Cheating in *angband
Bulbasaur
cheating and I also will fully admit I do savefile abuse. What i can't
understand is why is it so important to keep people from cheating when it
is not a competition against other people (Well, maybe for some of you it
is, but for me at least it is not, I just play it for the fun of it). What
I am railing about, is the fact each new version of *angband they try more
and more to prevent something like savefile abuse. I kinda like savefile
abuse (better than the no die option). It leaves still room for some loss
when dieing for example (like I lose a lot if I die, where as the cheating
option of no death, I lose nothing if I die except for what I have not
found at the level).
Hell... scumming used to be considered cheating and no wthere is a feature
(not even on the cheating options), to autoscum (granted I use that too,
got sick of always getting boring levels).
What I don't understand is why cheating is so important you keep trying to
make sure it is coded out?
Not trying to get people to flame me, just really curious since it is a
one player game.
Tigress
--
These opinions are mine, not those of Georgia Tech. It is the opinion of
Tech that I should be writing a paper on some topic or another.
|\ _,,,---,,_ Tigress
/,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ http://havoc.gtf.gatech.edu/tigress
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' tig...@havoc.gtf.gatech.edu
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) Cat drawn by Felix Lee
DarkHalf
>Ok.. I realize many of you like playing without cheating, fine. I like
>cheating and I also will fully admit I do savefile abuse. What i can't
>understand is why is it so important to keep people from cheating when it
>is not a competition against other people (Well, maybe for some of you it
>is, but for me at least it is not, I just play it for the fun of it). What
>I am railing about, is the fact each new version of *angband they try more
>and more to prevent something like savefile abuse. I kinda like savefile
>abuse (better than the no die option). It leaves still room for some loss
>when dieing for example (like I lose a lot if I die, where as the cheating
>option of no death, I lose nothing if I die except for what I have not
>found at the level).
>Hell... scumming used to be considered cheating and no wthere is a feature
>(not even on the cheating options), to autoscum (granted I use that too,
>got sick of always getting boring levels).
>What I don't understand is why cheating is so important you keep trying to
>make sure it is coded out?
>Not trying to get people to flame me, just really curious since it is a
>one player game.
>
>Tigress
That's about how I feel about it. What seriously ticks me off is the
newer versions of the Windows-compiled Z have removed the "abort"
option from the menu.
Look, I don't use it on the few comps I play, and I mention it if I
post a dump (very rare that I YACD). Now I'm forced to either do
without or learn to compile my own version. Who's business is it to
tell me I'm wrong to use it when playing just for kicks? Nobody's,
IMO.
--
Darkhalf at Mindspring dot com
-----------------------------------------------------
Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
-George Carlin
Eric Nastav
> Ok.. I realize many of you like playing without cheating, fine. I like
> cheating and I also will fully admit I do savefile abuse. What i can't
> understand is why is it so important to keep people from cheating when it
> is not a competition against other people (Well, maybe for some of you it
> is, but for me at least it is not, I just play it for the fun of it).
It has nothing to do with competition. It's just more fun if death is
real. Death isn't real if all you have to do as a result of making a poor
strategy decision or takking too much of a risk, is to reload your
character form a few hundred turns ago.
Eric
Musus Umbra
DarkHalf <not...@nomail.com> wrote:
[ Concerning savefile abuse ]
> That's about how I feel about it. What seriously ticks me off is the
> newer versions of the Windows-compiled Z have removed the "abort"
> option from the menu.
When I was writing my RISC OS front-end code for *bands, I found myself
wondering whether I should attempt to prevent savefile abuse, and if so how
hard I should try.
I firmly believe that it's the individual player's choice though, and in
any case it'd be ludicrously difficult to prevent.
OTOH, the standard RISC OS method of saving a file (be it a *band savefile,
a WP document, or whatever) is drag and drop and I was asked to include
this facility (the previous ports by Kevin Bracey also included it).
My only real objection to this is that it makes it look as though savefile
backups (which a new player may not realise is 'savefile abuse') are
expected.
Similarly, when Quit (which can be done in an number of ways under RISC OS)
the port really ought to save the game... For a while I dithered over
making this optional (ie. asking "Quit anyway, Save & Quit, Don't quit")
before deciding that I was wasting my time worrying...
Besides, it'd be a mite hypocritical to go to any great lengths to prevent
savefile abuse when I also distribute an application to automate the
process... <g>
TTFN, Adny (who doesn't do the cheating thing)
--
mu...@argonet.co.uk : The Musus Umbra : http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/musus
GCS/AT dpu(---) s++:+ a- C++(+++) US+@ P+(---) L>+ E- W++(--) N++(*)
w---(+) !O M(-) V-- PS+(+++) PE-- Y+ PGP+ t@ 5++(+++) X+
R(++) tv b+++ DI+(++) D++(---) G++ e(++) h(---) r+++ y+++**
Ringwraith
Here is an idea:
Why not allow an option in the cheating menu to allow the use of
abort?
Scores as a cheater, enables the quit/no save command?
Bahman
Ben Harrison
That would be stupid.
You can always turn off your computer and accomplish the same thing.
In fact, I am embarassed to say, I used to do this with Wizardry, in
which you gained random stats when you went up in level, so killing
the computer and rebooting after getting bad stat increases allowed
you to "choose" your stat increases....
I hope whoever took the "abort" option out of Zangband will put it
back and accept the fact that cheaters will cheat, and trying to make
it harder just makes them think they are getting away with something.
--- Ben ---
darkgod
> Ok.. I realize many of you like playing without cheating, fine. I like
> cheating and I also will fully admit I do savefile abuse. What i can't
> understand is why is it so important to keep people from cheating when it
[snip on cheating]I think for my part that everyone should be free to cheat or
not(scum, quit wihout save, ....).
In fact I play the two type, with and without.
But I don't think that people on this newsgroup are so offended by cheating,
if you want to see REAL fanatism, check the adom newsgroup.
> --
> These opinions are mine, not those of Georgia Tech. It is the opinion of
> Tech that I should be writing a paper on some topic or another.
> |\ _,,,---,,_ Tigress
> /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ http://havoc.gtf.gatech.edu/tigress
> |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' tig...@havoc.gtf.gatech.edu
> '---''(_/--' `-'\_) Cat drawn by Felix Lee
--
DarkGod comes from the hells for YOU ! :)
-----------------------------------------
Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne,
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
-----------------------------------------
Tom Stovall
Eric Nastav <ena...@bookstore.iupui.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.3.96.990728...@bookstore.iupui.edu...
> It has nothing to do with competition. It's just more fun if death is
> real. Death isn't real if all you have to do as a result of making a poor
> strategy decision or takking too much of a risk, is to reload your
> character form a few hundred turns ago.
It is one thing to let a person do as he will and quite another to force the
issue. It sounds like Big Brother worrying about a petty crime that most
people wouldn't even consider a crime.
I believe that this newsgroup will keep enough players trying to win without
abusing the save file issue. When I started with Moria over a decade ago, I
didn't know it was an issue and I saved and resaved. I never won and had
heard that the game was unbeatable, so I didn't think of it as cheating but
as of extending the play.
Here's a possible solution to this issue: Program in the PC's date/time on
save, if it doesn't match when loaded up, give the winner a lesser score so
that a winning post can be known one way or the other. After all, it's
really only this newsgroup that is worried whether or not a win was in their
defination, "genuine".
me...@erols.com
Frank Muzzulini
> You can always turn off your computer and accomplish the same thing.
If any player will turn of my machine because his angband character
has died, I will kill him[1] personally.
Seriously: On a multiuser server machine there can be a real
competition where cheating is impossible[2] and that is surely
interesting, at least for some people. But there is no chance to block
cheating when someone plays on its own machine, so this should not
even tried. Unless you want to give people the satisfaction to
overcome your obstacles and frustrate others...
Muzz
[1] The player, not the character.
[2] Saving before a fight and killing the process if you fail is still
possible, but even this can be hindered (who said nethack?)
