Did Caverns Deep really have the basic needs?

User avatar
NiandoBG
Ogre
Ogre
Posts: 713
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 1:41 pm
Location: Good old Europe

Re: Did Caverns Deep really have the basic needs?

Post by NiandoBG » Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:06 pm

Law wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 1:27 pm

I like the builds you can make, but it's SO much harder. With the basic pieces, I can dig into a bin of just walls and pull out wall. EVen with LED and magnetic walls, it's not too hard to find what I need. But when walls and floors are 1" or 2" or 4" or 6", there aren't enough for a whole bin, so I have to go digging around. With DoD (and to some extent Castles, and even cities if we're talking about sidewalk pieces), I have to find 1x1 or 1x2 or 2x2 or 2x4 or 4x4 . . . it just gets crazy. The little ones get buried in a bin and it takes forever to find what I need. .. .
While I understand your idea, and DF goes in my opinion very much into the direction of bigger pieces again, it’s a matter of storage and organization to find all the small floor tiles. I use three/four different box sizes (xs/s/m/L)which fit to each other e.g. all sidewalks and all sewer floors are in one box (m). All non 2x2 are in one box (s), all 2x2 floors in one box (m) and all 4x4 and bigger in a box (L)
more than 2,800 self painted dwarvenite pieces :)

Arbados
Orc
Orc
Posts: 159
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 11:45 pm

Re: Did Caverns Deep really have the basic needs?

Post by Arbados » Sun Oct 13, 2019 2:17 am

I'll chime in again as I'm the one that started this post:

Personally, I love 4x4 floor tiles and would love even larger. It simply makes build time quicker for a DM when necessary. I don't pre-build rooms or dungeons unless I know it will happen. I often find myself "building on the fly". Which is fine but if there were larger cavern floor tiles to add to the build it would make things so much easier. However, I do love the diversity and break up of using the smaller 2x2 tiles in my builds. In the end I want both.


Now as for Caverns Deep offering the basics I think it's clear that it didn't. Where was the great wall diversity package or the floor package? Many I'm sure simply want to add, like I do, to the great cavern product we already have and in doing this would love to get some simple wall offerings with different sculpts. This is the same for floors! Am I asking too much?

iddypiper
Kobold
Kobold
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:18 pm

Re: Did Caverns Deep really have the basic needs?

Post by iddypiper » Sun Oct 13, 2019 4:17 am

Arbados wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 2:17 am
I'll chime in again as I'm the one that started this post:

Personally, I love 4x4 floor tiles and would love even larger. It simply makes build time quicker for a DM when necessary. I don't pre-build rooms or dungeons unless I know it will happen. I often find myself "building on the fly". Which is fine but if there were larger cavern floor tiles to add to the build it would make things so much easier. However, I do love the diversity and break up of using the smaller 2x2 tiles in my builds. In the end I want both.
When getting into DF during KS6 an idea I had for large tiles was say 6x6 with 2x2 gaps within the borders. But such a compromise is finicky, takes away modularity, and ultimately probably too much of a middle ground to please anyone.

As someone who got into DF not long ago I very much agree/like what Kitenerd & Talistran etc proposed...am jealous y'all got to enjoy something closer to that model in the past tbh.

User avatar
arsthein
Minotaur
Minotaur
Posts: 1265
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:59 am
Location: Spain

Re: Did Caverns Deep really have the basic needs?

Post by arsthein » Sun Oct 13, 2019 5:45 am

I share wholeheartedly Unclebilly, Kitenerd and Talistran's (and others) opinion. Room sets, passage sets, (and if you must, floor sets for bigger rooms), then accesories, add-ons, bling, etc for encounters would be the optimum way to go by far IMHO. Castles' complexity may have required encounters, but I don't think that's the case for dungeons or caverns, and it's been the sole reason I miss some very nice pieces from those kickstarters. Minis should be in packs too.

That said, and for the sake of argument about how to go about the bread and butter pieces given the actual state of sets, I will state my strategy for caverns variety of pieces.

For starters, I have a nice bunch of resin caverns, so mixing whole resin caverns with with others made of KS II-VI pieces helps me create more variety as a whole on the table. The issue is the color (which I may try to correct in the future by painting my dwarvenite caverns to match resin). I cannot right now mix in the same cave resin and dwarvenite, which would be just fantastic to conceal the pattern of repeated dwarvenite 2x2 pieces.

Having to face that, to work in areas of a layout where you make caves only with dwarvenite, KS II gave us 3 types of wall, 3 types of floors, (or 4, depending if you want to mix the partially elevated one), and 3 types of corner. That's something, although not enough to conceal repetition. Now, with some more variation from CD, that problem is aleviated a little more.

