Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Preferred Keyboard Controls

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 9:17:42 AM

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

Hello,

I was wondering what keyboard controls you prefer for RL actions. I
realize this is potentially flamewar instigating stuff, so let's avoid
the vi-keys versus arrow keys/numpad debate (the solution is obviously
to support both ;-).

The reason I ask is that in Nethack, which is my main point of
reference, the Look command is '/', but with my Javascript Roguelike in
Mozilla Firefox, pressing '/' brings up the page search dialog.
Likewise, the arrow keys scroll the page around, so I am forced to use
vi-keys. This is obviously a limitation that the environment imposes on
me, but I would like to keep the controls as close to a 'standard' RL
as possible.

To summarize; what are your preferred key bindings for common RL
commands (not including movement)?

Andy

PS: If you haven't seen my RL (JRR) yet, check it out at
http://www.pagezero.net/roguelike/javascript2 (Firefox-only atm, sorry)
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 9:51:18 AM

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

Twisted One wrote:
> Andy Driver wrote:
> > Hello,

> > I was wondering what keyboard controls you prefer for RL actions. I
> > realize this is potentially flamewar instigating stuff, so let's
avoid
> > the vi-keys versus arrow keys/numpad debate (the solution is
obviously
> > to support both ;-).

> When it comes to programming, yes. When it comes to playing, numpad
wins
> every time. Arrow keys don't have diagonals and vi-keys don't
correspond
> in any logical way to movement directions vis a vis their position on
the keyboard (and, worse, might actually *move around* from one layout
> to another, and even no longer be in a big clump under, say, Dvorak
layout or whatever).

I hadn't thought of that. I'll add numpad support too.

<snip>

> > To summarize; what are your preferred key bindings for common RL
> > commands (not including movement)?

> Well, q should be quaff, ? and F1 should be help/documentation
viewer, r
> should be read, z should be zap, i inventory, e equipment, w >
wear/wield
> ... :) 

These are good, and match up with my Nethack experience. F1 might be
tricky, though. Any more? Specifically, is there a good alternative to
'/' for look?

Andy
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 10:49:10 AM

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

Andy Driver wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I was wondering what keyboard controls you prefer for RL actions. I
> realize this is potentially flamewar instigating stuff, so let's
avoid
> the vi-keys versus arrow keys/numpad debate (the solution is
obviously
> to support both ;-).
>
> The reason I ask is that in Nethack, which is my main point of
> reference, the Look command is '/',

Though what seems intuitive to people who first learned interface A for
a task may not seem intuitive to people who first learned interface B
for it, I must say I could never make much sense of the / command --
neither its initiation nor work with it after that.

But to the point: l for look or x for "x"amine will be consistent with
any user mental model built up by the rest of your command keys, and of
course with any mental model built up by playing other roguelikes in
the past.

> but with my Javascript Roguelike in
> Mozilla Firefox, pressing '/' brings up the page search dialog.

Firefox -- now with more Lynx-compatibility!

> To summarize; what are your preferred key bindings for common RL
> commands (not including movement)?

One letter or another, it's all the same to me, but I am happiest when:
- I don't have to press Shift too much;
- I don't have to use the right side of the keyboard for the most
common actions (I'm a numpadder)
- I'm not faced with excessively long option lists (but see below :-))
- I'm not faced with excessive synonyms for what's basically the same
action (but see above :-)), leading to extra rote memorization and to
so many commands that shifted keys must be used to accomodate them all
- I can remap keys (I realize that that's not an option for you)
- the "first-letter" rule is respected wherever reasonable
- movement keys never, ever do anything other than move *cough* Crawl
*cough*

Erik
Related resources
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 11:59:20 AM

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

I use numpad completely. say, 1-9 for direction, "/" then num for
skills, etc... It is extremely nice when you have an external numpad
like me :) 
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 12:32:38 PM

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

Andy Driver wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I was wondering what keyboard controls you prefer for RL actions. I
> realize this is potentially flamewar instigating stuff, so let's avoid
> the vi-keys versus arrow keys/numpad debate (the solution is obviously
> to support both ;-).

When it comes to programming, yes. When it comes to playing, numpad wins
every time. Arrow keys don't have diagonals and vi-keys don't correspond
in any logical way to movement directions vis a vis their position on
the keyboard (and, worse, might actually *move around* from one layout
to another, and even no longer be in a big clump under, say, Dvorak
layout or whatever).

