Unnethack 351 - impressions - spoilers
Simon
observations here. There are spoilers below.
In general, I think the game achieves what it sets out to achieve -
less randomness at the start of the game and more randomness in the
middle and endgame. In my opinion this makes it quite a lot harder
than vanilla, for two reasons.
Firstly, at the beginning of a game of Vanilla it is quite easy for
the lazy player to rely on luck to get through - an early wish can
make a huge difference. That's not possible in Un as early wishes
can't be used for magical items. In short, this game makes you a
better Vanilla player.
Secondly, it is not possible to build up the perfect AK - you have to
mix and match and do the best you can with what the game gives you.
This makes the middle and late game quite hairy in places. You never
feel comfortable with this game. The endgame is downright worrying.
That's a good thing.
Some random observations:
1. I went through 95% of the game with no reflection - it was the very
last amulet I found. Even when I found it I was too scared to take
off my AoLS so didn't really use it.
2. I never found any magical headgear, so ascended with an orcish
helm.
3. Scrolls of ID were at a premium, and I never found enough to ID all
the scrolls.
4.I love the new braches and special levels - great variety. I know
that many of these are from existing patches but I play unpatched
Vanilla so hadn't seen them before.
5. Dragon colours are randomised, so my Black Dragon Scale Mail (made
with the first scales I found) gave me petrification resistance. I
never found another ?oEA to make a different suit.
6. A powerful pet early on (in my case a Balrog) is a huge boost with
Minetown and the new Mall level.
7. The castle wand (non-rechargeable in Un) was 1:1, so I got a measly
2 "proper" wishes in the whole game. They were used on a CoMR and...
a CoMR after the first one got destroyed in a polytrap accident.
8. Cthulu is a nice addition and makes the Sanctum significantly more
treacherous.
9. I found a lot of daemons - I ended up killing Asmodeus, Baalzebub,
Dispater, Geryon, Orcus, Yeenoghu and Jubilex. They just seemed to
keep summoning each other.
10. Disintegration resistance is very important in Un. I arrived on
Astral, chose the door on the right and got hit by a disintegration
blast as soon as I opened it, knocking out my DSM and my CoMR. Then
Death appeared next to me. Ouch. I sprinted for the altar and it
turned out to be the right one - phew!
On the whole this game is very enjoyable, but I'd like to see it
continue to evolve away from Vanilla. At the moment it feels like
Vanilla+ - more levels, a few tweaks, and some of the obvious problems
addressed, but still basically Nethack. Or, to put it another way, it
feels like patched Vanilla. I think that there are enough good ideas
in here that it could become a full blown branch, but we're going to
have to wait for the next version (or the one after that) to see if it
can really take flight.
And it would be great if more people played it, because Hearse owes me
a few bones files!
Simon
Patric Mueller
> Ok, I finally ascended in Unnethack 351 so I thought I'd record my
> observations here. There are spoilers below.
>
> In general, I think the game achieves what it sets out to achieve -
> less randomness at the start of the game
Less randomness? In what regard?
> and more randomness in the
> middle and endgame. In my opinion this makes it quite a lot harder
> than vanilla, for two reasons.
I hope the early and middle game is not harder for the new or casual
player.
My intention was to stop the exploiting player from taking shortcuts,
not to punish unspoiled players.
> Firstly, at the beginning of a game of Vanilla it is quite easy for
> the lazy player to rely on luck to get through - an early wish can
> make a huge difference. That's not possible in Un as early wishes
> can't be used for magical items. In short, this game makes you a
> better Vanilla player.
I'd say it makes you a better wishless player.
> Secondly, it is not possible to build up the perfect AK - you have to
Why? Because you get less wishes?
> mix and match and do the best you can with what the game gives you.
It seems you just were unlucky. I didn't change anything in item
generation probabilities.
> This makes the middle and late game quite hairy in places. You never
> feel comfortable with this game. The endgame is downright worrying.
> That's a good thing.
NetHack masochism at work :)
> 3. Scrolls of ID were at a premium, and I never found enough to ID all
> the scrolls.
No magic marker either?
> 7. The castle wand (non-rechargeable in Un) was 1:1, so I got a measly
> 2 "proper" wishes in the whole game. They were used on a CoMR and...
> a CoMR after the first one got destroyed in a polytrap accident.
:)
> 8. Cthulu is a nice addition and makes the Sanctum significantly more
> treacherous.
