Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Groups keyboard shortcuts have been updated
Dismiss
See shortcuts

Is Nethack too easy? (spoilers)

3,630 views
Skip to first unread message

ManaUser

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 2:42:11 PM1/23/06
to
Someone said they thought the game was curently too easy in another
topic, and I thought it might be interesting to to discuss that in more
detail. Do you agree? If so are there particular parts that should be
harder? Obviously I'm talking about after you've been spoiled. There's
no question that it's plenty hard if you've never read any spoilers or
this newsgroup.

So anyway I was thinking about this, and the biggest thing that came to
mind was how easy it is to get a huge amount of hitpoints. That makes
everything but the first stage of the game a breeze. "Alchemy", combined
with the fact that a b!oFH is worth 8 max HP seems particularly unbalanced.

--
My email address: http://manauser.info/email.gif

Inlaw Biker

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 3:05:47 PM1/23/06
to

I think that since most people don't ascend their first character for a
period of years, Nethack is probably the most difficult computer game
ever conceived. If it's become too easy, well, that's what the
voluntary challenges are for. Just eliminating wishes and genocide
makes the game significantly more difficult.

Alchemy for hit points makes the later stages easier, but I have
ascended plenty of times without using alchemy for b!oFH. It's the
beginning stages that are the most difficult.

You can try all kinds of different tactics to make the game more
interesting. Personally I usually play Pacifist until my pet is around
exp level 9.

Greg

Xeno

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 3:42:36 PM1/23/06
to

ManaUser wrote:

<snip> about Nethack possibly being to easy.

>
> So anyway I was thinking about this, and the biggest thing that came to
> mind was how easy it is to get a huge amount of hitpoints. That makes
> everything but the first stage of the game a breeze. "Alchemy", combined
> with the fact that a b!oFH is worth 8 max HP seems particularly unbalanced.

Well I've always thought that the simplest way to solve this is to make
any 'diluted' healing potion NOT give you extra MaxHP. Since all
alchemised potions are diluted this should stop the main abuse of
alchemy, at least for the healing potions. You would only get useful
powerful healing potions not the extra MaxHP.

What do you all think?

ManaUser

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 4:03:36 PM1/23/06
to

I like it. It makes sense (well, as much as this kind of thing can) and
solves the problem (if you believe there is one) quite nicely.

Xeno

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 5:06:58 PM1/23/06
to
ManaUser wrote:
> Xeno wrote:
> > ManaUser wrote:
> >
> > <snip> about Nethack possibly being to easy.
> >
> >

<snip> about diluted (or alchemised) healing potions not giving maxHP
gains

> >
> > What do you all think?
>
> I like it. It makes sense (well, as much as this kind of thing can) and
> solves the problem (if you believe there is one) quite nicely.
>

Glad you like the idea. It has been buzzing around in my head for a
while.
Well since it is pretty simple to do here is a 'diff' for 3.4.3 for
anybody interested.
Don't forget to fix the line wraps (i.e. any no -,+,@ or ' ' at the
start of a line not in the 'header'), should just be a few.
O.K it does make the post a bit long, but hey!

!!!!!!!!!!!

diff -Naur nethack-3.4.3/src/potion.c nethack-diluted/src/potion.c
--- nethack-3.4.3/src/potion.c Mon Jan 23 21:52:28 2006
+++ nethack-diluted/src/potion.c Mon Jan 23 21:52:14 2006
@@ -784,16 +784,16 @@
*/
u.uexp = rndexp(TRUE);
break;
- case POT_HEALING:
+ case POT_HEALING: /* All healing potions now don't increase MaxHP if
diluted */
You_feel("better.");
healup(d(6 + 2 * bcsign(otmp), 4),
- !otmp->cursed ? 1 : 0, !!otmp->blessed, !otmp->cursed);
+ !otmp->cursed ? 1 : 0, (!!otmp->blessed)*(!otmp->odiluted),
!otmp->cursed);
exercise(A_CON, TRUE);
break;
case POT_EXTRA_HEALING:
You_feel("much better.");
healup(d(6 + 2 * bcsign(otmp), 8),
- otmp->blessed ? 5 : !otmp->cursed ? 2 : 0,
+ (otmp->blessed ? 5 : !otmp->cursed ? 2 :
0)*(!otmp->odiluted),
!otmp->cursed, TRUE);
(void) make_hallucinated(0L,TRUE,0L);
exercise(A_CON, TRUE);
@@ -801,7 +801,7 @@
break;
case POT_FULL_HEALING:
You_feel("completely healed.");
- healup(400, 4+4*bcsign(otmp), !otmp->cursed, TRUE);
+ healup(400, (4+4*bcsign(otmp))*(!otmp->odiluted), !otmp->cursed,
TRUE);
/* Restore one lost level if blessed */
if (otmp->blessed && u.ulevel < u.ulevelmax) {
/* when multiple levels have been lost, drinking

!!!!!!!!!!!

and why not one for Slashem aswell!! ;-)

!!!!!!!!!!!