> The reason I ask is that in Nethack, which is my main point of
> reference, the Look command is '/', but with my Javascript Roguelike in
> Mozilla Firefox, pressing '/' brings up the page search dialog.
> Likewise, the arrow keys scroll the page around, so I am forced to use
> vi-keys.

NOOOOOOO!
Use the numpad! Before it's too late! (or both)

> To summarize; what are your preferred key bindings for common RL
> commands (not including movement)?

Well, q should be quaff, ? and F1 should be help/documentation viewer, r
should be read, z should be zap, i inventory, e equipment, w wear/wield
.... :) 

--
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
May 13, 2005 1:01:03 PM

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

Andy Driver wrote:
> These are good, and match up with my Nethack experience. F1 might be
> tricky, though. Any more? Specifically, is there a good alternative to
> '/' for look?

'l' comes to mind. So does 'x' (eXamine) which is used in crawl. Use the
command name's first letter when possible -- it makes it easier for your
users to memorize and makes it likely to match up to some other games
out there (notably *bands, of which there are a great many with nearly
identical bindings).

--
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
May 13, 2005 2:02:46 PM

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

erisdiscordia wrote:
> - movement keys never, ever do anything other than move *cough* Crawl
> *cough*

You object to the numpad also being used to launch melee attacks in
Crawl? ;) 

--
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
May 13, 2005 11:32:16 PM

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

On Fri, 13 May 2005, Jim Strathmeyer wrote:
>
> <http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.roguelike...;

I think you mean

http://groups.google.es/groups?hl=en&threadm=%25SPSc.71...$54.109274@typhoon.sonic.net

The latter URL has the dual advantages of (1) not directing readers
to Google Groups Beta, and (2) containing the Message-ID of the root
of the thread right in the URL, for the benefit of readers who prefer
to read Usenet in their news client or elsewhere on the Web.
(One of the many intentional flaws in Google Groups Beta is its
insistence on using proprietary, meaningless "Beta IDs" such as
"c4ebcb235cc275dc," instead of standard Message-IDs, to index archived
Usenet posts.)

-Arthur,
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~ajo/dont-be-evil.htm...
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 3:03:25 AM

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

Jim Strathmeyer wrote:
> <http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.roguelike...;

Interesting. Looks like <, >, ?, and Q are pretty much universal.

Also, it got Angband's L and M swapped -- L is scroll around full-scale
map and M is shrink map to fit on one screen. M is very useful for
locating the nearest stairs if they aren't in view at 1:1 scale. (Stairs
and certain other useful features never "hide between the pixels", so
you will be able to locate them to within about three squares.)

--
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
May 14, 2005 3:08:04 AM

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

On 13 May 2005 06:49:10 -0700, "erisdiscordia" <erik@sky.cz> wrote:

>- movement keys never, ever do anything other than move *cough* Crawl
>*cough*

It's standard behavior in RLs for movement keys to do things other
than move, like, oh... make a melee attack.

--
R. Dan Henry = danhenry@inreach.com
Dance, Puppet, dance!
But why are there *humans* dancing for the puppet?
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 10:36:30 AM

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

Andy Driver wrote:

> To summarize; what are your preferred key bindings for common RL
> commands (not including movement)?
>
> Andy

I prefer Numpad, but there definitely must be another option-- my
laptop (and others like it) doesn't have a keypad (in normal mode, and
other RL's like Crawl, ADOM, don't seem to be compatible with the
"numpad lock" keystrokes)
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 12:39:59 PM

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

R. Dan Henry wrote:
> On 13 May 2005 06:49:10 -0700, "erisdiscordia" <erik@sky.cz> wrote:
>
>
>>- movement keys never, ever do anything other than move *cough* Crawl
>>*cough*
>
>
> It's standard behavior in RLs for movement keys to do things other
> than move, like, oh... make a melee attack.
>

I'm doing something a little different; I have the numbers 1-9 move
the character or meelee, (except for 5, which executes "wait in
place"), and the arrow keys scroll the map.

Of course, the map also autoscrolls when you get too close to an edge,
but I think it's important to be able to explicitly scroll so you can
see things from further away in some circumstances or even look at
remembered parts of the map where your character is not.

Bear
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 12:57:24 PM

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

[...]
> 'l' comes to mind. So does 'x' (eXamine) which is used in crawl. Use the
> command name's first letter when possible -- it makes it easier for your
> users to memorize and makes it likely to match up to some other games
> out there (notably *bands, of which there are a great many with nearly
> identical bindings).
[...]

