New player question.

[Guest]

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

I'm trying out vanilla, and I love it. I've been into RPGs for as long
as I can remember, but for some reason I hadn't ever played a
rogue/moria/angband game.

The one thing that I can't stand, though, is how each time I go down
more than one level and then come back up, it generates a new level. I
want to see the level I went through the first time. For some reason
this gets on my nerves a lot.

Can you never get to a certain generated level twice?

Are there any builds available for OS X that squelch this annoyance?

Thanks in advance!

 

[Guest]

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

If you play with preserve mode on, you don't miss anything if you leave
a dungeon partly unexplored. If there was an artifact that you didn't
find, it might be generated later again.
When you go deeper, the levels get more interesting and thera are many
large vaults containing lots of good stuff.

Imagine the whole dungeon being so huge that you never can find a
certain part of a level again once you left it. You always get lost in
"the maze of up/down staircases" and find yourself in a different part
of each level you visited before..

 

[Guest]

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

That's a good idea. I'll make sure that preserve mode is on, even
though I'm extremely anal about having to explore every single nook and
cranny. I think that's a trait of all RPGheads, though.

Thanks for the replies!

 

[Guest]

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

> I'm trying out vanilla, and I love it. I've been into RPGs for as long
> as I can remember, but for some reason I hadn't ever played a
> rogue/moria/angband game.
>
> The one thing that I can't stand, though, is how each time I go down
> more than one level and then come back up, it generates a new level. I
> want to see the level I went through the first time. For some reason
> this gets on my nerves a lot.
>
> Can you never get to a certain generated level twice?

Hengband has semi-permanent levels, in the sense that the
levels are permanent IF you came exactly by the same stairs.
If you go down then go up by another stair, it will be a
different levels.

Nethack (ARGH) do have permanent levels, but imho Nethack
sux, it´s a puzzle and spoiler based roguelike that rewards you
by doing stupid things like kicking sinks.
Angband is pure strategy/hacknslash.

--
I will hold the candle till it burns up my arm.
I'll keep taking punches until their will grows tired.
I will stare the sun down until my eyes go blind.
I won't change direction and I won't change my mind...
How much difference does it make?

 

[Guest]

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

"Fealos" <fealos@fealos.com> wrote in message
news:1119680609.901499.282750@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> That's a good idea. I'll make sure that preserve mode is on, even
> though I'm extremely anal about having to explore every single nook and
> cranny. I think that's a trait of all RPGheads, though.
>
> Thanks for the replies!
>

If you play for long you will find out there are only 2 things that are
"must kill" to win the game....

For MANY levels it is NOT in your best interest strategically, tactically,
and "in character", to explore
every nook and cranny.

Even (often especially) levels with feelings.
I hope this link works...
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.roguelike.angband/browse_frm/t
hread/68e0dcbf29c70743/3374580df2477dbd?q=Tales+of+the+Bold+[V3.0.4]+group:r
ec.games.roguelike.angband&rnum=1&hl=en#3374580df2477dbd

otherwise try googling "tales of the bold [V3.0.4]" for the benefits of not
exploring every nook and cranny, and
especially for the benefits of not fighting even everything you think you
can beat.

(I have not won yet. Generally I die due to fighting things I THINK I can
beat rather than running away and looking
for things I KNOW I can beat - which would be the in character thing to do)

Garrie

 

[Guest]

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

On 24 Jun 2005 17:41:26 -0700, "Fealos" <fealos@fealos.com> wrote:

>I'm trying out vanilla, and I love it. I've been into RPGs for as long
>as I can remember, but for some reason I hadn't ever played a
>rogue/moria/angband game.
>
>The one thing that I can't stand, though, is how each time I go down
>more than one level and then come back up, it generates a new level. I
>want to see the level I went through the first time. For some reason
>this gets on my nerves a lot.
>
>Can you never get to a certain generated level twice?

This would be counter-productive, as it would inhibit item generation.
angband is made this way by design, as the fun occurs with mass item
generation. While items could still be created by regular monster drops,
it will not be as efficient as generating a new level (unless you are
looking for a unique.)

If you want persistant levels, you should check other rougelikes, such as
Nethack or Crawl. While it could be implemented in Angand, it would most
likly break a few things.