Although in 3.5.1 he's quite a wimp as he first empties his wand of
death instead of using his inherent abilities. :)
> 9. I found a lot of daemons - I ended up killing Asmodeus, Baalzebub,
> Dispater, Geryon, Orcus, Yeenoghu and Jubilex. They just seemed to
> keep summoning each other.
You should consider yourself lucky that you didn't get Demogorgon.
> 10. Disintegration resistance is very important in Un. I arrived on
Just as important as in Vanilla. Of course with less wishes you might
have a harder time to get exactly what you like.
> Astral, chose the door on the right and got hit by a disintegration
> blast as soon as I opened it, knocking out my DSM and my CoMR. Then
> Death appeared next to me. Ouch. I sprinted for the altar and it
> turned out to be the right one - phew!
With your amulet of reflection that wouldn't have happened.
The RNG really seems to have given you a hard time.
> On the whole this game is very enjoyable, but I'd like to see it
> continue to evolve away from Vanilla. At the moment it feels like
> Vanilla+ - more levels, a few tweaks, and some of the obvious problems
> addressed, but still basically Nethack. Or, to put it another way, it
> feels like patched Vanilla. I think that there are enough good ideas
> in here that it could become a full blown branch, but we're going to
> have to wait for the next version (or the one after that) to see if it
> can really take flight.
Time will tell.
Upcoming 3.5.2 (some time in December) will have the Color Alchemy
patch, the Cancellation patch (monsters may use a wand of
cancellation) and the whole vampire blood thing from Slash'Em.
> And it would be great if more people played it, because Hearse owes me
> a few bones files!
Version 3.5.2 will be bones compatible so you might get something
back. :-)
Bye
Patric
--
NetHack Poll 2009: http://nethack-de.sf.net/poll.html
UnNetHack: http://apps.sf.net/trac/unnethack/
Simon
> Simon <yaroguel...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > In general, I think the game achieves what it sets out to achieve -
> > less randomness at the start of the game
>
> Less randomness? In what regard?
Early wishes are not so unbalancing in Un as you can't wish for
magical items (although oilskin is very useful!). Un rewards careful
play and squeezing every possible advantage out of every item you
find. In Vanilla you can play carelessly, get lucky and go on to
ascend - this doesn't work in Un. Un forces you to accept that
virtually every game in Vanilla is ascendable.
> > and more randomness in the
> > middle and endgame. In my opinion this makes it quite a lot harder
> > than vanilla, for two reasons.
>
> I hope the early and middle game is not harder for the new or casual
> player.
>
> My intention was to stop the exploiting player from taking shortcuts,
> not to punish unspoiled players.
Perhaps as you suggest below the reason that I found this game so hard
was down to good old fashioned RNG nastiness. I got no wands of poly,
very few ?oEA and ?oID and no markers. Without a /oPoly I couldn't
create markers from my stack of unihorns, so I couldn't make any more
DSM. I found very few magical items and had no alternative way of
getting them, so this meant that I spent the whole of the middle and
end game worrying about gaps in my equipment.
> > Secondly, it is not possible to build up the perfect AK - you have to
>
> Why? Because you get less wishes?
Precisely - if the RNG is being mean (only 2 wishes at the castle, no /
oPoly, very few randomly generated magical items) then you have no
alternative way of generating the items you need.
> > mix and match and do the best you can with what the game gives you.
>
> It seems you just were unlucky. I didn't change anything in item
> generation probabilities.
This may well be the case. I will continue to play Un in order to
figure this out.
> > 8. Cthulu is a nice addition and makes the Sanctum significantly more
> > treacherous.
>
> Although in 3.5.1 he's quite a wimp as he first empties his wand of
> death instead of using his inherent abilities. :)
Yes I noticed that - but enjoyed the surprise when he resurrected.
> > Astral, chose the door on the right and got hit by a disintegration
> > blast as soon as I opened it, knocking out my DSM and my CoMR. Then
> > Death appeared next to me. Ouch. I sprinted for the altar and it
> > turned out to be the right one - phew!
>
> With your amulet of reflection that wouldn't have happened.
Good point - I should have thought of that and planned ahead.
Careless play.
> Upcoming 3.5.2 (some time in December) will have the Color Alchemy
> patch, the Cancellation patch (monsters may use a wand of
> cancellation) and the whole vampire blood thing from Slash'Em.
I'm looking forward to this and will certainly play through it again
in the new release. Although I'd like to ascend a magic user in 351
first so that I can compare the difficulty.
