[UnNethack]YAAD/Death ray
7aboir
Leprechaun with a wand of death. Single shot.
At 20K turns, while playing really carefully for my second attempt on
UnNethack (first one was a YASD I'm not really proud about).
I went down till medusa, done sokoban, mines and town (this branch is...
strange). No source of reflection or anything else that would prevent it.
(?)
If it were a gnome (or any other monster, but GWTWOD is well known) after
2K turn, it would have been really easier to accept... But after 20K
playing really carefully! well.
James
> Well...
> Leprechaun with a wand of death. Single shot.
Shit happens. I remember one game where a nymph stole a as yet
unidentified wand from me in minetown. I didn't worry too much
about it; I figured I'd get it back in the end. And in fact,
not too much later, she showed up at the end of a long corridor.
I had my pet directly behind me, so I could easily displace him,
and let him deal with her, if my attacts failed, so I lauched a
ranged attack, And that's how I learned that the wand she had
stolen was a wand of death, (Obviously, if I'd have even priced
id'ed it, I'd have taken the necessary precautions that she
didn't get it.)
--
James Kanzem
Janis Papanagnou
It may please you to hear that such a thing happened to me recently
(in Vanilla) as well; a chaotic ranger with no reflection and no MR
descended to Medusa level, titan was not peaceful as expected, but
he made two steps sidewards and zapped that wand of death, my ranger
without any chance to act or retreat, even though he was still on
the upstairs where he just burnt an Elbereth. The titan's first zap
on turn T:27268 hit me (AC:-10).
Janis
APLer
news:XnF9CCCD5E6...@127.0.0.1:
Ah, the oft-repeated death ray story. Everyone eventually gets one. My
first was a Minotaur in the maze under the castle I think. Reflection and
MR are nice, but getting them before you see the first wand of death.
That's another matter.
Zeitgeist
wrote:
> 7aboir wrote:
<Snip death ray story>
> It may please you to hear that such a thing happened to me recently
> (in Vanilla) as well; a chaotic ranger with no reflection and no MR
> descended to Medusa level, titan was not peaceful as expected, but
> he made two steps sidewards and zapped that wand of death, my ranger
> without any chance to act or retreat, even though he was still on
> the upstairs where he just burnt an Elbereth. The titan's first zap
> on turn T:27268 hit me (AC:-10).
I'm guessing you weren't able to go on the quest at that point.
Patric Mueller
> Well...
> Leprechaun with a wand of death. Single shot.
> At 20K turns, while playing really carefully for my second attempt on
> UnNethack (first one was a YASD I'm not really proud about).
> I went down till medusa, done sokoban, mines and town (this branch is...
> strange). No source of reflection or anything else that would prevent it.
The new town is work in progress and definitively not to be considered
done (or even really meaningful ATM).
> (?)
> If it were a gnome (or any other monster, but GWTWOD is well known) after
> 2K turn, it would have been really easier to accept... But after 20K
> playing really carefully! well.
Looking at the ttyrec, I'm not exactly sure what happened.
I think one of the leprechaun that you woke up by fighting teleported
out and found a wand of death.
I don't think the wand was generated in the leprechaun hall.
Quite unlucky that death.
Bye
Patric
--
NetHack Poll 2009: http://nethack-de.sf.net/poll.html
UnNetHack: http://apps.sf.net/trac/unnethack/
Janis Papanagnou
> On Nov 24, 1:48 pm, Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanag...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> 7aboir wrote:
> <Snip death ray story>
>
> I'm guessing you weren't able to go on the quest at that point.
Indeed; I faced the Quest at XL:11, and I've just got XL:12 shortly
before I died.
Janis
7aboir
news:lz3a44x...@bhaak.dyndns.org:
> 7aboir <7ab...@lebarducoin.fr> wrote:
>> Well...
> The new town is work in progress and definitively not to be considered
> done (or even really meaningful ATM).
No criticisim about that. Just fun, from now on.
>> after 20K playing really carefully! well.
>
> Looking at the ttyrec, I'm not exactly sure what happened.
