Anti-cheat pseudocode for your roguelike :)
Oliver Richman
describe a process which interrupts this process.
For example, to combat the common copy trick:
Store a checksum in a database (the high score list?) based on the
character's starting information, which is kept in his/her game data for the
duration of the game.
Simply check on startup if a) you are loading a saved game b)that all
checksums are unique c) that if it's a new game a unique checksum will be
generated
I think MD5 is good for this purpose.
Furthermore try this. To prevent someone from simply changing one of the
checksums, make all checksums binary even, or follow some other, more
complex order. This makes it difficult to forge the keys too.
Remember, this is just a roguelike. If someone defeats this algorithm, just
slightly change it for the next release. If someone keeps breaking it, you
should feel more than flattered.
Anyways, this system is easy enough to implement, and difficult enough to
defeat, that I wonder why more people don't do it. I am doing it for my
roguelike. :)
-frl
Jimmy_B
> If you describe the process by which cheating takes place, then you can
> describe a process which interrupts this process.
>
> For example, to combat the common copy trick:
But what about people backing up their save in case of a crash? And if
you specifically allow crash recovery, then what if someone deliberately
crashes the game?
Better to not worry about it; they're only spoiling their own fun, so
long as it can't be done on multi-user systems.
Kornel "Anubis" Kisielewicz
news:YBGR9.152989$E_.8...@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> If you describe the process by which cheating takes place, then you
can
> describe a process which interrupts this process.
>
> For example, to combat the common copy trick:
>
> Store a checksum in a database (the high score list?) based on the
> character's starting information, which is kept in his/her game data
for the
> duration of the game.
I don't understand why that should work. If for example the player
copies always the whole roguelike to another directory?
regards,
--
Kornel "Anubis" Kisielewicz
RLDev Code v.0.65
L:FP E+ T+ R+++ P+ D++ G++ RL-- RLA+++ F:GearHead
GenRogue Reloaded ( http://genrogue.felis7.civ.pl/ )
W:DF Q+++ AI++ !GFX !SFX RN+++ PO--- Hp-- Re+++ S+++
Joseph Hewitt
> Better to not worry about it; they're only spoiling their own fun, so
> long as it can't be done on multi-user systems.
This is my feeling on the subject as well. I don't even scramble the
text savefiles used in GearHead for pretty much the same reason.
- Joseph Hewitt
--
DeadCold > http://www.geocities.com/pyrrho12/programming/deadcold/index.html
GearHead > http://www.geocities.com/pyrrho12/programming/gearhead/index.html
chor
"Oliver Richman" <fr...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:YBGR9.152989$E_.8...@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> If you describe the process by which cheating takes place, then you can
> describe a process which interrupts this process.
>
> For example, to combat the common copy trick:
It would be my guess that those who cheat wouldn't maintain a solitary save
file, but would make progressive copies of save files as their game
progressed. Perhaps a count could be added to a save file to maintain the
number of times that character has save/restored his/her game. The number
could be used to increase difficulty of monsters or perhaps reduce
subsequent scores obtained. Granted that idea could potentially hurt
players who don't cheat, but it could act as a strong deterant if the copy
trick can't always be combatted properly.
chor
Dark Fiber
wrote:
>
>Anyways, this system is easy enough to implement, and difficult enough to
>defeat, that I wonder why more people don't do it. I am doing it for my
>roguelike. :)
>
and when the code is removed from the roguelike and recompiled?
any copyprotection can be circumvented, i personally see no
point. if people want to cheat, they will. those who dont, wont.
my take on it is, build in a proper cheat menu into the game,
let people cheat if they want. whats the point in playing if
your going to cheat?
-- Dark Fiber <yakum...@hotmail.com> --
[FAQ] Write Your Own Operating System
http://www.mega-tokyo.com/os
Sarien Sierra AGI Emulator
http://www.mega-tokyo.com/sarien
3x3 Eyes Fanfiction Archive
http://www.mega-tokyo.com/pai
Amy Wang
> defeat, that I wonder why more people don't do it. I am doing it for my
> roguelike. :)
>
The 'why' is that roguelikes are single player games. Nobody except
you cares that people are going to 'cheat' in a game session that only
one person will ever see. You're just wasting time by implementing
this anti-cheat system, because cheating in a roguelike game doesn't
hurt anyone. Restricting the players' activities will only make them
upset, so the game will be less fun, so the game will be worse.
Besides that, you'll never implement a roguelike game, so it doesn't
matter what kind of anti-cheat feature you put into it. This is
another "I'm pretending that making BS posts to Usenet is a part of
software development" posts, destined to get people in the group
excited about a meaningless feature in a game that will never exist.
Even if you grew out of the ShockFrost mentality and released
something that might be called a game, an anti-cheat feature reflects
that many hours that could have been spent implementing a feature that
players would actually like (although it would more likely be a
retarded feature like breaking items, elevation, or page ### of AD&D
2nd Edition).
Oliver Richman
"Amy Wang" <blueme...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:62acd54d.03010...@posting.google.com...
> "Oliver Richman" <fr...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:<YBGR9.152989$E_.8...@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
> > Anyways, this system is easy enough to implement, and difficult enough
to
> > defeat, that I wonder why more people don't do it. I am doing it for my
> > roguelike. :)
> >
>
> The 'why' is that roguelikes are single player games. Nobody except
> you cares that people are going to 'cheat' in a game session that only
> one person will ever see.
Perhaps. But I wouldn't want someone making a bunch of spoilers to my game,
because my game is so complex
> You're just wasting time by implementing
> this anti-cheat system, because cheating in a roguelike game doesn't
> hurt anyone. Restricting the players' activities will only make them
> upset, so the game will be less fun, so the game will be worse.
So if you can't cheat, you won't play? I don't believe that.