> Bye
> Patric
Simon
tenaya
> 7. The castle wand (non-rechargeable in Un) was 1:1, so I got a measly
> 2 "proper" wishes in the whole game. They were used on a CoMR and...
> a CoMR after the first one got destroyed in a polytrap accident.
How do you lose a CoMR in a polytrap accident?
Patric Mueller
>
> On the whole this game is very enjoyable, but I'd like to see it
> continue to evolve away from Vanilla. At the moment it feels like
> Vanilla+ - more levels, a few tweaks, and some of the obvious problems
> addressed, but still basically Nethack. Or, to put it another way, it
On the "patched Vanilla" feeling.
Is there something special that feels really patchy and maybe not
really fitting into the whole setting?
I know Gehennom could feel like that. But there I just dropped
something in it to get rid of the mazes.
Or is it just the feeling that it hasn't diverged enough from Vanilla
to feel really different?
Simon
Sorry, that should read poly potion.
Careless play again.
Simon
Simon
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it feels like tweaked Vanilla -
not yet sufficiently different to stand up on its own. My hope is
that as further changes are implemented Un will develop its own
style. There are glimmers of this style in the current version, but
they are still relatively faint.
Simon
APLer
news:3d041ef3-b416-43e7...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
> Ok, I finally ascended in Unnethack 351 so I thought I'd record my
> observations here. There are spoilers below.
>
Tried compiling it under linux to use curses and tty, but it seems there
are at *least* 6 instances in the code where you have a statement followed
by a declaration followed by another statement. No where near the
beginning of the function either. I wasn't impressed. It actually causes
compilation errors under gcc 2.95.3 - the last "bug free" version of gcc
before the 4.x versions.
Aardvark Joe
It's now almost 2010. It's time to upgrade your compiler to one that
supports C99 features.
APLer
news:DmhSm.40083$ZF3....@newsfe13.iad:
As I said *all* of the 3.x compilers have problems. Getting a newer
compiler doesn't necessarily get you a better or ansii compatible
compiler. Declarations after the beginning of a c function is both
pointless and scatterbrained as I implied.
Besides, nethack, spork and slash'em have no problems compiling with that
same compiler.
sreservoir
to imply that 2.95.3 is "bug free" as far as C89 is concerned is quite
scatterbrained in and of itself. something of that scale generally can
not be bug-free.
> Besides, nethack, spork and slash'em have no problems compiling with that
> same compiler.
stop complaining, edit the code yourself, and submit a patch so that the
un code will compile under your eight-and-a-half-year-old compiler.
it's not hard to deal with six instances.
--
"Six by nine. Forty two."
"That's it. That's all there is."
"I always thought something was fundamentally wrong with the universe"
Aardvark Joe
> Aardvark Joe <aard...@aol.com> wrote in
> news:DmhSm.40083$ZF3....@newsfe13.iad:
>
>> APLer wrote:
>>> Simon <yarog...@googlemail.com> wrote in
>>> news:3d041ef3-b416-43e7...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> Ok, I finally ascended in Unnethack 351 so I thought I'd record my
>>>> observations here. There are spoilers below.
>>>>
>>> Tried compiling it under linux to use curses and tty, but it seems
>>> there are at *least* 6 instances in the code where you have a statement
>>> followed by a declaration followed by another statement. No where near
>>> the beginning of the function either. I wasn't impressed. It actually
>>> causes compilation errors under gcc 2.95.3 - the last "bug free"
>>> version of gcc before the 4.x versions.
>>
>> It's now almost 2010. It's time to upgrade your compiler to one that
>> supports C99 features.
>>
> As I said *all* of the 3.x compilers have problems.
Even if you have some sort of moral opposition to gcc 3.x, the first
gcc 4.x release was on April 20, 2005.
You may also consider that the documentation for the Linux kernel
now recommends a gcc version of 3.2 or higher.
> Getting a newer
> compiler doesn't necessarily get you a better or ansii compatible
> compiler.
It does, on the other hand, get you a compiler capable of compiling
the program that you're attempting to compile.
> Besides, nethack, spork and slash'em have no problems compiling with that
> same compiler.
Unnethack isn't Nethack. Neither is it Spork or Slash'em.
Apparently maintaining support for older compilers is not
something that Patric considers as important as the maintainers
of the other Nethack variants.
APLer
I never said that or that it was significantly more for the other errors -
of which there are some. I merely was implying that the code still has
errors in it and hence is likely to have other problems - when it's run.