>
> I think one of the leprechaun that you woke up by fighting teleported
> out and found a wand of death.
>
> I don't think the wand was generated in the leprechaun hall.
I would tend to think that was not the case, as I explored at least the
part of the dungeon from where this leprechaun was coming out from when
he shots me. but I may be wrong.
> Quite unlucky that death.
My main point is that I can afford as many YASD as they came.
A YAAD after 20K turns is a bit different.
OK, after only two tries to UNNH, one YASD and one YAAD, these are not
enough sample for probabilities. And I will try it again until next YAAD
(and not YASD). or ascend ;-)
In plain vanilla, I know for sure that after 20K turns I cannot get YAAD,
but just YASD (even if this still happen to much frequently ;-).
Trying to balance the game is a hard exercice, I can understand. And much
thank for the effort in trying to do so.
But again getting YAAD after so much time/turns... Well that's just too
much.
David Ploog
> But again getting YAAD after so much time/turns... Well that's just too
> much.
If you think the game should be effectively winnable by this point (20k
turns), wouldn't it be better if you got the win already? Or is the fun
part pulling off the correct end game for the win?
My question is serious, because the answers represent fundamentally
different, equally valid approaches to "fun in a game".
David
Janis Papanagnou
> In plain vanilla, I know for sure that after 20K turns I cannot get YAAD,
> but just YASD (even if this still happen to much frequently ;-).
I am taking this as personal offense! :-)
Janis
Ray
I'm interested in the answer too; I'm sort of in the camp that says
Random Meaningless Death should be possible, though not very likely,
at *ANY* point in the game, because most of the strategies I
personally consider to be Bad Play That Isn't Fun, require characters
to be "Perfectly Safe" after some point in the game. Characters who
can achieve perfect safety have time to farm puddings and crap like
that. Good play should be capable of minimizing the chances of death,
but not IMO eliminating it completely.
If there's a risk of dying each hundred turns no matter what you
do, you have to form an effective strategy and ascend fairly
quickly if you're going to make it at all.
This is contrary to Nethack-as-it-exists-today; The game is clearly
balanced for "Fairness" by people who think that "Fair" means you
can achieve perfect safety and only ever die by making a mistake.
But that's not the only idea of Fairness, and it's not the one I
personally prefer.
Bear
Janis Papanagnou
Well, in Nethack you can die however good you are. Fall through
a trapdoor, adjacent to soldier ants, fail to write Elbereth.
Or get to find that Monster-with-a-Wand-of-Death. Those are rare
events, unavoidable anyway. Isn't that what you ask for?
But you emphasized at "any point in the game", so I suppose you
especially meant the phase after you've obtained the Castle wand,
which is the one guaranteed source to remove any random missing
item that is necessary to survive. Before that point survival is
to a high degree depending on the RNG mood - umm.., I mean RNG
variances - even if you're a fairly good player.
Janis
David Ploog
> Ray wrote:
>> David Ploog wrote:
>>
>>> If you think the game should be effectively winnable by this point (20k
>>> turns), wouldn't it be better if you got the win already? Or is the fun
>>> part pulling off the correct end game for the win?
>>
>>> My question is serious, because the answers represent fundamentally
>>> different, equally valid approaches to "fun in a game".
>>
>> I'm interested in the answer too; I'm sort of in the camp that says Random
>> Meaningless Death should be possible, though not very likely, at *ANY*
>> point in the game
[snip reasoning with which I fully agree]
>> This is contrary to Nethack-as-it-exists-today; The game is clearly
>> balanced for "Fairness" by people who think that "Fair" means you can
>> achieve perfect safety and only ever die by making a mistake. But that's
>> not the only idea of Fairness, and it's not the one I personally prefer.
>
> Well, in Nethack you can die however good you are. Fall through
> a trapdoor, adjacent to soldier ants, fail to write Elbereth.
> Or get to find that Monster-with-a-Wand-of-Death. Those are rare
> events, unavoidable anyway. Isn't that what you ask for?