Anyways there have been a lot of posts, so here is a congealed reply:
When a character dies in the game, their entry is written to the highscore
file along with an ID code which is present in the save game files. So the
real method here is preventing 2 entries in the high score by the same
savegame. The problem is, that if you die ONCE you can't use your old
savegames anymore, because the game scans the score list to see if a
character has died before. (And it's assumed that the ID codes are "hard" to
forge).
So the player can save and copy to his heart's desire, but if he dies, he
can't play that character again unless he hacks into the binary code of the
program or uses an editor which can forge the keys. If he can do that, then
he has a license to cheat anyways.
Anyways, who said that a roguelike is defined by the ability to recompile
it's source code? You can't *always* remove methods and recompile, just look
at ADOM - no source.
> Besides that, you'll never implement a roguelike game, so it doesn't
> matter what kind of anti-cheat feature you put into it. This is
> another "I'm pretending that making BS posts to Usenet is a part of
> software development" posts, destined to get people in the group
> excited about a meaningless feature in a game that will never exist.
hahahaha. You've seen my webpage right?
Oh, you haven't? You're NOT just making a funny joke? Or you have and you
are just teasing me?
Well, hmm. Where is YOUR roguelike, Amy? Mine is called Netwhack..
> Even if you grew out of the ShockFrost mentality and released
> something that might be called a game, an anti-cheat feature reflects
> that many hours that could have been spent implementing a feature that
> players would actually like (although it would more likely be a
> retarded feature like breaking items, elevation, or page ### of AD&D
> 2nd Edition).
Sorry, but "breaking items" is a wonderful feature and adds realism,
"elevation" can add variety (although i won't be putting elevation in
Netwhack). As for page numbers from AD&D manuals, I really don't know what
you are talking about.
Good luck :)
-frl
Oliver Richman
news:mdfg1v4coikdb5a8d...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 19:28:56 GMT, "Oliver Richman" <fr...@rogers.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Anyways, this system is easy enough to implement, and difficult enough to
> >defeat, that I wonder why more people don't do it. I am doing it for my
> >roguelike. :)
> >
>
> and when the code is removed from the roguelike and recompiled?
> any copyprotection can be circumvented, i personally see no
> point. if people want to cheat, they will. those who dont, wont.
>
> my take on it is, build in a proper cheat menu into the game,
> let people cheat if they want. whats the point in playing if
> your going to cheat?
This is the point, if you DON'T want people to cheat. Sure, you can always
decompile the program or something.
Source code..... ADOM was released without source code.. I might do the same
thing. :)
-frl
Oliver Richman
news:4lOR9.447516$GR5.1...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
>
> "Oliver Richman" <fr...@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:YBGR9.152989$E_.8...@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
> > If you describe the process by which cheating takes place, then you can
> > describe a process which interrupts this process.
> >
> > For example, to combat the common copy trick:
>
>
> It would be my guess that those who cheat wouldn't maintain a solitary
save
> file, but would make progressive copies of save files as their game
> progressed.
That's all well and good. But the first time they die, their key is written
to the hi score list. So they can't play a savegame with that ID code again.
-frl
Oliver Richman
news:av7s0q$dlg$1...@news.tpi.pl...
> I don't understand why that should work. If for example the player
> copies always the whole roguelike to another directory?
They can do whatever they want. No character can be created or played who
has a key the same as one in the hi score file.
Of course it isn't possible to stop every cheater, but you can make it
difficult enough that it won't be worth it to try.
-frl
Oliver Richman
news:7kHR9.139$aD3...@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > If you describe the process by which cheating takes place, then you can
> > describe a process which interrupts this process.
> >
> > For example, to combat the common copy trick:
>
> But what about people backing up their save in case of a crash? And if
> you specifically allow crash recovery, then what if someone deliberately
> crashes the game?
Crash recovery, auto saving, etc. doesen't write the high score to the high
score list. So you can make backups if you want. The security here is in the
encrypted hi score file with unique keys which are also hard to forge.
This is not difficult to implement :)
-frl
Mix
> If you describe the process by which cheating takes place, then you can
> describe a process which interrupts this process.
>
> defeat, that I wonder why more people don't do it. I am doing it for my
> roguelike. :)
Cheating is like speeding -- no amount of radar guns, scary signs, parked
patrol cars, or even tickets are going to stop the determined speeder from
driving too fast. You'll have more luck getting peace in the middle east
than stopping cheaters. Don't waste time on it.
If you distribute the source code or they run the game on a system that
lets them attach a debugger to a running process then you can't stop
them.
Rick C
> Sorry, but "breaking items" is a wonderful feature and adds realism,
Actually, it's a pretty crappy feature that adds tedium.
Oliver Richman
"Rick C" <pixe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:avb3oh$dvoja$1...@ID-80100.news.dfncis.de...
> "Oliver Richman" <fr...@rogers.com> wrote
>
> > Sorry, but "breaking items" is a wonderful feature and adds realism,
>
> Actually, it's a pretty crappy feature that adds tedium.
WHAT do you mean by breaking items? I hope you don't mean what I think you
mean, and that is "all items should be indestructable unless by special
procedure".
Do you think potions which break on monsters heads when you throw them, and
breaking wands, to name a few examples, are tedious?
I don't get where you are coming from. You know those monsters whose touch
turns you to stone? Their eggs could be valuable weapons, assuming they
don't break in your pack ;)
Also, have you ever been in a tower of flame? You know all those scrolls
you're carrying around? Kiss them goodbye.
In addition, breaking some items might allow you to create other item types.
For example breaking some magic glass might create one or more "magical
glass shards" which you can use as weapons. Breaking a branch might create a
short branch or a long branch, etc, and you could then turn those items into
arrows or a staff, etc. Breaking an item is another way of transforming it
into something else.
You might want to break some glass bottles to create a trap, so monsters
can't easily walk over that area, for example.. Are you saying that's
tedious and players shouldn't be allowed to do that?
-frl
Oliver Richman
news:slrnb1hsln.1a6...@taco.mixtim.ispwest.com...
