YA (oft-discussed, old) I: difficulty options
Jim Offer
specifics of a single difficulty: low/high setting. Singular options
might be better:
Wish: None, limited, or full, with full being the current setting.
Limited would remove the ability to wish for artifacts, more than one
item at once (other than food or ammunition), and the ability to
specifiy b/c/u status.
Poly trap: Easy/hard. Easy would only polymorph monsters into
monsters of similar hit dice/difficulty. No more kobolds (or
first-level players, for that matter) turning into mind flayers.
Nurse protection: off/on. On would add nurses to the "No, mortal!
That will not be done!" genocide restriction.
Tars_Tarkas
> I don't think it would be possible to get everyone to agree on the
> specifics of a single difficulty: low/high setting. Singular options
> might be better:
I don't think nethack needs an "easy" option at all... There's always
explore mode, wizmode and Yet Another Character... That said:
> Wish: None, limited, or full, with full being the current setting.
> Limited would remove the ability to wish for artifacts, more than one
> item at once (other than food or ammunition), and the ability to
> specifiy b/c/u status.
This is actually something that I can choose to do or not to do in the
current game. Why would I need to modify nethack for that?
> Poly trap: Easy/hard. Easy would only polymorph monsters into
> monsters of similar hit dice/difficulty. No more kobolds (or
> first-level players, for that matter) turning into mind flayers.
Which is the only thing in your list that a player can't control
currently. And if you see a mind flayer on the first Mines level (for
example), you have the choice to enter explore mode and not die, or not
go ito the mines at that particular moment (ok, that's not always
possible)...
> Nurse protection: off/on. On would add nurses to the "No, mortal!
> That will not be done!" genocide restriction...
Nurse dancing or reverse genociding them is also something that I can
choose to do or not to do in the current game.
I don't need the game forbidding me to do stuff I decided not to do in
the first place... Maybe that's different for other people, but if, for
example, I decide not to wish for artifacts, I don't wish for artifacts.
Where is the neccessity for nethack to forbid me to do so?
Well, that's just my opinion, other's may think different and I'm not
going to tell people not to patch nethack in whatever way they want...
--
GP_Spukgestalt, gnomish Healer, killed by an arch-lich (3 times).
Rubinstein
> I don't think it would be possible to get everyone to agree on the
> specifics of a single difficulty: low/high setting. Singular options
> might be better:
I guess you're right here, even not the single options idea: Different
difficulty levels, whether by options or elsewhere would seriously break
the style of nethack. Wouldn't be the same game anymore.
All IMO of course...
Roger Broadbent
"Jim Offer" <j...@lostinthefuture.net> wrote in message
news:968c1148.02120...@posting.google.com...
> I don't think it would be possible to get everyone to agree on the
> specifics of a single difficulty: low/high setting. Singular options
> might be better:
>
> Wish: None, limited, or full, with full being the current setting.
> Limited would remove the ability to wish for artifacts, more than one
> item at once (other than food or ammunition), and the ability to
> specifiy b/c/u status.
There seems little point in this; you can make these decisions
yourself anyway with 3.4.0, if you want to.
>
> Poly trap: Easy/hard. Easy would only polymorph monsters into
> monsters of similar hit dice/difficulty. No more kobolds (or
> first-level players, for that matter) turning into mind flayers.
How does it make the game easier if it becomes much harder to get pets
better than a warhorse?
>
> Nurse protection: off/on. On would add nurses to the "No, mortal!
> That will not be done!" genocide restriction.
The only reason I can see for wanting this is so that you can read
non-b/u/c'd genocide scrolls and specify nurses. As I regard nurses
as one of the more peripheral parts of the game, and proper
identification of items as being one of the more essential parts of
gameplay, I do not see this as desirable in any way.
Roger
Dayv!
> I don't think it would be possible to get everyone to agree on the
> specifics of a single difficulty: low/high setting. Singular options
> might be better:
Conducts are the one of the vest difficulty setting scales on the
block...
--
-Dayv!
"Dugga dugga dugga."
