dkfans
Key binding for game.save 0 and game.load 0
Quicksaves and loads would be a huge QOL improvement.
Could change 0 to something like 99 (or whatever is the max number of saves) to prevent filling up the save folder and save quota with saves that are un-deletable in-game.
The easier saving and loading becomes, the more people will do it, taking a lot of the fun out of the game. This game is not designed around loading 4 times in a single battle to make sure you have perfect micro every fight.
@Loobinex
This game is not designed around loading 4 times in a single battle to make sure you have perfect micro every fight.
If you're obsessive enough to do this, you're obsessive enough to do the escape > load > save number routine. Makes very little sense to punish the majority of players and testers alike for the sake of controlling a tiny subset of players (players that would still do this regardless of ease of saving too mind you).
Is there a need to punish people for playing the game the 'wrong' way in the first place?
I looked into autosaves sometime and noticed the game needs to be paused to save it. So if this gets implemented it will almost certainly pause your game for a little bit.
You could also add a 4s wait routine for quick loads. That's a couple seconds longer than it takes to load from main menu. Only repeat-loaders would notice or be bothered by the difference and everyone else gets to enjoy a very convenient feature (even with the 4s delay).
I do not believe I am punishing the majority, nor would it only be a tiny subset that would be affected.
Save systems are an integral part of any game design, and changing a save system fundamentally changes the game. If on Super Mario Bros 1 you could save before every jump then you would finish the game in no time without having had any fun. If you force Final Fantasy players to finish the game in a single sitting, they would not experience anything beyond the starting area. So save systems need to strike a very fine balance. They need to stop the player from repeating the same thing too many times, without destroying all tension.
Now the save system in DK1 is pretty bad, and it undermines good game design already. Why use sight when you can just try something and reload if it does not work? Why would a mapmaker place a resurrect creature box when you simply reload when you lose a unit? Why complain when a mapmaker puts boulders behind a magic door, if you fail you can simply load right? And the steal hero special, just reload until you get that lvl10 samurai.
This is not a mere hypothetical. The Revenge of the Lord campaign has several punishing sectors players complain about, but the mapmaker stated that when he plays he saves and loads countless times so you can complete the map like that. I think I am far from the only one who does not like such a play style. My hope for the future would be to provide (in parallel to the current system for people who want to stick with that) a better , more modern, save system that not promotes save scumming, and mapmakers designing around that.
@Loobinex
Why use sight when you can just try something and reload if it does not work? Why would a mapmaker place a resurrect creature box when you simply reload when you lose a unit? Why complain when a mapmaker puts boulders behind a magic door, if you fail you can simply load right? And the steal hero special, just reload until you get that lvl10 samurai.
Because skinner conditioning comes into play in gaming.
OG Campaign Lvl 15 you just posted an issue for? I laboriously use sight to map out that annoyingly irregular edge because letting the lvl 10 knight and samurais in too early leads to a massacre (punishment). Using sight is a hell of a lot easier than saving, digging out, counting tiles to dig and loading repeatedly but even if it wasn't, I'm incentivized to avoid a punishing outcome where I have to reload.
Boulders behind doors? Every door has a boulder attached to it! This is what you learn when your precious lvl 10 creatures you trained for hours die. I often use a temple slab, orcs and a nearby guard room for them to run to as soon as the door's destroyed even though saving (even with the current save system) would probably be so much easier. Because loading is almost always paired with negative stimuli and it's more rewarding to beat the game at its own... well, game.
Resurrect can only be used to save one creature of a specific level. Not very useful so it's up to map makers whether it adds value to the level. Nothing to do with save systems imo.
Steal hero? That samurai is almost always not worth the hassle when you have mistresses and most other stealable heroes are pretty much meh and I'd much rather make skeletons of them. It's more rewarding to do this the 'traditional' way than to save scum.
So I still contend that few would exploit a quick save feature the way you propose they would and for the few that would, they'll still do it with escape > load > save slot which isn't that much of a barrier. Eventually, they too will fall prey to operant conditioning.
But if you're not convinced, you can add a 4s delay routine to quick load to discourage this. Should also address map makers designing levels around saving since it would compound the frustrating experience and no one would bother playing such levels. A modern save system designed around increasing the steps it takes to load a game sounds terribly misguided.
I already said it multiple times: we should never design something around abusers. If they want to ruin their own fun that's on them. It's like people that play only with cheats, same energy.
@walt253
If they want to ruin their own fun that's on them.
Couldn't put it better myself.