> Oliver Richman wrote:
> > If you describe the process by which cheating takes place, then you can
> > describe a process which interrupts this process.
> >
> > Anyways, this system is easy enough to implement, and difficult enough
to
> > defeat, that I wonder why more people don't do it. I am doing it for my
> > roguelike. :)
>
> Cheating is like speeding -- no amount of radar guns, scary signs, parked
> patrol cars, or even tickets are going to stop the determined speeder from
> driving too fast. You'll have more luck getting peace in the middle east
> than stopping cheaters. Don't waste time on it.
But if I stop 98% of the cheaters, my work is done.
> If you distribute the source code or they run the game on a system that
> lets them attach a debugger to a running process then you can't stop
> them.
Then that's a reason to not distribute the source code. It's an unfortunate
decision, but if it stops everyone who might thing to change something in
the source and then recompile.. that might be 70% of the cheaters right
there. Ever recompile ADOM? not many have :)
-frl
Michael Blackney
What's to stop oou from copying the whole directory, high score list and
all?
Michael Blackney
>
> "Rick C" <pixe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:avb3oh$dvoja$1...@ID-80100.news.dfncis.de...
> > "Oliver Richman" <fr...@rogers.com> wrote
> >
> > > Sorry, but "breaking items" is a wonderful feature and adds realism,
> >
> > Actually, it's a pretty crappy feature that adds tedium.
>
> WHAT do you mean by breaking items? I hope you don't mean what I think
you
> mean, and that is "all items should be indestructable unless by special
> procedure".
I think they probably mean items with durability like swords and armour
that need consistent maintenance. *This* is a pretty crappy feature (IMO)
in most games and adds tedium.
jakub
> describe a process which interrupts this process.
In my game I won't put any cheat protections. If someone is good
and he wants to cheat, he'll be able to (with SoftIce as example).
The only thing I'll do is Verification Code. I'll write a simple
tool that will generate CRC for some info in character dump or
victory dump, which will count checksum for:
1. Type (dead, winner, in-game dump)
2. Player's name and class
3. Player's level/experience
4. And the most important: number of saves he made.
for example:
/- cut here -\
You are dead.
Jakub the Soldier
Experience: 17/5438711
Number of saves made: 25
\- cut here -/
VC (verification code): 1A73B2F0
Everyone can put these 4 lines and code into VC checker and check
if it's ok. What for is that and why the number of saves is so important?
It's a simple protection against save scummers, who post they
YAVP into newsgroups. Everyone will see the number of saves they made
in game, which can't be modyfied.
Of course it's easy to crack too, but who cares... Everything is...
regards
Jakub
--
"We're just toys in the hands of Xom"
www.xenocide.w.pl - SF roguelike in development
Gerry Quinn
>"Oliver Richman" <fr...@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:<YBGR9.152989$E_.8...@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
>> Anyways, this system is easy enough to implement, and difficult enough to
>> defeat, that I wonder why more people don't do it. I am doing it for my
>> roguelike. :)
>
>The 'why' is that roguelikes are single player games. Nobody except
>you cares that people are going to 'cheat' in a game session that only
>one person will ever see. You're just wasting time by implementing
>this anti-cheat system, because cheating in a roguelike game doesn't
>hurt anyone. Restricting the players' activities will only make them
>upset, so the game will be less fun, so the game will be worse.
The answer to that is that cheating may spoil the enjoyment of the
cheater. So the game may be better.
Gerry Quinn
--
http://bindweed.com
Entertainment software for Windows
Puzzles, Strategy Games, Kaleidoscope Screensaver
Download evaluation versions free - no time limits
David Damerell
>>than stopping cheaters. Don't waste time on it.
>But if I stop 98% of the cheaters, my work is done.
Until the other 2% tell the 98% how it's done, yes.
>>If you distribute the source code or they run the game on a system that
>>lets them attach a debugger to a running process then you can't stop
>>them.
>Then that's a reason to not distribute the source code.
Not distributing source to prevent save-scumming is a bit like cutting off
your head to spite your face. You make life miserable for the players
with a legitimate interest in the workings of the game in order to affect
the players who don't want to play properly...
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Rick C
> "Rick C" <pixe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:avb3oh$dvoja$1...@ID-80100.news.dfncis.de...
> > "Oliver Richman" <fr...@rogers.com> wrote
> > > Sorry, but "breaking items" is a wonderful feature and adds realism,
> > Actually, it's a pretty crappy feature that adds tedium.
> WHAT do you mean by breaking items? I hope you don't mean what I think you
> mean, and that is "all items should be indestructable unless by special
> procedure".
No, I don't mean that at all. Breaking items to me means implementing item
durability and having your sword break (usually at the worst possible
moment.)
> I don't get where you are coming from. You know those monsters whose touch
> turns you to stone? Their eggs could be valuable weapons, assuming they
> don't break in your pack ;)
I was with you on this paragraph up until your last clause.
> Also, have you ever been in a tower of flame? You know all those scrolls
> you're carrying around? Kiss them goodbye.
That drives me up the wall, too, nyah.
Rick C
news:3e19...@news.alphalink.com.au...
Yes, this is what I meant. For the most part, I don't object to the other
thinks Oliver listed.
Amy Wang
> "Rick C" <pixe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:avb3oh$dvoja$1...@ID-80100.news.dfncis.de...
> > "Oliver Richman" <fr...@rogers.com> wrote
> >
> > > Sorry, but "breaking items" is a wonderful feature and adds realism,
> >
> > Actually, it's a pretty crappy feature that adds tedium.
>
> WHAT do you mean by breaking items? I hope you don't mean what I think you
> mean, and that is "all items should be indestructable unless by special
> procedure".
>
I was originally talking about the concept of item durability. In a
simple form, you might say that a particular sword gets 1000 uses and
then breaks. Of course, most roguelike 'developers' have much more
complicated schemes. They *do* add realism. However, they don't add
fun.
>
> In addition, breaking some items might allow you to create other item types.