diff -Naur slashem-0.0.7E7F2/src/potion.c slashem-diluted/src/potion.c
--- slashem-0.0.7E7F2/src/potion.c Sun Dec 4 14:58:28 2005
+++ slashem-diluted/src/potion.c Mon Jan 23 21:23:04 2006
@@ -916,16 +916,16 @@
*/
u.uexp = rndexp(TRUE);
break;
- case POT_HEALING:
+ case POT_HEALING: /* All healing potions now don't increase MaxHP if
diluted */
You_feel("better.");
healup(d(5,6) + 5 * bcsign(otmp),
- !otmp->cursed ? 1 : 0, 1+1*!!otmp->blessed, !otmp->cursed);
+ !otmp->cursed ? 1 : 0,
(1+1*!!otmp->blessed)*(!otmp->odiluted), !otmp->cursed);
exercise(A_CON, TRUE);
break;
case POT_EXTRA_HEALING:
You_feel("much better.");
healup(d(6,8) + 5 * bcsign(otmp),
- otmp->blessed ? 5 : !otmp->cursed ? 2 : 0,
+ (otmp->blessed ? 5 : !otmp->cursed ? 2 :
0)*(!otmp->odiluted),
!otmp->cursed, TRUE);
(void) make_hallucinated(0L,TRUE,0L);
exercise(A_CON, TRUE);
@@ -933,7 +933,7 @@
break;
case POT_FULL_HEALING:
You_feel("completely healed.");
- healup(400, 4+4*bcsign(otmp), !otmp->cursed, TRUE);
+ healup(400, (4+4*bcsign(otmp))*(!otmp->odiluted), !otmp->cursed,
TRUE);
/* Restore one lost level if blessed */
if (otmp->blessed && u.ulevel < u.ulevelmax) {
/* when multiple levels have been lost, drinking

!!!!!!!!!!!

Gregory Weston

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 5:25:29 PM1/23/06
to
In article <kkaBf.52$772...@fe05.lga>, ManaUser <lo...@sig.invalid>
wrote:

> Someone said they thought the game was curently too easy in another
> topic, and I thought it might be interesting to to discuss that in more
> detail. Do you agree? If so are there particular parts that should be
> harder? Obviously I'm talking about after you've been spoiled. There's
> no question that it's plenty hard if you've never read any spoilers or
> this newsgroup.

I'd say that's the crux of it. Once you know how to do it, I'd assume
you know how to do it. (I have to assume, never having actually
ascended.) Throwing arbitrary road blocks in the way for the sake of
making it harder sounds like it would be more frustrating than anything
else.

G

--
"Congurutulation!!!" - The subject line on some spam I received last night.
I have no idea what it means, but it's such a cool "word" (by which I mean
pronouncable sequence of letters) regardless.

L

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 8:59:01 PM1/23/06
to
The middle game would be sufficiently harder if:

* Hell-only monsters did more melee damage
* Intrinsic resistances were less powerful than extrinsic resistances
(thus adding more variety to gameplay)
* Magic cancellation was less powerful

That'd make Gehennom more exciting, don't you think?

Martin Read

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 8:56:42 PM1/23/06
to
ManaUser <lo...@sig.invalid> wrote:
>Someone said they thought the game was curently too easy in another
>topic, and I thought it might be interesting to to discuss that in more
>detail. Do you agree? If so are there particular parts that should be
>harder?

Things I would do:

There would be monsters that a 30th level saber expert with maxed luck,
maxed stats, and the blessed +7 Grayswandir (total to-hit bonus under
the current regime considerably in excess of +50) does not have a 100%
chance of hitting. The ideal way to do this would be to refactor the
to-hit mechanics from the ground up.

Damage reduction due to negative armour class would be capped at a
certain percentage of the attack's rolled damage.

Damage reduction due to negative armour class would apply to the monsters
as well as the player.

Getting a full set of intrinsic resistances would be harder. I rather
like the suggestion that one should not be able to have intrinsic fire
and cold resistance simultaneously - if you want both at once, then you
have to either get one of them from your equipment, or get crowned.

Sufficient sacrifices (where "sufficient" would depend on your level
and so forth) would get you crowned without praying. In addition to
the increased prayer timeout, crowned characters would cease to receive
any service except trouble-fixing from their god - no artifacts from
sacrifice and no spellbooks or golden glows from prayer.

(This is unsatisfactory, but I lack the effort to design a better
proposal right now, since it would involve increasing the
differentiation between gods.)

Player spells' maximum damage would be toned down according to the level
of the spell. Magic missile would no longer be able to do 15d6 damage,
but would instead hit a cap at (for example) 7d6.

Fire, cold, shock, and acid resistance should reduce incoming damage
of that type by some amount (probably a percentage of the total damage)
rather than negating it completely. The behaviour of disintegration
resistance would be unchanged.

Reflection would have no effect on certain breath weapons - fire, cold,
sleep, acid, and poison gas. Disintegration, lightning, and magic
missile would continue to be reflected.

The player's maximum hit points would not be able to escalate without
meaningful limit; the current hard cap for nurse dancing (25 hp/level)
would be extended to cover all sources of hit point gain, and it would
be used as an asymptotic limit.

Duplicated monsters (water-spawned gremlins, split puddings, etc) would
never yield a death drop even if subsequently polymorphed, etc. The
first such corpse you offered would have a sacrifice value of zero (and
yield a message expressing your deity's disappointment); subsequent
such offerings would have actively negative consequences.

I admit to rather liking the "diluted potions shouldn't give bonus max
HP" proposal, so I'd probably run with that one too. Also, there would
be constraints on how many potions you can alchemise with a single dip.
--
Martin Read - my opinions are my own. share them if you wish.
\_\/_/ http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~mpread/dungeonbash/
\ / "tempted white eyes blinded by the night hollow like the towers from the
\/ inside laura's a machine she's burning insane" fields of the nephilim

Ian-Keith

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 10:20:50 PM1/23/06
to
<snip>Martin listing umpteen million ideas to make Nethack more
imposible<snip>

It's a good thing I don't want the game any harder. This would just be
cruel. It'd be like Slash'em, with less stuff, and more dying. So...
"'Em".

The rest of you folk can have all these fun, pretty things. I'll stick
with vanilla 3.4.3 until I can get a character where class is not equal
to valkyrie to get past minetown.

Which'll never happen.

Gary Olson

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 10:44:04 PM1/23/06
to
ManaUser wrote:
> Someone said they thought the game was curently too easy in another
> topic, and I thought it might be interesting to to discuss that in more
> detail. Do you agree? If so are there particular parts that should be
> harder? Obviously I'm talking about after you've been spoiled. There's
> no question that it's plenty hard if you've never read any spoilers or
> this newsgroup.
>
Like all games, Nethack is a skill -- spoiled or not. I would expect
many here in this newsgroup are "in the top section of the curve" for
Nethack skill -- Marvin is the 5 sigma guy. Therefore, many of you think
the game easy.