In principle yes, but the margin seems to be too small. (That's
subjective, of course.) If you look at the cabal's achievement, those
deaths seem to be exceptionally rare events. In my opinion, things are
made worse by optimal play demanding activies of repitive kind, like
Elbereth scribbling etc.
> But you emphasized at "any point in the game", so I suppose you
> especially meant the phase after you've obtained the Castle wand,
> which is the one guaranteed source to remove any random missing
> item that is necessary to survive. Before that point survival is
> to a high degree depending on the RNG mood - umm.., I mean RNG
> variances - even if you're a fairly good player.
But here you are completely correct: I do, detached from Nethack as I am,
classify the game up to the castle as fun and interesting. The real
question is, and it's directed at you: is there fun in playing the second
half? What if a fork dispensed with all of Gehennom, leaving only the
Valley of the Dead, the towers of the Wizard and Vlad plus the final
level -- would that be progress? I hope this question is meaningful
because as I understand it, the endgame (elemental and astral planes) are
considered to be interesting again-
David
Ray
> Well, in Nethack you can die however good you are. Fall through
> a trapdoor, adjacent to soldier ants, fail to write Elbereth.
> Or get to find that Monster-with-a-Wand-of-Death. Those are rare
> events, unavoidable anyway. Isn't that what you ask for?
No, they aren't. My problem is that there are still patterns
of behavior that can *completely* eliminate the risk due to these
factors for an indefinitely prolonged time during the game.
On a fully explored level, where you have already picked up
everything that was initially on the floor and killed off the
original set of inhabitants, and you never step on a square on
that level where you haven't stepped before (classic "farm"
tactics) you will never step on a trapdoor and you will never
encounter a monster with a wand of death.
> But you emphasized at "any point in the game", so I suppose you
> especially meant the phase after you've obtained the Castle wand,
> which is the one guaranteed source to remove any random missing
> item that is necessary to survive. Before that point survival is
> to a high degree depending on the RNG mood - umm.., I mean RNG
> variances - even if you're a fairly good player.
Right. And after that point, not *at* *all* dependent on the RNG
if serial ascenders are to be believed. I think that's a bug.
Bear
Janis Papanagnou
> [...]
> But here you are completely correct: I do, detached from Nethack as I
> am, classify the game up to the castle as fun and interesting. The real
> question is, and it's directed at you: is there fun in playing the
> second half?
Definitely. To be more precise; the early game is IMO a bit too much
depending on the RNG variances while the late game a bit too uniform.
But I understand that a certain style of playing makes the late game
more boring. What I am thinking of if the overpreparation (I was no
exception in that in my earlier Nethack days; it's the uncertainty,
I suppose, that leads to such play). Once you think you've understood
the game to 99% you can (and I do) avoid getting all stats to values
that are just insane, instead proceed with the equipment you have,
and adjust or enhance it if there's a feeling of inadequacy. That way
you're quite natuarally more vulnerable than any overprepared player,
which (at least occasionally) can lead to interesting situations.
> What if a fork dispensed with all of Gehennom, leaving only
> the Valley of the Dead, the towers of the Wizard and Vlad plus the final
> level -- would that be progress?
Some variants seem to have reduced Gehennom for exactly that reason,
as I understand. I don't think, it's a necessary step, though; you've
a lot options to not spend too much time in Gehennom.
> I hope this question is meaningful
> because as I understand it, the endgame (elemental and astral planes)
> are considered to be interesting again-
Not sure about that. The Elemental Planes are mainly just routine, and
especially Astral is really challenging again. And all depends on the
preparation and character played, of course. Though, I see some of the
Elemental Planes indeed a bit different since I played less equipped
and a lot with pets; usually it's challenging to bring your pets through
the Fire level, for example. And the air elementals on Air impose at
least a bit more preparation. If the Wizard appears on Water it can
evolve to a difficult situation, since you've rarely a reflecting wall
for your wand of death to increase chances to hit it. But generally the
Planes are of minor risk.
Janis
Janis Papanagnou
> Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>
>> Well, in Nethack you can die however good you are. Fall through
>> a trapdoor, adjacent to soldier ants, fail to write Elbereth.