--
___ Frank Muzzulini muzz@irc
<*,*> ... until the colour of a man skin is of no more
[`-'] significance than the colour of his eyes ... Haile Selassie
-"-"-
Bulbasaur
: Here is an idea:
: Why not allow an option in the cheating menu to allow the use of
: abort?
: Scores as a cheater, enables the quit/no save command?
I like :)
Tigress
Bulbasaur
: It has nothing to do with competition. It's just more fun if death is
: real. Death isn't real if all you have to do as a result of making a poor
Yes, but the point is, for you it might be. For me it is just frustrating.
Why do you feel you should force your preferences on me?
Besides... I find it less to lose when I just use the cheating option no
death where I die I keep everythiing on me than when I depended on a
savefile where I lose anythign I haven't saved.
Dances With Crows
way. I used to play *ngband on various computers at school, and to do
this easily, I had to keep my character's savefile on a floppy. And
floppies tend to die, so I also had to keep a backup of that savefile on
my personal hard drive. These files, of course, all had different
timestamps. Ultra-secure timestamp verification would've completely
hosed my *ngband playing in the days before I had a Real Computer in my
house.
Backing up character savefiles is something that should always be
supported--check out the link below for my take on why.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mhgraham/Angband/Magnus.html
The cheating aspect of this, as others have said upthread, should
probably be left to the individual players... if you're playing the game
to have fun, and cheating makes it more fun for you, go for it. Just
don't do it in a competition. ("What consenting geeks+computers do in
the privacy of their own homes is none of the law's business!")
--MG
"No one expects the Quest For 53 Great Wyrms Of Power!"
Topi Ylinen
Ben Harrison <be...@phial.com> wrote:
>You can always turn off your computer and accomplish the same thing.
No you cannot if it is a multiuser system and you are not the administrator.
And even if you are, it would not be very smart to do so.
Boss: "Jack, what happened? I was receiving the final version of
the 2000 financial plan when the system went down."
Jack: "Uh, boss, my Angband character died... and, well, there really
was no other way..."
Sounds like the BOFH, no? (Or perhaps the BOFH would be more devious:
"Sorry, boss, but it could not be helped. An hostile intruder killed
a vital process. I had to shutdown the system immediately to avoid
permanent damage.")
>I hope whoever took the "abort" option out of Zangband will put it
>back
Like heck. It never was in Zangband, at least not in the versions I
have seen. You must either be thinking of Pernband (more likely) or
you have seen some pervert port of Zangband.
I still don't want that kind of option in any *band. But you *are*
being sarcastic, aren't you?
--
<Topi Ylinen = f1t...@kielo.uta.fi>
**************************************************************
* One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, *
* One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them. *
**************************************************************
"DOES DR MCCOY KNOW?
FASA's Star Trek: The Role-Playing Game describes the Klingon Agonizer as hand-
held device 'applied to the left shoulder just above where the ear is located
in humans.'" (MURPHY'S RULES)
John I'anson-Holton
>
> In article <l8zp0gs...@inque.curl.com>,
> Ben Harrison <be...@phial.com> wrote:
> >I hope whoever took the "abort" option out of Zangband will put it
> >back
>
> Like heck. It never was in Zangband, at least not in the versions I
> have seen. You must either be thinking of Pernband (more likely) or
> you have seen some pervert port of Zangband.
>
> I still don't want that kind of option in any *band. But you *are*
> being sarcastic, aren't you?
I believe Ben was referring to the 'Abort' command in the 'File' menu of
the windows port which Robert removed a few versions ago after some
heated debate on the newsgroup. This was accessible only to Windows
users and was not part of the regular command sets (roguelike or
standard). However, I'd hardly call the port compiled by the maintainer
a pevert port.
John
Gwidon S. Naskrent
wrote:
>Here's a possible solution to this issue: Program in the PC's date/time on
How? Can you measure how much time has elapsed between playing
sessions?
>save, if it doesn't match when loaded up, give the winner a lesser score so
>that a winning post can be known one way or the other. After all, it's
This is just an automated 'I am a cheater' sticker. We prefer to rely
on people doing voluntary admissions.
---
#HH|| #HH||## || Gwidon S. Naskrent <nask...@artemida.amu.edu.pl>
## ## ##H || Author of GSNband, a free roguelike RPG, see
## H|| #HH| ##HH|| http://artemida.amu.edu.pl/~naskrent/index.html
## || ||## H|| GNKmOZ LTk H- D c-- f PV s- d++ P M
#HH||##HH| ## || !C S+ I+++ So++ B- SQ RQ-- V++ F:WRS,SQ,ARCN :-)
Robert Ruehlmann
>
>> Here is an idea:
>>
>> Why not allow an option in the cheating menu to allow the use of
>> abort?
>>
>> Scores as a cheater, enables the quit/no save command?
Ben Harrison <be...@phial.com> wrote:
> That would be stupid.
Why is that stupid?
If you said that it wouldn't help since the savefile with this option turned
on is never saved, then I could accept that. But calling it stupid is not
very bright imho.
> You can always turn off your computer and accomplish the same thing.
So why should I put the "Abort" menu entry-back in if you can accomplish the
same thing without it?
Seriously ... you are risking your file-system by doing that. Hmm ...
suddenly I understand why some people need savefile backups! ;-)
> In fact, I am embarassed to say, I used to do this with Wizardry, in
> which you gained random stats when you went up in level, so killing
> the computer and rebooting after getting bad stat increases allowed
> you to "choose" your stat increases....
> I hope whoever took the "abort" option out of Zangband will put it
> back
That would be me. But I see no reason to put it back in. Should the
Windows version officially allow cheating without penality? If I put it
back shouldn't the other systems give the player the same choice? Shouldn't
I add a "quit without saving" command right into the game like in
Pernangband?
Many questions ... one answer ... No!
> and accept the fact that cheaters will cheat, and trying to make
> it harder just makes them think they are getting away with something.
So making cheating harder just encourages the cheaters? Why not turn on
"cheat death" by default? Toggling it on the options screen may be too
difficult! There is no way to prevent savefile cheating, but that doesn't
mean that we have to make it even easier.
Imho the cheating options and wizard mode are enough to make any cheater
*happy*. I have no problems with people using them, and any ideas on
improving them are welcome. As long as the character is marked as a cheater
you are only cheating yourself. But anything else belongs to the "dark
side" because you are no longer only cheating yourself but possibly others
too!
--
Robert Ruehlmann ( r...@angband.org )
"Thangorodrim - The Angband Page" : http://thangorodrim.angband.org/
Visit the #angband chat channel at Othernet (irc.othernet.org).
DarkHalf
[SNIP]
>> I hope whoever took the "abort" option out of Zangband will put it
>> back
>
>That would be me. But I see no reason to put it back in. Should the
>Windows version officially allow cheating without penality? If I put it
>back shouldn't the other systems give the player the same choice? Shouldn't
>I add a "quit without saving" command right into the game like in
>Pernangband?
>
>Many questions ... one answer ... No!
Why not? For a single-player game someone's playing for kicks, why
should ANYONE else care if I cheat? Frankly, it's none of your or
anyone else's business. If I post a brag post, I'll mention whether I
cheat or not. However, I don't think anyone has the right to FORCE me
to play fair when no competition is involved.
Anyway, it doesn't have to be "without penalty". I imagine some
penalty could be coded in, yes? No? Or am I showing my ignorance by
thinking such?
>> and accept the fact that cheaters will cheat, and trying to make
>> it harder just makes them think they are getting away with something.
>
>So making cheating harder just encourages the cheaters? Why not turn on
>"cheat death" by default? Toggling it on the options screen may be too
>difficult! There is no way to prevent savefile cheating, but that doesn't
>mean that we have to make it even easier.
>
>Imho the cheating options and wizard mode are enough to make any cheater
>*happy*. I have no problems with people using them, and any ideas on
>improving them are welcome. As long as the character is marked as a cheater
>you are only cheating yourself. But anything else belongs to the "dark
>side" because you are no longer only cheating yourself but possibly others
>too!
As Tigress said, aborting is actually more handicapping than the
"cheat death" option. Why not remove "cheat death" and return the
"abort" function but, as another said, flagging the character if it is
used (the same way cheat death would)?