Let's consider my current game in terms of easy. The magician has
completed the entire dungeon except for the WoY tower. The RNG has been
extremely stingy: no scrolls of genocide, no AoLS, only one pair of
magical boots found on Orcus level(speed), no magical cloaks beyond
starting equipment, no magical gloves, no magical helmets, one wand of
death, one magic marker, no Ludios, etc.
I have just spent 40,000 turns over 6 weeks doing a sacfest in order to
obtain the necessities for ascension. I have a chest full of junk,
useless scrolls, artifact weapons I will never use, and a rainbow of
dragon scales except the coveted scales. Some may say this is an easy
method for increasing stats and equipment. The pure tediousness is a
great method for causing carelessness. If you think tedium is easy, by
all means enjoy yourself.

This is just one example which shows even a thoroughly spoiled player
can have a difficult time ascending. No, I don't think the game is too
easy. The progression from early game attempting to survive, middle game
maintaining composure during incredible tedium, end game rush to ascend
without forgetting a key piece of information (think Vorpal) provides
enough basic difficulty.

I don't think we should focus on increasing the difficulty of Nethack
thru direct methods. By increasing the depth and complexity of the game
(see discussion on shallow water YANI), we can create a seemingly more
difficult game by creating complex distractions.

L

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 10:56:13 PM1/23/06
to
>Getting a full set of intrinsic resistances would be harder.

Personally, I prefer simply making intrinsic resistances less powerful.
(I'm working on a patch in this vein.)

>There would be monsters that a 30th level saber expert with maxed luck,
>maxed stats, and the blessed +7 Grayswandir (total to-hit bonus under
>the current regime considerably in excess of +50) does not have a 100%
>chance of hitting. The ideal way to do this would be to refactor the
>to-hit mechanics from the ground up.

Or the monster in question could have -20 AC (which I think would
promote some... interesting strategies for less powerful players.)

>Reflection would have no effect on certain breath weapons - fire, cold,
>sleep, acid, and poison gas. Disintegration, lightning, and magic
>missile would continue to be reflected.

I disagree. Reflection is defined as a magic-based protective field
that 'bounces" elemental rays. It isn't even necessarily light-based
(amulets of reflection do not, for example, have tiny mirrors embedded
in them.) I think it should reflect everything _except_ disintegration
(because otherwise Reflection ends up being synonymous with
disintegration resistance. At least, until Mr. Webb's Disintegrator
monster gets added to the game.)

Here's a YANI: a matter/enchantment spell that grants Reflection with a
timeout. And, while we're at it, one that grants Magic Resistance with
a timeout.

ManaUser

unread,
Jan 23, 2006, 11:23:41 PM1/23/06
to
ManaUser wrote:
> Someone said they thought the game was curently too easy in another
> topic, and I thought it might be interesting to to discuss that in more
> detail. Do you agree? If so are there particular parts that should be
> harder?

I was also going to suggest capping prayer protection the same as
donation protection (not necessarily combined), but getting a super low
AC that way is undeniably a lot of work, so it may be a case for the "If
you don't like it, don't /do/ it" philosophy.

paul...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jan 24, 2006, 12:27:09 AM1/24/06
to

ManaUser wrote:
> Someone said they thought the game was curently too easy in another
> topic, and I thought it might be interesting to to discuss that in more
> detail. Do you agree?

I've never ascended so I find the current Nethack quite challenging. I
beat Rogue years ago but never Nethack. Of course, I've gone years
between Nethack attempts and I usually die because I do something
stupid or hit the wrong key (last game I died running into a floating
eye moving my stash from Minetown to the dungeon).

I'd eliminate as much "cheese" as possible:

1. cap the AC gain from donations/prayer
2. cap HP gain (as you suggested)
3. Limit Elbereth usage somewhat - your god has a chance of getting
angry with you every time you enscribe her name ("thou wouldst have
other gods before me?")
4. Limit pudding farming by the evolution idea - they become more
powerful the more of them you kill. This doesn't eliminate farming -
just makes it harder.

Little White Mouse

unread,
Jan 24, 2006, 12:55:18 AM1/24/06
to
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 11:42:11 -0800, ManaUser wrote:

> Someone said they thought the game was curently too easy in another topic,
> and I thought it might be interesting to to discuss that in more detail.
> Do you agree? If so are there particular parts that should be harder?
> Obviously I'm talking about after you've been spoiled. There's no question
> that it's plenty hard if you've never read any spoilers or this newsgroup.
>

Play Slash'em unspoiled.

My *god* I haven't survived long at all! I finally have someone past
minetown, past whatever the other town is, with 3 pets, a magic whistle,
and a wand of Temporary Polymorph (whatever it is...) I'm hoping for a
Bag of Holding in Sokoban...and I'd like to survive Sokoban, as well :)

It's a little harder, because the monsters don't have useful information
with /...but we do what we can.

Anyway, leave Nethack as hard as it is. If you want 24894 more rules,
play slashem. And die.

--LWM

Christian Bressler

unread,
Jan 24, 2006, 3:52:40 AM1/24/06
to
Gary Olson <gary...@pobox.nospam.com> wrote:

: ManaUser wrote:
:> Someone said they thought the game was curently too easy in another
:> topic, and I thought it might be interesting to to discuss that in more
:> detail. Do you agree? If so are there particular parts that should be
:> harder? Obviously I'm talking about after you've been spoiled. There's
:> no question that it's plenty hard if you've never read any spoilers or
:> this newsgroup.
: Like all games, Nethack is a skill -- spoiled or not. I would expect
: many here in this newsgroup are "in the top section of the curve" for
: Nethack skill -- Marvin is the 5 sigma guy. Therefore, many of you think
: the game easy.

