What do you think makes a fun DK map?

[Blossy1000]

Well, keep in mind that things always come with consequences. It's why this is my standard approach to maps, not my universal approach. It's more important to read into a specific level. It can't be truly chaotic if you have time to wait or have the choice to wait, hard to make a more calming level if you can always see the path and enemy to progress and the level keeps shouting "Go!" in some way. I think there's usually some kind of range of speeds for a given level.
I actually did make a couple of maps with opposing speeds, one's a high pressure invasion map, and the other is like slowly exploring caves but that one's not completely done yet. Both are flexible, but in very different ways. In the fast map for example, a player can keep remaining defensive, try to get stronger and gain access to more powerful tools, or they can advance to try and smash the different Hero Gates and stop certain waves. No matter what, activity doesn't stop, it can just slow down or vary how a player wants to proceed.
In the slow map, a player can patiently and carefully explore caves, or even go reckless and try to advance as much as possible, the only timer being how much gold they have. But, the player's speed is capped by certain things, and this is shown in the very beginning by not having any free Imps and barely enough mana to make 1 Imp to claim the starting area. The slowing of certain things, especially from the very beginning, is important for keeping things relaxing. Its like slowing the player's mind and setting expectations. If I encouraged a player to move very fast, but then forced a slowdown, then it would become very frustrating because a player's mindset would be all about speed. But if I encouraged them to go fast the entire way through, it wouldn't be a slow or relaxing map at all. And note the difference between encouraging and allowing. I'm sure a player could speed through this map even on a first playthrough if they were skilled and willing enough (or unwilling to slowdown ever).

I also think there's more to it than just sending waves of Heroes, but admittedly dropping Heroes is a common tool as there's only so many things you can do. It doesn't need to be a full on invasion style of waves, but could just be small parties, or Heroes setup to try and mess with your dungeon somehow. It would be nice if there was more ways to interact with the dungeon and its creature activity itself. Maybe FX has more options for that through script commands since I last checked.
This is something I'm really not sure how exactly to resolve for DK1, as it's quite different compared to DK2 because of the dying state. In the slow map I mentioned, rooms are potentially fairly segregated due to its cavern design, and one of the map's traits is actually dropping small bands of Heroes at random areas. They're contextually miner parties, so it'll be some Dwarves and maybe another Hero or two for protection. Weak enough that, if they drop in your Workshop for example, working creatures could take care of them, but the Hero party could potentially be more threatening, it's quite random. So a player is incentivized to build some traps around the dungeon, not just at their front gate. It essentially creates random events, varies things up and is interesting to watch how your creatures and dungeon planning deal with the sudden heroes. But a big part of what allows that to work is that your creatures don't instantly die so it's not so punishing if things don't exactly work out.
.

Yes, those are good points. I agree there's more to it than sending waves of heroes, but I used that example since it's the most obvious way to put pressure on the player in a map without enemy keepers. I don't necessarily think this is a problem with the game, it's just my preference. A big part of why I like the game is because of the atmosphere. Still to this day I occasionally like to possess a creature just to walk around my dungeon and look at it. That's a bit silly perhaps, but still. It's hard to make a map challenging without putting on a time restraint of some sort. DK really is an RTS at heart and that means speed and aggression is the most efficient way to go for the most part, that's what I meant when I talked about identity crisis in one of the earlier posts. Several things about the game seems to encourage a defensive playstyle, or that was my impression back in the day at least. The original premise (build a dungeon and defend it against heroes who'll come to steal your gold etc), the fact that you can wall yourself in, the workshop where you can make traps to make it harder for intruders and so on.

If we're talking about the original game and Deeper Dungeons, of course it's easy enough where you can play like that, but the last time I replayed it (a few weeks ago) I realised I was playing way faster than I did as a 15 year old in 97. And that was less fun. I used to fill my dungeon with traps and think about the optimal way of designing my dungeon and so on, but really, that takes time. Why bother when you can already be done with the map at that point?

I think it's a bit of a missed opportunity that the dungeon managing part of the game isn't more important and rewarding than it is. Besides using some common sense in how you place your rooms it doesn't matter that much. That also effects the usefulness of creatures, if they're not good in a fight they really aren't needed. Like, why use trolls when Orcs are much better fighters and will probably even outperform them in the workshop unless you train your trolls to level 10 for that reason alone? Of course this can be solved by not giving the player access to endless amounts of any creature they want, but it would be nice if other jobs than fighter were more important.

Sorry, I guess this went a bit off topic (in the topic I created myself even...)

