Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bromius]

I've been playing Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup for years, I love how complex it is but how simple it is compared to games like nethack. I've enjoyed Dungeons Of Dredmor but no longer play it. Are there any DCSS fans that found this game and can't get enough of it? The price seems a bit.. ridiculous. If it was $15, even $20 I would of just bought it already.

How is the learning curve? Will have to go digging through tutorials just to learn the basics?

[Kyzrati]

Others can weigh in (especially the DCSS+Cogmind players ), but my 2 cents:

There are plenty of DCSS fans who also play Cogmind, though the games are quite different in some ways--Cogmind emphasizes tactics over strategy a lot more than DCSS does (though DCSS is still a very tactical roguelike compared to the classics). Know that while you can come up with a long-term strategy and character build in DCSS, that might not always pan out in Cogmind and you can end up suddenly having to find a new strategy (the chances of this decrease with meta experience, but it's always a possibility).

It's pretty easy to get into the game, which like DCSS is both simple and complex. There's a quick in-game tutorial the first time you play which will teach you all you need to know, and only later on once you're getting at least half way through the game will you probably want to skim the in-game manual to learn some of the subtleties.

The price is what it is for alpha supporters who really want to help fund development and make the game better. If you notice on the buy page, the final/actual price will be lower (and there's a mailing list to be notified when that happens), so you can wait until then if that's an issue. Actually, there will likely be a small limited-time discount coming up soonish, albeit without any extra supporter perks, just access to the game.

There are quite a few LPs on YouTube now--you might be able to tell from a couple of those if Cogmind is your thing

[Shobalk]

I would rank DCSS in my top 10 games of all time.  After Cogmind reaches 1.0, it may not be far behind.

Cogmind is grand fun, but a very different game from DCSS.  As Kyzrati mentioned, check out some let's plays.  They'll go a long way in helping you determine if this game is right for you.

I would also like to mention that the visuals for Cogmind are the best of any "true" Roguelike that's available.  It's akin to a work of art in some respects.  As you first begin to experience the game, there will be a few moments where you'll just look at your screen with your mouth agape.

I know there has been some griping over the price, but there is supreme value for your dollar here.  In hindsight I would have paid $100 for this game.  I want to see Cogmind 2.

[Kyzrati]

I want to see Cogmind 2.

Me too, can't get ahead of ourselves here, though (but it's fun to think about)

[zxc]

I've played heaps and heaps of DCSS, which is my overall favourite game. Cogmind is in my #2 roguelike spot, followed by Brogue.

Definitely check out Let's Plays and read through the forum. The game is excellent and highly polished. UI and controls are a big thing for me and DCSS + Cogmind are the only roguelikes I can play for long periods of time without hating myself . The ascii is matched only by Brogue, and might even be nicer. The tiles aren't really my thing. Whether it's worth the money is something you'll have to decide for yourself as everyone is different in this regard. I was fortunate enough to be gifted the game - knowing myself, I'd still be reading the blog and waiting for the full release if it weren't for that.

@K: I always find it interesting how you describe Cogmind as more tactics-oriented than DCSS along the strategy-tactics spectrum. I think the opposite: that DCSS is more tactics focused while Cogmind is more strategy focused. I also get a sense that combat runs are more strategy focused.

[Kyzrati]

@K: I always find it interesting how you describe Cogmind as more tactics-oriented than DCSS along the strategy-tactics spectrum. I think the opposite: that DCSS is more tactics focused while Cogmind is more strategy focused. I also get a sense that combat runs are more strategy focused.

Huh. My angle there is coming from the idea that DCSS has its roots in traditional cRPGs, with XP, skills, and lots of permanent stats and effects, where you can decide how you want your character to develop over the long term and generally stick to that plan.

By comparison, with Cogmind you don't always have as much long-term control.

Certainly both are still very tactics-oriented.

This is assuming that, when fully distilled, the definition of "strategy" is more about the decisions with a long-term effect, and "tactics" refers to localized decisions and how you fight individual battles.

I think that differentiation can, however, shift with experience (in Cogmind).

The really good players can allow strategy to have a more permanent impact on play, assuming you can either lose very few parts (common with good speed runs) or simply lose fewer parts vital to a strategy and replace any that are lost with parts that can play a similar role to keep that same build concept rolling.