<grin>
Hmm, as far as I can see, the terrain is plain flat, no bell curve in
seight.
</grin>

: Let's consider my current game in terms of easy. The magician has

: completed the entire dungeon except for the WoY tower. The RNG has been
: extremely stingy: no scrolls of genocide, no AoLS, only one pair of
: magical boots found on Orcus level(speed), no magical cloaks beyond
: starting equipment, no magical gloves, no magical helmets, one wand of
: death, one magic marker, no Ludios, etc.
: I have just spent 40,000 turns over 6 weeks doing a sacfest in order to
: obtain the necessities for ascension. I have a chest full of junk,
: useless scrolls, artifact weapons I will never use, and a rainbow of
: dragon scales except the coveted scales. Some may say this is an easy
: method for increasing stats and equipment. The pure tediousness is a
: great method for causing carelessness. If you think tedium is easy, by
: all means enjoy yourself.

Hmm, speed, MR, a wand of death, a (MM, vairous dragon scales ...
If you are not foodless that means all intrinsics.
There is also the guaranteed /WoW.
What are you looking for?
If you lack reflection and fear disintegration wear blackDSM and protect
all your fragile stuff in a bag.
Avoiding bee-lines should save your loot most of the time.

: This is just one example which shows even a thoroughly spoiled player

: can have a difficult time ascending. No, I don't think the game is too
: easy. The progression from early game attempting to survive, middle game
: maintaining composure during incredible tedium, end game rush to ascend
: without forgetting a key piece of information (think Vorpal) provides
: enough basic difficulty.

I second that.

Marvin
aka mrivan on NAO

L

unread,
Jan 24, 2006, 5:02:35 AM1/24/06
to
>I have just spent 40,000 turns over 6 weeks doing a sacfest in order to
> obtain the necessities for ascension.

Ideally, the so-called "necessary items for ascension" wouldn't be so
narrow a subset of all items.

There ought to be even more ways to obtain the important attributes.
Would my aforementioned suggestion about Reflection or Magic Resistance
spells be useful, perhaps? (Do many people eschew speed boots for the
haste self spell?)

I, and a few others, think magic resistance is too general an
attribute, covering too many scenarios. I reckon it should be split up
into mana/magic missile resistance (which gray DSM would confer), spell
resistance, and death resistance. While spell resistance would remain a
high priority, the others would be precautionary measures (much like
acid resistance is now.)
To be fair though, death resistance's importance would have to be
reduced by dumping the monsters' Touch of Death spell (which is both
obnoxious and dumb). If that was done, ascending without death
resistance while using Reflection to stop death rays _could_ be
feasable.

Jove

unread,
Jan 24, 2006, 7:38:11 AM1/24/06
to
On 24 Jan 2006 02:02:35 -0800, "L" <L_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>I have just spent 40,000 turns over 6 weeks doing a sacfest in order to
>> obtain the necessities for ascension.
>
>Ideally, the so-called "necessary items for ascension" wouldn't be so
>narrow a subset of all items.
>

It isn't. Look at speed ascenders.

<snip>

--
All the best,

Jove

Jove

unread,
Jan 24, 2006, 8:32:04 AM1/24/06
to
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 11:42:11 -0800, ManaUser <lo...@sig.invalid>
wrote:

>Someone said they thought the game was curently too easy in another
>topic, and I thought it might be interesting to to discuss that in more
>detail. Do you agree?


You seem to be confusing "can be won with much practice, dying,
spoiling, care, and patience" with "easy".


As I've posted before, what makes Nethack hard is the "house of
cards" aspect of not preserving saved games upon permanent
character death. One mistake and all your time and effort is for
naught. (Save scum and ascension is trivial.)

>If so are there particular parts that should be
>harder?


No. If I want the game to be harder for me it's trivial to
make it so. The DevTeam has kindly included conducts to permit
high level players to tune game difficulty to their own level of
play.


>Obviously I'm talking about after you've been spoiled.

Then the solution is to try conducts, or more difficult roles,
or never consult a spoiler again, or play Slash'Em. That way you
can tune the difficulty level to your satisfaction without
stomping even harder on new players.


>There's
>no question that it's plenty hard if you've never read any spoilers or
>this newsgroup.

You just answered your own question.


If you want a new challenge, instead of tuning the base
difficulty level of Nethack to *your* current level of play, try
playing Slash'Em.

From:
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.roguelike.nethack/msg/93c178c839a2911a?dmode=source&hl=en>

From: Rob Ellwood <rob.ellw...@home.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 19:04:24 GMT

        "Also, the Dev Teams seem to be getting their player
feedback from the newsgroups instead of unspoiled players.  
This means that difficulty levels escalate to where even an
expert, heavily spoiled player is challenged."


"Commercial games want you to win.
NetHack doesn't care if you win or lose.
Slash'em wants you DEAD."


That was four and a half years ago.

>
>So anyway I was thinking about this, and the biggest thing that came to
>mind was how easy it is to get a huge amount of hitpoints. That makes
>everything but the first stage of the game a breeze. "Alchemy", combined
>with the fact that a b!oFH is worth 8 max HP seems particularly unbalanced.

You seem to be confusing "huge amount of hit points" with
"insta-win."

For the difference, see:
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.roguelike.nethack/msg/69bf6acc0fdfe3ae?dmode=source&hl=en>

Or any thread with "YASD" or "YAAD" in the subject.


And there are other ways to get huge amounts of hit points:

<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.roguelike.nethack/msg/707e7cd63e934089?dmode=source&hl=en>

I hadn't quaffed a single healing potion of any kind in that
game. (I suspect the same is true for Topi in his game in that
thread.)


I've actually found that about 110 max hit points is enough.
When my hit points get below 100, everything to right of hit
points in the status line shifts, drawing my attention to it.

I don't generally try to specifically increase my hit points,
unless I get a positively enchanted ring of gain constitution.
My hit point gains are generally a side effect of activities
performed with other goals in mind.

For yourself, you could just limit the amount of hit points
you'll let yourself get in a game. (Remember that the Orb of
Fate effectively doubles your hit points.) That way Nethack
won't
be locked into a hit point limit that probably won't be
appropriate for all players/roles.

So what if it's not an "official" DevTeam conduct. Conducts
kept aren't recorded in the score file anyway.


The best way I can think of to put the challenge back into the
game while preserving the spirit of Nethack is to try for speed
ascensions. (Scoring YANI: for every turn under your previous
quickest ascension, double your score.)


Speed ascensions seem to mean using what you find and playing
carefully. No more "perfect" Ascension Kits.


And if you want a real challenge, try zen, or foodless,
atheist, and polyselfless.

So if you want the game more difficult for yourself, the
possibilities are nearly endless, without changing Nethack
itself at all.

David Damerell

unread,
Jan 24, 2006, 9:32:22 AM1/24/06
to
Quoting Inlaw Biker <gmons...@yahoo.com>:
>I think that since most people don't ascend their first character for a
>period of years, Nethack is probably the most difficult computer game
>ever conceived.

You've never played Crawl, have you? :-)
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is Gloucesterday, January.

David Damerell

unread,
Jan 24, 2006, 9:35:00 AM1/24/06
to
Quoting Xeno <XenoTh...@gmail.com>:

>ManaUser wrote:
>>So anyway I was thinking about this, and the biggest thing that came to
>>mind was how easy it is to get a huge amount of hitpoints. That makes
>>everything but the first stage of the game a breeze. "Alchemy", combined
>>with the fact that a b!oFH is worth 8 max HP seems particularly unbalanced.
>Well I've always thought that the simplest way to solve this is to make
>any 'diluted' healing potion NOT give you extra MaxHP.

A more general solution is necessary; it should not be possible to
increase character attributes without limit. For example, for MaxHP, if
your MHP exceeds a certain multiple of your level, gains in MHP should
have a reduced effect, with a hard cap at some point. Nurse dancing is
already so implemented.

With this in place, the effect of alchemy would necessarily be limited
(although I'd favour halving the effect of diluted potions).

This doesn't affect the difficulty of the game for unspoiled players at
all.

David Damerell

unread,
Jan 24, 2006, 9:50:44 AM1/24/06
to
[I know we've talked a lot of this over IRL...]

Quoting Martin Read <mpr...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>:
>There would be monsters that a 30th level saber expert with maxed luck,
>maxed stats, and the blessed +7 Grayswandir (total to-hit bonus under
>the current regime considerably in excess of +50) does not have a 100%
>chance of hitting. The ideal way to do this would be to refactor the
>to-hit mechanics from the ground up.

While reducing the total scale of to-hit bonuses is certainly a useful
effect, I don't really think you can sensibly avoid a variation of more
than 20 at the high end, and I don't much fancy a complete reworking of
the system.

>Damage reduction due to negative armour class would be capped at a
>certain percentage of the attack's rolled damage.
>Damage reduction due to negative armour class would apply to the monsters
>as well as the player.

This only applies if monsters can gain significant negative AC; at the
moment they really don't have it. Giving high-level monsters *large* AC
improvements would also have to be part of any such changes - for example
I proposed a flat extra point per hit die with the base AC of some
lowlevel monsters adjusted to put them back where they started.

I propose the following; negative AC works for both to-hit and damage
adjustments for both players and monsters; player to-hit bonuses are cut
back somewhat, but players still hit most or all of the time; excess
to-hit offsets damage reduction; rework monster attacks to do sensibly
large amounts of damage at high levels; cap hitpoint gains.

We could also do with reworking magic resistance - I've heard your spiel
about how Crawl has no all-or-nothing resistances and I agree. Perhaps
existing MR items could provide a large but not absolute resistance to MR
effects and all other magical armour provide a small modicum of
resistance, and no effect would be absolutely fatal. For example, a death
touch would do massive damage, but if you had a decent selection of magical
armour (but no MR item) and a boatload of HP you'd survive. You'd still be
in trouble, having had most of your HP blown off in one go.

David Damerell

unread,
Jan 24, 2006, 9:52:18 AM1/24/06
to
Quoting Gary Olson <gary...@pobox.NOSPAM.com>:
>Let's consider my current game in terms of easy. The magician has
>completed the entire dungeon except for the WoY tower. The RNG has been
>extremely stingy: no scrolls of genocide, no AoLS, only one pair of
>magical boots found on Orcus level(speed), no magical cloaks beyond
>starting equipment, no magical gloves, no magical helmets, one wand of
>death, one magic marker, no Ludios, etc.

It sounds to me that with that and the Castle wand you have more than
enough stuff to make a pretty good go of it.

David Damerell

unread,
Jan 24, 2006, 9:59:01 AM1/24/06
to
Quoting Jove <inv...@invalid.invalid>:
[Quoting Rob Ellwood]

>"Also, the Dev Teams seem to be getting their player
>feedback from the newsgroups instead of unspoiled players.
>This means that difficulty levels escalate to where even an
>expert, heavily spoiled player is challenged."

I don't think this is really the case. I first ascended in 3.1.3; there
was no alchemy then, no-one had invented pudding farming, I spurned
Elbereth and polypiling and the then-current cheap techniques like
paralysing Rodney.

The game was tough and challenging without those techniques, but obviously
winnable by someone who was neither expert nor heavily spoiled, and I
think that is still true now.

The problem we have today is that a number of things make the game be not
challenging at all. Alchemy, for example, can grant so many hitpoints that
you cannot die by taking physical damage. Eliminating that effect doesn't
make the game harder for an inexpert lightly spoiled player; they may
increase their HP a bit with potions, but they'll never do the mass
production that would run you up against a hard cap on alchemy. On the
contrary; once HP gains are toned down, air elementals will need toned
down - currently, they're in a silly arms race (silly because the HP side
of the race is unlimited in effect). That's good news for the less expert
player because right now they meet the air elementals but don't get the
massive hitpoints.

Roy L. Fuchs

unread,
Jan 24, 2006, 12:09:47 PM1/24/06
to
On 24 Jan 2006 01:56:42 +0000 (GMT), Martin Read
<mpr...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Gave us:

>alchemise


Yep.... one sees it all here... :-]

Roy L. Fuchs

unread,
Jan 24, 2006, 12:28:31 PM1/24/06
to
On 24 Jan 2006 08:52:40 GMT, Christian Bressler
<gas...@cs.tu-berlin.de> Gave us:

>bee-lines

I have never understood this colloquialism.

Bees never fly in a straight line, so "making a bee-line" for
something would hardly describe a "straight shot".

Funny. None shall pass!

Gary Olson

unread,
Jan 24, 2006, 9:20:18 PM1/24/06
to
David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting Gary Olson <gary...@pobox.NOSPAM.com>:
>
>>Let's consider my current game in terms of easy. The magician has
>>completed the entire dungeon except for the WoY tower. The RNG has been
>>extremely stingy: no scrolls of genocide, no AoLS, only one pair of
>>magical boots found on Orcus level(speed), no magical cloaks beyond
>>starting equipment, no magical gloves, no magical helmets, one wand of
>>death, one magic marker, no Ludios, etc.
>
> It sounds to me that with that and the Castle wand you have more than
> enough stuff to make a pretty good go of it.

I need a spellbook of Finger of Death. I have yet to ascend a wizard;
the Wizard of Yendor always gets me on the final dash for lack of a
method to kill him quickly. Anhur has deemed it necessary to provide a
spellbook of Detect Unseen when I was crowned. I guess my god is not
omniscient to see the blessed orb I have in the chest called StashIII.

L

unread,
Jan 25, 2006, 12:12:27 AM1/25/06
to
>Anhur has deemed it necessary to provide a spellbook of Detect Unseen when I >was crowned.

That's completely impossible. If you were chosen as the Glory of
Arioch, you would have recieved either finger of death or Stormbringer
- nothing else.

Little White Mouse

unread,
Jan 25, 2006, 12:56:29 AM1/25/06
to
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:20:18 -0600, Gary Olson wrote:
> I need a spellbook of Finger of Death. I have yet to ascend a wizard; the
> Wizard of Yendor always gets me on the final dash for lack of a method to
> kill him quickly.

Well, it may not be quick...but beating him to death with the +2 Magicbane
is always an option :)

I've found a couple of ways to deal with him as a W - especially since I
often miss with the finger!

1. !oParalysis. Ok, that's not just a wizard, but still - gives enough
time to bring Magicbane to bear <G>
2. Magic Missle + walls + Reflection. Rodney just doesn't last long...

And if yer really desperate, you can always try to write one - remember,
you're a wizard, so you have a good chance of just writing a spellbook!

HTH,

LWM

Jove

unread,
Jan 25, 2006, 5:54:34 AM1/25/06
to
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 05:56:29 GMT, Little White Mouse
<little...@verizon.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:20:18 -0600, Gary Olson wrote:
>> I need a spellbook of Finger of Death. I have yet to ascend a wizard; the
>> Wizard of Yendor always gets me on the final dash for lack of a method to
>> kill him quickly.
>
>Well, it may not be quick...but beating him to death with the +2 Magicbane
>is always an option :)

Enchant Magicbane to +6/7. That will give 4 more points of
damage per hit than +2. (You don't want the Wizard of Yendor
scared/stunned/confused/canceled. You want Rodney *dead*.)

If Magicbane goes to +6, consider cursing it and engraving
a single letter with it. That will take Magicbane back to
+5 so you can try again for +7. (Using a blessed scroll
of enchant weapon on Magicbane will uncurse it for you.)

A stack of highly enchanted daggers can do a lot of damage
when thrown by an Expert.


>
>I've found a couple of ways to deal with him as a W - especially since I
>often miss with the finger!

I don't recall ever missing Rodney with the finger of death.


>
>1. !oParalysis. Ok, that's not just a wizard, but still - gives enough
>time to bring Magicbane to bear <G>

If you have a ring of free action, wield a single !oPara. This
will paralyze whatever you hit so you can perform surgery with
Magicbane.


>2. Magic Missle + walls + Reflection. Rodney just doesn't last long...

Especially if you're at XL 30: Averages 48 pts of damage per
hit. (NB: Being at XL 30 also greatly increases your chances of
getting an unknown spellbook when praying.)


>
>And if yer really desperate, you can always try to write one - remember,
>you're a wizard, so you have a good chance of just writing a spellbook!
>

Excellent chance, if you've maximized your luck. Generally at
least one of my wishes is for a magic marker to write critical
spellbooks.

Or poly spare spellbooks.

--
Nethack IS easy, if you play it the right way.
Try killing things from a distance.
All the best,
Jove

Gary Olson

unread,
Jan 25, 2006, 10:35:30 AM1/25/06
to
I was already weilding Stormy (gifted from a previous sacrifice, not
praying). Anhur commented on this and gave the weapon another +.

David Damerell

unread,
Jan 25, 2006, 12:21:52 PM1/25/06
to
Quoting Gary Olson <gary...@pobox.NOSPAM.com>:
>David Damerell wrote:
>>Quoting Gary Olson <gary...@pobox.NOSPAM.com>:
>>>Let's consider my current game in terms of easy. The magician has
>>>completed the entire dungeon except for the WoY tower. The RNG has been
>>>extremely stingy:
>>It sounds to me that with that and the Castle wand you have more than
>>enough stuff to make a pretty good go of it.
>I need a spellbook of Finger of Death.

Well, no, you don't; but you have the Castle wand, you can wish for one.

>I have yet to ascend a wizard;
>the Wizard of Yendor always gets me on the final dash for lack of a
>method to kill him quickly.

One of the many artifact weapons you say you have?
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is Leicesterday, January.

Andreas Dorn

unread,
Jan 25, 2006, 2:04:41 PM1/25/06
to
paul...@yahoo.com wrote:
> ManaUser wrote:
>
>>Someone said they thought the game was curently too easy in another
>>topic, and I thought it might be interesting to to discuss that in more
>>detail. Do you agree?

In general Nethack is as difficult as I want it to be, but surely some
"abuses" could be removed.

> I'd eliminate as much "cheese" as possible:
>
> 1. cap the AC gain from donations/prayer

I second that.

> 2. cap HP gain (as you suggested)

Instead of tuning alchemy down I think it would be more useful to cut
down the cheap ways to get items. (see 4)

> 3. Limit Elbereth usage somewhat - your god has a chance of getting
> angry with you every time you enscribe her name ("thou wouldst have
> other gods before me?")

Yes, Elbereth is surely overpowered. Maybe only letters written with
fire or blood should work (for a limited number of turns). Or at least
it should noticabely use up some resources (protection/luck/..?!?).

> 4. Limit pudding farming by the evolution idea - they become more
> powerful the more of them you kill. This doesn't eliminate farming -
> just makes it harder.

I think in Adom this idea is called the uber-jackal bug. And it really
sucks. But stopping unlimited item/HP/Protection-generation is surely a
good idea and it could be done in various ways...

--
Andreas

Martin Read

unread,
Jan 25, 2006, 3:47:36 PM1/25/06
to
Andreas Dorn <ador...@web.de> wrote:
>I think in Adom this idea is called the uber-jackal bug. And it really
>sucks. But stopping unlimited item/HP/Protection-generation is surely a
>good idea and it could be done in various ways...

The trivial: Change things so that clones (split puddings, water-spawned
gremlins, etc.) have no death drop, award no XP, and leave no corpse.
Even if polymorphed subsequent to cloning.

Hey presto. No nutrition, no sacrifice value, no XP, no treasure.

Eric

unread,
Jan 25, 2006, 4:54:34 PM1/25/06
to
On 25 January 2006, Andreas Dorn wrote:

> paul...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> 4. Limit pudding farming by the evolution idea - they become more
>> powerful the more of them you kill. This doesn't eliminate farming -
>> just makes it harder.
>
> I think in Adom this idea is called the uber-jackal bug. And it really
> sucks. But stopping unlimited item/HP/Protection-generation is surely a
> good idea and it could be done in various ways...

There is a start along these lines implemented at
http://www.brainshell.org/patches/nethack/nofarming.diff
(Already submitted to the Nethack Patch Database.)

Instead of making the puddings stronger, it limits how often they can be
divided, by reducing their max HP like gremlins do now. Note that this
actually makes the game *easier* for the unspoiled player, because the
extra puddings will be easier to kill; the spoiled player can still
benefit from careful farming, but not nearly as much.

- Eric

L

unread,
Jan 25, 2006, 9:19:52 PM1/25/06
to
>There is a start along these lines implemented at
>http://www.brainshell.org/patches/nethack/nofarming.diff
>(Already submitted to the Nethack Patch Database.)

I have a problem with this patch's attribution of puddings as
"lifeless". D&D (i.e the pudding's origin mythos) says that "Puddings
are voracious, puddinglike monsters composed of groups of cell colonies
that scavenge and hunt for food." Hence, there is no magic involved in
their animation - they're closer to slime molds than to "goo golems."

David Justiss

unread,
Jan 25, 2006, 9:42:49 PM1/25/06
to
"ManaUser" <lo...@sig.invalid> wrote in message
news:kkaBf.52$772...@fe05.lga

> Someone said they thought the game was curently too easy in another
> topic, and I thought it might be interesting to to discuss that in more

> detail. Do you agree? If so are there particular parts that should be
> harder? Obviously I'm talking about after you've been spoiled. There's

> no question that it's plenty hard if you've never read any spoilers or
> this newsgroup.
>

I'd hate to put this as my message but I apparently posted into the
wrong thread:

Please see my messge under YANI: shallow water

(I even forgot to change the subject line.)

Asher


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

VS

unread,
Jan 25, 2006, 11:22:10 PM1/25/06
to
Little White Mouse <little...@verizon.com> writes:

> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:20:18 -0600, Gary Olson wrote:
>> I need a spellbook of Finger of Death. I have yet to ascend a wizard; the
>> Wizard of Yendor always gets me on the final dash for lack of a method to
>> kill him quickly.
>
> Well, it may not be quick...but beating him to death with the +2 Magicbane
> is always an option :)

*Sigh*

You're absolutely right. It isn't quick, but it does the job. My first
ascended wizard resorted to just such skewering of Rodney out of
necessity. It takes a while, but is, ahem, character building. ;-)

> And if yer really desperate, you can always try to write one - remember,
> you're a wizard, so you have a good chance of just writing a spellbook!

If you can remember where your stash of MM and blank books is.

Saso

John Campbell

unread,
Jan 26, 2006, 3:08:09 AM1/26/06
to
Jove wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 05:56:29 GMT, Little White Mouse
> <little...@verizon.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:20:18 -0600, Gary Olson wrote:
>>
>>>I need a spellbook of Finger of Death. I have yet to ascend a wizard; the
>>>Wizard of Yendor always gets me on the final dash for lack of a method to
>>>kill him quickly.
>>
>>Well, it may not be quick...but beating him to death with the +2 Magicbane
>>is always an option :)
>
>
> Enchant Magicbane to +6/7. That will give 4 more points of
> damage per hit than +2. (You don't want the Wizard of Yendor
> scared/stunned/confused/canceled. You want Rodney *dead*.)

Or, better, use a real weapon and save Magicbane for absorbing
curses. There isn't any law that says that wizards *have* to wield
Magicbane. Mine ascended with the +7 Fire Brand in hand.

--
John Campbell
jcam...@lynn.ci-n.com

Philipp Lucas

unread,
Jan 26, 2006, 3:40:36 AM1/26/06
to
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Martin Read wrote:

> Change things so that clones (split puddings, water-spawned gremlins,
> etc.) have no death drop, award no XP, and leave no corpse.

I would like to see the mysterious creation of objects upon a monster's
death to be taken out completely, not just for clones.

--
Philipp Lucas
phl...@online-club.de

L

unread,
Jan 26, 2006, 9:16:18 AM1/26/06
to
>I would like to see the mysterious creation of objects upon a monster's
>death to be taken out completely, not just for clones.

Don't mind if I do!

http://www.greyfire.org/~l/deathdrop.diff

Martin Read

unread,
Jan 26, 2006, 1:58:49 PM1/26/06
to

If you can't, why did you bother stashing them?

Alternatively, #name something with a reference to where they are.

Eric

unread,
Jan 26, 2006, 4:52:35 PM1/26/06
to

Valid concern; fortunately, "lifelessness" never shows up in the game
itself, only in interaction with the turn undead wand and spell. If you
think of a better reason for puddings to resist turning, please share.

On the other hand, it might be better to store the pudding's stats with
its corpse, so turn undead will restore it to its original condition.
The lifeless bit is only there because the turn undead spell, as it is
currently implemented, breaks the whole point of the patch.

- Eric

Eric

unread,
Jan 26, 2006, 4:55:08 PM1/26/06
to
On 26 January 2006, L wrote:

Yikes! You missed the part where the monsters should get a bit more
random inventory on creation, to make up for the lack of new items.

- Eric

VS

unread,
Jan 26, 2006, 5:48:59 PM1/26/06
to
Martin Read <mpr...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

> VS <V...@SauceForge.net> wrote:
>>Little White Mouse <little...@verizon.com> writes:
>>> And if yer really desperate, you can always try to write one - remember,
>>> you're a wizard, so you have a good chance of just writing a spellbook!
>>
>>If you can remember where your stash of MM and blank books is.
>
> If you can't, why did you bother stashing them?

Had this brilliant idea that in order to keep stashes safe from random
monsters I should store them in vaults that one has to teleport to is
better than burning the E-word.

A tango with an MMF and assorted other creatures summoned by arch-lich
later ...

> Alternatively, #name something with a reference to where they are.

Now you tell me. :-)

Anyway, that wizard lived to sacrifice AoY (sheer luck).

Saso

Link

unread,
Jan 31, 2006, 9:15:12 AM1/31/06
to

Would it be better to change the game so that splitting a pudding
counts toward extinction? In this case, splitting a pudding would
count towards its "born counter". This way, extra puddings would not
be easier to kill. Also, it is unlikely (I think?) that an unspoiled
player would find 120 of a same pudding in a same game, so this change
would not affect them.

Eric

unread,
Feb 8, 2006, 2:45:10 PM2/8/06
to
On 31 January 2006, Link wrote:

> Eric wrote:
>> http://www.brainshell.org/patches/nethack/nofarming.diff
>> (Already submitted to the Nethack Patch Database.)
>>
>> Instead of making the puddings stronger, it limits how often they can be
>> divided, by reducing their max HP like gremlins do now. Note that this
>> actually makes the game *easier* for the unspoiled player, because the
>> extra puddings will be easier to kill; the spoiled player can still
>> benefit from careful farming, but not nearly as much.
>
> Would it be better to change the game so that splitting a pudding
> counts toward extinction? In this case, splitting a pudding would
> count towards its "born counter". This way, extra puddings would not
> be easier to kill. Also, it is unlikely (I think?) that an unspoiled
> player would find 120 of a same pudding in a same game, so this change
> would not affect them.

I find it aesthetically unappealing to have puddings suddenly stop
splitting for no apparent reason. Reducing the max HP makes sense
logically, gives a perfectly reasonable limit to farming without
resorting to magic numbers, and doesn't arbitrarily change the
behavior of puddings elsewhere in the dungeon, previously spawned
or not.

Besides, I find it a good thing to decrease difficulty for the
unspoiled, particularly if I can increase it for the spoiled at
the same time without decreasing item interaction.

- Eric

L

unread,
Feb 8, 2006, 10:24:49 PM2/8/06
to
>Yikes! You missed the part where the monsters should get a bit more
>random inventory on creation, to make up for the lack of new items.

The compiler variable is in the /* difficulty */ category, isn't it? :
)

magicby...@yahoo.com

unread,
Nov 20, 2013, 12:58:41 AM11/20/13
to
I've now ascended multiple times in many different roles.

The game is still fun as crap, but I can understand people wanting a bigger challenge. There's now UNnethack and more Slash 'em stuff to give more challenges.

I'd like to see a more challenging sequel to Nethack. The thing about Un and 'Slash is that they don't feel like Nethack. They feel like a different game entirely. What I want is a sequel with all the same bells and whistles.

In my opinion, rather than changing all sorts of game mechanics, you should change the plot of the game itself: different towns and even a different goal, like destroying the amulet with several artifacts you must collect down three different dungeon branches. If you want to, you could forgo wishes entirely, and have ascension kit pieces be part of different quests, towns, and so forth.

You could have towns full of succubi, dragon halls with as many dragons as creatures on the astral planes, haunted houses, and so forth and so on.

Sure you could tweak things by making reflection less powerful, or by having more items that you need in order to duplicate MC3 Magic Resistance, and Reflection. Or you could make the only source of each a separate quest branch.

Nethack: OBLIVION
Nethack: Return of Rodney
Nethack: Balrog of the Gnomish Mines
Nethack: The Scroll of Omnipotence

Prometheus77

unread,
Nov 20, 2013, 7:13:01 AM11/20/13