[Metal Gear Rex]

Yes, those are good points. I agree there's more to it than sending waves of heroes, but I used that example since it's the most obvious way to put pressure on the player in a map without enemy keepers. I don't necessarily think this is a problem with the game, it's just my preference. A big part of why I like the game is because of the atmosphere. Still to this day I occasionally like to possess a creature just to walk around my dungeon and look at it. That's a bit silly perhaps, but still.

I don't think it's silly at all. It's something worth appreciating and developing appeal for.

It's hard to make a map challenging without putting on a time restraint of some sort. DK really is an RTS at heart and that means speed and aggression is the most efficient way to go for the most part, that's what I meant when I talked about identity crisis in one of the earlier posts. Several things about the game seems to encourage a defensive playstyle, or that was my impression back in the day at least. The original premise (build a dungeon and defend it against heroes who'll come to steal your gold etc), the fact that you can wall yourself in, the workshop where you can make traps to make it harder for intruders and so on.

If we're talking about the original game and Deeper Dungeons, of course it's easy enough where you can play like that, but the last time I replayed it (a few weeks ago) I realised I was playing way faster than I did as a 15 year old in 97. And that was less fun. I used to fill my dungeon with traps and think about the optimal way of designing my dungeon and so on, but really, that takes time. Why bother when you can already be done with the map at that point?

Would you prefer the making of a long map over a shorter one? Or I suppose more specifically, a map designed around Heroes invading you, rather than you needing to invade Heroes.

A number of Hero Maps do focus on having the Heroes come to you, I think. I mean, out of the actual Hero maps. There's the first three maps, and then... does Wishvale count? Hearth and Mirthshire, I don't remember what Sleepiburgh did. Maybe it was not a lot of maps or maybe there's just too many Keeper maps. The first three maps doing it though, definitely leaves an impression of how the game should be as the player being defensive, so I wouldn't say it's wrong to think that anywho.
However, often with the growth of skill and understanding and whatnot, comes the cutting down of time. Unless a map forces a player to wait, if it's giving them an option to be fast or slow, a more skillful player can go fast and finish it sooner. I guess I'm trying to say that there is some inevitability to better players finishing maps faster, and maybe not something to be overly concerned with or surprised by.
I remember recently, someone was talking about Mirthshire and mentioning how it was "another level where you have to wait" because you're waiting on the timer for the hero invasions. It's an interesting comment because I remember playing that map when I was younger, and it was one of the more difficult ones for my skill level at the time. I was trying to strengthen my forces with converts and it felt like Heroes would suddenly show up and I wasn't ready, quite stressful. Definitely was not thinking about needing to wait, but it's a big skill difference. I played through the DK2 campaign again more recently and noticed the same thing, actually I think it was much faster than DK1.

I think it's a bit of a missed opportunity that the dungeon managing part of the game isn't more important and rewarding than it is. Besides using some common sense in how you place your rooms it doesn't matter that much. That also effects the usefulness of creatures, if they're not good in a fight they really aren't needed. Like, why use trolls when Orcs are much better fighters and will probably even outperform them in the workshop unless you train your trolls to level 10 for that reason alone? Of course this can be solved by not giving the player access to endless amounts of any creature they want, but it would be nice if other jobs than fighter were more important.

There's some elements here and there, like Scavenger Room creates some competition between Keepers beyond combat, in theory it's a test of dungeon efficiency but, yeah not a whole lot there. It's one of the more underdeveloped aspects of the game that's disappointing.

Have you looked through the new script commands for FX? I gave it another look through earlier and I think there might be some interesting potential to try and script dungeon events or scenarios or something to expand on non-combat related things.

On my list of DK2 map ideas, one of them is about figuring out a way to get the player competing with one or more Keepers for resources or other things that don't involve fighting or a focus on fighting. I haven't quite figured out how to go about it just yet, it's only a map idea, but I wanted to experiment more with enemy Keepers in general since it's kind of tricky working with them, and that might be a good opportunity to try something else out. Maybe some ideas can be translated over into DK1 too.

Sorry, I guess this went a bit off topic (in the topic I created myself even...)

Even if the topic is unexpected, I would say this is all about understanding what makes a fun DK map. It's part of understanding what DK is and what it isn't.

[Blossy1000]

I don't think it's silly at all. It's something worth appreciating and developing appeal for.

It's interesting you say that because most people seem to disagree and simply dismiss it as a novelty. It's not that easy to make the player feel the need to, or at least find it a good strategy to use first person mode though. It does remove a lot of things like using spells or getting your other creatures out of trouble if they're about to die. It's easier to justify if the player don't have access to spells. I don't want to force players to use it, but I like to make it into a strategy that's actually useful.

Would you prefer the making of a long map over a shorter one? Or I suppose more specifically, a map designed around Heroes invading you, rather than you needing to invade Heroes.