> For example breaking some magic glass might create one or more "magical
> glass shards" which you can use as weapons. Breaking a branch might create a
> short branch or a long branch, etc, and you could then turn those items into
> arrows or a staff, etc. Breaking an item is another way of transforming it
> into something else.
Breaking wands, potions, etc *might* be a good feature to have, but
guess who has to implement all of this stuff? Even if such features
get implemented, we *know* they'll be too poorly documented for anyone
to use, even if they know about it. There are roguelike games with
break commands, but once someone gets the idea that breaking magical
items (some of which, invariably, will explode for 100+ points of
damage) might be a bad idea, it's an unused feature, and thus, wasted
code.
>
> You might want to break some glass bottles to create a trap, so monsters
> can't easily walk over that area, for example.. Are you saying that's
> tedious and players shouldn't be allowed to do that?
I'm saying that these kinds of features add very little to the game,
are difficult to implement in relation to how often they'll be used by
the players, and don't fit into any thematic concern, meaning that
they are just icing on the cake of somebody's dream roguelike.
David Damerell
>>you're carrying around? Kiss them goodbye.
>That drives me up the wall, too, nyah.
It is most commonly seen in NH, where one can protect against it with
intelligent use of bags and equipment caches.
Rick C
news:8jA*Bi...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> Rick C <pixe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >"Oliver Richman" <fr...@rogers.com> wrote in message
> >>Also, have you ever been in a tower of flame? You know all those scrolls
> >>you're carrying around? Kiss them goodbye.
> >That drives me up the wall, too, nyah.
> It is most commonly seen in NH, where one can protect against it with
> intelligent use of bags and equipment caches.
ADoM too, of course. My understanding is (at least in ADoM) that one way to
guard against it is to simply carry a lot of junk in the hopes that the RNG
will nuke useless items first. I completely fail to see how this enhances
playability, or is any way fun.
David Damerell
>"David Damerell" <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
>>It is most commonly seen in NH, where one can protect against it with
>>intelligent use of bags and equipment caches.
>ADoM too, of course. My understanding is (at least in ADoM) that one way to
>guard against it is to simply carry a lot of junk in the hopes that the RNG
>will nuke useless items first.
Doesn't work in NetHack. This does work against stealing monsters and the
late-game malignant auras, but weight is usually enough of a concern that
you can't lug around heaps of junk.
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
> The answer to that is that cheating may spoil the enjoyment of the
> cheater. So the game may be better.
More likely, though, the anti-save mechanism will just spoil the
enjoyment of a legitimate player, marginalizing an already marginal game
form.
--
<a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
"We remain convinced that this is the best defensive posture to adopt in
order to minimize casualties when the Great Old Ones return from beyond
the stars to eat our brains." -Charlie Stross, _The Concrete Jungle_
Jukka Kuusisto
[equipment destroyed by fire]
>ADoM too, of course. My understanding is (at least in ADoM) that one way to
>guard against it is to simply carry a lot of junk in the hopes that the RNG
>will nuke useless items first. I completely fail to see how this enhances
>playability, or is any way fun.
Are you sure that carrying junk helps?
Anyway, the right way in Adom is to have a fireproof blanket or
a ring of ice.
-Jukka
--
Jukka Kuusisto
Oliver Richman
> Rick C <pixe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >"Oliver Richman" <fr...@rogers.com> wrote in message
> >>Also, have you ever been in a tower of flame? You know all those scrolls
> >>you're carrying around? Kiss them goodbye.
> >That drives me up the wall, too, nyah.
>
> It is most commonly seen in NH, where one can protect against it with
> intelligent use of bags and equipment caches.
<devil's advocate mode on>
Do you really think that dry, dusty burlap sack is going to protect your
scrolls? :) Well...
</d>
-frl
Oliver Richman
Well, I have already released a bunch of source on this NG.. I don't mind
sharing a few classes. But the whole thing? Probably not. Definately not the
engine. It's all just printf statements and what not anyways, who wants to
look at that stuff? :)
-frl
Kornel "Anubis" Kisielewicz
news:sf4S9.203086$F2h1....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Well, copy your save AND your Highscore list :).
regards,
--
Kornel "Anubis" Kisielewicz
RLDev Code v.0.65
L:FP E+ T+ R+++ P+ D++ G++ RL-- RLA+++ F:GearHead
GenRogue Reloaded ( http://genrogue.felis7.civ.pl/ )
W:DF Q+++ AI++ !GFX !SFX RN+++ PO--- Hp-- Re+++ S+++
Brent Ross
Oliver Richman <fr...@rogers.com> wrote:
//
// Anyways, this system is easy enough to implement, and difficult enough to
// defeat, that I wonder why more people don't do it.
Quite simple, it's not worth the work. You're largely talking about
security by obscurity... and that's not very effective.
People on single user systems largely have superuser level
control... they can make backups of whatever files you change and
restore them freely. You'll end up trying to put information
in places they won't catch (like the registry under Windows),
but people will find it and change it back anyways. They harder
you make it, the more likely that someone will simply release
a small program to automate the process and make it easier
(ironic really). All this work, and the only person effected
is the one who was cheating. It's easier to give them a wizard
mode option (useful for debugging -- and does discourage cheating
to a certain extent) and let them do whatever they want.
On the other hand, multi-user systems do typically have at
least on shared resource where cheating matters (the high
score file). It's also likely that most players don't have
superuser privileges. So instead of doing all the above work,
all we (multi-user system types) have to do is make the program
setgid and make all the save and record files writable by that
group and not by the players (the players can also be kept from
reading the files). About the only thing you need to look out
for at this point is the player intentionally killing their
game or starting up a second copy (both of which are easily
caught by marking that the game is open).
Of course, if you want to network single-user systems (for
sharing things like a global highscore board) you have a whole
new set of problems. You gain the fact that the server can
hide and keep information away from the client, but on the
other hand you need to worry about mangled and fake clients.