(EDIT: oops! I forgot to include the 4x4 KS II floors (because I haven't any) and the 6x6 from CD (same reason) You can use elevation blocks/KS II cavern stairs for walls too.)

The Starter Set Has 2 new types of floor, 2 types of corner (counting diagonal walls) and 1 type of wall. That would be fine if not for the composition of the starter set, which for me is quite odd. BUT!

I'm not a fan of the fiddle involving the half floors, walls, and only Right Swell Walls of the starter composition (CD), but you can work that in your advantage (for the record, I'm not a fan of trifecta, so I have none to add to this strategy). But as I was saying, you can put the right swell walls next to a straight wall ignoring the swell, and use the stalagmite corner to close the gap (by the way you can use stalagmites next to walls to this purpose in other places to, even to just break the monotony and the pattern of repeated pieces; to "simulate" different wall designs, so to speak).

You can use the half walls and put them on the sides of 2" walls, they amount to two 2x2 wall pieces without breaking the scale, so in the end the half walls can help too in this regard. Same for half floors with other floors to break the floor patterns, creating a new look.

Then there are the freestanding insert walls, which in the end are another wall design. I only wish there was at least another one in the starter set.

And that's it, I think that's the best way to optimize the existing pieces and create more organic looks for caverns.

All of this is not to say that I don't think the starter should have a very different composition (IMO) there should have include as many left swell walls as right ones (if you must include them at all), more basic pieces as walls, corners and floors and none of the "advanced" pieces like half floors and half walls (or stalagmites for that matter). It really doesn't look like your typical room-set and by itself it is really very limited compared the standard basic sets of old.

2 cents more to the pile.

Greetings!
Last edited by arsthein on Sun Oct 13, 2019 1:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.

joepacelli
Goblin
Goblin
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2017 4:47 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC

Re: Did Caverns Deep really have the basic needs?

Post by joepacelli » Sun Oct 13, 2019 9:25 am

Arbados wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 2:17 am
I'll chime in again as I'm the one that started this post:

Personally, I love 4x4 floor tiles and would love even larger. It simply makes build time quicker for a DM when necessary. I don't pre-build rooms or dungeons unless I know it will happen. I often find myself "building on the fly". Which is fine but if there were larger cavern floor tiles to add to the build it would make things so much easier. However, I do love the diversity and break up of using the smaller 2x2 tiles in my builds. In the end I want both.


Now as for Caverns Deep offering the basics I think it's clear that it didn't. Where was the great wall diversity package or the floor package? Many I'm sure simply want to add, like I do, to the great cavern product we already have and in doing this would love to get some simple wall offerings with different sculpts. This is the same for floors! Am I asking too much?
I sort of pre-build rooms. What I usually do is build an area the group my explore. I build this prior to gaming and take photos of my build. I then put the pieces into one of my storage bins and put a label on it stating what for.
I do this for multiple encounters, near knowing what the group will do, then if they go to this encounter I can either do one of the following;
1 - Build the complete encounter from the photo
2 - Build it as they explore
But regardless of the option, I've already pre-built it, taken photos and now it's just a matter of throwing it back together quickly since all the needed pieces are in one storage bin and I'm not hunting through multiple ones looking for a 2x2, a 4x4, a door, a magnetic wall, etc...

Law
Minotaur Lord
Minotaur Lord
Posts: 5760
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 11:26 am

Re: Did Caverns Deep really have the basic needs?

Post by Law » Sun Oct 13, 2019 5:14 pm

NiandoBG wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:06 pm
Law wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 1:27 pm

I like the builds you can make, but it's SO much harder. With the basic pieces, I can dig into a bin of just walls and pull out wall. EVen with LED and magnetic walls, it's not too hard to find what I need. But when walls and floors are 1" or 2" or 4" or 6", there aren't enough for a whole bin, so I have to go digging around. With DoD (and to some extent Castles, and even cities if we're talking about sidewalk pieces), I have to find 1x1 or 1x2 or 2x2 or 2x4 or 4x4 . . . it just gets crazy. The little ones get buried in a bin and it takes forever to find what I need. .. .
While I understand your idea, and DF goes in my opinion very much into the direction of bigger pieces again, it’s a matter of storage and organization to find all the small floor tiles. I use three/four different box sizes (xs/s/m/L)which fit to each other e.g. all sidewalks and all sewer floors are in one box (m). All non 2x2 are in one box (s), all 2x2 floors in one box (m) and all 4x4 and bigger in a box (L)
I get that, and for people who have enough of each it makes sense. But for me it barely helps -- having seven boxes, each with six pieces in them, doesn't solve all the problems. I wouldn't want to have to keep track of so many small boxes, when it's easier to retrieve one medium-sized bin. I COULD put smaller boxes in a larger floor bin, which each contain the smaller variants of floors. That would make it easier to retrieve what I need from storage -- it's still one large floor bin -- and it would make it easier to find what I need (in theory - see below). But it would take even longer to break things down, as putting things away means sub-categorizing that many more pieces (instead of tossing everything in "floors").