 

[Guest]

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

bk039@ncf.ca (Raymond Martineau) writes:

> On 24 Jun 2005 17:41:26 -0700, "Fealos" <fealos@fealos.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm trying out vanilla, and I love it. I've been into RPGs for as long
>>as I can remember, but for some reason I hadn't ever played a
>>rogue/moria/angband game.
>>
>>The one thing that I can't stand, though, is how each time I go down
>>more than one level and then come back up, it generates a new level. I
>>want to see the level I went through the first time. For some reason
>>this gets on my nerves a lot.
>>
>>Can you never get to a certain generated level twice?
>
> This would be counter-productive, as it would inhibit item generation.
> angband is made this way by design, as the fun occurs with mass item
> generation. While items could still be created by regular monster drops,
> it will not be as efficient as generating a new level (unless you are
> looking for a unique.)

I'll have to disagree with your conclusion. I have played several
ironman games in assorted variants. Ironman guarantees that each
level is generated at most once [since I refuse to use scrolls of
alter reality]. From experience, I can attest that there are plenty
of items and artifacts. If you farm demons [I don't any more], there
are unlimited objects.

Actually, I should disagree far more strongly. I have also played
several games where, because I dive quickly, I problably generated at
most 150 levels, and on average cleared only half of each level, and
still got more stuff than I wanted to deal with.

Whether persistent dungeons are a good idea depends on other things.
I see it is halfway between normal and ironman, and don't see why
so many people think it is such a bad idea. OTOH, I've never felt
it worth the minor effort to implement it. I'm basically agnostic
on the issue.


Eddie

 

[Guest]

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

Eddie Grove wrote:

> Whether persistent dungeons are a good idea depends on other things.
> I see it is halfway between normal and ironman, and don't see why
> so many people think it is such a bad idea.

To me seeing YAboring level is, well, boring. So I would not like to see
same level twice. Even if that level I just leaved had GV in it it will
turn out boring after I have cleaned it.

In old days where monster drops played lesser part getting new level
each time you used stairs was even more important because many (most) of
the better items you got were generated at floor.

> OTOH, I've never felt
> it worth the minor effort to implement it. I'm basically agnostic
> on the issue.

There is one way to implement this and still keep infinite levels: make
sure that each level has at least two stairs up and down and _only_
those stairs you used previously takes you back where you have been.

Don't know how hard this is to code, though.

Timo Pietilä

 

[Guest]

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

On 2005-06-27 10:49:07, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Timo_Pietilä?= <timo.pietila@helsinki.fi>
wrote:

> Eddie Grove wrote:
>
> > Whether persistent dungeons are a good idea depends on other things.
> > I see it is halfway between normal and ironman, and don't see why
> > so many people think it is such a bad idea.
>
> To me seeing YAboring level is, well, boring. So I would not like to see
> same level twice. Even if that level I just leaved had GV in it it will
> turn out boring after I have cleaned it.
>
> In old days where monster drops played lesser part getting new level
> each time you used stairs was even more important because many (most) of
> the better items you got were generated at floor.
>
> > OTOH, I've never felt
> > it worth the minor effort to implement it. I'm basically agnostic
> > on the issue.
>
> There is one way to implement this and still keep infinite levels: make
> sure that each level has at least two stairs up and down and _only_
> those stairs you used previously takes you back where you have been.
>
> Don't know how hard this is to code, though.
>

Its been done very well in Hengband. The persistent levels are only persistent
until you return to town, and if you take a set of stairs you have never taken
before, you get a new level.

Persistent levels are primarily to solve the problem of stair scumming, not for
anything else.

Andrew


--
Unangband L:C E+ T- R- P+ D-- G+(+) F:Sangband RL-- RLA-- W:F Q++
AI+(++) GFX++ SFX++ RN+++(+) PO++ Hp+++ Re--(+) S++ C- O* KG--

 

[Guest]

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

Fealos wrote:
> I'm extremely anal about having to explore every single nook and cranny.

Then you are gonna die a lot, either of excessive ambition or pure
boredom....

 

[Guest]