Dennis van Es
DarkHalf <not...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:37b35246...@news.mindspring.com...
> On 29 Jul 1999 09:19:49 GMT, Robert Ruehlmann <r...@angband.org> wrote:
[SNIP]
>
> As Tigress said, aborting is actually more handicapping than the
> "cheat death" option. Why not remove "cheat death" and return the
> "abort" function but, as another said, flagging the character if it is
> used (the same way cheat death would)?
Abort means, quit without saving, right ?
How can you flag your character, if you don't save him/her???
Dennis
DarkHalf
wrote:
Dunno, maybe make a start-up cheating option (On the "=" start up
menu) whether or not to allow aborts. if disabled, the abort item on
the menu is either disabled or saves and quits just like exit.
But, whatever, I still don't think anyone should FORCE me not to
cheat. Whether I use it or not, having someone else deny it leaves a
sour taste in my mouth.
Gwidon S. Naskrent
>: Scores as a cheater, enables the quit/no save command?
>
>I like :)
Impossible to accomplish. The use of abort suggests that a panic save
file is not written, yet you want to record cheating somewhere.
David Damerell
>Ok.. I realize many of you like playing without cheating, fine. I like
>cheating and I also will fully admit I do savefile abuse. What i can't
>understand is why is it so important to keep people from cheating
What's your problem? You can always turn on the cheat_death option.
Oh, you don't get in the score table? So what? With savefile abuse a
monkey could get a high score given long enough.
If you're lame enough that seeing a score that a monkey could have
obtained makes you happy, edit the score table and have done with it.
--
David/Kirsty Damerell. dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
"We have always been quite clear that Win95 and Win98 are not the systems to
use if you are in a hostile security environment." "We absolutely do recognize
that the Internet is a hostile environment." Paul Leach <pau...@microsoft.com>
Ben Harrison
The discussion in question involves the "Abort" menu item on
the "File" menu of the Windows (and Macintosh) versions only,
so Unix machines (and in fact multi-user machines in general)
are not relevant.
Of course, on Unix machines, you can use "kill -9" from another
window, so no menu item is needed.... :-)
Now as to "real savefile security", see my next post....
--- Ben ---
mu...@albatross.pond.sub.org (Frank Muzzulini) writes:
> "Ben Harrison" <be...@phial.com> writes:
> > You can always turn off your computer and accomplish the same thing.
>
Ben Harrison
Okay, first, some background.
The issue of savefile abuse has come up time and time again, and every
few months, somebody proposes a solution, but there is always a flaw.
The basic issues include the use of backing up a savefile so that when
you die or something unpleasant happens, you can simply replace the
real savefile with the backup, and pretend nothing happened, and the
use of an "abort" menu option to automate this process, by simply not
saving the savefile in the first place.
I argue that on any system in which savefile backups are allowed, not
providing an "abort" option is simply annoying, so much so, that many
people keep sending me scripts to perform the "backup savefile" plus
"run angband" maneuver, to allow them to always have access to "abort"
(via savefile copying) if they ever realize they want it. Of course,
on many machines, as long as you catch yourself before you actually
die and modify the savefile, you can simply make the backup right
before you die, but this is a non-interesting special case.
On non-Unix machines, run by the player of the game, there is no way
to prevent the user from simply using the savefile backup trick. Any
technique involving timestamps and such is easily tricked out by simply
munging the timestamps, or running a trivial program against the backed
up savefile to load it, munge it, and save it again. Which is why the
optional code in Angband to do such paranoid silliness is disabled by
default. Plus, the people you would most annoy would be the ones who
like to copy their savefiles to floppies, and move them to a different
machine. There is no way to distinguish this from savefile backups,
without saving special "cheater" files on the machine somewhere, and
those could simply be deleted. So unless I am missing something really
fundamental, trying to prevent savefile abuse on personal computers is
really silly, and leaving in the "abort" menu item will make it easier
for people who *want* to cheat in this manner to do so, without forcing
them to use bizarre "cheat techniques". But then again, this is just
an opinion....
Now, as for Unix machines, as long as the game is owned by a non-user
(i.e. "games") and the players are non-root, which is, by the way, not
the common case (most Unix users simply install their own copy of the
game and use it like a non-Unix machine, as above), there are ways to
prevent this type of cheating. Namely, you make the savefiles owned by
"games", you make the executable setuid to "games", you disable the
options to keep the savefiles in a different directory from the standard
one, and you mark the savefiles as "in use" when the game starts, and
clear this flag when the game ends. This can be accomplished via setting
the appropriate compilation flags and performing the installation in the
proper manner, which I admit I cannot recall at this time, but for which
there has been discussion at various times. The downside of this is that
if a user accidentally shuts down their X11 session, or something similar,
they must come begging the administrator to "recover" (unlock) their
savefile, which can be really annoying, especially if they shut it down
on purpose to cheat death.
More comments follow inline....
--- Ben ---
Robert Ruehlmann <r...@angband.org> writes:
> >Ringwraith <bah...@max.berkeley.edu> writes:
> >
> >> Here is an idea:
> >>
> >> Why not allow an option in the cheating menu to allow the use of
> >> abort?
> >>
> >> Scores as a cheater, enables the quit/no save command?
>
> Ben Harrison <be...@phial.com> wrote:
>
> > That would be stupid.
>
> Why is that stupid?
Having a game option to affect platform specific menus seems stupid,
but then again, I am extra anal about platform independance.... :-)
> If you said that it wouldn't help since the savefile with this option turned
> on is never saved, then I could accept that. But calling it stupid is not
> very bright imho.
That is also a good point. I was actually referring to the "turn off
the computer" hack, or whatever support Windows/Macintosh have for
killing a process without letting it exit (I know the Macintosh has
this, I assume Windows does too).
> > You can always turn off your computer and accomplish the same thing.
>
> So why should I put the "Abort" menu entry-back in if you can accomplish the
> same thing without it?
>
> Seriously ... you are risking your file-system by doing that. Hmm ...
> suddenly I understand why some people need savefile backups! ;-)
Turning off your computer is the "obvious" technique, backing up the
savefile and/or using the "kill process" technique is much better and
will not corrupt your disk....
> > In fact, I am embarassed to say, I used to do this with Wizardry, in
> > which you gained random stats when you went up in level, so killing
> > the computer and rebooting after getting bad stat increases allowed
> > you to "choose" your stat increases....
>
> > I hope whoever took the "abort" option out of Zangband will put it
> > back
>
> That would be me. But I see no reason to put it back in. Should the
> Windows version officially allow cheating without penality? If I put it
> back shouldn't the other systems give the player the same choice? Shouldn't
> I add a "quit without saving" command right into the game like in
> Pernangband?
>
> Many questions ... one answer ... No!
Personal computer means personal freedom, and for some reason, people
with personal computers like to cheat. Given the ease of customizing
a perfect character *without* marking the savefile in any way, it does
seem a little silly to try to prevent "cheat death" so aggressively....
> > and accept the fact that cheaters will cheat, and trying to make
> > it harder just makes them think they are getting away with something.
>
> So making cheating harder just encourages the cheaters? Why not turn on
> "cheat death" by default? Toggling it on the options screen may be too
> difficult! There is no way to prevent savefile cheating, but that doesn't
> mean that we have to make it even easier.
>
> Imho the cheating options and wizard mode are enough to make any cheater
> *happy*. I have no problems with people using them, and any ideas on
> improving them are welcome. As long as the character is marked as a cheater
> you are only cheating yourself. But anything else belongs to the "dark
> side" because you are no longer only cheating yourself but possibly others
> too!
If you are "cheating others" using a personal computer, there are *much*
more clever things you can do, like editing your "info" files (though this
can be disabled if desired at compilation time), or using a character
editor which does not mark the savefile, etc....
People who *really* want a non-cheating environment should get together
and write a simple "Windows client" for Angband that allows you to play
against a Unix server (I have not bothered to write such a thing, but it
is actually pretty easy), and then everyone can not only know that there
is no cheating going on (except clever use of modified "Borgs", I suppose),
but can share a common high score list....