APLer
No, that *is* speculation. I was attempting to compile for ncurses.
The existing code is set up for the GUI version. If you get compilation
errors from a release version of gcc, then the code has errors period.
Besides, I upgrade my linux by getting the source tarballs and
compiling/installing and I haven't got around to upgrading gcc yet partially
due to the problem with 3.x and also due to the time required to actually
compile the damn thing. The computer isn't networked, so getting the newest
kernel is not a concern.
I don't play the GUI version of varients or nethack period.
>> Besides, nethack, spork and slash'em have no problems compiling with
>> that same compiler.
>
> Unnethack isn't Nethack. Neither is it Spork or Slash'em.
> Apparently maintaining support for older compilers is not
> something that Patric considers as important as the maintainers
> of the other Nethack variants.
>
And Spork and slash'em aren't strictly nethack either. I don't see that
the point you apparently are trying to make with that statement is either
correct or even exists.
sreservoir
by default it compiles a curses version?
> errors from a release version of gcc, then the code has errors period.
this is a really ridiculous standard.
> Besides, I upgrade my linux by getting the source tarballs and
> compiling/installing and I haven't got around to upgrading gcc yet partially
> due to the problem with 3.x and also due to the time required to actually
> compile the damn thing. The computer isn't networked, so getting the newest
> kernel is not a concern.
>
> I don't play the GUI version of varients or nethack period.
>
>>> Besides, nethack, spork and slash'em have no problems compiling with
>>> that same compiler.
>> Unnethack isn't Nethack. Neither is it Spork or Slash'em.
>> Apparently maintaining support for older compilers is not
>> something that Patric considers as important as the maintainers
>> of the other Nethack variants.
>>
> And Spork and slash'em aren't strictly nethack either. I don't see that
> the point you apparently are trying to make with that statement is either
> correct or even exists.
>
and so you are arguing that a is not b and a is not c therefore b is c
sreservoir
>>>>> It actually causes compilation errors under gcc 2.95.3 - the last
>>>>> "bug free" version of gcc before the 4.x versions.
> of which there are some. I merely was implying that the code still has
> errors in it and hence is likely to have other problems - when it's run.
sreservoir
what code *doesn't* have errors in it?
Derek Ray
> APLer wrote:
>> Besides, nethack, spork and slash'em have no problems compiling with that
>> same compiler.
>
> Unnethack isn't Nethack. Neither is it Spork or Slash'em.
> Apparently maintaining support for older compilers is not
> something that Patric considers as important as the maintainers
> of the other Nethack variants.
Actually, it isn't important for me either, it's just a reflex to mimic
whatever code style i'm working in. Which, for Nethack's code base,
includes goofy and ancient declaration syntax, and incidentally appears
to have allowed me to "support" prehistoric crap.
However, this seems like a great time for a public service announcement.
If your compiler isn't at least version:
$: gcc -v
gcc version 4.4.1 2009072
then you can forget about me caring about your compiler bugs. I find
it highly unlikely that anything I will do will cause a modern C
compiler to complain; this means that if it works on my version, I don't
care if it doesn't work on a two-major-versions-back compiler.
--
Derek
Game info and change log: http://sporkhack.com
Beta Server: telnet://sporkhack.com
IRC: irc.freenode.net, #sporkhack
APLer
> APLer wrote:
>> Aardvark Joe <aard...@aol.com> wrote in
>> news:jFCSm.49356$ky1....@newsfe14.iad:
>>> Unnethack isn't Nethack. Neither is it Spork or Slash'em.
>>> Apparently maintaining support for older compilers is not
>>> something that Patric considers as important as the maintainers
>>> of the other Nethack variants.
>>>
>> And Spork and slash'em aren't strictly nethack either. I don't see that
>> the point you apparently are trying to make with that statement is either
>> correct or even exists.
>>
>
> and so you are arguing that a is not b and a is not c therefore b is c
>
No, I'm stating facts. Do *try* not to confuse yourself too much trying to
understand.
sreservoir
APLer
> APLer wrote:
>> sreservoir <srese...@gmail.com> wrote in news:hfgdv9$745$1...@aioe.org:
>>
>>> APLer wrote:
>>>> Aardvark Joe <aard...@aol.com> wrote in
>>>> news:jFCSm.49356$ky1....@newsfe14.iad:
>>
>>>>> Unnethack isn't Nethack. Neither is it Spork or Slash'em.