A number of Hero Maps do focus on having the Heroes come to you, I think. I mean, out of the actual Hero maps. There's the first three maps, and then... does Wishvale count? Hearth and Mirthshire, I don't remember what Sleepiburgh did. Maybe it was not a lot of maps or maybe there's just too many Keeper maps. The first three maps doing it though, definitely leaves an impression of how the game should be as the player being defensive, so I wouldn't say it's wrong to think that anywho.
However, often with the growth of skill and understanding and whatnot, comes the cutting down of time. Unless a map forces a player to wait, if it's giving them an option to be fast or slow, a more skillful player can go fast and finish it sooner. I guess I'm trying to say that there is some inevitability to better players finishing maps faster, and maybe not something to be overly concerned with or surprised by.
I remember recently, someone was talking about Mirthshire and mentioning how it was "another level where you have to wait" because you're waiting on the timer for the hero invasions. It's an interesting comment because I remember playing that map when I was younger, and it was one of the more difficult ones for my skill level at the time. I was trying to strengthen my forces with converts and it felt like Heroes would suddenly show up and I wasn't ready, quite stressful. Definitely was not thinking about needing to wait, but it's a big skill difference. I played through the DK2 campaign again more recently and noticed the same thing, actually I think it was much faster than DK1.

Good points. Yes, getting more experience and skill will change how you play the game, that's probably inevitable. In those maps though, what happens when you take your time is that you'll prepare for a long time and when you decide to attack you're super strong to the point of overkill. Like, I made a huge number of traps, but no one will ever walk on them. That's kind of the problem a lot of the time, if the enemies really start invading your dungeon heart you're already failing right there. You're better off not letting it get that far, and that's the problem I have (still talking about the original maps), it's usually easier to be aggressive instead.

To answer your starting question there, I think I prefer a longer map. Really, one of the things I don't like is the fact that maps are fairly brief. That also impacts how much time you want to spend on creating a fantastic dungeon - it's soon going to be taken away from you anyway and you'll have to begin anew. That's typical of strategy games, but I definitely think it's sometimes a negative. You spend an awful lot of time starting over and doing the same things roughly the same way again. Like, new map, build a treasure room, lair, hatchery, training room etc.

There's some elements here and there, like Scavenger Room creates some competition between Keepers beyond combat, in theory it's a test of dungeon efficiency but, yeah not a whole lot there. It's one of the more underdeveloped aspects of the game that's disappointing.

Have you looked through the new script commands for FX? I gave it another look through earlier and I think there might be some interesting potential to try and script dungeon events or scenarios or something to expand on non-combat related things.

I just started making maps again last week or so, but I have been looking through the new script commands. I've only scratched the surface yet, because I don't have that much time unfortunately. I've been dabbling with the change slab command, which I imagine can make for a lot of interesting things. I've only used it for flair yet, but it opens up a lot of possibilities. Also, the improved usage of flags, even though I haven't looked into that yet is probably very useful, and swap_creature as well. And the fact you can use more of all this with the script limit being extended (I'm not sure how much though?) is probably the biggest potential to make better maps.

On my list of DK2 map ideas, one of them is about figuring out a way to get the player competing with one or more Keepers for resources or other things that don't involve fighting or a focus on fighting. I haven't quite figured out how to go about it just yet, it's only a map idea, but I wanted to experiment more with enemy Keepers in general since it's kind of tricky working with them, and that might be a good opportunity to try something else out. Maybe some ideas can be translated over into DK1 too.



Even if the topic is unexpected, I would say this is all about understanding what makes a fun DK map. It's part of understanding what DK is and what it isn't.

I always think ideas like that are worth checking out. Personally I have a thing for making quirky maps for games, I just have to keep myself in check as to not trying to make a game into something it's not good at.

[Metal Gear Rex]

It's interesting you say that because most people seem to disagree and simply dismiss it as a novelty.

This is sadly unsurprising. The idea of "gameplay" and game mechanics tends to be a dominating perspective as for what gives purpose or substance to a game. I don't think it's all true though. Games are truly complicated and very difficult to analyze, game mechanics and its immediate relations I think are the simplest way to analyze them. Understanding and developing an appreciation for the things that are not so visible, a sort of sub-text for example, is a lot trickier if someone doesn't instinctively do so or was brought up with such an appreciation. Add to that the way people can repeatedly play through the same game is very unlike how people go about other mediums, and the emotional effect of certain designs can start to wear down, so all that ends up remaining is this sense of "gameplay". Some would even argue that that idea of "timelessness" is what makes it better or is proof of such, even though that is also a lie and nothing is even remotely timeless. Without developing new perspectives and appreciations, well this is what tends to happen. But I digress, as this actually does head into more off topic subjects.