And then, of course, the really hard part would be convincing somebody to
provide a Unix server to run the Angband engine for people, when it is so
obviously silly except as a way to prevent cheating.... :-)
--- Ben ---
Thomas Harris
> Dunno, maybe make a start-up cheating option (On the "=" start up menu)
> whether or not to allow aborts. if disabled, the abort item on the menu
> is either disabled or saves and quits just like exit.
Or have it abort 9 times in 10, but save and quit once in 10, just to stop
people abusing it ;-)
Thomas
--
Thomas Harris | hot...@argonet.co.uk
Z/O/GW Ac H- D- c-- f PV+ !s h+ d P++ M+
C- S++ I+ So+ B SQ RQ+ V- F:Oang Rod/Wand Stacking
The Angband Code and...
Going 2.8.3v4, GSN 1.0b, GW-Ang 2.8.3v1 and 2.8.3v3 alpha, Ing 0.2.0,
Kang 2.8.3jp1, Pzi 2.1.0e, Quang 2.8.2b and Rang 1.04 for RISC OS:
<http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/harris/angband/>
* Politicians do it with insincerity
William Tanksley
>Eric Nastav <ena...@bookstore.iupui.edu> elaborated:
>: It has nothing to do with competition. It's just more fun if death is
>: real. Death isn't real if all you have to do as a result of making a poor
>Yes, but the point is, for you it might be. For me it is just frustrating.
>Why do you feel you should force your preferences on me?
It's a game. Those are the rules of the game. If you don't like them,
change them, but don't expect us to change them for you, and stop bawling
us out about our game.
Sheesh.
>Tigress
--
-William "Billy" Tanksley
William Tanksley
>Eric Nastav <ena...@bookstore.iupui.edu> wrote in message
>news:Pine.A41.3.96.990728...@bookstore.iupui.edu...
>> real. Death isn't real if all you have to do as a result of making a poor
>> character form a few hundred turns ago.
>It is one thing to let a person do as he will and quite another to force the
>issue. It sounds like Big Brother worrying about a petty crime that most
>people wouldn't even consider a crime.
Crime? Your conscience is really set a little high. It's just breaking
the rules of the game as it was designed. Most reaction to it that I've
seen has been just that. Don't overstate your case.
--
-William "Billy" Tanksley
Butter Boy
> And then, of course, the really hard part would be convincing somebody to
> provide a Unix server to run the Angband engine for people, when it is so
> obviously silly except as a way to prevent cheating.... :-)
Good points Ben. Note that even in this last case one could still "cheat"
by dropping link and claiming it was an accident.
So, the moral of the story is that there is no way to prevent "cheating."
Anyone with half of a brain, a little time, and a C compiler will defeat
any method you devise to stop them.
The most effective technique is to only play with honest people -- people
who have a conscience and a sense of fair play. Finding such a group is
left as an exercise for the reader :)
Bulbasaur
:>I hope whoever took the "abort" option out of Zangband will put it
:>back
: Like heck. It never was in Zangband, at least not in the versions I
: have seen. You must either be thinking of Pernband (more likely) or
: you have seen some pervert port of Zangband.
If we are talking about abort as in exit without saving, yes it has.
Because until I got my new PC (I had a mac before) and had to download
Zangband again, I could exit without saving the game at least (and if you
did this before you got the grave scene the death was not saved).
Bulbasaur
: That would be me. But I see no reason to put it back in. Should the
: Windows version officially allow cheating without penality? If I put it
: back shouldn't the other systems give the player the same choice? Shouldn't
Well, some one pointed in it could be an option you turned on that would
mark your score. That would make the people who want to make sure people
are honest about whether they won the honest way or not could be sure
their file was marked and it would make people like me who only play the
game just for entertainment and are bad players and find dieing all the
tiem frustrating happy too.
And yes, I know there is a no die option, but that really does take all
the challenege out of the game as then I lose nothing when I die except
for antyhing I haven't picked up, while with savefiles, what I did not
save on my character is lost (and sometimes that can be levels of stuff).
It also makes sure I don't do dumb mistakes like where I am just going
really fast and accidently get to the tombstone scene before I can exit.
There still is somewhat a threat of dieing in that rather than the no die
option.
: So making cheating harder just encourages the cheaters? Why not turn on
: "cheat death" by default? Toggling it on the options screen may be too
See above. It's not the same thing. Besides... why is the cheat death by
default any much better than savefile abuse, I really don't see much
difference?
I don't care if you mark my score sheet, I probably will never show it off
anyways, but I want the ability to do savefiles instead of cheat death.
Bulbasaur
: On 29 Jul 1999 02:30:36 GMT, Bulbasaur <tig...@havoc.gtf.org> wrote:
:>: Scores as a cheater, enables the quit/no save command?
:>
:>I like :)
: Impossible to accomplish. The use of abort suggests that a panic save
: file is not written, yet you want to record cheating somewhere.
Well, didn't he say at char creationg it marks it. That way it already has
been marked from the start, eh? So whether it was saved or not the mark is
already there.
Bulbasaur
: What's your problem? You can always turn on the cheat_death option.
Didn't I explain in my post why I didn't like cheat_death? Called even for
me that is too easy, there is absolutely no loss in dieing witth
cheat_death.
: If you're lame enough that seeing a score that a monkey could have
: obtained makes you happy, edit the score table and have done with it.
I don't care about what score I get. I just play for entertainment value
and keeping dieing all the time geest really frustrating to me, makes the
game no longer fun. And cheat death ruins some of the fun of itk cause
there is no incentive to keep from dieing at all. Saveful abuse still has
incentive not to die while keeping me from going this game is just
incredibly frustrating.
I mean you act all offended but it isn't even like I am trying to trick
you, I am here fully admitting I cheat. I always have. I do have a sense
of honor and I realize some epople like to show off they won the honest
way (and other people like to be able to trust them it was honest). I am
not going to do that. Hell, I am not even really playing to win, just
playing to explore more like it.
Wilbur07
backups. The only way they eliminate cheating is to have constant surveillance
over *everything* that happens, employing countless "honest" angels and demons
to watch over the playing pieces. Not very efficient, I guess, but the only
way to eliminate cheating.
Mark Constantino
William Tanksley
>I mean you act all offended but it isn't even like I am trying to trick
>you, I am here fully admitting I cheat. I always have. I do have a sense
We're offended because you (and others) seem to assume that we care about
your cheating. We don't. Because you're cheating, you're not playing the
official game -- and yet you seem to feel free to demand of other people
that they write code to accomodate you.
Now, I have no problems with accomodating cheaters. I'm writing an
advanced cheat mode into Omega, and I'm not checking savefile copying
(although I am checking for editing). But these people don't want to do
such a thing any more than they have already, and you have absolutely zero
right to get offended about it.
Face it: you're cheating. That by its very definition means that the game
isn't designed for your convenience.
William Tanksley
Thought he caught God savefiling once, too -- but it turned out to be hex
editing, and God snuck it by. :)
It's hard to cheat when you've got the source code...
>Mark Constantino
--
-William "Billy" Tanksley
Musus Umbra
Ben Harrison <be...@phial.com> wrote:
> The discussion in question involves the "Abort" menu item on
> the "File" menu of the Windows (and Macintosh) versions only,
FWIW, the both my and the previous RISC OS ports have provided a 'Quit'
menu option (as is standard practice for a RISC OS app) which saves the
character and then quits - no questions asked.
If the user kills the task using the Task Manager (as they are freely able
to do) then they will be prompted to decide whether to quit, save & quit,
or not quit at all. This is, again, standard RISC OS behaviour. Indeed,
this mechanism is used to kill tasks when the machine is shutdown.
I /could/ have restricted the choices to 'Save & Quit' and 'Don't Quit' in
an attempt to prevent savefile abuse. I /could/ also have made the code
save the character whenever/whyever the app. quits...
In order to do so I would have to go against 'RISC OS etiquette' and I'm
not prepared to do that - especially when it's pointless. I thought long
and hard about whether it would be possible to completely, legally and
safely prevent savefile abuse under RISC OS and decided that it wasn't.