Jim Offer
> explore mode, wizmode and Yet Another Character... That said:
> This is actually something that I can choose to do or not to do in the
> current game. Why would I need to modify nethack for that?
The idea here is, a lot of people clamor for the game to be made
harder, and this would be a way to do it without turning newbies off
to the game. Veteran players can insert a line in their ascension
logs about what options they had turned on. I guess the ability to
turn wishes off isn't necessary, since there's a conduct for that, as
there is for wishing for artifacts. Maybe limited wishing would only
restrict wishing for quest artifacts from other classes.
Another thing I thought of is a setting for #twoweapon. Easy is
3.3.1, hard is 3.4.0.
Roger Broadbent
But my point is, you can choose to do it. Just wish for "helm of brilliance"
rather than "blessed greased fixed +3 helm of brilliance". Or wish for
"candle" seven times rather than "7 blessed candles". You can note this in
your YAAP if you wish. You can note you "only" wished for non-quest
artifacts if that was what you did. There is absolutely no need for the game
to enforce any of this for you.
>
> Another thing I thought of is a setting for #twoweapon. Easy is
> 3.3.1, hard is 3.4.0.
One of the DevTeams' stated aims is to differentiate between classes. No
doubt they view the 3.4.0 twoweapon limitations as part of this; as such it
should certainly stay.
Roger
Lancelot appearing sideways
> Jim Offer <j...@lostinthefuture.net> wrote:
> > I don't think it would be possible to get everyone to agree on the
> > specifics of a single difficulty: low/high setting. Singular options
> > might be better:
>
> Conducts are the one of the vest difficulty setting scales on the
> block...
There has been talk around here about the distinction among "not
using life-saving", "not wearing an amulet of life-saving", and "not
even carrying a wand of life-saving". Wouldn't an option like "make
amulets of life-saving non-functional for player? (y/n)" settle this
issue? Ditto for wishing, etc. Kind of like compiling with Elbereth
turned off.
/
:@-) Scott
\
Dylan O'Donnell
> laughing...@yourpain.com (Dayv!) writes:
>
> > Jim Offer <j...@lostinthefuture.net> wrote:
> > > I don't think it would be possible to get everyone to agree on the
> > > specifics of a single difficulty: low/high setting. Singular options
> > > might be better:
> >
> > Conducts are the one of the vest difficulty setting scales on the
> > block...
>
> There has been talk around here about the distinction among "not
> using life-saving", "not wearing an amulet of life-saving", and "not
> even carrying a wand of life-saving". Wouldn't an option like "make
> amulets of life-saving non-functional for player? (y/n)" settle this
> issue?
If you want to make it a compile-time change, that's easy as anything:
--- nethack-3.4.0/include/youprop.h Wed Mar 20 23:42:59 2002
+++ nethack-3.4.0bis/include/youprop.h Sat Dec 14 20:41:18 2002
@@ -336,7 +336,7 @@
#define Fixed_abil u.uprops[FIXED_ABIL].extrinsic /* KMH */
-#define Lifesaved u.uprops[LIFESAVED].extrinsic
+#define Lifesaved 0
#endif /* YOUPROP_H */
> Ditto for wishing, etc.
Slightly, but not very much, trickier:
--- nethack-3.4.0/src/zap.c Wed Mar 20 23:43:22 2002
+++ nethack-3.4.0bis/src/zap.c Sat Dec 14 20:46:57 2002
@@ -4025,7 +4025,8 @@
int tries = 0;
nothing = zeroobj; /* lint suppression; only its address matters */
- if (flags.verbose) You("may wish for an object.");
+ if (flags.verbose) You("may not wish for an object.");
+ return;
retry:
getlin("For what do you wish?", buf);
if(buf[0] == '\033') buf[0] = 0;
> Kind of like compiling with Elbereth turned off.
Making these global patches into individually settable options is,
naturally, an exercise for the student :-)
--
: Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ :
: "Now is not this ridiculous, and is not this preposterous? :
: A thorough-paced absurdity -- explain it if you can." :
: -- W.S. Gilbert, "Patience" :