Mnemonic bindings are, in my opinion, the most intuitive. For something like
look I'd reccomend *both* x and l, as well as for "get item from floor"
being g as well as , (used by ADOM, which I have played for hundreds of
hours, so I automatically press , when I want to pick something up! ;) .

Unless you are somehow running out of keys, redundant implementations won't
do any harm (makes everybody happy, so to say). Also, in an earlier thread a
while ago, someone discussed the absolute uselessness of having duplicate
keys for "eat food, zap wand, read scroll, use item, pull lever, etc." when
there is only one supported action for the item (that is to say,
generically, (U)se), which manifests itself in different ways. Something to
consider is implementing the different keys for different item actions-- the
standard way-- as well as 'u' for a master-use (once again, making everybody
happy ;) .

--Nolithius
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 1:04:19 PM

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

[...]
> I'm doing something a little different; I have the numbers 1-9 move
> the character or meelee, (except for 5, which executes "wait in
> place"), and the arrow keys scroll the map.
>
> Of course, the map also autoscrolls when you get too close to an edge,
> but I think it's important to be able to explicitly scroll so you can
> see things from further away in some circumstances or even look at
> remembered parts of the map where your character is not.
[...]

Intuitively in RLs, the arrow keys should give you movement. Have you
considered Shift+Arrow key for map scrolling? I know the use of Shift might
be frowned upon, but in this case it makes sense-- you're providing an
alternate functionality to the same key. In addition, with this approach you
can make it so that when the user releases the Shift key, the map centers
back on the player (this feature could be turned off through config/options,
ideally, but default on seems good ;) .

Cheers,

Nolithius
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 3:22:42 PM

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

Nolithius wrote:
> [...]
>
>>I'm doing something a little different; I have the numbers 1-9 move
>>the character or meelee, (except for 5, which executes "wait in
>>place"), and the arrow keys scroll the map.
>>
>>Of course, the map also autoscrolls when you get too close to an edge,
>>but I think it's important to be able to explicitly scroll so you can
>>see things from further away in some circumstances or even look at
>>remembered parts of the map where your character is not.
>
> [...]
>
> Intuitively in RLs, the arrow keys should give you movement. Have you
> considered Shift+Arrow key for map scrolling? I know the use of Shift might
> be frowned upon, but in this case it makes sense-- you're providing an
> alternate functionality to the same key.

It should only take a player a second to catch on that arrow keys
don't give you movement, and after that it should be plenty intuitive.
Diablo allows you to scroll you minimap with the arrow keys, and I
never had a problem with it. Granted, I do like the idea of using
Shift+Arrow key for scrolling. It too seems intuitive, and allows
arrow keys to be used for movement, which is always handy for us folks
without numpads.

> In addition, with this approach you
> can make it so that when the user releases the Shift key, the map centers
> back on the player (this feature could be turned off through config/options,
> ideally, but default on seems good ;) .

Meh, I don't really think that seems good. I'd rather have an
auto-center key, like many FPS games have. Forcing the map to center
back on the player, even as a configurable default, would be a bit of
a pain. It'd definitely be a turnoff for me, and could easily prompt
people to stop playing, before they get a chance to learn that such
behavior could be turned off. Best to keep the camera where the
player scrolled it, and only move it back on him if he manually does
so himself, hits the auto-center key, or sets the config to always
auto-center.


--
SoulEaterRL... Coming soon!

http://www.freewebs.com/timsrl/index.htm

--
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 9:22:23 PM

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

ABCGi wrote:
> Andy Driver wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I was wondering what keyboard controls you prefer for RL actions. I
> > realize this is potentially flamewar instigating stuff, so let's
avoid
> > the vi-keys versus arrow keys/numpad debate (the solution is
obviously
> > to support both ;-).
>
> I don't think that is obvious as you potentially lose
> keys.

You clearly haven't had the joy of playing rogulikes on a laptop.

Even if you use the NumLock to turn a section of the laptop into a
numpad, you will still lose keys as that numberpad will be overlaid on
the alphanumeric keyboard.

I also strongly believe in supporting the arrow keys to do the same as
the number pad. First, the majority of movement can be done with arrow
keys. For sloppy players like me, this means even lacking vi keys one
can play it on a laptop by just switching to 1-9 when one needs a
diagonal. (BTW: Do not disable the support of normal 1-9 if you are
going numpad only!)