The documentation I supply makes a point of explaining that it is
considered cheating to quit without saving or to take backups of savefiles.
As far as I'm concerned that's about as restrictive as it makes sense to
be... If a player wants to cheat, then that's their decision - not mine.
I don't have to make it easy for them, but I refuse to compromise other
aspects of the front-end in order to make it harder.
Just my 2p,
Adny
--
mu...@argonet.co.uk : The Musus Umbra : http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/musus
GCS/AT dpu(---) s++:+ a- C++(+++) US+@ P+(---) L>+ E- W++(--) N++(*)
w---(+) !O M(-) V-- PS+(+++) PE-- Y+ PGP+ t@ 5++(+++) X+
R(++) tv b+++ DI+(++) D++(---) G++ e(++) h(---) r+++ y+++**
Gwidon S. Naskrent
>Well, didn't he say at char creationg it marks it. That way it already has
But why would you want to be marked from the start? Do you decide
that, or the game? If the latter, can the game have an inbuilt
telepathy module?
---
Gwidon S. Naskrent (nask...@artemida.amu.edu.pl)
GSNband - http://artemida.amu.edu.pl/~naskrent/index.html
GEU/J d- s+:+ a-- C++ ULB++>++++ P- E W++ N+++ o? K? w+ O-- M-- V--
PS++ PE- Y PGP->++ t-- 5-- X- R* tv- b+ DI-- D++ G++ e++ h! r! y?
Gwidon S. Naskrent
>Didn't I explain in my post why I didn't like cheat_death? Called even for
>me that is too easy, there is absolutely no loss in dieing witth
>cheat_death.
Is there with savefile abuse, then? In both cases you stroll
carelessly along, not paying full attention, content to know you can
resurrect yourself should your skill fail you.
>I don't care about what score I get. I just play for entertainment value
>and keeping dieing all the time geest really frustrating to me, makes the
Perhaps you'd like to have a pernament invulnerability, eh? Dying is
frustrating, but also a part of the game you'd want to avoid. So learn
to do it, and don't think 'sheesh, another death. Perhaps I should
have a beer after all'.
>game no longer fun. And cheat death ruins some of the fun of itk cause
>there is no incentive to keep from dieing at all. Saveful abuse still has
>incentive not to die while keeping me from going this game is just
>incredibly frustrating.
I fail to see your point, but never mind.
>I mean you act all offended but it isn't even like I am trying to trick
>you, I am here fully admitting I cheat. I always have. I do have a sense
>of honor and I realize some epople like to show off they won the honest
>way (and other people like to be able to trust them it was honest). I am
>not going to do that. Hell, I am not even really playing to win, just
>playing to explore more like it.
No one is offended by that, but not all cheat^H^H^H^H^Hfair-play
challenged people are as honest as you. It's against them that some
rudimentary defenses are raised.
Tom Stovall
William Tanksley <wtan...@dolphin.openprojects.net> wrote in message
news:slrn7q1375....@dolphin.openprojects.net...
Oh, my...an anology hater.
Bulbasaur
:>Well, didn't he say at char creationg it marks it. That way it already has
: But why would you want to be marked from the start? Do you decide
: that, or the game? If the latter, can the game have an inbuilt
: telepathy module?
Because the point is I really don't care cause I am not competing with you
guys so it doesn't mattter to me if my character sheet is marked. See, the
wonderful thing about this option is you can also say no I want to play by
game rules so my sheet does not get marked. Than everyone is happy, see?
Bulbasaur
:>Didn't I explain in my post why I didn't like cheat_death? Called even for
:>me that is too easy, there is absolutely no loss in dieing witth
:>cheat_death.
: Is there with savefile abuse, then? In both cases you stroll
: carelessly along, not paying full attention, content to know you can
: resurrect yourself should your skill fail you.
Actually, yeah. I don't lose stuff I haven't saved with cheat_death. I
just go back up to the ground. Hell, it's a really easy way to go back to
the store level if I run out of scroll of recalls... Cheat_Death has very
little you can lose if you die.
: Perhaps you'd like to have a pernament invulnerability, eh? Dying is
That's pretty much what cheat death is.
: No one is offended by that, but not all cheat^H^H^H^H^Hfair-play
: challenged people are as honest as you. It's against them that some
: rudimentary defenses are raised.
WEll, I do like some one's suggestion that one could have the exit option
(what the mac called it) only if you said from teh start (like preserve)
that the character would be played like that. That way their character is
marked from the start. Saves people from being dishonest and it gives more
options on how to play it.
DarkHalf
(William Tanksley) wrote:
>On 29 Jul 1999 18:14:16 GMT, Bulbasaur wrote:
>
>>I mean you act all offended but it isn't even like I am trying to trick
>>you, I am here fully admitting I cheat. I always have. I do have a sense
>
>We're offended because you (and others) seem to assume that we care about
>your cheating. We don't.
If ya'll didn't, then why did RR REMOVE the option that allowed for
it?
>Because you're cheating, you're not playing the
>official game -- and yet you seem to feel free to demand of other people
>that they write code to accomodate you.
We're demanding nothing. We're asking that a feature that was there up
until recent versions of Z be returned. Where's the extra coding
required?
The flagging the save file bit is for only if one feels it's really
necissary. IMO, though, who the hell should care what I do on my own?
John D. Goulden
> you die or something unpleasant happens, you can simply replace the
> real savefile with the backup, and pretend nothing happened, and the
> use of an "abort" menu option to automate this process, by simply not
> saving the savefile in the first place.
I'm a former Moria player and current casual Angband player; a few hours a
week at most. I've never won at Moria or Angband but have a pretty good
Ranger going right now and have some hope of actually having a "winner." I
enjoy the game. I also die -- a LOT. If I had to start over with a new
character every time I made a silly mistake or came up against an unfamiliar
critter or whatever, I'd just get frustrated and wouldn't play the game
anymore. Surely there's room for simple save-file-scumming folks like me in
the world of 'band. I'd welcome an 'abort' option.
--
Please reply by email as well as to the group.
John D. Goulden
jgou...@flash.net
Myles Jordan
William Tanksley wrote:
>
> On 29 Jul 1999 18:14:16 GMT, Bulbasaur wrote:
>
> >I mean you act all offended but it isn't even like I am trying to trick
> >you, I am here fully admitting I cheat. I always have. I do have a sense
>
> We're offended because you (and others) seem to assume that we care about
> official game -- and yet you seem to feel free to demand of other people
> that they write code to accomodate you.
>
Actually, RR would have had to modify the code to remove the abort option,
so he at least cares....
> But these people don't want to do
> such a thing any more than they have already, and you have absolutely zero
> right to get offended about it.
>
see above.
> Face it: you're cheating. That by its very definition means that the game
> isn't designed for your convenience.
>
Ahhhh... get off your high horse, already. Somebody above mentioned that the
game was already hard enough that only the *band player could really expect
to win without cheating, and that is absolutley right.
If you want to limit the game's following to those special few whilst the
rest of us eventually throw it away with fustration, then you should be ashamed;
a game in which so many of the design decisions are contributed to by this
group (note _group_, not few) is meant for a wider audience.... not some
little elitist group.
myles.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The number you have dialled is Imaginary.
Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again......
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Myles Jordan mailto:mjordan*no-spam*@vet.com.au
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wilbur07
>group (note _group_, not few) is meant for a wider audience.... not some
>little elitist group.
I've been playing *band for years and years and I've only won a very few times
-- so much so that I now play with a mulligan more often than not. However,
with patience and fortitude, everybody should be able to win at least once. I
think that this is most people on this newsgroup.
We've all experienced using savefiles, and as Ben says, why not let cheaters
cheat when they want to. It's one person's word when they say they win without
cheating. When you want to do some experimenting, it's a pain *not* to have
the abort option.
Mark Constantino
Jason Willoughby
> Ahhhh... get off your high horse, already. Somebody above mentioned that the
> game was already hard enough that only the *band player could really expect
> to win without cheating, and that is absolutley right.