The only way to be truly secure in this type of setup is to
have the clients be dumb terminal programs and do everything
server side... if you don't want that, then a little obscurity
is probably called for.
As a sidenote, time stamps have been attempted as a verification
method for savefiles (Moria/Angband)... the problem with this
was that time skew between the game machine and the file server
would typically result in legal saves being considered bad.
That's why they're not only an option, but a seldom used one.
Brent Ross
David Damerell
>"David Damerell" <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
>>>>Also, have you ever been in a tower of flame? You know all those scrolls
>>>>you're carrying around? Kiss them goodbye.
>>intelligent use of bags and equipment caches.
>scrolls?
Yes, I do, because I know it does (in NetHack). This looks suspiciously
like the argument from realism.
[Although neither sacks nor bags of holding protect from damage
underwater; only greased bags or oilskin sacks will do.]
Oliver Richman
Well, it's kind of quirky that a cloth bag will protect your scrolls from
fire but not water, unless it's covered with oil -
and then it protects from both fire *and* water.
I'm not neccessarily arguing realism, but when you think about it, an oily
sack shouldn't be inflammable, which it is :)
-frl
Rick C
news:jkuusist....@kosh.hut.fi...
> "Rick C" <pixe...@hotmail.com> writes:
Yes, but you can't always get one of those. Oh, sure, I know about the
guaranteed (?) blanket in the SMC but we all know how much fun *that* is to
get.
Jukka Kuusisto
>"Jukka Kuusisto" <jkuu...@cc.hut.fi> wrote in message
>> Anyway, the right way in Adom is to have a fireproof blanket or
>> a ring of ice.
>Yes, but you can't always get one of those.
Fireproof blankets are common enough (even semi-guaranteed). Until you
find one you'd better avoid the places where fire is likely to destroy
your equipment.
>Oh, sure, I know about the guaranteed (?) blanket in the SMC but we all
>know how much fun *that* is to >get.
That blanket is never fireproof, so it doesn't matter here.
-Jukka
--
Jukka Kuusisto
Gerry Quinn
>Mon, 06 Jan 2003 14:29:11 GMT, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie>:
>> The answer to that is that cheating may spoil the enjoyment of the
>> cheater. So the game may be better.
>
> More likely, though, the anti-save mechanism will just spoil the
>enjoyment of a legitimate player, marginalizing an already marginal game
>form.
I think the spoiling of games by making save-reload too easy is a very
real phenomenon. It's true that a game that does not permit it makes
extra demands on the author, in terms of design and freedom from bugs.
Still, settings one's sights high is hardly a bad thing.
chor
> If you describe the process by which cheating takes place, then you can
> describe a process which interrupts this process.
Providing anti-cheat mechanisms to a game to ensure fair an fun playability
with players who are respectful of the rules is noble. However, isn't
spending large amounts of time discussing the negatives of cheating similar
to the time wasted by the cheaters who cheat?
chor
R Dan Henry
<jim...@earthlink.net> declared:
>Oliver Richman wrote:
>> If you describe the process by which cheating takes place, then you can
>> describe a process which interrupts this process.
>>
>> For example, to combat the common copy trick:
>
>But what about people backing up their save in case of a crash? And if
>you specifically allow crash recovery, then what if someone deliberately
>crashes the game?
Let's wait twenty years. By then there should be some sort of quantum
trickery available to determine if the save copy is being made with
the intent to cheat or just as backup. :-)
--
R. Dan Henry
rdan...@earthlink.net
They can have my ASCII graphics when they pry them
from my cold dead (c) and (d) slots.
R Dan Henry
kami...@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu (Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes) declared:
>Mon, 06 Jan 2003 14:29:11 GMT, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie>:
>> The answer to that is that cheating may spoil the enjoyment of the
>> cheater. So the game may be better.
>
> More likely, though, the anti-save mechanism will just spoil the
>enjoyment of a legitimate player, marginalizing an already marginal game
>form.
A save-scummer is not a legitimate player. He is not playing the game.
Playing a game means following the rules of that game. He is cheating.
Whether or not spoiling a cheater's fun is or is not a good thing is
another discussion and one that is probably off topic.
R Dan Henry
Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> declared:
>Oliver Richman <fr...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>"Mix" <mixtim...@taco.mixtim.ispwest.com> wrote in message
>>>driving too fast. You'll have more luck getting peace in the middle east
>>>than stopping cheaters. Don't waste time on it.
>>But if I stop 98% of the cheaters, my work is done.
>
>Until the other 2% tell the 98% how it's done, yes.
Unless the reason only 2% do it is because it's too much effort for
the other 98%. Cheaters tend to be lazy. If they have
sticktoitiveness, then they're probably able to learn how to do well
without cheating.
>>>If you distribute the source code or they run the game on a system that
>>>lets them attach a debugger to a running process then you can't stop
>>>them.
>>Then that's a reason to not distribute the source code.
>
>Not distributing source to prevent save-scumming is a bit like cutting off
>your head to spite your face. You make life miserable for the players
>with a legitimate interest in the workings of the game in order to affect
>the players who don't want to play properly...
He probably should have written "Then that's *another* reason to not
distribute the source code." There are other reasons, some of them
good ones. He's only spiting his face if he otherwise *wants* to
release his source.
R Dan Henry
Blackney" <michael...@hotmail.com> declared:
>I think they probably mean items with durability like swords and armour
>that need consistent maintenance. *This* is a pretty crappy feature (IMO)
>in most games and adds tedium.
In the same way that having wands run out of charges and requiring
recharging adds tedium.
There's no difference in principle. It's possible to have poor
implementations of weapon and armor damage, but that's no reason to
dislike the feature as such. The "armor has 5000 points and each hit
takes off 1-3 points or 10 if its a critical" type system is broken,
but there's no need to make weapons and armor invincible, either.
Equipment destruction is *especially* valuable in permadeath games
because it gives monsters/traps/spell-failures/whatever something else
with lasting consequences to do to the PC other than kill him.