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

On 2005-06-25 03:44:39, Atriel <atriel666@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > I'm trying out vanilla, and I love it. I've been into RPGs for as long
> > as I can remember, but for some reason I hadn't ever played a
> > rogue/moria/angband game.
> >
> > The one thing that I can't stand, though, is how each time I go down
> > more than one level and then come back up, it generates a new level. I
> > want to see the level I went through the first time. For some reason
> > this gets on my nerves a lot.
> >
> > Can you never get to a certain generated level twice?
>
> Hengband has semi-permanent levels, in the sense that the
> levels are permanent IF you came exactly by the same stairs.
> If you go down then go up by another stair, it will be a
> different levels.
>
> Nethack (ARGH) do have permanent levels, but imho Nethack
> sux, it´s a puzzle and spoiler based roguelike that rewards you
> by doing stupid things like kicking sinks.
> Angband is pure strategy/hacknslash.
>
I play mostly *bands now because I like variation but I spent years playing
Nethack and its variants and I strenuously disagree with you. I find it much
more light-hearted and 'fun' to play. I very much like the persistent levels
they fit the game style well. Angband is at least as much, if not more,
spoiler based than hack. ie. Play for hours to get to the mid-game, get
insta-killed by some creature whose attacks you have not yet learned, repeat
(often ad nauseum). I spoil myself in *bands all the time when I meet a new
creature I stop and read the r_info file so I don't have to waste all the time
I've invested in that particular character. Of course some people like that
part of the game. Endlessly repeating the early and mid game in order to learn
every tiny little detail in order to use just the right combination of equipment
and strategy to beat that particular monster. Only to die when the next new and
more dangerous monster comes along. As far as 'reward for stupid things' go I
think this fits the bill. I won't even get into the incredible tedium of
inventory management. At least with persistent levels you can leave something
on level X and go back to it later if you need it.
Don't get me wrong, I very much enjoy many aspects of *bands and that is why I
continue to play them. Just don't call it 'pure strategy', unless you consider
the above discourse strategy.



-- manchu
-------------------------------------------------
There is a reason why all my facial hair is burned off.....

 

[Guest]

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

Timo Pietilä <timo.pietila@helsinki.fi> wrote:
>Eddie Grove wrote:
>>Whether persistent dungeons are a good idea depends on other things.
>>I see it is halfway between normal and ironman, and don't see why
>>so many people think it is such a bad idea.
>To me seeing YAboring level is, well, boring. So I would not like to see
>same level twice. Even if that level I just leaved had GV in it it will
>turn out boring after I have cleaned it.

I think my main objection to persistent levels are
a) the uniformity of the dungeon.
My two favorites, S and Z, both have more strange rooms and detailed
terrain in the dungeon than V. If levels were persistent, I'd want even
more variance and detail in the dungeon.
b) that all dungeon features are non-active.
The monsters do things, but only against the player (or sometimes against
other monsters in Z). If new monsters appear, they do so randomly and
rarely. It persistent dungeons were made the norm, active dungeon
features should also be introduced into the game - orc/troll/giant pits
that get reinforcements; nesting creches that generate unitelligent
monsters of a certain type, and when you kill all the monsters they'll
stay empty until some other monster type makes the plave it's lair;
strongholds or camps where the unique monsters guide their minions from,
or other such. If you empty these really quickly, that monster type will
retreat and you won't see them for a few levels, and so on...

Basically, currently if the level is boring I can choose to leave it and
try to find a more interesting one. If I can't do this, the game should
make sure all levels are interesting.
And because different players have different criteria for what constitutes
"interesting", this is very difficult to design...


Otto Martin - difficult or easy? open or closed? what kind of items? etc...
--
"I could use a feelings reset on a regular basis."
"Don't you think that's kind of sad?"
http://www.megatokyo.com/index.php?strip_id=471

 

[Guest]

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

Otto Martin <otto.martin@tut.fi> wrote in
news:d9sk8g$ehv$1@news.cc.tut.fi:

> I think my main objection to persistent levels are
> a) the uniformity of the dungeon.
> b) that all dungeon features are non-active.

Yes...

Were the levels in Rogue persistent? I haven't played it for at
least a decade, so I don't remember. But Rogue was a short game.
You could finish it before you even really got started powerdiving
in Angband.

Nethack and Omega have persistent levels (and even pre-built in
cases), but both have relatively smaller maps than Angband and try to
create large degrees of variety between groups of levels (via different
theme dungeons with different creatures, different basic layouts, and
even different gameplay aspects at times.) They both also try to add
variety in objects, abilities, and general actions to retain interest.
(Nethack is also a game where your life can depend on what you left at
the last level.)


Playing Angband's current level design system with persistent levels
would quickly get boring unless you were either playing Ironman or at
least close to Ironman.

Even with the increasing number of special rooms being added to
Angband and its variants, individual levels often aren't really that
"interesting" to play. (Though persistent levels would mean that you
see a lower number of level layouts and thus a lower number of special
rooms, so rooms might actually be "special" to the player for a bit
longer.)

And Angband isn't really designed for persistent levels either. Basic
things like easy return to the town (and from town to the last level)
have affected design decisions since the beginning. Monster drops, for
example, are tied to the idea that the player cannot take everything he
finds back to town. If you had persistent levels, you could stockpile
all the semi-valuable objects and burn a few recalls to make 2, 3, or 20
times the money you would normally make on a single level. Map
generationis likely tied to a lack of persistence as well, as Angband
levels are hardly the most user friendly layout with pointless
excessively rambling corridors and little rhyme or reason. The average
player doesn't really care though because he knows he'll never see any
particular layout again.