The larger number of boxes is a problem, too, because it becomes that much harder to find the right box. It was very frustrating, when I was building castles, to try to find the box I wanted, when I'd be digging around. "I just need a small insert corner for this four-inch tower! No, that box is roofs. No, that box is support grids. No, that box is battlements. No, that box is street tiles. GAH!"

Ultimately, more kinds of pieces is more complex, and any solution to one problem is equally likely to invite another. It's all a balance -- ease of use versus flexibility. I liked the balance DF struck in the beginning - no, I couldn't match ANY map that was made, because I was stuck on a 2x2 grid and I couldn't make certain kinds of things ("Doors can't be in corners! Noo!") But the cost of increased flexibility is increased complexity -- storing the pieces, retrieving the pieces, and putting the pieces away, is more difficult now. If it's quicker to find them, it's lower to put them away (because everything needs to go back to its proper place). If it's organized, there's more of it, which can mean you need to organize your organization system ("How should I lay out these boxes to make it easiest for me to find the ones I need in a pinch?")

These problems are easier to deal with if this hobby is super central -- if you can have custom storage compartments made, or it's the only stuff you have to store. But I have Star Wars figures, I have books, I have model railroad stuff -- I can't have a super complex specialized storage system for my DF. So... it gets to be an issue. :/

I've done something like this in the past - I have a box with roof pieces in it, for example, that also has one small box of blue gables and one small box of red gables. I did that mainly to protect the magnets in the gables, which tend to pop out if confronted by a strong magnet, but it also keeps that box organized.

Talistran
Minotaur
Minotaur
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 9:52 pm

Re: Did Caverns Deep really have the basic needs?

Post by Talistran » Sun Oct 13, 2019 8:19 pm

Law wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 5:14 pm
NiandoBG wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:06 pm
Law wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 1:27 pm

I like the builds you can make, but it's SO much harder. With the basic pieces, I can dig into a bin of just walls and pull out wall. EVen with LED and magnetic walls, it's not too hard to find what I need. But when walls and floors are 1" or 2" or 4" or 6", there aren't enough for a whole bin, so I have to go digging around. With DoD (and to some extent Castles, and even cities if we're talking about sidewalk pieces), I have to find 1x1 or 1x2 or 2x2 or 2x4 or 4x4 . . . it just gets crazy. The little ones get buried in a bin and it takes forever to find what I need. .. .
While I understand your idea, and DF goes in my opinion very much into the direction of bigger pieces again, it’s a matter of storage and organization to find all the small floor tiles. I use three/four different box sizes (xs/s/m/L)which fit to each other e.g. all sidewalks and all sewer floors are in one box (m). All non 2x2 are in one box (s), all 2x2 floors in one box (m) and all 4x4 and bigger in a box (L)
I get that, and for people who have enough of each it makes sense. But for me it barely helps -- having seven boxes, each with six pieces in them, doesn't solve all the problems. I wouldn't want to have to keep track of so many small boxes, when it's easier to retrieve one medium-sized bin. I COULD put smaller boxes in a larger floor bin, which each contain the smaller variants of floors. That would make it easier to retrieve what I need from storage -- it's still one large floor bin -- and it would make it easier to find what I need (in theory - see below). But it would take even longer to break things down, as putting things away means sub-categorizing that many more pieces (instead of tossing everything in "floors").

The larger number of boxes is a problem, too, because it becomes that much harder to find the right box. It was very frustrating, when I was building castles, to try to find the box I wanted, when I'd be digging around. "I just need a small insert corner for this four-inch tower! No, that box is roofs. No, that box is support grids. No, that box is battlements. No, that box is street tiles. GAH!"

Ultimately, more kinds of pieces is more complex, and any solution to one problem is equally likely to invite another. It's all a balance -- ease of use versus flexibility. I liked the balance DF struck in the beginning - no, I couldn't match ANY map that was made, because I was stuck on a 2x2 grid and I couldn't make certain kinds of things ("Doors can't be in corners! Noo!") But the cost of increased flexibility is increased complexity -- storing the pieces, retrieving the pieces, and putting the pieces away, is more difficult now. If it's quicker to find them, it's lower to put them away (because everything needs to go back to its proper place). If it's organized, there's more of it, which can mean you need to organize your organization system ("How should I lay out these boxes to make it easiest for me to find the ones I need in a pinch?")