Next, even with a full size keyboard, I'd usually use the arrow keys
for movement. One is very used to using them to cursor around, so it
comes naturally.

When assigning keys, it may be useful to remember that the right hand
is often used for movement - either number pad, arrow, or vi keys.
This means the left hand keys are more valuable and should be used for
commonly executed commands. (This is also why "losing" the vi keys
isn't as bad as it sounds, the right hand is already quite busy)

Be very careful with using punctuation. It shows up in different
places on different keyboards, and may even not exist...
--
Jeff Lait
(POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 11:25:01 PM

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

Andy Driver wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I was wondering what keyboard controls you prefer for RL actions. I
> realize this is potentially flamewar instigating stuff, so let's avoid
> the vi-keys versus arrow keys/numpad debate (the solution is obviously
> to support both ;-).

I don't think that is obvious as you potentially lose
keys. Configurable/savable or keysets is viable. There
is an arguement for not allowing keys to be changeable
though (easy documentation, consistent feel, game design
control - these don't resonate well with me but it is
still an arguement).

> The reason I ask is that in Nethack, which is my main point of
> reference, the Look command is '/', but with my Javascript Roguelike in
> Mozilla Firefox, pressing '/' brings up the page search dialog.
> Likewise, the arrow keys scroll the page around, so I am forced to use
> vi-keys. This is obviously a limitation that the environment imposes on
> me, but I would like to keep the controls as close to a 'standard' RL
> as possible.
>
> To summarize; what are your preferred key bindings for common RL
> commands (not including movement)?

I don't believe we should avoid surveying that as well.
As it is integral to the whole key design.

> Andy
>
> PS: If you haven't seen my RL (JRR) yet, check it out at
> http://www.pagezero.net/roguelike/javascript2 (Firefox-only atm, sorry)

Better than IE only ;)  = nice wd!

Could you do me a favour and collate the results once
your survey is done? Perhaps add it to the RogueBasin?

Quickly, I prefer:
Numpad keys for movements
Numpad '5' - pickup (a recent and horrific change of pref)
g - get, perhaps if generally allowing two keys to do same thing
r - read
z - zap
q - quaff
.. - rest (numpad or main)
? - help
f - target and f again to fire
tab - next target
l - look
x - exchange
R - rest till interrupted or healed/magicked up
numpad 0 - reload
enter - action (numpad or main)
e - equipment
E - eat
i - inventory
d - drop
o - open
c - close
u - use
U - special use
<> - up down stairs
12345 - quick weapon switch or tactics
@ - character screen
ctrl x - exit

And so on... which RL keyset do I like best??? ;) 

--
ABCGi ---- (abcgi@yahoo.com) ---- http://codemonkey.sunsite.dk
Fun RLs in rgrd that I have tested recently!
DoomRL - DwellerMobile - HWorld - AburaTan - DiabloRL
Heroic Adventure - Powder - Shuruppak - TheTombs
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 1:01:35 AM

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

Jeff Lait wrote:
> ABCGi wrote:
>
>>Andy Driver wrote:
>>
>>>Hello,
>>>
>>>I was wondering what keyboard controls you prefer for RL actions. I
>>>realize this is potentially flamewar instigating stuff, so let's
>
> avoid
>
>>>the vi-keys versus arrow keys/numpad debate (the solution is
>
> obviously
>
>>>to support both ;-).
>>
>>I don't think that is obvious as you potentially lose
>>keys.
>
>
> You clearly haven't had the joy of playing rogulikes on a laptop.
>
> Even if you use the NumLock to turn a section of the laptop into a
> numpad, you will still lose keys as that numberpad will be overlaid on
> the alphanumeric keyboard.

As an individual who does everything on his laptop, I agree with you
wholeheartedly. The NumLk function on my keyboard makes it almost
impossible to do anything, since so many keys become unusable in the
process.

> I also strongly believe in supporting the arrow keys to do the same as
> the number pad. First, the majority of movement can be done with arrow
> keys. For sloppy players like me, this means even lacking vi keys one
> can play it on a laptop by just switching to 1-9 when one needs a
> diagonal. (BTW: Do not disable the support of normal 1-9 if you are
> going numpad only!)

Definitely. I rely completely on the arrow keys for movement, with
the occasional 1-9 for critical movements involving diagonals. It's a
pain in the ass to use, but without using those keys for movement, it
would have been impossible for me to get my first ADOM victory.