From what I've seen, for beginners and intermediate players it's almost purely a tactical game. Positioning is everything, and you want to grab whatever parts are most useful right now, rather than thinking in the long term.

I hadn't yet thought about the link with player experience, especially once you know how every mechanic works, and what kinds of places you can visit in the world and what you can do there, then can use that information to your advantage in maintaining continuity.

[zxc]

Well you make a good case there. However, I'm not sure I agree

Your options and abilities are determined almost entirely from the items you are carrying and have equipped. The choice of what items to take are a strategic one usually. Evolutions are also a strategic element.

Cogmind also gets harder as you get further (IMO), whereas DCSS's difficulty is front-loaded, which reduces the importance of strategy.

Then there are terminal hacks, decisions regarding propulsion, storage, scanning/fabrication, choice of branch, style of exploration and mapping the floor, alert level management, part attrition, managing risk/reward... Most of those have tactical aspects or implications, but I think they're overall strongly strategy based. Meanwhile in DCSS, there are a few strategic decisions to be made like god choice, but it's largely a tactical puzzle simulator where you go from puzzle to puzzle with autoexplore.

Also, like I said, playing with flight propulsion feels more tactical to me, and faster paced. This is partly why I'm attracted to the style vs fighting everything.

It's also possible I have a warped perspective of DCSS because I've played it so much . I'd like to know what Happylisk thinks as he's also a very experienced DCSS player.

Edit: Also it might be partly because Cogmind is a new game where theory-crafting is very rewarding (see Decker's crazy ideas), whereas DCSS is almost entirely worked out on the strategy side. This is another thing that attracts me to Cogmind, as I very much enjoy theory-crafting.

[Kyzrati]

Good points! I agree about the strategic value of managing the wider aspects of progress including the world state, and that's something that only starts coming into play with more experience, but perhaps that's the proper way to examine the games.

The relative freshness of Cogmind makes sense as a factor as well, since the long-term impacts of some approaches/decisions truly aren't worked out, and are even in flux when a system changes due to alpha progress. While DCSS is "worked out," though, that doesn't mean the strategy isn't there, it's just not something you have to question and probe quite so much.

It might also be difficult to confirm a roguelike's exact position on the strategic-tactical spectrum because in some ways it depends on a player's personal approach.

It's interesting you mention autoexplore, which is more telling in this discussion than I thought it might be. In DCSS you can definitely autoexplore your way from encounter to encounter and do fine, while such a feature in Cogmind would just get you killed . The increased chance of death could technically be attributed to both tactical and strategic concerns.

[zxc]

There are many roguelikes that I wish had autoexplore, but Cogmind is not one of them . In DCSS encounters are basically 'free' in that there aren't lingering effects from a fight (except in extremely rare cases where you are a deep dwarf without natural regen or you get heavily drained on skills/stats). In Cogmind, you are risking your items, core (like a deep dwarf that doesn't regen) and alert level (which is something of a food clock, and the food clock in DCSS I should mention is extremely tame). There is the other hunger clock, the programmers that get dispatched, too. And if you have corruption, you are risking all kinds of effects by staying on a floor longer, such as losing items from your database.

I don't always autoexplore in DCSS either.  There are some situations where you definitely shouldn't, and also if you really want to avoid dying, then in the early game careful manual exploration is better.

Regarding strategy in DCSS, that's a long discussion. All I can say for sure is that tactics are key. I get the sense that while tactics are very important in Cogmind, strategy is up there as well. Maybe it's my relative inexperience with Cogmind speaking there. I'll get back to you in a few years

[Happylisk]

Do you like good games or do you like games that are not so good?  If the former, I recommend Cogmind (it is a good game).

To be serious, everything I'd want to say has been said.  I've been playing DCSS since 2006ish, and cogmind is right up there with it. 

[RBrandon]

I'd been on the fence about Cogmind for a while, having only played the 7DRL version a while back. I bought it this week based on the recommendation of my fellow DCSS veterans and have been loving it ever since!

[ukulele]

I've been wondering this question. Tbh I was going to get this after a payday but then all sorts of RL stuff had to be attended to (family etc) so it slipped. Also the whole updating and I'm using linux made me think about waiting as well.

