. That is crippled if you play from arbitrarily saved points.

Not everyone is a demorunner, and those who aren't are certainly not cheats if they use saves.

I've heard something like "demo recording is just what those crazy demo guys do," before. Even if we took it that way, mere demo watching is fun and enlightening, and speed running has identifiable merits. In perspective, recording demos with a challenge in mind implies the type of planning I noted above, as well as being able to share, compare and exchange demos, learning from others and from the observation of one's own play, and, coupled with multiplayer, which can also help with similar interaction in a more spontaneous manner, is arguably the best way to find a consistent challenge in the game and drive one's skills up in every way.

These arguments don't generally start just because someone uses saves, but because they pretend saving along is the same as playing more competitively (against others or even just oneself.) Not that you did that, in particular; it started with hardcore_gamer's statement about pistol starts apparently being pointless.

myk said:

(going to perhaps even more extremes than merely using saves to skip progression points in some way).

WHAT LOL. If they have the save, that implies they've already progressed that far once.

myk said:

Why play some titanic level that consumes so much time and doesn't give you consistent stopping and starting points, when a series of smaller levels would supply similarly tough challenges in a more replayable and exercisable manner?

Because Sunder is fun.

myk said:

If large maps offer anything, it is the challenge to coordinate a series of encounters dynamically. That is crippled if you play from arbitrarily saved points.

Says you.

myk said:

I've heard something like "demo recording is just what those crazy demo guys do," before. Even if we took it that way, mere demo watching is fun and enlightening, and speed running has identifiable merits.

For example, the ability to feel like you're entitled to having your opinion weigh more than the plebs' because you're playing Doom "right".

myk said:

In perspective, recording demos with a challenge in mind implies the type of planning I noted above, as well as being able to share, compare and exchange demos, learning from others and from the observation of one's own play, and, coupled with multiplayer, which can also help with similar interaction in a more spontaneous manner, is arguably the best way to find a consistent challenge in the game and drive one's skills up in every way.

Or, you know, you can play really hard levels until you're good at them.

myk said:

These arguments don't generally start just because someone uses saves, but because they pretend saving along is the same as playing more competitively (against others or even just oneself.)

Yeah, fuck you too.

myk said:

After you've practiced that brutal area (starting from a save game is convenient here) and developed a strategy to go through it you should be able to see if you can tackle it consistently and in combination with the rest of the level.

Everybody's notion of "fun" is different. Have you considered that for some player, practicing a level like some sort of choreography they have to learn by rote would be more of a chore than a pleasure? Whether you label it a "game" or a "toy", it's not a "job"! (Unless you're a beta-tester I guess. But nobody forced you to be one.)

So, sure, some people enjoy repeating and repeating a level until they completely master it. It doesn't make them crazy or weird, but it doesn't either make them better than those players who prefer to play through another mod next instead. (It's not like there's a dearth of available mods for Doom.) There are many people who actually prefer a gameplay that surprises rather than retreading old ground until it becomes second nature. This is not an illegitimate way of playing.

Gez said:
Everybody's notion of "fun" is different. [...] Whether you label it a "game" or a "toy", it's not a "job"!

Correct, although such labels can be illustrative, especially when people blur differences or seem to ignore them. That is, the labels are there to (start to) define how different our notions of fun with the game are, what they imply and what we practice while we play. Also, what is defined as tedious or a job by a person is not set in stone. This makes airing and discussing the topic more worthwhile.

It doesn't make them crazy or weird, but it doesn't either make them better than those players who prefer to play through another mod next instead.

It does make them more effective and efficient, trust me, as it offers stable and exercisable playing field because at least half of the game mechanics can be reduced to layouts, items and repetition. The tricks and strategies that make players destroy the plethora of monsters in the game without mercy are more easily spotted in familiar ground and when exposed and shared. You'll see it both in speed running and deathmatch (and related modes) where people hone their skills. People will try new and more levels to spot new challenges, but also replay a lot for this reason. It's convenient.

And I'm not talking about individual motor and organizational potential, which varies with each person. Some guys are as good as others even while doing less, naturally. Just that the practice induced by demo recording, watching and online play is a very good exercise for skills.

There are many people who actually prefer a gameplay that surprises rather than retreading old ground until it becomes second nature. This is not an illegitimate way of playing.

That's not incompatible with demo recording, especially since FDAs (first demo attempts) were introduced. I agree it's also an exciting and fun aspect of the game, but (expectedly, given what I've said) more so if integrated with the above.

The Ultimate DooMer said:

if you've spent 30-45 mins clearing to a difficult set-piece at the end of a map and then get hammered by a impossible trap (the sort you can't beat unless you know it's coming), would you really waste another 30-45 mins clearing the whole map again just to have a more prepared crack at it?

No, I wouldn't. I'd call that bad map design (in a similar category to a lack of pistol-start playability) and probably not play the map again unless it was truly outstanding in other ways.