>> Or get to find that Monster-with-a-Wand-of-Death. Those are rare
>> events, unavoidable anyway. Isn't that what you ask for?
>
> No, they aren't. My problem is that there are still patterns
> of behavior that can *completely* eliminate the risk due to these
> factors for an indefinitely prolonged time during the game.
I cannot agree with you here. I would agree if you meant, that
there are behavioural patterns that greatly reduce risks; which
is certainly true.
> On a fully explored level, where you have already picked up
> everything that was initially on the floor and killed off the
> original set of inhabitants, and you never step on a square on
> that level where you haven't stepped before (classic "farm"
> tactics) you will never step on a trapdoor and you will never
> encounter a monster with a wand of death.
Well, okay, but you can't guarantee your formulated precondition
in general. The posted Monster-with-a-Wand-of-Death example just
doesn't fit with your assumptions.
>> But you emphasized at "any point in the game", so I suppose you
>> especially meant the phase after you've obtained the Castle wand,
>> which is the one guaranteed source to remove any random missing
>> item that is necessary to survive. Before that point survival is
>> to a high degree depending on the RNG mood - umm.., I mean RNG
>> variances - even if you're a fairly good player.
>
> Right. And after that point, not *at* *all* dependent on the RNG
> if serial ascenders are to be believed. I think that's a bug.
Not all serial ascenders agree with that.
Janis
Janis Papanagnou
> [...] But generally the Planes are of minor risk.
Oops! - In case it's not clear from context; I meant the
Elemental Planes (compared to the Astral Plane).
> Janis
7aboir
news:hehons$dvq$1...@svr7.m-online.net:
You shouldn't ;-)
I *know* I cannot get YAAD after 20K turns just because I did not get
frequently to 20K turns... YASD occurs before!
But with a 45% ascension rate, that's sure another story ;-)
BTW, I just checked my whole games on NAO that are 20K+ turns --> Only
ascensions or YASD.
Interestingly, I have one 18K turns game "Killed by a death ray".
http://alt.org/nethack/userdata/ctaboir/dumplog/1245484245.nh343.txt
I should have probably not complained first.
7aboir
news:4b0c8d54$0$1637$742e...@news.sonic.net:
> David Ploog wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, 7aboir wrote:
>
>>> But again getting YAAD after so much time/turns... Well that's just
>>> too much.
[snip truly valid questions]
And here is my answer:
Two tries at UNNH (of which one was YASD) is most probably not relevant
for whining about one YAAD. Even if I've done such.
Most of my games (96% of it) in plain vanilla are YASD. This out of 808
games as recorded on NAO. Heh: tooks me 352 games before first recorded
ascension... (I'm not good player!)
Then 3.8% ascensions.
Then it leaves ~0.2% YAAD.
The 50% that happens (again on 2 tries, not meaningful) is therefore
just frustrating (even if not spoiled enough for UNNH).
YAAD should not just happen.
Only player ability/skill to win should be enough.
Or YASD, plenty of YASD, at least for me.
I understand well that this is probably impossible to achieve...
Again, YAAD after 20K turns is just frustrating, even if (as mentioned
elsewhere in this thread, I already get same kind of YAAD in plain
vanilla at ~18K turns).
I also already died after (dunno, extended log was not in place at this
time and do not want to look at the TTYREC if still exists) ~50K turns
in YASD/pudding farming: I do not care about, as it is just my own
careless way of playing and own stupidity: it's fair enough.
Well.
Cheers!
Kent Paul Dolan
> Right. And after that point, not *at* *all*
> dependent on the RNG if serial ascenders are to be
> believed. I think that's a bug.
And yet, even players with win streaks >= 12
eventually fail to ascend _some one_ game, so there
seems to be some kind of challenge left in vanilla
NetHack that even obsessively cautious play cannot
guarantee itself to overcome.
I'm of the opinions that
1) Long ascension streaks should be _possible_
-- that's one of the ways [conducts being
another, speed being a third] that the best of
the best distinguish themselves from one
another. Without the chance to run up a streak
of wins, despair would set in for skilled
players, and the top end players would find it
hard to distinguish themselves as "top dog".