> Next, even with a full size keyboard, I'd usually use the arrow keys
> for movement. One is very used to using them to cursor around, so it
> comes naturally.

Same here. Arrow keys and the "wasd" keys for movement are by far the
most intuitive (the latter from my FPS experience).

> When assigning keys, it may be useful to remember that the right hand
> is often used for movement - either number pad, arrow, or vi keys.
> This means the left hand keys are more valuable and should be used for
> commonly executed commands. (This is also why "losing" the vi keys
> isn't as bad as it sounds, the right hand is already quite busy)

I dunno. ADOM used up a number of the vi keys for other commands, and
I found them to be rather intuitive. One problem with the vi keys, as
I see it (besides the fact that they're a pain to use), is that they
tie up the 'y' and 'n' keys, which are obviously used for any "yes" or
"no" selections. I hate the idea of tying a movement key to these
keys, because it's way too easy to be moving along quickly, get a
prompt, not see it, and accidently hit the movement key, thus
selecting a potentially bad choice. When you use normal movement
keys, there can be no ill effect from moving rapidly and missing a
prompt, since no action will be taken no matter how many times you
mash on the arrow keys.

> Be very careful with using punctuation. It shows up in different
> places on different keyboards, and may even not exist...


--
SoulEaterRL... Coming soon!

http://www.freewebs.com/timsrl/index.htm

--
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 2:02:20 AM

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

Jeff Lait wrote:

> Be very careful with using punctuation. It shows up in different
> places on different keyboards, and may even not exist...

In general, I think you can rely on most punctuation characters. After
all, ~ ! # ^ & * { } | ; : ' " < > , . ? are all used to type C source
code. Unless you're targetting a platform such as a cell phone or
gameboy, I'd say these are pretty reasonable characters to use.
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 6:33:28 AM

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

Timothy Pruett wrote:
> Meh, I don't really think that seems good. I'd rather have an
> auto-center key, like many FPS games have.

A key I never use when playing any FPS. It's useless with mouselook, but
you (the player) are useless without mouselook. ;) 

[snip discussion of autocentering in RLs]

Attempting to move or issue any other gameplay command (one which takes
game time) ought to recenter so you can see wtf you're doing and any
monsters that crop up!

--
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
May 15, 2005 6:45:43 AM

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

neokosmos@gmail.com wrote:
> In general, I think you can rely on most punctuation characters. After
> all, ~ ! # ^ & * { } | ; : ' " < > , . ? are all used to type C source
> code. Unless you're targetting a platform such as a cell phone or
> gameboy, I'd say these are pretty reasonable characters to use.

Phones only have numpads, #, and * (as a rule -- there may be
exceptions) and gameboys have only arrow keys and a few other keys, so
you can't even rely on the alphabet on those platforms. ;) 

It's probably safe to limit your game's portability by making "keyboard"
a system requirement. It's probably impossible to have a playable
roguelike without one, other than an extremely simplified one with
basically only movement commands. (One with lots of metaing needed to
enter most commands doesn't count as "playable" in my book. How many
distinct long sequences of # and * can someone memorize, after all?
Assuming you don't want to use movement keys for anything but movement.)

In that case, the alphabet, the punctuation above plus `, and tab, bksp,
and ctrl-letter and shift-<letter, digit, or punctuation> should be
dependably available.

Also, in your list above you missed [ and ], which are used for array
indexing in C and have additional uses in C++. Also, =, +, -, _, \, and
/. ;) 

--
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
May 15, 2005 7:06:28 AM

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

Twisted One wrote:
> Attempting to move or issue any other gameplay command (one which takes
> game time) ought to recenter so you can see wtf you're doing and any
> monsters that crop up!

Clarification: the above applies when the @ has been scrolled off the
screen, or near enough to the edge; it should at least snap back to show
the @ a minimum distance from the edge, if not fully centered, in those
cases. If the @ is close enough to centered already it can be left
alone. (And start scrolling with the @ if the @ gets close enough to an
edge.)

Actually -- the sensible thing is either for movement to keep the @
centered, or for movement to gradually scroll-ahead until the @ is
fairly off-center in the direction *opposte* travel, then stabilize the
@'s on screen position there. Or let the "look-ahead squares" or how far
off-center the @ drifts be set in preferences. If the @ is outside a
centered-on-screen square of side 2*look-ahead when a gameplay command
is issued, the view should snap to be centered as close as possible to
where it was before subject to the constraint that the @ now lies inside
that square; then the effects of the command occur.