> If you want to limit the game's following to those special few whilst the
> rest of us eventually throw it away with fustration, then you should be ashamed;
> a game in which so many of the design decisions are contributed to by this
> group (note _group_, not few) is meant for a wider audience.... not some
> little elitist group.
First, there's nothing particularly special about the end game. Good
stuff (compared to your current gear) shows up far less frequently, and
things start to get tedious. Deeper isn't better. This is hardly
something to cheat for.
Second, you're looking at it from the wrong direction. Do *not* play a
roguelike to win it. They're not made to be particularly winnable, and
you'll do nothing but frustrate yourself trying. Play to enjoy the
game. Expect death, and don't beat yourself up about it. This is not
an easy mindset to attain; it's very different from most other genres.
But once you have it, you'll appreciate these games so much more.
Third, you're way too fixated on this. The point at which you start any
level of cheating at any sort of game, it's time to step back and look
at why. If you're not having fun, just stop! Set Angband aside for a
while. Give yourself some time to mellow out. It won't hurt, I promise.
I just got back from a year-long hiatus myself. You'll come back too,
eventually, and you'll be enjoying yourself again.
LucFrench
will be revealed:
Cheat Death Sucks Rocks.
*Anything* Would Be Better.
Thanks
Luc "Cheating" French
Gwidon S. Naskrent
>Because the point is I really don't care cause I am not competing with you
>guys so it doesn't mattter to me if my character sheet is marked. See, the
>wonderful thing about this option is you can also say no I want to play by
>game rules so my sheet does not get marked. Than everyone is happy, see?
I see. You want to have the option of enabling cheat mode at the game
start. Then I'm afraid it's not a popular idea.
Gwidon S. Naskrent
>Actually, yeah. I don't lose stuff I haven't saved with cheat_death. I
>just go back up to the ground. Hell, it's a really easy way to go back to
>the store level if I run out of scroll of recalls... Cheat_Death has very
>little you can lose if you die.
Ah, if you run a different console (DOS window) and save a backup
every five seconds, you don't lose anything. But is this the way to
proper enjoyment? :-/
>: Perhaps you'd like to have a pernament invulnerability, eh? Dying is
>
>That's pretty much what cheat death is.
No, I meant no damage from monster attacks.
>that the character would be played like that. That way their character is
>marked from the start. Saves people from being dishonest and it gives more
>options on how to play it.
I've answered this in another post :)
Thomas Harris
> I'm a former Moria player and current casual Angband player; a few hours
> a week at most. I've never won at Moria or Angband but have a pretty
> good Ranger going right now and have some hope of actually having a
> "winner." I enjoy the game. I also die -- a LOT. If I had to start over
> with a new character every time I made a silly mistake or came up
> against an unfamiliar critter or whatever, I'd just get frustrated and
> wouldn't play the game anymore. Surely there's room for simple
> save-file-scumming folks like me in the world of 'band. I'd welcome an
> 'abort' option.
I played *band with savescumming up until last year, even registering a
win (with umpteen deaths along the way, so it doesn't really count). I
took the decision to play on the straight and narrow, and I think it's
something that should be looked at, at least, by other people who are
savescumming.
Sure, I am now pretty unlikely to win, but then my 'win' was completely
hollow anyway - I derived very little satisfaction from it, whereas if I
ever do it again, playing honestly, it'll be amazing. Sure, I don't get as
deep anymore, but training in the good habits required to stay alive at
deeper levels (proper use of detection, resistances, use of anti-summoning
corridors etc) has meant that the average depth of my games is gradually
improving all the time - I can get characters to level 30 quite often,
now, and that's getting better. More to the point, the game's more fun -
there's no adrenaline rush from discovering a GCV when you know that you
can accumulate the same stuff simply by diving deeper and knowing you
can't really die.
OTOH, I've just started playing Omega again, and I've been using savefile
backups in order to learn the game, the relative strengths of the lower
level monsters etc. I've avoided using the backdoor wizard mode hack,
though - that'd spoil the game beyond repair. More to the point, I'm
*glad* there isn't an abort option - it stops the cheating from becoming
too easy. The hassle of quitting the game, copying the savefile and
reloading stops me doing it too often. If I didn't need to backup the
save...
If people want to cheat, let them. If they want to put the "abort" option
back in, there's nothing to stop them learning to code and doing it. I
appreciate everybody says "that's a stupid thing to say - it's really
difficult and somebody could do it for me", but it *is* a useful thing to
be able to do. I got a working knowledge of C under my belt in a matter of
three months from when I started learning, and then not very intensively.
It opens so many doors, I recommend it to you all.
TTFN,
Thomas
--
Thomas Harris | hot...@argonet.co.uk
Z/O/GW Ac H- D- c-- f PV+ !s h+ d P++ M+
C- S++ I+ So+ B SQ RQ+ V- F:Oang Rod/Wand Stacking
The Angband Code and...
Going 2.8.3v4, GSN 1.0b, GW-Ang 2.8.3v1 and 2.8.3v3 alpha, Ing 0.2.0,
Kang 2.8.3jp1, Pzi 2.1.0e, Quang 2.8.2b and Rang 1.04 for RISC OS:
<http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/harris/angband/>
* Look out! Behind you!
DarkHalf
S. Naskrent) wrote:
>On 29 Jul 1999 23:06:14 GMT, Bulbasaur <tig...@havoc.gtf.org> wrote:
>
>>Because the point is I really don't care cause I am not competing with you
>>guys so it doesn't mattter to me if my character sheet is marked. See, the
>>wonderful thing about this option is you can also say no I want to play by
>>game rules so my sheet does not get marked. Than everyone is happy, see?
>
>I see. You want to have the option of enabling cheat mode at the game
>start. Then I'm afraid it's not a popular idea.
No, she doesn't LIKE the standard "cheat death mode" because the
penalty game-wise for using it is insignifigant. At least with
aborting, you lose whatever you haven't saved.
Another poster referred to it as a "mulligan", which I think is a good
comparison. In golf, casual games, you can (provided the other players
are allowing mulligans) re-do a shot. However, you stand the risk of
your shot being worse than your first shot. You can't go back to the
first shot, though. The point is, by taking the mulligan, you lose any
advantage the first try gave you along with the disadvantages, but you
gain a fresh chance.
Say in Z, I have auto-save only when changing levels. I die, so I
save-scum and try again. Anything I'd gotten on that level is lost
and, with how the changing level save works, I end up with an entirely
different level when I restart and hit the stairs again. I lose the
good with the bad.
Now, with cheat death, you're just zapped back to town, all eq still
with you and everything. You're no worse off than when you "died"...
It's win-win, really.
Robert Ruehlmann
automatic saving of the character when he/she/it dies.
Imho that could be added as an startup-option without problems. It would be
available on all systems without modifications of the system dependent code.
The char-dump of such a character would just get a note about this feature
and doesn't get a highscore entry.
Any comments?
--
Robert Ruehlmann ( r...@angband.org )
"Thangorodrim - The Angband Page" : http://thangorodrim.angband.org/
Visit the #angband chat channel at Othernet (irc.othernet.org).
Mason
William Tanksley <wtan...@dolphin.openprojects.net> wrote in message > >:
It has nothing to do with competition. It's just more fun if death is
> >: real. Death isn't real if all you have to do as a result of making a
poor
>
frustrating.
> >Why do you feel you should force your preferences on me?
>
> It's a game. Those are the rules of the game. If you don't like them,
> change them, but don't expect us to change them for you, and stop bawling
> us out about our game.
>
So are you saying that *band has reached a peak and cannot be developed
any more? There are always suggestions posted to rgra on what "change"
in the next version. It seems that from what I have read, is that once a
game
has stopped developing, it is a 'dead' game. I know this is not true in
some
cases.
*band is continually changing because of the people that "bawl" about what
is
wrong with the current version. AND I am saying that this is a good thing
and should not be curtailed.
William Tanksley
>> Face it: you're cheating. That by its very definition means that the game
>> isn't designed for your convenience.
>Ahhhh... get off your high horse, already.
High horse? I'm doing nothing other than stating the truth. If the game
was designed the way you want it, what you're doing wouldn't be cheating.