2) An unlimited length ascension streak should
be _impossible_ -- just like in a classical
"gambler's ruin" bet doubling strategy, sooner
or later sheer bad luck shoulde still get its
pound of flesh. I just don't think that "bad
stuff happens" should be so heavily enforced
by the game mechanics that any game would
already at turn zero have only a low chance of
the PC ascending even with best possible play.
IMO
xanthian.
Janis Papanagnou
>
> 2) An unlimited length ascension streak should
> be _impossible_ -- just like in a classical
> "gambler's ruin" bet doubling strategy, sooner
> or later sheer bad luck shoulde still get its
> pound of flesh.
As if that would be necessary, given that it's still
possible that even an experienced player can (tired or
overconfident) still die by running into a floating eye.
Sigh. I thought I would be beyond those beginner mistakes.
Janis
Ray
> And yet, even players with win streaks >= 12
> eventually fail to ascend _some one_ game, so there
> seems to be some kind of challenge left in vanilla
> NetHack that even obsessively cautious play cannot
> guarantee itself to overcome.
True. I guess to me it's about turncounts. There's
"too fast," where the player is trading off risk against
speed - taking extra risks in the hopes of ascending
faster, in the knowledge that it reduces the chances
of ascending at all.
There's "appropriate" speed, where you're minimizing
risks and maximizing the chances of ascension.
And then there's "too slow," where, IMO, the effect of
accumulated small unavoidable risks that aren't particularly
a problem at an "appropriate" speed or in a speed run ought
to actively reduce your chances of ascension.
Right now nethack makes "too fast" quite challenging,
but doesn't really have such a thing as "too slow" aside
from the possibility of running out of food - which isn't
really a problem after the early game.
Let's say for the sake of argument that there's a one-
in-a-million chance of some kind of unbeatable combination
developing, every turn regardless of what else is going
on. Even when you're in a nice "safe" pudding farm,
there's a tiny chance of getting one-shotted by a gnome
that fell through a trapdoor from the level above with
a wand of death or something.
Your serial ascender will still sometimes get his twelve-
game streak, because he doesn't *USE* anywhere near
a million turns in twelve games. Yes, the streak will
get broken unfairly sometimes, but not all the time.
Let's say he's turning in "typical" game lengths like
50k turns. That's a total of 600k turns, by which
time our one-in-a-million-turns Unfair Death has had
about a 55% chance of kicking him at least once. But
45% of the time, if he'd have made the twelve-game
streak it without the risk of Unfair Death, he'll make
it anyway. Twelve-game streaks would be rarer, though
not impossible, and six-game streaks would be more
impressive than they are now.
But a player whose "strategy" needs a million turns
to develop, even if he makes no other mistakes, will
fail 63% of the time, because it is just too darn
slow and the cumulative risk therefore too high.
> I'm of the opinions that
>
> 1) Long ascension streaks should be _possible_
> -- that's one of the ways [conducts being
> another, speed being a third] that the best of
> the best distinguish themselves from one
> another. Without the chance to run up a streak
> of wins, despair would set in for skilled
> players, and the top end players would find it
> hard to distinguish themselves as "top dog".
I think that best players' need for serial ascension
streaks as a way of keeping score amongst themselves
is mainly a consequence of nethack's scoring method
being completely broken for ascended games.
> 2) An unlimited length ascension streak should
> be _impossible_ -- just like in a classical
> "gambler's ruin" bet doubling strategy, sooner
> or later sheer bad luck shoulde still get its
> pound of flesh. I just don't think that "bad
> stuff happens" should be so heavily enforced
> by the game mechanics that any game would
> already at turn zero have only a low chance of
> the PC ascending even with best possible play.
I don't think that "unavoidable death" should be
commonplace or end the majority of games. But I do
think that if a game took over a million turns, and
the character was still alive, then game balance has
somehow failed to stop a strategy that's, IMO, Bad
Play, No Fun, and probably exploiting a bug.
I would look at such games from the point of view
that asks, "what's broken in the game that made this
possible?"