--
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
May 15, 2005 7:26:21 PM

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

Timothy Pruett wrote:
> Jeff Lait wrote:
>
>> ABCGi wrote:
>>
>>> Andy Driver wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I was wondering what keyboard controls you prefer for RL actions. I
>>>> realize this is potentially flamewar instigating stuff, so let's
>>
>>
>> avoid
>>
>>>> the vi-keys versus arrow keys/numpad debate (the solution is
>>
>>
>> obviously
>>
>>>> to support both ;-).
>>>
>>> I don't think that is obvious as you potentially lose
>>> keys.
>>
>> You clearly haven't had the joy of playing rogulikes on a laptop.
>>
>> Even if you use the NumLock to turn a section of the laptop into a
>> numpad, you will still lose keys as that numberpad will be overlaid on
>> the alphanumeric keyboard.
>
> As an individual who does everything on his laptop, I agree with you
> wholeheartedly. The NumLk function on my keyboard makes it almost
> impossible to do anything, since so many keys become unusable in the
> process.
*SNIP*

Except this is preferences not keyboard design. I prefer
to use the numpad and have those other keys available :) 

--
ABCGi ---- (abcgi@yahoo.com) ---- http://codemonkey.sunsite.dk
Fun RLs in rgrd that I have tested recently!
DoomRL - DwellerMobile - HWorld - AburaTan - DiabloRL
Heroic Adventure - Powder - Shuruppak - TheTombs
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 7:56:49 AM

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

Thanks for the link :)  - I couldn't find that when I searched...

Andy
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 7:59:37 AM

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

ABCGi wrote:
<snip>
> Could you do me a favour and collate the results once
> your survey is done? Perhaps add it to the RogueBasin?
<snip>

I have started a page on RogueBasin called PreferredKeyControls. It
summarizes this thread and I'm going to collect all the results there
too. Not sure about the best way to present the results though, a big
table perhaps?

Andy
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 5:58:30 PM

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

Quoting Jeff Lait <torespondisfutile@hotmail.com>:
>I also strongly believe in supporting the arrow keys to do the same as
>the number pad. First, the majority of movement can be done with arrow
>keys. For sloppy players like me, this means even lacking vi keys one
>can play it on a laptop by just switching to 1-9 when one needs a
>diagonal. (BTW: Do not disable the support of normal 1-9 if you are
>going numpad only!)

The Psion port of NetHack uses a meta key to rotate the arrow keys through
45 degrees. I recommend this approach (for non-hjkl Philistines).
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is Gloucesterday, May.
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 2:27:09 AM

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

Twisted One wrote:
> Timothy Pruett wrote:
>
>> Meh, I don't really think that seems good. I'd rather have an
>> auto-center key, like many FPS games have.
>
>
> A key I never use when playing any FPS. It's useless with mouselook, but
> you (the player) are useless without mouselook. ;) 
>
> [snip discussion of autocentering in RLs]
>
> Attempting to move or issue any other gameplay command (one which takes
> game time) ought to recenter so you can see wtf you're doing and any
> monsters that crop up!
>

Some people use the following tactic, binding the "center view" button
to mouse button 2:
See enemy. Aim at center of enemy. Press Mouse2 then immediately Mouse1.
Instant headshot. (provided characters are in the same horizontal plane).

So even with mouselook, a center view key can be useful.
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 2:42:16 AM

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

Elethiomel wrote:

> Twisted One wrote:
>> Timothy Pruett wrote:
>>
>>> Meh, I don't really think that seems good. I'd rather have an
>>> auto-center key, like many FPS games have.
>>
>>
>> A key I never use when playing any FPS. It's useless with mouselook, but
>> you (the player) are useless without mouselook. ;) 
>>
>> [snip discussion of autocentering in RLs]
>>
>> Attempting to move or issue any other gameplay command (one which takes
>> game time) ought to recenter so you can see wtf you're doing and any
>> monsters that crop up!
>>
>
> Some people use the following tactic, binding the "center view" button
> to mouse button 2:
> See enemy. Aim at center of enemy. Press Mouse2 then immediately Mouse1.
> Instant headshot. (provided characters are in the same horizontal plane).
>
> So even with mouselook, a center view key can be useful.