Items in Prototype will break down. If you've got no technical skills,
then they'll pretty much be junk. Hey, it's a space opera, you should
expect to suffer for your lack of technical skill. But if you have
skill, you can fix things and if you can't fix them, you can salvage
them for parts to fix other things. You can even just salvage working
gear for parts if you like. You need parts. This was one of my
earliest design decisions.
Improving your skill in using equipment should reduce breakage during
use. This means your elite combat monster should break his sword less
often than your newbie wizardling. Most weapons are pretty hard to
break as long as used properly... although if you are using a bronze
sword on a mithril golum, don't whine when it breaks.
Timo Viitanen
R Dan Henry wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 17:38:27 +1100, in a fit of madness "Michael
> Blackney" <michael...@hotmail.com> declared:
>
>
>>I think they probably mean items with durability like swords and armour
>>that need consistent maintenance. *This* is a pretty crappy feature (IMO)
>>in most games and adds tedium.
>
>
> In the same way that having wands run out of charges and requiring
> recharging adds tedium.
>
> There's no difference in principle. It's possible to have poor
> implementations of weapon and armor damage, but that's no reason to
> dislike the feature as such. The "armor has 5000 points and each hit
> takes off 1-3 points or 10 if its a critical" type system is broken,
What about... umm... "The longsword has 50 points. Each successful
parry damages it as much as the parried blow would have damaged the
player. Each hit with it that is parried or deflected by armor damages
it by half the amount that a successful hit would have done to enemy.
From any damage to the sword, 20 points, the sword's durability value,
is substracted so only expectional hits can actually damage it. When
half of the points are gone, there is a warning message so that the
player knows to take the sword to a blacksmith. There are ways to
improve an item's durability or even magically render it invincible."
Is this broken? :)
Amy Wang
> What about... umm... "The longsword has 50 points. Each successful
> parry damages it as much as the parried blow would have damaged the
> player. Each hit with it that is parried or deflected by armor damages
> it by half the amount that a successful hit would have done to enemy.
> From any damage to the sword, 20 points, the sword's durability value,
> is substracted so only expectional hits can actually damage it. When
> half of the points are gone, there is a warning message so that the
> player knows to take the sword to a blacksmith. There are ways to
> improve an item's durability or even magically render it invincible."
>
> Is this broken? :)
It's sufficiently complex to make the programmer's life difficult.
It's probably realistic enough to put into a sim. However, does it
make the game any more fun to play? I doubt that I would be halfway
down a dungeon, see a message telling me my sword will break, and
think "wow, this is fun. I'm glad this game has this feature".
Michael Blackney
>
> On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 17:38:27 +1100, in a fit of madness "Michael
> Blackney" <michael...@hotmail.com> declared:
>
> >I think they probably mean items with durability like swords and armour
> >that need consistent maintenance. *This* is a pretty crappy feature
(IMO)
> >in most games and adds tedium.
>
> In the same way that having wands run out of charges and requiring
> recharging adds tedium.
>
> There's no difference in principle. It's possible to have poor
> implementations of weapon and armor damage, but that's no reason to
> dislike the feature as such.
I know, but I tend to think of swords as an integral part of a hack and
slash, whereas wands and staves are a bonus, but not requisite.
Besides, I'm fine with assuming that the PC sharpens his sword and patches
his armour at the same time as he is going to the bathroom and taking a
nap. But I don't feel that wands can be automatically charged by any old
joe hero during restbreaks.
--
michaelblackney at hotmail dot com
Worst roguelike ever: http://www27.brinkster.com/atrl/
RabidCow
Not that it really applies to this kind of item breakage, which just
forces the player to repair his stuff every time he stops, but the bad
things usually have the effect of making the good things better - what
fun is winning if losing is impossible?
-RabidCow
David Damerell
>Blackney" <michael...@hotmail.com> declared:
>>I think they probably mean items with durability like swords and armour
>>that need consistent maintenance. *This* is a pretty crappy feature (IMO)
>>in most games and adds tedium.
>In the same way that having wands run out of charges and requiring
>recharging adds tedium.
Well, I think it _does_ when you have an unlimited supply of recharging.
When the supply's limited, it's another matter. But melee weapons and
armour are so fundamental a part of a traditional roguelike that you can't
have a limited supply of fixing - if there's too little, the player's
completely screwed.
But if you have an unlimited supply of charges, it's back to the Angband
exercise of making a brief foray into the dungeon and having to come back,
not because you're in any real peril, but because you've exhausted some
resource you can trivially refill at the surface, which always struck me
as pointless.
[Y'know, I do _try_ not to reduce everything to reasons why I don't enjoy
Angband. :-]
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Donald Welsh
wrote:
>I'm not neccessarily arguing realism, but when you think about it, an oily
>sack shouldn't be inflammable, which it is :)
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Rick C
news:3e1b96e0.10490771@localhost...
Inconcievable!
Heh. Whoever invented "inflammable" was an idiot.
Oliver Richman
Indoubidably... :)
-frl
Morgoth's Cat
scribed:
>Timo Viitanen <Timo...@mbnet.fi> wrote in message news:<3E1C3ECC...@mbnet.fi>...
>> What about... umm... "The longsword has 50 points. Each successful
>> parry damages it as much as the parried blow would have damaged the
>> player. Each hit with it that is parried or deflected by armor damages
>> it by half the amount that a successful hit would have done to enemy.
>> From any damage to the sword, 20 points, the sword's durability value,
>> is substracted so only expectional hits can actually damage it. When
>> half of the points are gone, there is a warning message so that the
>> player knows to take the sword to a blacksmith. There are ways to
>> improve an item's durability or even magically render it invincible."
>>
>> Is this broken? :)
>
>It's sufficiently complex to make the programmer's life difficult.
Not really. Couple of quick calculations and just store the current
durability in the particular instantiation of the object. If an object
is magical then it probably can't break - model this by setting the
default durability to something silly like -999 - so that the code
knows not to decrement in this circumstance...