These problems are easier to deal with if this hobby is super central -- if you can have custom storage compartments made, or it's the only stuff you have to store. But I have Star Wars figures, I have books, I have model railroad stuff -- I can't have a super complex specialized storage system for my DF. So... it gets to be an issue. :/

I've done something like this in the past - I have a box with roof pieces in it, for example, that also has one small box of blue gables and one small box of red gables. I did that mainly to protect the magnets in the gables, which tend to pop out if confronted by a strong magnet, but it also keeps that box organized.
I agree with so much of what you said here.

While I do'nt have CD yet, my DoD has a lot more small floors and things to keep track of than KS1 did. It is more annoying to build with. Also, more fun and I have the ability for some great layouts, but WAY more time consuming.

User avatar
kodiakbear
Minotaur Lord
Minotaur Lord
Posts: 2923
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2013 1:28 am

Re: Did Caverns Deep really have the basic needs?

Post by kodiakbear » Sun Oct 13, 2019 9:15 pm

The big thing to remember is that you can build around 75% of your dungeon with just KS1 tiles and use all the specialty peices for where it makes a difference. If a dungeon room is logically going to be a square with a door on only one side why pull out the specialty peices just build it out of the standard 3 peices be they KS1 or KS5 column style. Let the accessories that you put in the room tell the story or what it is or was.

The same goes for caverns, there were enough peices in KS2 to do a good amount of rooms that looked different at (least for me with 10 sets). Now if you were doing a huge room or if you were doing a passage you had to worry about repetitiveness and that is where KS6 comes in. IMO

User avatar
Rabbit Burner
Minotaur Lord
Minotaur Lord
Posts: 5796
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2016 5:14 am
Location: Flaming bunny Warren, Valoria
Contact:

Re: Did Caverns Deep really have the basic needs?

Post by Rabbit Burner » Mon Oct 14, 2019 8:10 am

kitenerd wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 12:41 pm
I have said it 1,000 times and i will say it again:

Base sets make the most sense
Encounters generate the most sales

Build the encounters out of base sets plus packs...

Encounter 6 "Dueregar Ambush" is made up of 2 Base Cavern Packs, 1 Cavern Passage Set and 1 Passage Transition Pack

Encounter 7 "Alchemist Laboratory" is made up of 1 Base Cavern Pack and 1 Alchemist Accessories set

People who want to build them one at a time buy 5 packs and people who want the big layout buy 6, getting an extra Base set so they can build both encounters at once. Offer two top tiers one that lets you build each encounter individually and one that lets you build the whole layout.

Obviously every Encounter will not use EVERY piece in a set, but you include a graphic of the "extra leftover parts" - no one ever minded getting MORE than they planned on!


This is SOOO much simpler from a packaging, fulfillment and future inventory management standpoint that i fail to understand why it is not being done... It also enables future KS's that add only a limited number of items to "reissue/resell" previously released stock with different features and bling (like the Pathfinder encounters). They are doing this with Build of the Month and i think it is brilliant (i wonder if it generating significant sales?).

Sometimes what seems obvious is actually a good idea.
Cannot argue against that it seems a good idea - but going to anyway ;)

This is pure speculation:

So thinking why DF do not do this and came up with the following question

What comes first the encounter or the sculpts?

Do DF design let’s say the ice cavern and then break it down into the individual sculpts ?
Rather than say we want a straight ice cavern sculpt, a corner, a floor etc. and see what can be built.

What we believe what happens currently is the encounter comes first and the sculpts are the result, which has impact on the Mold layout and subsequent pack contents.

This we think gives us more unique sculpts such as stairway to violence. If DF were just thinking sculpts then those detail or centre piece sculpts are harder to imagine.

But focussing on sculpts makes creating basic packs and what they can be used to build easier.

For us with less and less storage room and a decent amount of existing dwarvenite, it is the details and centre piece sculpts that are more attractive than the bread and butter pieces.

Looking at Cities and Castles where the focus seems pretty clear on the sculpts to give you the basic building blocks of a city or castle and not so much on building advanced cities and castles (which is why we all want add-ons in KSVII).

In DoD and CD with encounters they seemed more focussed on an entire build (encounter) and that build being non generic, but themed on details or centre pieces while reusing bread and butter pieces.

On the whole we are happy with the encounter system but we are not hardcore dungeon builders and as such do not have, for instance, a swell problem that clearly exists for many.

That’s our two carrots worth ……
Mythrassian Lagomorph Hivemind Minion of the Flaming Bunny Clan

User avatar
dice4hire
Minotaur Lord
Minotaur Lord
Posts: 6698
Joined: Thu May 02, 2013 7:13 pm
Location: Nagoya Japan

Re: Did Caverns Deep really have the basic needs?

Post by dice4hire » Mon Oct 14, 2019 5:19 pm

Can I have one of your carrots? I need some vitamins!!!!













Not as much as I need my CD though.
A pretty decent Docent of Valoria

Post Reply

Return to “Kickstarter 6 Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests