Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

greator vault divisi HELP

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 3:15:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

ok. this seems dumb but i cant into this vault. its the first big one
ive found.
i cant find an entrence anywhere. the seems to be made out of permant
granite everywhere!!! this is driving me crazy i want in!!

More about : greator vault divisi

Anonymous
April 26, 2005 3:53:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

ok not sure how i replied with !! before but i fgured it out. sorry. it
was my first big vault. it was driving me crazy not getting in there...
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 2:19:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

For future reference, the three easy reliable ways I know of to find
the entrance of an unknown vault are to use the look command to look at
each wall in turn, use the preferences options to give permanent walls
different colours/chracaters (some would argue this is cheating, but if
you can tell the difference with the look command, I don't see why they
shouldn't look different) and to read the vaults text file (which is
definitely cheating).
Did you find anything good in there?
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 7:07:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

Sure - once you've seen the vault a few times there's no harm in it.
If it's the first time you've seen it however, then you get to know the
internal layout and if you read the text at the start of the vaults
file you know how dangerous it is and where the most lethal monsters
and decent treasure lie. I consider that unearned knowledge of the
game - cheating.
Yes, detection can tell you a lot, but you're still guessing how
dangerous something is if it's the first time you've seen it.
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 7:40:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

"YAMWAK" <Alex.Moffatt@gmail.com> writes:

> Sure - once you've seen the vault a few times there's no harm in it.
> If it's the first time you've seen it however, then you get to know the
> internal layout and if you read the text at the start of the vaults
> file you know how dangerous it is and where the most lethal monsters
> and decent treasure lie. I consider that unearned knowledge of the
> game - cheating.
> Yes, detection can tell you a lot, but you're still guessing how
> dangerous something is if it's the first time you've seen it.

I've never understood this attitude.

The first few times you played chess, would you have thought it a
feature if you lost a hard-fought game because no one had told you
about pawns capturing en passant?

If it's in the code, it should be apparent to the user. The player
should be told all the rules. That's my attitude. E.g., standard
artifacts should get the effect of *ID when simply identified, though
randarts should not.

If you think it improves the game for a newbie not to know something,
change the code so it is randomized and the expert gets to have his
game improved as well.

Am I the only one with this opinion?


Eddie
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 8:54:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

Eddie Grove wrote:
> "YAMWAK" <Alex.Moffatt@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Yes, detection can tell you a lot, but you're still guessing how
> > dangerous something is if it's the first time you've seen it.
>
> I've never understood this attitude.
>
> The first few times you played chess, would you have thought it a
> feature if you lost a hard-fought game because no one had told you
> about pawns capturing en passant?

Chess is different from Angband. One of the thrills of the game for me
is that of exploration; "What's that light green D going to be throwing
at me if I step out in front of him?" "What's this shiny new battle
axe going to do for me?" The exploration in chess is all about how
known pieces interact; the addition of unknown pieces doesn't make
sense there, but does in Angband, IMO.

OTOH, it'd be kind of fun to lose a hard-fought chess game because
nobody told you bishops could breathe nether. :o )

> If it's in the code, it should be apparent to the user.

I wouldn't agree with that. I'd say, "If it's in the code, it should
be *learnable* by the user". Otherwise, your argument could be used to
take away ID entirely; why tell me it's a White Potion? Shouldn't it
be apparent to me that it's a Potion of Poison? It's in the code,
after all.

> The player should be told all the rules.

And I think the player can learn the rules through non-fatal means;
Probing, scrolls of *ID*, potions of self knowledge, etc. Doesn't mean
it needs to be handed to the player on a silver platter.

> That's my attitude. E.g., standard
> artifacts should get the effect of *ID when simply identified, though
> randarts should not.

That seems like a contradiction to me. Why then wouldn't you want
randarts *ID*ed automatically also? Standard artifacts can still be
new to some players; even players who are somewhat familiar with most
artifacts probably don't have every single one memorized.

Is it a problem, do you think, for someone to see The Broad Sword
'Orcrist' and to know that it's not better for them than The Scimitar
'Haradekket'? Seems to me much like the sort of judgement call that an
expert gets to make knowing that a red g is not as worthy of attention
as is a light green g....

> If you think it improves the game for a newbie not to know something,
> change the code so it is randomized and the expert gets to have his
> game improved as well.

I don't think the argument has been won, that not knowing something
improves the game. Imagine the game where you can't share the thrill
that a knowledgeble player gets when he or she spots a
Longsword(4d5).... I think there's a place for both.

> Am I the only one with this opinion?

Yes. ;o) Just kidding, I'm sure there are ALL sorts of opinions out
there.
--
Matt
mattneu@gmail.com
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 10:44:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

Eddie grove writes:

[Spoilers are part of the game.]

> Am I the only one with this opinion?

No you are not. I do not want to play a game for x hours and then get
bushwhacked by some completely unforseen thing. I am not a fan of
quadratic algorithms... The game is plenty hard for a newbie even with
object.txt, monster.txt, and the source code all open to read.

And source diving makes for a nice change of pace.

The randomized stuff is enough: is that potion !Unhealth or
!Augmentation? If i put on this un-ID'ed ring am I going to die?
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 2:34:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

mattneu wrote:
>>If it's in the code, it should be apparent to the user.
>
> I wouldn't agree with that. I'd say, "If it's in the code, it should
> be *learnable* by the user". Otherwise, your argument could be used to
> take away ID entirely; why tell me it's a White Potion? Shouldn't it
> be apparent to me that it's a Potion of Poison? It's in the code,
> after all.

That would only seem to apply to the icky green, light brown, and clear
potions, and to the plain gold ring, the phial, the star, and the
arkenstone.

> And I think the player can learn the rules through non-fatal means;
> Probing, scrolls of *ID*, potions of self knowledge, etc. Doesn't mean
> it needs to be handed to the player on a silver platter.

Probing doesn't tell you what a monster's attacks are and how dangerous
they are. Dying does, though. ;P

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 5:01:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

pete mack wrote:
> Eddie grove writes:
>
> [Spoilers are part of the game.]
>
> > Am I the only one with this opinion?
>
> No you are not. I do not want to play a game for x hours and then
get
> bushwhacked by some completely unforseen thing. I am not a fan of
> quadratic algorithms... The game is plenty hard for a newbie even
with
> object.txt, monster.txt, and the source code all open to read.
>

I agree, and have never understood what "Spoilers" are supposed to
spoil. If this is a legacy from older and easier RL's, then fair
enough. Even with all knowledge in the Spoilers, Angband is HARD.
Allowing more experienced players to choose their own level of
difficulty (as per Timos challenge) is IMHO a much better way to give
the game wider appeal than to suggest to newbies that using Spoilers is
cheating. Surely monster, artifact info etc should be part of the lore
of the game. Finding out about artifacts, deeper level monsters, vaults
etc from spoilers is the main thing that kept me with the game when i
1st played. I wanted to get good enough at the game to find these
things. I feel there is more enjoyment gained from seeing your 1st ever
AMHD and knowing to fear it, than to simply be killed by it because you
had no idea what it was...
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 6:53:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

mattneu wrote:

> Eddie Grove wrote:
>> "YAMWAK" <Alex.Moffatt@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > Yes, detection can tell you a lot, but you're still guessing how
>> > dangerous something is if it's the first time you've seen it.
>>
>> I've never understood this attitude.
>>
>> The first few times you played chess, would you have thought it a
>> feature if you lost a hard-fought game because no one had told you
>> about pawns capturing en passant?
>
> Chess is different from Angband. One of the thrills of the game for me
> is that of exploration; "What's that light green D going to be throwing
> at me if I step out in front of him?" "What's this shiny new battle
> axe going to do for me?" The exploration in chess is all about how
> known pieces interact; the addition of unknown pieces doesn't make
> sense there, but does in Angband, IMO.
>
> OTOH, it'd be kind of fun to lose a hard-fought chess game because
> nobody told you bishops could breathe nether. :o )

You have a twisted definition for fun :o  Especialy considering Chess is a
1vs1 based game and losing like that would be exactly the kind of
frustrating things we should avoid in a game if possible :)  Never let a
newbie lose to a more experienced player because there was some hidden
knowledge that we didn't bother to tell him.

>> If it's in the code, it should be apparent to the user.
>
> I wouldn't agree with that. I'd say, "If it's in the code, it should
> be *learnable* by the user". Otherwise, your argument could be used to
> take away ID entirely; why tell me it's a White Potion? Shouldn't it
> be apparent to me that it's a Potion of Poison? It's in the code,
> after all.

Potions flavours are randomised so it isn't written in the code ...

>> The player should be told all the rules.
>
> And I think the player can learn the rules through non-fatal means;
> Probing, scrolls of *ID*, potions of self knowledge, etc. Doesn't mean
> it needs to be handed to the player on a silver platter.

What is that D I see here ? Never before did I face such creature.
"D breathes something awful with very strong damage. You die !"

Talk about learning rules through non-fatal means ...

>> That's my attitude. E.g., standard
>> artifacts should get the effect of *ID when simply identified, though
>> randarts should not.
>
> That seems like a contradiction to me. Why then wouldn't you want
> randarts *ID*ed automatically also? Standard artifacts can still be
> new to some players; even players who are somewhat familiar with most
> artifacts probably don't have every single one memorized.

This is to reduce the reliance on out of character knowledge helping the
experienced players. That way, experienced players are on an equal footing
with newbie players.

In general, I beleive there are some major game balancing issues in Angband
due to bad monster distribution in regard to item generation. Such issues
don't show because most players know about them and take them for granted.
Think about the newbies ! In the current situation, any completly unkown
monster is a complete mystery until you look at a spoiler. I already lost a
very good char in Z to a OOD monster that could mana bolt. Except from that
one attack ( and mana storm but no monster with mana storm could be
generated at that depth ! ), nothing else could have killed me. It was a
slow game so I had enouth speed for the level, enouth HP, enouth resists,
enouth AC, enouth damage potential for nearly anything in depth and I could
detect and kill with ranged attacks all the other really dangerous
critters. As soon as I entered LOS, it was mana bolt, you die ... I knew it
was there because of the ESP and I was careful enouth. The only thing that
killed me here was lack of monster knowledge and I don't consider that a
good thing. Now, any new monster in any variant I detect, I check the
spoilers before facing it.

> Is it a problem, do you think, for someone to see The Broad Sword
> 'Orcrist' and to know that it's not better for them than The Scimitar
> 'Haradekket'? Seems to me much like the sort of judgement call that an
> expert gets to make knowing that a red g is not as worthy of attention
> as is a light green g....
>
>> If you think it improves the game for a newbie not to know something,
>> change the code so it is randomized and the expert gets to have his
>> game improved as well.
>
> I don't think the argument has been won, that not knowing something
> improves the game. Imagine the game where you can't share the thrill
> that a knowledgeble player gets when he or she spots a
> Longsword(4d5).... I think there's a place for both.

Yeah, Ego weapons should get much more often that bonus damage dice :)  "You
see a Longsword of Slay Orc (4d5) (+2,+3)"

>> Am I the only one with this opinion?
>
> Yes. ;o) Just kidding, I'm sure there are ALL sorts of opinions out
> there.
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 3:01:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

I do feel that more randomisation would make the game more interesting
for me, but that will have to wait until I get round to writing my own
variant.

Judging from monster memory, the original game experience was designed
around learning the game as well as how to play it - quite different
from chess. Maybe that should change - make monster memory instantly
known or knowable. Some games allow the player to purchase monster
memory, at an extortionate rate, from town shops. Would you say
getting the same information from source diving was cheating in those
games?
Until the monster memory is automatic and the preset object, artefact
and ego properties are automatically known I feel that reading those
files is cheating - if we were meant to know the first time, we would
be told.
All that being said, I do it all the time. Maybe it is time for change.
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 8:22:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

tigpup wrote:
> I agree, and have never understood what "Spoilers" are supposed to
> spoil. If this is a legacy from older and easier RL's, then fair
> enough. Even with all knowledge in the Spoilers, Angband is HARD.
> Allowing more experienced players to choose their own level of
> difficulty (as per Timos challenge) is IMHO a much better way to give
> the game wider appeal than to suggest to newbies that using Spoilers is
> cheating. Surely monster, artifact info etc should be part of the lore
> of the game. Finding out about artifacts, deeper level monsters, vaults
> etc from spoilers is the main thing that kept me with the game when i
> 1st played. I wanted to get good enough at the game to find these
> things. I feel there is more enjoyment gained from seeing your 1st ever
> AMHD and knowing to fear it, than to simply be killed by it because you
> had no idea what it was...

It actually sounds like you're saying spoilers as such aren't necessary,
but teasers are.

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 10:23:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

tigpup wrote:
> I agree, and have never understood what "Spoilers" are supposed to
> spoil. If this is a legacy from older and easier RL's, then fair
> enough. Even with all knowledge in the Spoilers, Angband is HARD.
> Allowing more experienced players to choose their own level of
> difficulty (as per Timos challenge) is IMHO a much better way to give
> the game wider appeal than to suggest to newbies that using Spoilers is
> cheating. Surely monster, artifact info etc should be part of the lore
> of the game. Finding out about artifacts, deeper level monsters, vaults
> etc from spoilers is the main thing that kept me with the game when i
> 1st played. I wanted to get good enough at the game to find these
> things. I feel there is more enjoyment gained from seeing your 1st ever
> AMHD and knowing to fear it, than to simply be killed by it because you
> had no idea what it was...

I definitely agree to the point that there is nothing to add. I couldn't
have said better.
April 27, 2005 11:11:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

Hugo Kornelis wrote:

[big snip]

> My personal view: I am in the group who enjoys not knowing what an
> object just found actually does. I like the suspense, after finding
and
> identifying an artifact, while waiting to find a scroll of *ID* (or
> waiting for the next visit to town, if I have ?of*ID* in the home) to
> find out if it will be usefull or not. This may sound strange, coming
> from the guy who has made the 3.0.3 version of some spoiler files and
is
> not working on the 3.0.5 version - but I personally only use them for
> reference, checking values to help me decide which of the items to
take
> back to the town for selling and which to leave behind, or checking
> descriptions to help me remember the exact amount of protection
offered
> by Resist Nether. I have never checked an artifact in the artifact
> spoiler before *ID*-ing it (I have checked them later, to find the
sale
> value).

Me too. However, I like to know the mechanics of the game in detail.
So, although I don't know exactly which things Kavlax breathes, I like
to know the damage caps, damage per monster HP, etc. for each type of
attack. And I like to be able to do comparisons on the relative damage
different weapons do, once I know all their properties.

Having said that, one of the chief virtues of Angband and variants IMHO
is that my opinion is not forced on everybody. The breadth of gameplay
experience is staggering compared to any other game (electronic or
otherwise) I've come across. And that certainly makes for interesting
discussion :) 

Nick.
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 4:49:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:40:20 -0700, Eddie Grove wrote:

>"YAMWAK" <Alex.Moffatt@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Sure - once you've seen the vault a few times there's no harm in it.
>> If it's the first time you've seen it however, then you get to know the
>> internal layout and if you read the text at the start of the vaults
>> file you know how dangerous it is and where the most lethal monsters
>> and decent treasure lie. I consider that unearned knowledge of the
>> game - cheating.
>> Yes, detection can tell you a lot, but you're still guessing how
>> dangerous something is if it's the first time you've seen it.
>
>I've never understood this attitude.
>
>The first few times you played chess, would you have thought it a
>feature if you lost a hard-fought game because no one had told you
>about pawns capturing en passant?
>
>If it's in the code, it should be apparent to the user. The player
>should be told all the rules. That's my attitude. E.g., standard
>artifacts should get the effect of *ID when simply identified, though
>randarts should not.
>
>If you think it improves the game for a newbie not to know something,
>change the code so it is randomized and the expert gets to have his
>game improved as well.
>
>Am I the only one with this opinion?

Hi Eddie,

Apparently not, judging by the replies :-) It's good to hear that many
people want to know the gameplay mechanics, since I've spent quite some
time during the last two months in an effort to bring several spoiler
files up to date and to enhance them with much more information. Nice to
know that I probably won't be the only one using them:-)

But, coming back to your question : to each his own.

There are games where exploring the unknown is the only significant
gameplay element. Not knowing (all) the rules is an integral part of the
fun. Old text-based adventures are a great example of this. Once you've
found out the secrets and the game mechanics, the game usually stops
being fun - so these are typically one-time-playing games.

There are also games where it's all about strategy. You have to know all
the rules and mechanics and build your strategy around it. Chess has
already been mentioned; Risk is another example. Games like this can be
replayed endlessly (especially if randomizing and/or number of possible
variations assure that no two games will be allike).

Angband is in the latter category, but also has elements of the former.
Some people like that feature - the thrill of finding something and not
yet knowing what it will do adds to the fun for them. Other people don't
like this feature - they prefer just _knowing_ what Colluin does when
they find it, just as experienced players would. The latter category can
use sourcediving, newsgroups or spoiler files to find out what they
want. If the game would expose all information at once, the former group
of people would be deprived of an element in the game that they happen
to like.

My personal view: I am in the group who enjoys not knowing what an
object just found actually does. I like the suspense, after finding and
identifying an artifact, while waiting to find a scroll of *ID* (or
waiting for the next visit to town, if I have ?of*ID* in the home) to
find out if it will be usefull or not. This may sound strange, coming
from the guy who has made the 3.0.3 version of some spoiler files and is
not working on the 3.0.5 version - but I personally only use them for
reference, checking values to help me decide which of the items to take
back to the town for selling and which to leave behind, or checking
descriptions to help me remember the exact amount of protection offered
by Resist Nether. I have never checked an artifact in the artifact
spoiler before *ID*-ing it (I have checked them later, to find the sale
value).

Best, Hugo
--
Your sig line (k) was stolen! (more)
There is a puff of smoke!

(Remove NO and SPAM to get my e-mail address)
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 4:53:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

Twisted One wrote:

>It actually sounds like you're saying spoilers as such aren't
necessary,
>but teasers are.

Not at all.... I feel that the information in spoilers is absolutely
necessary. To be more precise, the info in monster_info and object_info
should not be treated as 'spoiling' the game. Characters are created as
adults, not children, and as such an adult will know what a potion of
healing does, and how dangerous a particular flavour of Dragon is. This
is what i meant by LORE in my previous post. Therefore, not giving the
newbie this info as standard game info means they have to learn
everything from first principles (as if their char were a newborn
child). Very specific info about Artifacts and Uniques could perhaps be
alluded to with 'teasers', but not basic items and foes.
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 5:09:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (More info?)

On 27 Apr 2005 19:11:28 -0700, Nick wrote:

>
>Hugo Kornelis wrote:
>
>[big snip]
>
>> My personal view: I am in the group who enjoys not knowing what an
>> object just found actually does. I like the suspense, after finding
>and
>> identifying an artifact, while waiting to find a scroll of *ID* (or
>> waiting for the next visit to town, if I have ?of*ID* in the home) to
>> find out if it will be usefull or not. This may sound strange, coming
>> from the guy who has made the 3.0.3 version of some spoiler files and
>is
>> not working on the 3.0.5 version - but I personally only use them for
>> reference, checking values to help me decide which of the items to
>take
>> back to the town for selling and which to leave behind, or checking
>> descriptions to help me remember the exact amount of protection
>offered
>> by Resist Nether. I have never checked an artifact in the artifact
>> spoiler before *ID*-ing it (I have checked them later, to find the
>sale
>> value).
>
>Me too. However, I like to know the mechanics of the game in detail.
>So, although I don't know exactly which things Kavlax breathes, I like
>to know the damage caps, damage per monster HP, etc. for each type of
>attack. And I like to be able to do comparisons on the relative damage
>different weapons do, once I know all their properties.

Hi Nick,

Same here. That's why I plan to write a spoiler on all possible monster
attacks, once I finish updating for V305 and extending the object and
magic spoilers that I've previously updated for V303.


>Having said that, one of the chief virtues of Angband and variants IMHO
>is that my opinion is not forced on everybody. The breadth of gameplay
>experience is staggering compared to any other game (electronic or
>otherwise) I've come across. And that certainly makes for interesting
>discussion :) 
>
>Nick.


Best, Hugo
--
Your sig line (k) was stolen! (more)
There is a puff of smoke!

(Remove NO and SPAM to get my e-mail address)
!