And such tactics is considered cheating in most games because it is like
using an aimbot to help you.
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 2:48:11 AM

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

Andy Driver wrote:
> ABCGi wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>Could you do me a favour and collate the results once
>>your survey is done? Perhaps add it to the RogueBasin?
>
> <snip>
>
> I have started a page on RogueBasin called PreferredKeyControls. It
> summarizes this thread and I'm going to collect all the results there
> too. Not sure about the best way to present the results though, a big
> table perhaps?
>
> Andy

Cool thanks, I would list the most popular keys at
the top of a list and work down, link;

http://roguebasin.t-o-m-e.net/index.php/PreferredKeyCon...

--
ABCGi ---- (abcgi@yahoo.com) ---- http://codemonkey.sunsite.dk
Fun RLs in rgrd that I have tested recently!
DoomRL - DwellerMobile - HWorld - AburaTan - DiabloRL
Heroic Adventure - Powder - Shuruppak - TheTombs
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 5:28:55 AM

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

Twisted One <twisted0n3@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> It's probably safe to limit your game's portability by making
> "keyboard" a system requirement. It's probably impossible to have
> a playable roguelike without one, other than an extremely
> simplified one with basically only movement commands. (One with
> lots of metaing needed to enter most commands doesn't count as
> "playable" in my book.

Well, CalcRogue doesn't require a keyboard. However, it the interface
had to be designed from scratch for each platform and a good deal of
cleverness applied. The TI-89 has a numpad, arrow keys, 4 meta keys
plus 30 miscellaneous keys, which is plenty with a minimum of
meta'ing. (I use a unified use command, and some things aren't as
mnemonic as they could be, but it works.) PalmOS is much harder; it
has 6 buttons plus a touchscreen. It's still workable, though, with
edge-tapping for movement, some on-screen buttons, and using menus
for the less common commands.

> How many distinct long sequences of # and *
> can someone memorize, after all? Assuming you don't want to use
> movement keys for anything but movement.)

Obviously, just 0-9, #, * won't go very far, but phones these days
typically have quite a few buttons on top of that, and you can
always use meta+movement key for a non-movement action, and you
can put the rarely-used actions into menus.

The commands which really need dedicated keys, when you get down to
it, are
move (8 directions)
run (dead-key for move)
fire
use (unified)
cast spell
The rest can just go in menus, assuming menu access is reasonably
efficient (2-3 keypresses). If all you have is 0-9,#,*, then you
could use
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9: move
5: run
0: menu
#: use
*: spell (if caster), fire (otherwise) (both in menu)
and screen size, processor, and memory issues aside, that's adequate
for any of the major roguelikes. (Well, except Angband, dependent as
it is on macros, but Angband's a degenerate case.)

--
CalcRogue: TI-89, TI-92+, PalmOS, Windows and Linux.
http://calcrogue.jimrandomh.org/
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 7:03:01 PM

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

Elethiomel wrote:
> See enemy. Aim at center of enemy. Press Mouse2 then immediately Mouse1.
> Instant headshot. (provided characters are in the same horizontal plane).
>
> So even with mouselook, a center view key can be useful.

Yeah -- to CHEATERS! :p  (Well, it's borderline. It strikes me as
abusive, though technically allowed within the game mechanics. :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
May 17, 2005 7:08:03 PM

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

jimrandomh wrote:
[snip]
[phones with more than 0-9, #, and *]
Well, I haven't seen one. Aside from speed dial buttons and other stuff
you can't assume will be present on any particular person's telephone.

> The commands which really need dedicated keys, when you get down to
> it, are
> move (8 directions)
> run (dead-key for move)

Obvious binding: quick double-tapping a move key runs that way.

> fire
> use (unified)
> cast spell
> The rest can just go in menus, assuming menu access is reasonably
> efficient (2-3 keypresses). If all you have is 0-9,#,*, then you
> could use
> 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9: move
> 5: run

As a prefix? e.g. 53 to run up and right? (Remember, phone numpads are
laid out upside-down compared to keyboard numpads!)

> 0: menu
> #: use
> *: spell (if caster), fire (otherwise) (both in menu)

The roguelike better not require people to wear-test lots of equipment,
since that will involve going through menus.

> and screen size, processor, and memory issues aside, that's adequate
> for any of the major roguelikes. (Well, except Angband, dependent as
> it is on macros, but Angband's a degenerate case.)