>>>>> Apparently maintaining support for older compilers is not
>>>>> something that Patric considers as important as the maintainers
>>>>> of the other Nethack variants.
>>>>>
>>>> And Spork and slash'em aren't strictly nethack either. I don't see
>>>> that the point you apparently are trying to make with that statement
>>>> is either correct or even exists.
>>>>
>>> and so you are arguing that a is not b and a is not c therefore b is c
>>>
>> No, I'm stating facts. Do *try* not to confuse yourself too much trying
>> to understand.
>>
>>
> "don't try to figure out what i'm talking about"
>
No worries. Since you can't seem to grasp mine, I can't be bothered.
Jorgen Grahn
> Aardvark Joe <aard...@aol.com> wrote in
> news:DmhSm.40083$ZF3....@newsfe13.iad:
>
>> APLer wrote:
>>> Simon <yarog...@googlemail.com> wrote in
>>> news:3d041ef3-b416-43e7...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> Ok, I finally ascended in Unnethack 351 so I thought I'd record my
>>>> observations here. There are spoilers below.
>>>>
>>> Tried compiling it under linux to use curses and tty, but it seems
>>> there are at *least* 6 instances in the code where you have a statement
>>> followed by a declaration followed by another statement. No where near
>>> the beginning of the function either. I wasn't impressed. It actually
>>> causes compilation errors under gcc 2.95.3 - the last "bug free"
>>> version of gcc before the 4.x versions.
>>
>> It's now almost 2010. It's time to upgrade your compiler to one that
>> supports C99 features.
>>
> As I said *all* of the 3.x compilers have problems.
gcc 3.x was the compiler *all* Linux distributions used to build *all*
the software they shipped for many years. Including Nethack.
> Getting a newer
> compiler doesn't necessarily get you a better or ansii compatible
> compiler. Declarations after the beginning of a c function is both
> pointless and scatterbrained as I implied.
So the C standards people are scatterbrained?
No, after you have learned to do it, you wonder how you could ever
have listed all your variables at the top without exploding with
frustration.
I agree in one sense though: I wouldn't start using C99 constructs in
a C89 or even pre-standard program which is supposed to compile on
platforms I have barely heard of. It is sure to cause extra work for
*someone*.
And in another sense too: C99 isn't used a lot in the real world yet,
and gcc even has very spotty support for all the "new" features.
/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
APLer
news:slrnhi8dvl.1...@frailea.sa.invalid:
> On Sat, 2009-12-05, APLer wrote:
>> Aardvark Joe <aard...@aol.com> wrote in
>> news:DmhSm.40083$ZF3....@newsfe13.iad:
>>
>>> APLer wrote:
>>>> Simon <yarog...@googlemail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:3d041ef3-b416-43e7...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.c
>>>> om:
>>>>
>>>>> Ok, I finally ascended in Unnethack 351 so I thought I'd record my
>>>>> observations here. There are spoilers below.
>>>>>
>>>> Tried compiling it under linux to use curses and tty, but it seems
>>>> there are at *least* 6 instances in the code where you have a
>>>> statement followed by a declaration followed by another statement.
>>>> No where near the beginning of the function either. I wasn't
>>>> impressed. It actually causes compilation errors under gcc 2.95.3 -
>>>> the last "bug free" version of gcc before the 4.x versions.
>>>
>>> It's now almost 2010. It's time to upgrade your compiler to one
>>> that supports C99 features.
>>>
>> As I said *all* of the 3.x compilers have problems.
>
> gcc 3.x was the compiler *all* Linux distributions used to build *all*
> the software they shipped for many years. Including Nethack.
>
Where do you get that idea? I've see all kinds of mention to *not* use
the 3.x compilers and use 2.95.3 instead from loads of tarballs that
were released before 4.x.
>> Getting a newer
>> compiler doesn't necessarily get you a better or ansii compatible
>> compiler. Declarations after the beginning of a c function is both
>> pointless and scatterbrained as I implied.
>
> So the C standards people are scatterbrained?
>
No, the person who wrote the code. Putting a declaration right between
statements in the middle of code as opposed to at the beginning of a
function is that by definition. There is no advantage to it anyways.
Unless you're dealing with static variables - which none of these were.
> No, after you have learned to do it, you wonder how you could ever
> have listed all your variables at the top without exploding with
> frustration.
>
What? anyone with that problem isn't smart enough to write the code
they're working on. Besides it makes optimization and reducing
unnecessary variables that much easier.