Bear
7aboir
> Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
>
> And then there's "too slow," where, IMO, the effect of
> accumulated small unavoidable risks
May I point you to http://alt.org/nethack/dudley/?414
Not that it is an excellent one herein (sorry Quint, I vote it G). But last
panel or footnote... That should explain my point.
tenaya
wrote:
> David Ploog wrote:
> > [...]
>
> > What if a fork dispensed with all of Gehennom, leaving only
> > the Valley of the Dead, the towers of the Wizard and Vlad plus the final
> > level -- would that be progress?
>
> Some variants seem to have reduced Gehennom for exactly that reason,
> as I understand. I don't think, it's a necessary step, though; you've
> a lot options to not spend too much time in Gehennom.
I would second that opinion. Gehennom is not a boring branch in my
opinion because I can typically whip through it with a minimum of
resources, turns and time. And I seem to find some enjoyment in
knowing that I am taking a shortcut that shaves off thousands of
turns, much realtime, most of the danger, and almost all of the
tedium.
7aboir
news:5ec2ea47-ef70-4140...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 24, 7:33�pm, Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanag...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> David Ploog wrote:
>> > [...]
>
>>
>> > What if a fork dispensed with all of Gehennom, leaving only the
>> > Valley of the Dead, the towers of the Wizard and Vlad plus the fina
>> > l level -- would that be progress?
>>
>> Some variants seem to have reduced Gehennom for exactly that reason,
>> as I understand. I don't think, it's a necessary step, though; you've
>> a lot options to not spend too much time in Gehennom.
>
> I would second that opinion. Gehennom is not a boring branch in my
> opinion because I can typically whip through it with a minimum of
> resources, turns and time. And I seem to find some enjoyment in
> knowing that I am taking a shortcut that shaves off thousands of
> turns, much realtime, most of the danger, and almost all of the
> tedium.
>
>
I myself somehow disagree. Vanilla Gehennom is boring, whatever shortcut
that can be used (and I'm probably aware of most of them). The fact that
shortcut exists does not make it less boring.
So what with the initial David Ploog proposal/question? The difference is
just "the shortcut is available for everybody, even for non-
experimented/non-spoiled players"? But sure, this will reduce your
enjoyment for taking shortcut not known by everybody.
Lethe patch (or variant of this patch, as far as I can tell) as
implemented in U makes Gehennom much more attractive, and still, same
shortcut exists for those who care, including myself. (just mapped the
whole Gehennom of my current U game, just for the pleasure of doing so).
Cheers!
Patric Mueller
>
> Lethe patch (or variant of this patch, as far as I can tell) as
> implemented in U makes Gehennom much more attractive, and still, same
> shortcut exists for those who care, including myself. (just mapped the
> whole Gehennom of my current U game, just for the pleasure of doing so).
Just to clarify, UnNetHack only has the special demon lair levels from
Lethe.
The other maze-like level are from the Heck2 patch and the Mines-style
caverns are from Spork.
7aboir
news:lz7ht3g...@bhaak.dyndns.org:
>
> The other maze-like level are from the Heck2 patch and the Mines-style
> caverns are from Spork.
>
thanks for clarification.
Rob Cypher
thanks for your mom licking my anus, it saved my day yo
--
Rob Cypher
http://robcypher.livejournal.com
http://www.myspace.com/robcyphercollective
http://www.facebook.com/robcypher
http://www.youtube.com/robcypher
http://www.twitter.com/robcypher
*
Music Reviews:
http://apps.facebook.com/visualcdrack/people/1713595594
Book Reviews:
http://apps.facebook.com/facebookshelf/people/1713595594
Movie Reviews:
http://apps.facebook.com/dvdshelf/people/1713595594
TV Reviews:
http://apps.facebook.com/livingsocial-tv/people/1713595594
Video Game Reviews:
http://apps.facebook.com/videogamerack/people/1713595594
*
WARNING - THE SHROOMERY IS FULL OF RACISTS. Proof is presented here:
http://robcypher.livejournal.com/68904.html
