>> Requiring 'evidence' is absurd. You just have to
>> look at the game to see that it does provide you
>> with the information.
> Chuckie? Is that you?
No, what she stated really _is_ just a "if you play
the game, you already know this" issue; asking for
"evidence" of what is blatantly obvious is time
wasting behavior engaged in by someone on the losing
side of an argument. Tina was right to reject that
NetHack _does_ present the player with a wealth of
information that, if the player could only remember
it _all, perfectly_ would improve the player's
Consider, for example, Rogue-o-matic, which, by
tricks like remembering the success or failure of
every single weapon stroke against whichever
monster's average stats, quickly is able to evaluate
the effectiveness of a melee weapon without IDing
it, and retain or discard the weapon in contrast to
a different weapon option.
There's no question: the monster attacked, and the
success or failure of every blow, and how many hits
it takes to dispatch a monster, are all data the
game displays, but for a human player to use the
same techniques, while certainly _possible_, for
most players would not be credible.
So, does "letting the player play _as if_ with
'perfect' memory" change the very nature of the
game? I say "no". What it does is level the playing
field. Do players already show evidence of wanting
the playing field leveled? Absolutely. Derek forked
a version of NetHack just to turn off the patience
gaming for which he lacked sufficient patience.
Others, more clever, implemented "pudding farming
macros" to give them "vastly improved (mechanical)
patience". Two approaches, both in search of a more
level playing field.
Asking that memory be made less of a factor in
playing success, by making the game do some of the
remembering for the player, is a fair request. I'd
be on the losing end of that exchange, vis a vie
other players, as with pudding automation. Both my
memory and my patience with repetitive boring tasks
are on the high end, currently giving me an
Still, I do use some crutches. Instead of Tina's
slickly designed piece of paper on which a neat
tabulation allows her to keep track of game events
or important data with a letter or three, I use an
almost identical-in-concept very terse notation, and
name my to-be-retained objects (like the magician's
cloak, the Valkerie's dagger) with my annotations
for where in the game stuff is. Many others do that
too, as dumps of knapsack contents often show for
Sum up: you're being way unfair to Tina, using
malicious arguing tactics just because you disagree
with her thesis. Don't do that. She's one of the
calmer opinionated people here. Learn from that.
> Overall, I cannot imagine Nethack
> appearing balanced to an experienced
But of course, _any_ game seems trivial
to a player utterly spoiled, completely
experienced, incapable of blundering,
willing to repeat every boring ploy to
infinity, insistent on being grotesquely
over-prepared before facing any serious
challenge, willing to abuse evern Monty
Haul feature added to quell user whining,
To the 2020 version of "Deep Blue", even
chess will be a trivial and "unbalanced"
game because much too easy, except when
played among that version's computer
I don't think "Marvin almost always loses"
is what most people mean by a "balanced"
If the game seems too easy, play without
alchemy, foocubus snuggling, nurse dancing,
magic marker use, polypiling, Foo-Farming,
credit cloning, protection, shoplifting,
ability enhancement, and genocide.
> You don't get Marvin's turn counts by repeating
> every boring ploy to infinity and grotesquely
> over-preparing for every serious challenge.
Nice straw man, Martin Read, but since I never made
any such claim, you're arguing with yourself. Try
not to do that in the very process of pretending
other people are arguing against strawmen, okay?
It makes you look the utter fool.
> You don't get Marvin's turn counts
> by repeating every boring ploy to
> infinity and grotesquely over-preparing
> for every serious challenge.
A complete non sequitur to what I wrote,
since I made no such claim,
setting up a straw man for you to argue
with since you appear to have no answers
to what I _did_ write.
> I'm amused that you saw fit to reply to my post twice.
Google burped, hid the original posting for
hours, then posted it after the replacement
for what seemed a "lost" posting. It happens
fairly often recently.
I, on the other hand, are amused that you
think avoiding the original issues, whether
with strawmen or otherwise, is serving some
purpose for you.
Instead, you just keep painting more "fool"
on your face, trowelful by trowelful, to
amuse the onlookers to your continued folly
with your poor choice of ways to adorn your
Captured by the "BASH" site from a chatroom:
"I used to do drugs in the seventies.
Any more, I just ignore the temperature."