>It's probably realistic enough to put into a sim. However, does it
>make the game any more fun to play? I doubt that I would be halfway
>down a dungeon, see a message telling me my sword will break, and
>think "wow, this is fun. I'm glad this game has this feature".
It needs to be less brutal than that. Kharne has a progress-bar type
thingy for each item, which shows the exact durability for that
item...
Best,
Dave
E-mail: morgoth AT valinor DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Homepage: http://www.veilofnight.net
Debunking Creationist Lies: The Supernovae and Supernova Remnants FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/
Visions of Light, Visions of Darkness - a B&W Photographic Gallery
http://www.valinor.freeserve.co.uk/visions.html
Morgoth's Cat
<dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> scribed:
>Rick C <pixe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Oliver Richman" <fr...@rogers.com> wrote in message
>>>Also, have you ever been in a tower of flame? You know all those scrolls
>>>you're carrying around? Kiss them goodbye.
>>That drives me up the wall, too, nyah.
>
>It is most commonly seen in NH, where one can protect against it with
>intelligent use of bags and equipment caches.
>--
>David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
It's a good reason to implement things like bags of holding...
And then offer the players a tempting journey to the Astral Plane...
Morgoth's Cat
<rdan...@earthlink.net> scribed:
>On 6 Jan 2003 21:09:39 GMT, in a fit of madness
>kami...@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu (Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes) declared:
>
>>Mon, 06 Jan 2003 14:29:11 GMT, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie>:
>>> The answer to that is that cheating may spoil the enjoyment of the
>>> cheater. So the game may be better.
>>
>> More likely, though, the anti-save mechanism will just spoil the
>>enjoyment of a legitimate player, marginalizing an already marginal game
>>form.
>
>A save-scummer is not a legitimate player. He is not playing the game.
>Playing a game means following the rules of that game. He is cheating.
>
For those games that expressly do not provide for it, yes. But it is
mostly harmless.
I don't really like Permadeath myself. But I know a lot of people do.
It was asked for, and implemented in Kharne as an option...
Best,
Dave
>
>--
>R. Dan Henry
>rdan...@earthlink.net
>They can have my ASCII graphics when they pry them
>from my cold dead (c) and (d) slots.
E-mail: morgoth AT valinor DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
R Dan Henry
<Timo...@mbnet.fi> declared:
Not necessarily broken, but I don't care for it. Normal use doesn't
damage a decent weapon. Exceptional circumstances damage a weapon
quickly. The only real "wearing down" sort of effect is the dulling of
an edge and if you auto-sharpen during resting, that shouldn't be too
bad to treat as a set of points. But weapon breakage should generally
be a result of exceptional stress or the extreme edge of luck.
Attacking a foe with superior armor (or made of a superior material
for things like golems) should endanger your weapon and likewise a
superior weapon should be a threat to armor. This allows for
distinguishing between bronze and iron and steel and mithril weapons
without any hit point inflation in the weapon damage. A slightly more
complex system could allow for partial breakage stages in some cases.
A "cracked" state would be especially appropriate for hafted weapons
where the shaft is damaged, but not yet broken. This state would make
further breakage more likely and would be easier to repair than a full
break.
I advocate damage/destruction of weapons, armor, etc., but not a
durability that requires frequent upkeep.
Some advantages to weapon breakage:
1. Authenticity. Not "realism", but trueness to the heroic tales which
inspired the genre. Weapons break and heroes fall or fight on with
shards, a weapon taken from a fallen comrade, even bare hands. The
sword that is broken gets reforged.
2. Danger. Your cool weapon broke. Now you face a dilemma: rearm ASAP
(you *did* carry a back up, right? :-) or get the heck out and come
back later. Or your armor is damaged and you're vulnerable. No back up
breastplate. Flee now? Decide to use your healing stock to stay in the
fight? Go berserk and count on the best defense being a good offense?
Try casting your "Ethereal Armor" spell?
3. Allows for different quality of weapons without increasing general
offensive power. As stated above, this allows for better weapons
without pushing hit point inflation. Likewise, it allows for better
armor instead of pumping hit points.
4. More choices. Which do I use: bronze axe with a really great
enchantment or a plain mithril axe? Power or reliability?
5. Reduces the "junk items" effect. It becomes worthwhile to have a
"second-best" and perhaps a "third-best" kit carried or stowed away in
case of the need for replacements.
6. Fun. Ha! The *other guy's* sword broke! He's toast now!
7. Allows for more non-combat skills with combat relevance.
8. Allows for more combat skills and enchantments.
9. Encourages non-combat breakage and use systems like Nethack's "try
to force open a chest with a blade" technique. An axe should be
unlikely to break while chopping down a door, but that's just abusing
a sword. Swords are generally better weapons, but an axe makes a
better tool. Another trade-off that can make for interesting
decisions.
R Dan Henry
Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> declared:
>R Dan Henry <rdan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>Blackney" <michael...@hotmail.com> declared:
>>>I think they probably mean items with durability like swords and armour
>>>that need consistent maintenance. *This* is a pretty crappy feature (IMO)
>>>in most games and adds tedium.
>>In the same way that having wands run out of charges and requiring
>>recharging adds tedium.
>
>Well, I think it _does_ when you have an unlimited supply of recharging.
>When the supply's limited, it's another matter. But melee weapons and
>armour are so fundamental a part of a traditional roguelike that you can't
>have a limited supply of fixing - if there's too little, the player's
>completely screwed.
I've yet to see a roguelike where the PC isn't tripping over weapons
and armor. You might have to settle for a lesser item, but if you blow
your repairs, you wouldn't have nothing. In any case, except for
keeping a edge, damage to a weapon isn't gradual. Armor damage tends
to be rather specific as well, although armor is much more likely to
be damaged, but still useable. Still, it's hard to do more than two or
three stages of damage to armor without the silly "reduce the magic
bonus" approach. I prefer sudden damage to giving items hit points.
