Dead ends in huge "labyrinths" cause frustration

having been through the submerged passageway several times now myself, I don't really have an issue with the labyrinth itself. It's twisty and evil, but it's not really all that large or complex.

What is a problem to me, is the map. For some screwy reason the map is textured funny which ends up smothering it and turning it into an unreadable blob. It's a problem that seems to be unique to this zone.

Of course the camera issues don't help the situation either. This issue has it's own part in making this zone more confusing than it really is.

I'm going to wait to see what changes get put in for the map and camera behavior before stressing about this zone any more myself. ;)

I have completely no idea about how map generation works, but would it be possible to generate 'anchor points' (or more anchor points) to be included with map generation? You sort of see that happening already with tents and camps and such, but basically, my own hope for the issue is to have more memorable landscape features and a make few landscape features that are more memorable.

Part of what made the first half of Act III in D2 so mind-numbing was that it was the same darned thing over and over and over. It was more monotonous than fun, and a letdown after that first time surprise of, 'Whoa, a stranger wandering in the forest...Ahh! Monsters!' The takeaway is to have more 'strangers' and less 'forest.' Labyrinthine and expansive aren't inherently good; those are just the canvas. The real success is to make the dead ends still feel like you've gotten somewhere--whether it's a big bad at the end of the road or just something atmospheric.

In terms of areas, Crossroads is, I think, a bad example to be called 'bad'--it's got two obvious exits, and the third is located at the end of a progressive terrace--the exit is a payoff for getting up that hill. Old Fields is less successful: it's expansive (yet actually rather linear) and has a high density of the same mobs. The Thicket from Ponds and Streams would be my own personal choice to be singled out for 'area needs more'; that sub-area needs more interest as there's nothing happening there except monkey grinding (and not the good kind).

I just read the 'sub-dungeons' thread prior to this one, and it seems like those would go well together--more areas to explore, and entrances to toss in the nooks and crannies. Another solution would be to make random-boss doodads--like a lit tree or reusing the rhoa nest--that could randomly pop on the map. (Tangentially, making 'homes' for staple mobs like the fire hellion in Prisoner's Gate would also liven things up.)

In the end, I don't know how simple or complex these possibilities are. I do appreciate that the areas are large and look great, and the area changes are not just going from one same-looking zone to another for too long. I do note that one of the most frequently asked questions I've seen in my short time is new players getting confused in the labyrinth: that The Flooded Depths is a dead end and Submerged Labyrinth Level 2 is not is weird to them, for better and worse. (Why they don't go ahead and explore, I do not know.) I also enjoy the already extant in-map anchors, like in (the Waterfall-less?) Caves and Waterfalls, and the church in Fellshrine--those really bring a sense of scope and atmosphere to the areas. I do hope it continues, and hope this helps.

(I... really love areas, it seems. Sorry for wall o' text.)

Imo, map variety does not come from interesting landmarks but from variety in the actual dungeon layout. Take the D1 cathedral (imo the best level design in an ARPG to date).

It has everything from wide corridors with rows of pillars, to giant open halls filled with danger, to tiny rooms with doors and grates. This has a meaningful impact on tactics as well. Think one third river of flame, one third palace cellar, one third desert tombs.

In terms of rewards, the small rooms contain shrines, gold piles and bookcases, giving you a reason to explore those side rooms. But if all you want is the direct path to the exit, you knew the stairs down are in a big hall and you can estimate where the halls are after exploring a bit.

"

BrotherLaz wrote:

Imo, map variety does not come from interesting landmarks but from variety in the actual dungeon layout. Take the D1 cathedral (imo the best level design in an ARPG to date).

It has everything from wide corridors with rows of pillars, to giant open halls filled with danger, to tiny rooms with doors and grates. This has a meaningful impact on tactics as well. Think one third river of flame, one third palace cellar, one third desert tombs.

In terms of rewards, the small rooms contain shrines, gold piles and bookcases, giving you a reason to explore those side rooms. But if all you want is the direct path to the exit, you knew the stairs down are in a big hall and you can estimate where the halls are after exploring a bit.

Very happy to see you here BrotherLaz. Looking forward to your take on this game.

On Topic: The first few times through the various maps, I felt a bit lost and they seemed quite big. Now that I know where everything is, or at least the general layout, the maps actually feel pretty small. I don't think any map takes more than 30 minutes to clear completely, and certainly no map takes more then a few minutes to run across.

If anything, I hope (some) of the maps get bigger and more complex :) Optional maps ofc, like Fetid Pools

One thing I will say is that the "dead ends" seem to cause much more backtracking then I recall ever doing in Diablo1/2.

Not knocking on big maps, or multiple pathways at all. Just figure it could all loop together a bit better.

I like the layouts. It adds mystery. "What's around this corner"? Am I going to encounter a horde of minions with a reflect boss, or is it the way out? Of course, I'm also kind of a completionist. I don't feel the map is done until all corners have been uncovered, and all mobs been layed to waste. :D I like the dungeon crawling, blind corners, getting lost two turns away from the exit, kind of maps. The only one I don't care for too much is the forest, right after killing Merveil. The tree cover hides too much of the action. It's like.. tree, tree, tree... ok, I'm fighting somthing behind this... oh, I think it's yet another swarm of apes... more apes... tree... rinse, repeat until you reach encampment. My first HC death was on that map. I ran into a pack of blues with a boss, and didn't know they were even there. Poor little ranger... /mourn.

A lot of these small rooms/dead ends contain chests, piles, barrels and sometimes a boss. You never know. The randomization isn't so bad that you cannot find the exit entirely. After you run a pass or two through the difficulty levels, you kind of get an idea what direction to head.

I detect a hint of laziness here, I do agree that the dead ends could be a bit more rewarding but to me a game like this is all about exploration and discovering every bit of the map to know where things are. Also it gives more to do and the ability to run into more monsters to kill for exp. IMHO we need more dead ends and mini bosses to keep the "I Don't know where to go lets figure it out" process going. If there was less it would be a go here get it done then all I can do is grind to a bore.

I think the biggest frustration here comes from the exit being remotely close to the entrance, and the entire rest of the map being a 'dead end' of sorts.

the Tower in the Black Marsh in D2 was a prime example of that on a small scale, sometimes the next floor up was only one room away from the way you came in and the rest was useless.

As a side note: D2 did have some things that you could use to navigate the map other than walking. The Sorceress' Teleport being the major one.