>Somebody above mentioned that the
>game was already hard enough that only the *band player could really expect
>to win without cheating, and that is absolutley right.
Impossible -- you can't win Angband while cheating. Completely
inconceivable. You've won a game, but it's not Angband -- it couldn't be.
_You just broke one of the main rules of Angband_. You can't possibly
claim to win a game that way.
>If you want to limit the game's following to those special few whilst the
>rest of us eventually throw it away with fustration, then you should be
>ashamed;
>a game in which so many of the design decisions are contributed to by this
>group (note _group_, not few) is meant for a wider audience.... not some
>little elitist group.
You guys all seem to assume that "winning" a game is the only way to enjoy
it. It's not, and there's no way you'll understand until you learn to
enjoy the game ITSELF.
Enjoy the game, not the end of the game.
If you get bored of the game when you haven't reached the end, odds are
that you'll be bored of the game when you reach the end as well. How's
that going to change?
>myles.
--
-William "Billy" Tanksley
Daniel Barkalow
> It seems what people really want is an easy way to prevent the
> automatic saving of the character when he/she/it dies.
Possibly also on quiting. I.e., your one copy of a great spellbook burns,
so your character as now going to suck. It'd be nice not to have to kill
yourself to avoid losing it.
> Any comments?
I think this would be good for people playing for fun: the very beginning
gets kind of boring after you do it a lot of times, and the first time
you get to each section is always fun. The advantage of being able to
restore after dying is that you get to play all portions of the game each
time.
I think a possible way of making death still significant would be to
prohibit restarting after aborting for a certain ammount of time. Then
there's a penalty for dying, but it doesn't make you start over. (And of
course people could cheat by changing the system clock, but then they'd
have to keep advancing it, if you couldn't start a saved game with the
time before when the game was saved).
-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*
Bulbasaur
: you'll do nothing but frustrate yourself trying. Play to enjoy the
: game. Expect death, and don't beat yourself up about it. This is not
: an easy mindset to attain; it's very different from most other genres.
: But once you have it, you'll appreciate these games so much more.
Yeah, but it gets annoying starting over again and seeing similar stuff
all the time. I like my games to change as I play them, not start having
hte same stuff over and over again. Granted I haven't gotten really deep
so maybe it starts getting monotonous there, but better than I gotta kill
Farmer Magott again and I gotta worry about the same stuff (instead of new
worries) again...
Frank Muzzulini
> Good points Ben. Note that even in this last case one could still "cheat"
> by dropping link and claiming it was an accident.
That's nonsense. An independantly running game server would simply
save the game when it realizes the link is down, so no matter why you
loose connection, next time you start your client, you are just where
you left.
Muzz
--
___ Frank Muzzulini muzz@irc
<*,*> ... until the colour of a man skin is of no more
[`-'] significance than the colour of his eyes ... Haile Selassie
-"-"-
Ben Harrison
Unless you have changed something in the tombstone code, the savefile
is not touched until the player presses "space" after "You die. -more-",
which, by the way, I changed at one point to be more "vicious", and I
got so many complaints that I changed it back. Apparently, a lot of
people use the "You die." prompt as when to use "abort" and/or when
to back up their savefile. Personally, I just let myself die, and
then use "-w" (or the "wizard" menu option) to come up in wizard mode
and cheat death, because it involves less typing, and seems more
"honest", and also allows me to count how many deaths I have cheated
via my character "age".
In any case, providing a "cheat_abort" option, which would cause the
savefile saving to be skipped if the character is dead (not retired)
should be pretty simple, I will look into it. It is less hard-core
than "cheat_death", but does not affect your social status, but since
I am adding an "option dump" to the character dump, people would still
know what you have been up to.... :-)
--- Ben ---
Robert Ruehlmann <r...@angband.org> writes:
> It seems what people really want is an easy way to prevent the
> automatic saving of the character when he/she/it dies.
>
William Tanksley
>William Tanksley <wtan...@dolphin.openprojects.net> wrote in message > >:
>> It's a game. Those are the rules of the game. If you don't like them,
>> change them, but don't expect us to change them for you, and stop bawling
>> us out about our game.
>So are you saying that *band has reached a peak and cannot be developed
>any more?
I guess I shouldn't complain about being used as a rhetorical foil, but it
is kinda annoying. No, I'm not saying that.
This debate gets kinda stupid. All y'alls have to do is add the feature
you want, and make it a patch, and elect it into the source by acclaim.
Ben can't in the long run ignore you, any more than he can ignore the
people who don't want it in there.
Also, I've seen almost zero argument that this kinda thing would make the
game better. I know from personal experience that it makes the game
worse. What I hear from you is that this would make a completely seperate
defect in the game more tolerable.
Why don't you propose some ways to fix the problem, rather than just
substituting another, equally annoying one in its place?
--
-William "Billy" Tanksley
John D. Goulden
> win (with umpteen deaths along the way, so it doesn't really count). I
> took the decision to play on the straight and narrow, and I think it's
> something that should be looked at, at least, by other people who are
> savescumming.
Well, sure, some day. But right now I'm still very much learning the game --
for instance, I've yet to meet nearly half the Angband uniques and have seen
fewer than half the artifacts. I can usually get a non-save-scumming
character up to level thirty or so but hardly ever beyond that, and frankly
I don't try it that often because it usually takes me a couple of months (as
I said, I'm but a casual player) to get that far and it's frustrating to die
and have to start over. I had three characters last long enough to meet the
Balrog back in the Moria days when we couldn't save-scum; only one survived
His first attack and he didn't last through the second. At several months
invested per character, that's a tough learning curve. Let me get one --
just one, mind you -- win under my belt, then I'll try to win "for real."
William Tanksley
>> I played *band with savescumming up until last year, even registering a
>> win (with umpteen deaths along the way, so it doesn't really count). I
>> took the decision to play on the straight and narrow, and I think it's
>> something that should be looked at, at least, by other people who are
>> savescumming.
>Well, sure, some day. But right now I'm still very much learning the game --
>for instance, I've yet to meet nearly half the Angband uniques and have seen
>fewer than half the artifacts. I can usually get a non-save-scumming
Wow. So your goal is to remove all of the challenge and newness from the
game, and THEN you'll play it the way it was designed to be played?
You have no idea how much you're missing out on.
>John D. Goulden
--
-William "Billy" Tanksley
DarkHalf
And what business is it of yours, really? Play how you want, let us
play how we want. Simple, huh?
William Tanksley
>(William Tanksley) wrote:
>>On Sat, 31 Jul 1999 17:59:59 GMT, John D. Goulden wrote:
>>>> I played *band with savescumming up until last year, even registering a
>>>> win (with umpteen deaths along the way, so it doesn't really count). I
>>>> took the decision to play on the straight and narrow, and I think it's
>>>> something that should be looked at, at least, by other people who are
>>>> savescumming.
>>>Well, sure, some day. But right now I'm still very much learning the game --
>>>for instance, I've yet to meet nearly half the Angband uniques and have seen
>>>fewer than half the artifacts. I can usually get a non-save-scumming
>>Wow. So your goal is to remove all of the challenge and newness from the
>>game, and THEN you'll play it the way it was designed to be played?
>>You have no idea how much you're missing out on.
>And what business is it of yours, really? Play how you want, let us
>play how we want. Simple, huh?
Y'all posted about it. I have as much right to reply as you do to post.
Think about it for a moment and you'll realize this.
Then go ahead and read my post rather than just kneejerking, and observe
its total lack of anger or command. I'm warning you, and I'm serious.
YOU ARE MISSING OUT.
>Darkhalf at Mindspring dot com
--
-William "Billy" Tanksley
DarkHalf
(William Tanksley) wrote:
>
>>And what business is it of yours, really? Play how you want, let us
>>play how we want. Simple, huh?
>
>Y'all posted about it. I have as much right to reply as you do to post.
>Think about it for a moment and you'll realize this.
>
>Then go ahead and read my post rather than just kneejerking, and observe
>its total lack of anger or command. I'm warning you, and I'm serious.
>YOU ARE MISSING OUT.