I will say, as far as developing new appreciations, something I have more recently come to appreciation in regards to DK is the automated nature of it. I think this works a lot more in DK2 though, where you can create patrols and your creatures can fall unconscious, although DK1 has the feature of Traps being rebuilt / replaced automatically and the added flexibility of your Imps recovering bodies not strictly tied to the player's land. In any case, it's something that can create for a potentially relaxing experience because it minimizes the amount of effort a player has to do. I mentioned eventfulness before, but this is also another benefit of it, where it makes merely watching things unfold exciting and different. I think DK2, because of its 3D collision, has a lot of subtle chaotic elements in how things move around, which adds to this.
On the flip side, DK can also be more stressful than anything else because of the amount of potential there is to have multiple things, multiple forms of pressure, happening all at once and a player does not always have direct means to answer it, only indirect. Casting spells is direct, limited by mana / gold, but dropping creatures is somewhat indirect, because though the creatures can be directly deployed, their fighting can be unpredictable, moreso in DK2.

It's not that easy to make the player feel the need to, or at least find it a good strategy to use first person mode though. It does remove a lot of things like using spells or getting your other creatures out of trouble if they're about to die. It's easier to justify if the player don't have access to spells. I don't want to force players to use it, but I like to make it into a strategy that's actually useful.

Making the player feel the need to do anything is quite tricky in a game as complicated as DK with so many options. I think this might even be more true for experienced players, or players who have become stuck in certain ways and are less willing or able to try or see new options. Possession has the reputation of being OP, abusable, cheese, especially in DK2. Players can even be too prideful to want to win with such an exploit. So no matter how, it'll always be tricky to get players to use it.

Possession does remove a lot of the player's power though, but for a short time, the possessed creature can be quite powerful. It's a way of making a lot out of very little. And I find it also functions as a soft sight-of-evil of sorts, where if a player has an opening to water, no harm in revealing a bit more to allow a player to mine around there without opening up to water if it needs to be done immediately and any scouting creatures are screwing around somewhere else.
Creating a situation where a player feels a *need* to do it but isn't forced to, that's hard. I might be overthinking it though, because it might be difficult to do that for anything as it's such a precise line of difficulty that may not work across a wider range of player skill levels.
There's outside dungeon work. Situations without CtA, or perhaps there are very specific tasks a player might need to do, but this might apply more to DK2. Inside the dungeon, the player is giving up a lot of control. I suppose, for DK1 it would be situations with limited gold resources or spells, because possession is free.

In any case, I would say there is a bigger problem with mentality. Players can completely swear off possession as apart of normal gameplay. If a player feels a need to go into possession to fight off enemies, then that would be considered bs difficulty on the mapmaking part. If they need to go into possession to launch an attack on an enemy because of the lack of CtA, that's a level gimmick. It's a frustrating situation to be in as a mapmaker or any sort of designer, but a player may not simply enjoy using possession too, even if purely out of principle.

Good points. Yes, getting more experience and skill will change how you play the game, that's probably inevitable. In those maps though, what happens when you take your time is that you'll prepare for a long time and when you decide to attack you're super strong to the point of overkill. Like, I made a huge number of traps, but no one will ever walk on them. That's kind of the problem a lot of the time, if the enemies really start invading your dungeon heart you're already failing right there. You're better off not letting it get that far, and that's the problem I have (still talking about the original maps), it's usually easier to be aggressive instead.

Yes, it's tricky. I think it may even be trickier in FX now because, I think you can place traps on subtiles now and have multiple traps per tile? Someone might need to correct me on that.

But regardless, the potential power level of the player, defensively or offensively, scales really high. It's hard to balance around such a wide power scale, I think normally power scaling so high is used as a means to mitigate player skill difference. It reminds me of Megaman X, where you can quadruple your starting health through Heart powerups and Body Armor which halves damage, and then increase health even more through the finding of the four Sub-Tanks, which fully restore health. Assuming a player uses them at 25% HP, that's an additional 1200% health if the player also collects heart powerups and body armor, so 1600% of base health. It's a massive range, and in the first MMX game they made the final boss really hard, but eased up on that in following games, eventually reduced Sub-Tanks down to two as well.
It's not uncommon for this to be the approach of a game's design, and I think from that arises the desire to truly make use of all that power else it becomes "wasted" or diminishes the victory by being "unnecessary". A desire to show true skill, to finally settle the strongest. What's awkward is that, you can always make something harder, something to supersede that previous bar, and be greater than what that player is capable of doing or even capable of reaching. It's a very thin line.
I bring this up because I think that manifests into DK by seeking fast maps, intense pressure and such, more APM styles of skill. It's interesting because you don't seem to want this end, but instead a more defensive counterpart, where Heroes are to truly challenge your dungeon.
I have felt this as well, I think especially with Boulders. Quite a while ago, I made some saves of these trap dungeons in a couple of different DD maps. Netzcaro and Belial, because Netzcaro has a Hero Heart that you can destroy and let out all of the heroes at once. Torturing heroes reveals the Hero Heart instantly, but I think CtA can be cast through SoE, so with teleporting units you can easily destroy the heart without hurting any heroes. So then they all come into your dungeon at once and fall to your traps. Belial too, spawns powerful heroes at the end. I made traps like lava pits, Word of Power traps that knock enemies backwards into other traps. Nasty stuff, and disappointingly the Heroes wouldn't survive through the whole thing. It's like building your own house of horrors, you want to see how far the Heroes can go, it's always disappointing that they didn't make it to certain rooms.