>But if you have an unlimited supply of charges, it's back to the Angband
The supply isn't unlimited in any game I know of. Even in *bands,
where some classes get a Recharging spell, the wand/staff will
eventually blow up. Likewise, repair functions that don't have a
chance of failure or a significant cost are pointless.
>exercise of making a brief foray into the dungeon and having to come back,
>not because you're in any real peril, but because you've exhausted some
>resource you can trivially refill at the surface, which always struck me
>as pointless.
>[Y'know, I do _try_ not to reduce everything to reasons why I don't enjoy
>Angband. :-]
And you know that you can always play Ironman if you don't like
shopping.
David Damerell
>>Well, I think it _does_ when you have an unlimited supply of recharging.
>>When the supply's limited, it's another matter. But melee weapons and
>>armour are so fundamental a part of a traditional roguelike that you can't
>>have a limited supply of fixing - if there's too little, the player's
>>completely screwed.
>I've yet to see a roguelike where the PC isn't tripping over weapons
>and armor. You might have to settle for a lesser item, but if you blow
>your repairs, you wouldn't have nothing.
Tripping over, yes, but they may not be trivially identifiable. And
settling for a lesser item, well; I tend to feel that ongoing equipment
optimisation is a very common element in RLs. Making the player go
backwards will just get on their nerves.
>>But if you have an unlimited supply of charges, it's back to the Angband
>The supply isn't unlimited in any game I know of. Even in *bands,
>where some classes get a Recharging spell, the wand/staff will
>eventually blow up.
Steady on; the particular wand/staff will, but for utility items there's
always more to be bought. I suppose what I'm saying, effectively, is that
in Angband the whole business of (say) buying and recharging Staves of
Perception might as well be a taximeter that clocks off 30GP every time
you ID something, because there's no possibility of actually running out.
>>[Y'know, I do _try_ not to reduce everything to reasons why I don't enjoy
>>Angband. :-]
>And you know that you can always play Ironman if you don't like
>shopping.
Yes... and I could play Nightmare mode Doom if I don't like waiting for
the between-level transitions. :-)
Jesse Welton
rdan...@earthlink.net wrote:
> [...] In any case, except for
> keeping a edge, damage to a weapon isn't gradual.
Perhaps not in normal usage, but there are stresses which can gradually
weaken them, like repeated heat stress or exposure to acid. It would be
appropriate to model this as an adjustment to durability, affecting the
probability of a catastrophic failure in the way you describe. It's not
really repairable by ordinary means.
-Jesse
R Dan Henry
welt...@osu.edu (Jesse Welton) declared:
Those could degrade weapon strength and a "stressed" condition which
increased breakage chances could be added to cover them. But it should
be pretty obvious and there should be a repair mechanism (harder than
sharpening, but easier than reforging a broken weapon) or mechanisms.
R Dan Henry
Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> declared:
>R Dan Henry <rdan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> declared:
>>>Well, I think it _does_ when you have an unlimited supply of recharging.
>>>When the supply's limited, it's another matter. But melee weapons and
>>>armour are so fundamental a part of a traditional roguelike that you can't
>>>have a limited supply of fixing - if there's too little, the player's
>>>completely screwed.
>>I've yet to see a roguelike where the PC isn't tripping over weapons
>>and armor. You might have to settle for a lesser item, but if you blow
>>your repairs, you wouldn't have nothing.
>
>Tripping over, yes, but they may not be trivially identifiable. And
>settling for a lesser item, well; I tend to feel that ongoing equipment
>optimisation is a very common element in RLs. Making the player go
>backwards will just get on their nerves.
It's no different than an archer type using up his best missiles or a
magician type losing his nifty magic thingy (various types of those
can go up). I don't think breakage should be common and it should
mainly be restricted to abusive activities (don't use your best sword
to cut wood) and opponents with superior materials (if you use your
iron weapon on a mithril golem what the heck do you expect? Maybe you
should carry a crossbow next time and just lose bolts.)
Lots of stuff is temporary in nature, like scrolls and potions.
Weapons and armor should be longer term, but that doesn't me they have
to be immune to damage. And the sort of breakage I'm talking about can
potentially be repaired, although reforging Narsil is going to take
more than a typical village smith. OTOH, Narsil isn't going to be
breaking if you're fighting orcs and trolls rather than the local
demon lord.
In any case, I'm not too terribly worried about creating a game with
features you wouldn't enjoy. Your tastes are clearly far different
from mine you dirty gnome-with-death-wand-loving nut! :-)
>>>But if you have an unlimited supply of charges, it's back to the Angband
>>The supply isn't unlimited in any game I know of. Even in *bands,
>>where some classes get a Recharging spell, the wand/staff will
>>eventually blow up.
>
>Steady on; the particular wand/staff will, but for utility items there's
>always more to be bought. I suppose what I'm saying, effectively, is that
>in Angband the whole business of (say) buying and recharging Staves of
>Perception might as well be a taximeter that clocks off 30GP every time
>you ID something, because there's no possibility of actually running out.
ID is fairly easy to get in Angband by design. That's because cursed
items in Angband are often quite bad. But you still have inventory
management to worry about (until/unless you get the spell), which is
the real challenge, not the money costs. And you can still run short
on really good levels unless you town scum to get 3 stacks of 99 ID
scrolls, in which case you just don't care about tedium. Town scumming
is only prevented by its sheer boredom, but that's really enough to
deter most players.
As for wands/staves sold in Town, the only ones worth buying are ID
and escape items. The offensive wands sold in Town are only maybe
worth buying as a warrior and, even then, only the Sleep Monster (to
get some rest in a big fight) and Stinking Cloud (to deal with
breeders) are worth considering, IMO. By the time you can buy wands,
you're finding them, and the only ones who can recharge them have
spells that are better than the wands. (This is different in some
variants, most notably OAngband.) The really cools wands and staves
are dungeon only and don't recharge very reliably.