Who's kneejerking? I'm stating my opinion on the matter. Just because
we're missing on what you enjoy most doesn't mean we'd find what we're
missing out on to be near as much fun.
My response, though, was prompted by the rather hostile response that
the mention of cheats tends to get. (Not necissarily from you in this
instance, but in general) Quite frankly, I find the attitude extremely
childish.
Now... I'll shut up before I step on anymore toes. ;)
--
Darkhalf at Mindspring dot com
bdy...@network.boxmail.com
William Tanksley <wtan...@dolphin.openprojects.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 31 Jul 1999 17:59:59 GMT, John D. Goulden wrote:
>>> I played *band with savescumming up until last year, even registering a
>>> win (with umpteen deaths along the way, so it doesn't really count). I
>>> took the decision to play on the straight and narrow, and I think it's
>>> something that should be looked at, at least, by other people who are
>>> savescumming.
>
>>Well, sure, some day. But right now I'm still very much learning the game --
>>for instance, I've yet to meet nearly half the Angband uniques and have seen
>>fewer than half the artifacts. I can usually get a non-save-scumming
>
>Wow. So your goal is to remove all of the challenge and newness from the
>game, and THEN you'll play it the way it was designed to be played?
>
>You have no idea how much you're missing out on.
So when you've won the game and removed its newness, you won't play
anymore?
If I'd played every combination, seen every monster, cast every spell, and
found every artifact, I'd still play.
--
Brian Dysart | To protect the world from devastation...
bdy...@network.boxmail.com | "...and eight for the fruit bat."
www.rahul.net/bdysart/ | <*> Code Code block: C---
Andy Bell
Wilbur07 wrote in message
<19990730050306...@ng-cm1.aol.com>...
>
>We've all experienced using savefiles, and as Ben says, why not let
cheaters
>cheat when they want to. It's one person's word when they say they
win without
>cheating. When you want to do some experimenting, it's a pain *not*
to have
>the abort option.
>
characters to 1000'. However, when I save-scummed, I didn't know about
the abort option. If you're using windows and open the directory
containing your character Wibble then in 4 mouse clicks, you have a
file called Copy of Wibble. If/when Wibble dies, you delete the
original and rename the copy. Is that so much of a chore?
DarkHalf
See, and the point of this thread was, why was a feature that
permitted cheating removed when the same effect can still be acheived
without it? We're not asking for anything NEW. We're asking for
something old returned. The only suggestions for anything new was to
keep the anti-cheat nazis happy.
Steven Fuerst
>
> Wilbur07 wrote in message
> <19990730050306...@ng-cm1.aol.com>...
> >
> >We've all experienced using savefiles, and as Ben says, why not let
> cheaters
> >cheat when they want to. It's one person's word when they say they
> win without
> >cheating. When you want to do some experimenting, it's a pain *not*
> to have
> >the abort option.
> >
> As you say, we've all used savefiles. I used them till I got a few
> characters to 1000'. However, when I save-scummed, I didn't know about
> the abort option. If you're using windows and open the directory
> containing your character Wibble then in 4 mouse clicks, you have a
> file called Copy of Wibble. If/when Wibble dies, you delete the
> original and rename the copy. Is that so much of a chore?
In [Z] you don't even have to rename the copy. Just select it from the
open menu, and a new save file of the dead character will be created
without the (Copy of ....) part. (Overwriting the old one.)
(At least this happened in 2.21- the last time I tried it.)
Steven
David Damerell
>something old returned. The only suggestions for anything new was to
>keep the anti-cheat nazis happy.
Drop dead. *plonk*
--
David/Kirsty Damerell. dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
CUWoCS President. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~damerell/ Hail Eris!
|___| IV - A Discordian shall Partake of No Hot Dog Buns, for Such was the
| | | Solace of Our Goddess when She was Confronted with The Original Snub.
Robin Munn
not...@nomail.com (DarkHalf) wrote:
> See, and the point of this thread was, why was a feature that
> permitted cheating removed when the same effect can still be acheived
> without it? We're not asking for anything NEW. We're asking for
> keep the anti-cheat nazis happy.
^^^^^
Yes, but by Godwin's Law, this thread is over and you have just lost the
argument.
--
Robin Munn
rm...@pobox.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
DarkHalf
>In article <37a4eca5...@news.mindspring.com>,
> not...@nomail.com (DarkHalf) wrote:
>> See, and the point of this thread was, why was a feature that
>> permitted cheating removed when the same effect can still be acheived
>> without it? We're not asking for anything NEW. We're asking for
>> something old returned. The only suggestions for anything new was to
>> keep the anti-cheat nazis happy.
> ^^^^^
>
>Yes, but by Godwin's Law, this thread is over and you have just lost the
>argument.
::Arches a brow::
So, how's it any worse than the smokers calling the folks pushing for
no smoking in public areas "cigarette nazis"? Geesh, lighten up.
William Tanksley
>On Tue, 03 Aug 1999 00:12:07 GMT, Robin Munn <rm...@pobox.com> wrote:
[DarkHalf calls his opponents nazis]
>>Yes, but by Godwin's Law, this thread is over and you have just lost the
>>argument.
> ::Arches a brow::
>So, how's it any worse than the smokers calling the folks pushing for
>no smoking in public areas "cigarette nazis"?
No worse, no better. They can't post to this thread anymore either, by
Godwin's law.
(Hint: It's an old Usenet joke. Read up on it someday.)
>Geesh, lighten up.
Clue Alert: the person doing the name calling is the one who needs to
lighten up. End Clue Alert.
>Darkhalf at Mindspring dot com
--
-William "Billy" Tanksley
DarkHalf
(William Tanksley) wrote:
[SNIP]
>Clue Alert: the person doing the name calling is the one who needs to
>lighten up. End Clue Alert.
Obviously, some people lack a sense of humor. They take me way too
seriously. If I really had some vendetta or something, far worse names
would have been called......
--
Darkhalf at Mindspring dot com
Jim Mansfield
DarkHalf <not...@nomail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 03 Aug 1999 02:50:44 GMT, wtan...@dolphin.openprojects.net
>(William Tanksley) wrote:
>[SNIP]
>>Clue Alert: the person doing the name calling is the one who needs to
>>lighten up. End Clue Alert.
>
>Obviously, some people lack a sense of humor. They take me way too
>seriously. If I really had some vendetta or something, far worse names
>would have been called......
No one was accusing you of having a vendetta. FYI, here is something
on Godwin's Law:
Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies: As an online discussion grows longer, the
probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
see:
http://www.eff.org/pub/Net_culture/Folklore/Humor/godwins.law
He (William) was trying to point out that this debate has been going on
a _long_, _long_ time on this group.
-Jim
--
Jim Mansfield Internet: Jim.Ma...@nrc.ca
National Research Council of Canada Phone: (204) 984-5191
Institute for Biodiagnostics Fax: (204) 984-5472
http://www.ibd.nrc.ca/~mansfield/
DarkHalf
wrote:
>In article <37ae69af...@news.mindspring.com>,
>DarkHalf <not...@nomail.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 03 Aug 1999 02:50:44 GMT, wtan...@dolphin.openprojects.net
>>(William Tanksley) wrote:
>>[SNIP]
>>>Clue Alert: the person doing the name calling is the one who needs to
>>>lighten up. End Clue Alert.
>>
>>Obviously, some people lack a sense of humor. They take me way too
>>seriously. If I really had some vendetta or something, far worse names
>>would have been called......
>
>No one was accusing you of having a vendetta. FYI, here is something
>on Godwin's Law:
>
>Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies: As an online discussion grows longer, the
>probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
>
>see:
>
>http://www.eff.org/pub/Net_culture/Folklore/Humor/godwins.law
>
>
>He (William) was trying to point out that this debate has been going on
>a _long_, _long_ time on this group.
Ah, okay... Um, actually, it was me carrying over from a debate in
another group. ;p A few long-time oldbies being almost militant in the
enforcement of the NG's FAQ, which has been around longer than 90% of
the posters and running anyone off who proposes a change...
But, that's not really anyone here's concern. ;p