I don't remember if I mentioned this or not but it does seem like you might prefer a map with limited "power creatures". No Orcs, Mistresses, probably no Bile Demons or maybe access to only a few at a time. Like, max 3 power units be it Orc or Mistress or Bile Demon. Could easily make a script for that.
Limiting offensive capabilities by limiting creatures. Even taking away CtA. Or making it so the map is just pure invasion, it's not about attacking any sort of castle.
Or, perhaps you would prefer to make it so attacks on the Heroes are only to lure them out, and they may not send any Heroes, or at least not of significant strength or number, without the player initiating aggressions. This way, it is up to the player to begin any sort of invasion.

To answer your starting question there, I think I prefer a longer map. Really, one of the things I don't like is the fact that maps are fairly brief. That also impacts how much time you want to spend on creating a fantastic dungeon - it's soon going to be taken away from you anyway and you'll have to begin anew. That's typical of strategy games, but I definitely think it's sometimes a negative. You spend an awful lot of time starting over and doing the same things roughly the same way again. Like, new map, build a treasure room, lair, hatchery, training room etc.

I also feel that. I added decorative objects to DK2 (they're technically traps) and I'll find myself trying to refine the dungeon both by building traps all about and by trying to add more mood through these decorative objects. I think one of the disappointing things I've noticed is, I like to add traps in combination to common rooms, and in many maps it's never necessary because as you say, you never want to let invaders get that far. Invaders get stopped at the outskirts or outside gate to your dungeon. Many of sentries do not fire even once.

As for leaving a level, there's a lot of personal attachment to be formed in how the dungeon is made. Not only are room and trap layouts an aspect of finetuning a dungeon to a player's desire, but I think a personal connection also gets heavily reinforced to where you can drop creatures. It's seemingly small, but so extremely common that it reinforces this sense of a dungeon's specific shape. I think the context of building a home is also reinforcing this attachment on some level. I agree that in this light, it is a negative.
But it also similarly hard to make a map go on for so long as creatures and dungeon defenses will eventually become so strong, nothing new will happen as things cannot escalate, and it becomes stale. I suppose it's part of the issue of everything beginning and ending with combat, and the lack of further depth and interaction within dungeon management. Maybe as well, a lack of vision as to what kind of ceiling there is or should be to that "fantastic dungeon".

I always think ideas like that are worth checking out. Personally I have a thing for making quirky maps for games, I just have to keep myself in check as to not trying to make a game into something it's not good at.

It's the difference between "fan" levels and more professional looking ones, that's for sure.

I've also made some notes on map ideas and directions I want to make based on this discussion as well, so that's nice.

[YourMaster]

Yes, it's tricky. I think it may even be trickier in FX now because, I think you can place traps on subtiles now and have multiple traps per tile? Someone might need to correct me on that.

No. Mapmakers can make a campaign or map with this as a possibility, but nobody has done so yet, and by default it's disabled.

[Blossy1000]

This is sadly unsurprising. The idea of "gameplay" and game mechanics tends to be a dominating perspective as for what gives purpose or substance to a game. I don't think it's all true though. Games are truly complicated and very difficult to analyze, game mechanics and its immediate relations I think are the simplest way to analyze them. Understanding and developing an appreciation for the things that are not so visible, a sort of sub-text for example, is a lot trickier if someone doesn't instinctively do so or was brought up with such an appreciation. Add to that the way people can repeatedly play through the same game is very unlike how people go about other mediums, and the emotional effect of certain designs can start to wear down, so all that ends up remaining is this sense of "gameplay". Some would even argue that that idea of "timelessness" is what makes it better or is proof of such, even though that is also a lie and nothing is even remotely timeless. Without developing new perspectives and appreciations, well this is what tends to happen. But I digress, as this actually does head into more off topic subjects.