I got " crypt of the necrodancer" as it got rave reviews but I just cannot get into it; I'm appallingly unmusical too :-(... which has made me wonder if roguelikes are for me?

There's lot that excite me about cogmind:

* scifi robot theme
* aesthetic is uh-mazing.
* lots of choices and a ecosystem evironment

But coming back to whether it's my sort of game. I think the subject of strategy vs tactics is about right.

Strategy:-

Purpose:

1. Get out alive.
2. Choose style of getting out alive from eg:-

* Destroy as much as possible along the way! (destroy)
* Hack and steal as much valuable data/intel along the way! (steal)
* Get out most effectively and least risky via max. stealth and speed (escape)
* Puppet-master and corrupt systems to serve your own goals (create)

Tactics:-

* How optimal your choices are to effecting your strategy

To compare with football (soccer) I prefer possession/territory domination and complex moves to achieve goals. There's plenty of other strategies which require different smaller tactical modules for example in the previous triangles is king, another strategy of "long-ball" is disrupting the oppositions' defence and attacking leaving your own defence in postiion when you lose the ball.

Tactics is the smaller skills you learn but the strategy is kinda your philosophy or personality.

It sounds like it's more tactics driven in cogmind, use what happens when it happens most effectively (optimize within the randomness).

But I hope it's possible to define a few different strategies to achieve scoresheets that skew heavily and reflect the that measure of success.

It's bit in games, I like to win, but I like to see how greedy I can be also (winning all points or do outrageous things etc)! That's fun for me.

I'll certainly pick up cogmind, it's been a sheer joy to follow the dev of.

[Shadowfury333]

I guess this is mostly directed at ukulele since this thread is old.

One thing I've found about Cogmind is that combat is often eventually suicide. It's not that you can't fight, but that you need to be pretty cautious about doing so, and you aren't going to gain a lot from doing it (the parts you break off enemies are usually not as good as those found in rooms, with the possible exception of killing Pests for their flight units on -10). If you are playing DCSS to run around and slaughter things, that style will be difficult in Cogmind. Mind you, I tend to play a flight-propulsion stealth-oriented build, because I've been burned on losing all my equipment in a bad fight a few times.

That being said, Cogmind is a really neat approach to the rogue-like, so if you want something that greatly encourages playstyles besides running around killing everything it's awesome for that.

Also, try Crypt of the Necrodancer playing Bard. It's basically the game without the rhythm element, so just the pure rogue-like bit.

[ukulele]

Yeah, it's in the dev blog:-

1. Avoiding Combat (combat is not necessarily for reward).
2. Ranged Combat (unlike "bump" usually used).
3. Changing out gear a lot as the main mechanism not represented in roguelikes as much/often.

Which I like the sound of!

@Shadowfury333 thanks bud, I'll probably just get cogmind finally and take the plunge. I like the idea of different scope of challenge to skill mastery of the different styles or strategies. To work at different strategies and get better at executing them thus adding variable challenge to skill would be very cool achievement of the game design imo.

I like the emphasis on info gathering the game seems to project.

[Shadowfury333]

Ranged Combat alone is actually a pretty big shift. I came here from DoomRL so I was already used to it, but it changes the play a fair amount. Mind you, Cogmind levels are built in a way that makes it relatively straightforward to get behind cover and funnel enemies, since there are rooms to duck into strewn about the place (at least in the first few levels).

[Kyzrati]

It appears ukelele's mind is already made up, though to respond to this:

It sounds like it's more tactics driven in cogmind, use what happens when it happens most effectively (optimize within the randomness).

That is generally the easiest way to survive, though with experience players have been able to force other unique strategies purely for fun and/or the challenge.

And the challenge naturally scales depending on precisely this:

I like to win, but I like to see how greedy I can be also (winning all points or do outrageous things etc)! That's fun for me.

Due to the whole "world is alive and responsive" aspect, it presents a flexible system in which you'll learn to navigate and bend it to your will, but you'll frequently encounter other ways in which you can take on extra challenges that seem right at the edge of your capabilities, similar to other roguelikes in how it's possible to challenge yourself by optionally visiting a known dangerous area, or choosing to take on a particularly dangerous foe, though in this case acting across more layers of the game.

That's a convoluted way of saying that I think based on what you've said, you'll probably enjoy it