Thank you very much for your insightful reply! I agree. As an example, it's quite common with reviews of games where the reviewer comes to the conclusion a game is "more than the sum of it's parts" or, less frequently, less than the sum of it's parts. To me that simply shows they didn't understand exactly what those "parts" were, or how they relate to each other to create a whole.

I will say, as far as developing new appreciations, something I have more recently come to appreciation in regards to DK is the automated nature of it. I think this works a lot more in DK2 though, where you can create patrols and your creatures can fall unconscious, although DK1 has the feature of Traps being rebuilt / replaced automatically and the added flexibility of your Imps recovering bodies not strictly tied to the player's land. In any case, it's something that can create for a potentially relaxing experience because it minimizes the amount of effort a player has to do. I mentioned eventfulness before, but this is also another benefit of it, where it makes merely watching things unfold exciting and different. I think DK2, because of its 3D collision, has a lot of subtle chaotic elements in how things move around, which adds to this.
On the flip side, DK can also be more stressful than anything else because of the amount of potential there is to have multiple things, multiple forms of pressure, happening all at once and a player does not always have direct means to answer it, only indirect. Casting spells is direct, limited by mana / gold, but dropping creatures is somewhat indirect, because though the creatures can be directly deployed, their fighting can be unpredictable, moreso in DK2.

Yes, even in DK1 I completely agree this is part of the charm, even in small ways. The way creatures go about their business goes a long way to create the atmosphere.

Making the player feel the need to do anything is quite tricky in a game as complicated as DK with so many options. I think this might even be more true for experienced players, or players who have become stuck in certain ways and are less willing or able to try or see new options. Possession has the reputation of being OP, abusable, cheese, especially in DK2. Players can even be too prideful to want to win with such an exploit. So no matter how, it'll always be tricky to get players to use it.

Possession does remove a lot of the player's power though, but for a short time, the possessed creature can be quite powerful. It's a way of making a lot out of very little. And I find it also functions as a soft sight-of-evil of sorts, where if a player has an opening to water, no harm in revealing a bit more to allow a player to mine around there without opening up to water if it needs to be done immediately and any scouting creatures are screwing around somewhere else.
Creating a situation where a player feels a *need* to do it but isn't forced to, that's hard. I might be overthinking it though, because it might be difficult to do that for anything as it's such a precise line of difficulty that may not work across a wider range of player skill levels.
There's outside dungeon work. Situations without CtA, or perhaps there are very specific tasks a player might need to do, but this might apply more to DK2. Inside the dungeon, the player is giving up a lot of control. I suppose, for DK1 it would be situations with limited gold resources or spells, because possession is free.

In any case, I would say there is a bigger problem with mentality. Players can completely swear off possession as apart of normal gameplay. If a player feels a need to go into possession to fight off enemies, then that would be considered bs difficulty on the mapmaking part. If they need to go into possession to launch an attack on an enemy because of the lack of CtA, that's a level gimmick. It's a frustrating situation to be in as a mapmaker or any sort of designer, but a player may not simply enjoy using possession too, even if purely out of principle.

Well put. It made me think about it some more, and what I really want is presenting it to the player as a valid option. Because that's what I like in a map, or the original campaign or whatever. That feeling where I choose to do something that seems like a good strategy, rather than have it forced down my throat. As a map maker it's easy to fall into that trap (for me at least) where you want to force a certain, or a few certain options in a given situation. I think that can be good in certain situations, but as a player I think it's usually more fun if it's more open ended.

Yes, it's tricky. I think it may even be trickier in FX now because, I think you can place traps on subtiles now and have multiple traps per tile? Someone might need to correct me on that.

But regardless, the potential power level of the player, defensively or offensively, scales really high. It's hard to balance around such a wide power scale, I think normally power scaling so high is used as a means to mitigate player skill difference. It reminds me of Megaman X, where you can quadruple your starting health through Heart powerups and Body Armor which halves damage, and then increase health even more through the finding of the four Sub-Tanks, which fully restore health. Assuming a player uses them at 25% HP, that's an additional 1200% health if the player also collects heart powerups and body armor, so 1600% of base health. It's a massive range, and in the first MMX game they made the final boss really hard, but eased up on that in following games, eventually reduced Sub-Tanks down to two as well.
It's not uncommon for this to be the approach of a game's design, and I think from that arises the desire to truly make use of all that power else it becomes "wasted" or diminishes the victory by being "unnecessary". A desire to show true skill, to finally settle the strongest. What's awkward is that, you can always make something harder, something to supersede that previous bar, and be greater than what that player is capable of doing or even capable of reaching. It's a very thin line.
I bring this up because I think that manifests into DK by seeking fast maps, intense pressure and such, more APM styles of skill. It's interesting because you don't seem to want this end, but instead a more defensive counterpart, where Heroes are to truly challenge your dungeon.
I have felt this as well, I think especially with Boulders. Quite a while ago, I made some saves of these trap dungeons in a couple of different DD maps. Netzcaro and Belial, because Netzcaro has a Hero Heart that you can destroy and let out all of the heroes at once. Torturing heroes reveals the Hero Heart instantly, but I think CtA can be cast through SoE, so with teleporting units you can easily destroy the heart without hurting any heroes. So then they all come into your dungeon at once and fall to your traps. Belial too, spawns powerful heroes at the end. I made traps like lava pits, Word of Power traps that knock enemies backwards into other traps. Nasty stuff, and disappointingly the Heroes wouldn't survive through the whole thing. It's like building your own house of horrors, you want to see how far the Heroes can go, it's always disappointing that they didn't make it to certain rooms.

I don't remember if I mentioned this or not but it does seem like you might prefer a map with limited "power creatures". No Orcs, Mistresses, probably no Bile Demons or maybe access to only a few at a time. Like, max 3 power units be it Orc or Mistress or Bile Demon. Could easily make a script for that.
Limiting offensive capabilities by limiting creatures. Even taking away CtA. Or making it so the map is just pure invasion, it's not about attacking any sort of castle.
Or, perhaps you would prefer to make it so attacks on the Heroes are only to lure them out, and they may not send any Heroes, or at least not of significant strength or number, without the player initiating aggressions. This way, it is up to the player to begin any sort of invasion.

Yes, I really agree with everything else you say too. To be honest, I sometimes think about what the game would have been like if it weren't divided into levels. That would mean it would have had to be designed a bit differently for sure, but really, if you want that sim factor I think it's better if you let the player keep his designs for much longer.

Again, a bit off topic, but to bring it back somehow, I want to mention something. I recently replayed the game and some of Deeper Dungeons. I always thought Deeper Dungeons was weird in the sense that I hated about half of the maps and the rest I think are decent to great. About half of the maps fall into the category of "let's make huge rooms filled with lightning traps, and placing boulder traps behind every door is a fun joke right?" which is ridiculously boring. But I have an old favorite, Dixaroc, the one where you start with only a spider you have to possess in the beginning.

It was fun to replay it for the first time in years. I still enjoyed it a lot, but it was interesting to see it did quite a few things I don't generally like as a map maker. Like, throwing hero parties right at your dungeon heart from out of nowhere (not that much and not that hard though), not letting you build your dungeon at all almost, and also putting you under a rather strict time (money) limit. Also two enemy keepers which I already said I don't particularly enjoy. But, it does some things really well. It's epic in the true sense of the word, it's a long map with clearly designed chapters so to speak and it has a big showdown with the green keeper in the end. Actually I think that was made a bit harder with Keeperfx because all of green keepers creatures were level 10 at that point, I don't think that happened in the original. Even so, the map isn't very hard but there is a lot to do and there is a pacing to it that I like.

Also, it got me thinking about one thing. If I had designed that level maybe I would have thought it was too easy. But when I look back on that playthrough, even though I never failed I also never felt like "oh, I'm just breezing through this", I always felt on edge. Maybe that's an illusion of challenge, but it still worked.

[Metal Gear Rex]

It made me think about it some more, and what I really want is presenting it to the player as a valid option. Because that's what I like in a map, or the original campaign or whatever. That feeling where I choose to do something that seems like a good strategy, rather than have it forced down my throat. As a map maker it's easy to fall into that trap (for me at least) where you want to force a certain, or a few certain options in a given situation. I think that can be good in certain situations, but as a player I think it's usually more fun if it's more open ended.

It's a generally good approach to design for DK maps because there's randomness in the Portal and in creature fighting, making things flexible that is. There's also a sort of randomness to how a player will design their dungeon, at least as far as the mapmaker is concerned. Lenient and forgiving design also works hand in hand with random or variance as a counterbalance, there only needs to be enough to give a sense of pressure for the player. This is even more true for DK2 quite honestly, because there's a lot more effective randomness in how creatures move due to how much more complicated things are than in DK1 due to the collision system.

Part of that feeling as well, choosing something instead of having it being forced upon you, comes with how the map is designed in regards to presentation. This goes into more specific DK1 territory where I'm less familiar / am rusty with, but something like map information matters a lot. Trying to guide a player to show them where Heroes are, versus directing them to perform specific tasks like breaking into enemy walls through the 1 rock tile amidst reinforced walls. I mean sometimes I also direct the player more but, I want to say usually there's good enough reason and it's infrequent enough that it's not gonna bother someone unless they were on a crusade to eradicate all such designs from the face of the earth.

But this is where it goes back on that issue of how players tend to feel about possession too. For that, I'm not sure I have a good answer.

To be honest, I sometimes think about what the game would have been like if it weren't divided into levels.

Evil Genius did something like that, and it does remind me but, one of the purposes of the level structure is acting as a reset. As in, it resets any mistakes a player would have made, and also putting all players back on the same point to make things easier to balance. Resetting any gap between players. At the very least, a level structure is good for introducing the game to someone for that reason.
I actually did not have a fun time initially playing Evil Genius for similar reasons, but additionally that game - almost as if a response to DK and its "hand of evil problem" - lacks a lot of strong reactive tools and is more focused on proactive, planning, which can be quite brutal for someone still learning. Depending of course on how much you want to punish the player of course, but punishing the player is also apart of making it feel like there are consequences to actions, which in turn makes it feel like actions matter. So it's hard to get around such things.

That would mean it would have had to be designed a bit differently for sure, but really, if you want that sim factor I think it's better if you let the player keep his designs for much longer.

Yes, this is a missing aspect of the game. I do think it is possible to accomplish it without sacrificing faster or more traditional maps, so long as the proper tools are created and probably certain core elements need adjusting to for example better support small and large dungeon sizes. Power scaling is also a big factor, don't want things to become boring if the player is at the same power for too long and doesn't feel like they're making progress, unless combat is not meant to be a major factor or focus for this kind of map.

I recently replayed the game and some of Deeper Dungeons. I always thought Deeper Dungeons was weird in the sense that I hated about half of the maps and the rest I think are decent to great.

DD maps as a concept are a lot more interesting most of the time. I think its levels are more memorable for that reason. They do leave an impression. Dixaroc, as you mention, has quite the unique structure to it, and really solid progression that moves away from just training units up to 10. Pladitz is one I remember a lot too, that map is literally broken up into stages, and one of the most memorable aspects even if not very well designed, is at some point you open up a passage that has countless Barbarians swarming your dungeon.

I still enjoyed it a lot, but it was interesting to see it did quite a few things I don't generally like as a map maker. Like, throwing hero parties right at your dungeon heart from out of nowhere (not that much and not that hard though), not letting you build your dungeon at all almost, and also putting you under a rather strict time (money) limit. Also two enemy keepers which I already said I don't particularly enjoy. But, it does some things really well. It's epic in the true sense of the word, it's a long map with clearly designed chapters so to speak and it has a big showdown with the green keeper in the end. Actually I think that was made a bit harder with Keeperfx because all of green keepers creatures were level 10 at that point, I don't think that happened in the original. Even so, the map isn't very hard but there is a lot to do and there is a pacing to it that I like.

Well, I would certainly cross dropping heroes on your heart from that list... but all of those things I think even as unpopular as they can be I think can really serve to a greater end purpose used properly. There probably isn't enough map space to even allow for a player to build their own way, but it also keeps things very focused on the player's "adventure". Strict time limit also helps for maintaining / controlling the pacing of the map, so that these chapter as you say doesn't extend too long, which is part of what makes each one memorable as they don't overstay their welcome. It all creates a nice unique structure, it's definitely an old favorite of mine as well.

Fighting Keepers in DK1 though, I think is still kind of stale and repetitive even with FX. Could be wrong. But I think it still comes down to a bunch of big dumb idiots smashing into each other until the bigger idiot wins. I'm still needing to experiment with DK2 AIs as mentioned, but there's a number of ways to control what the AI in DK2 does that I think there's more versatile ways of having them compliment maps. In DK1, they might be more rigid so... creating a big finale or mid-level obstacle with one might be the best use of them.

Side note, I remember last time I played, I think I actually couldn't beat it in FX. Or maybe I did. I don't remember, only that I hit a wall there with Green.

Also, it got me thinking about one thing. If I had designed that level maybe I would have thought it was too easy. But when I look back on that playthrough, even though I never failed I also never felt like "oh, I'm just breezing through this", I always felt on edge. Maybe that's an illusion of challenge, but it still worked.

Sometimes what separates a player from a designer is respecting the illusion as reality. Or something.

But, something I've quite a fan of is actually dynamic difficulty. It's not so popular among players for that above reason, but I like it as both a means of fine tuning and creating a nice progressive curve, as well as something that is just generally not samey. It can keep pressure up in the right ways. It needs to be implemented carefully to remain fairly invisible, but when it works, well it works.
Originally in DK1 it was probably impossible to implement something like this, but with expanded FX scripting, it's something I wouldn't write off as a possibility.