Who are you calling degenerate?! ;) 

Angband is a great game -- don't diss it ;) 

--
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
May 18, 2005 1:56:42 AM

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

Christophe Cavalaria wrote:
> Elethiomel wrote:
>>Some people use the following tactic, binding the "center view" button
>>to mouse button 2:
>>See enemy. Aim at center of enemy. Press Mouse2 then immediately Mouse1.
>>Instant headshot. (provided characters are in the same horizontal plane).
>>
>>So even with mouselook, a center view key can be useful.
>
>
> And such tactics is considered cheating in most games because it is like
> using an aimbot to help you.

Indeed. And I consider it abusive, at best, just like Twisted One. I
don't use it myself, I just wanted to point out that it's a real use for
a center view key in an FPS.

(Not to mention that the "cheating" consideration applies mostly to
online games where you play against other humans. Against the computer,
anything within game mechanics goes -- or counting moves when pillar
dancing would also be considered cheating.) ;) 
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 1:08:00 PM

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

Elethiomel wrote:
[instant headshot trick in FPS games]
> Indeed. And I consider it abusive, at best, just like Twisted One. I
> don't use it myself, I just wanted to point out that it's a real use for
> a center view key in an FPS.
>
> (Not to mention that the "cheating" consideration applies mostly to
> online games where you play against other humans. Against the computer,
> anything within game mechanics goes -- or counting moves when pillar
> dancing would also be considered cheating.) ;) 

It's not actually a very powerful cheat anyway, unless the FPS has
really terrible map design. It only works if you and the target are on
surfaces at the same level, and decent deathmatch maps have interesting
height variations and have had since the days of DooM.

--
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
May 19, 2005 7:52:28 AM

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

Daniel Andersen wrote:
> wonder what it is that causes RL developers to hold angband to be
some kind
> of lesser roguelike :)  Seeing this comment reminded me of something
Krice
> (i think) said the other day about how nobody playes angband or some
such.

Mr. Andersen... *sarcastic smile*
Khm.. well, for me there are at least two big reasons: poor UI and
discarded levels. I'd like the levels to stay.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 8:00:02 AM

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

Glen Wheeler wrote:
> The UI of Angband is one of the best.

Let me guess.. You use Linux and love progams like Vi?:) 
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 9:24:31 AM

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

Ray Dillinger wrote:
> Daniel Andersen wrote:
> > jimrandomh wrote:
> >
> >>for any of the major roguelikes. (Well, except Angband, dependent
as
> >>it is on macros, but Angband's a degenerate case.)
> > Hey,
> >
> > Just out of curiosity, why do some people here go out of their way
to knock
> > angband? I see comments like this pop up occasionally and I can't
help but
> > wonder what it is that causes RL developers to hold angband to be
some kind
> > of lesser roguelike :)  Seeing this comment reminded me of something
Krice
> > (i think) said the other day about how nobody playes angband or
some such.
> >
>
> Angband's play got simplified a lot during its code cleanup.

Ehm, no ? Do you have any evidence of this ? When was Angband's play
more complex ?

> I guess a lot of people regard it as excessively simplistic,
> and miss item interactions and monster interactions that are
> more complex in other games. There are no intrinsic abilities,
> for example.

Define intrinsic ability ?

> Angband monsters, in particular, are all using (approx) the
> same AI, and it's a pretty simple one; learning to play
> Angband is largely a process of learning to exploit bugs
> in its line of sight code and learning to exploit its
> absolutely predictable monster AI's.

BS. You have at least 2 AI's. Regular + group AI ( hounds etc. )

> I dish on Angband because its play is excessively dominated
> by resistances; It is futile to go below a certain level
> without poison resistance, for example, because sooner or
> later you will get an instadeath from some monster that
> breathes at you from offscreen.

BS. You just have to become a better player. It's been a _long_ time
that I have been instadeathed and that was because of macroing 3 spells
;)  And I do
not wait for resistances.

> Similar effects apply to
> other resistances as well, resulting in the player doing
> repetitive and boring things in order to collect all
> resistances.

The only boring thing is maxing CON. And hunting uniques at very high
levels.

> And Angband has no time limit. No matter how boring
> something is, you can do it forever and still eventually
> win. Write a mildly complicated macro, leave a golf ball
> on the key, come back a week later and a billion game
> turns later, and your character is up four levels!

?? Yes, there are still 46 levels to go.

And
> you're left to imagine someone spending all those game
> years, just walking back and forth in a closed room
> slashing at worms (or whatever) while growing old.
> Morgoth must have infinite patience, or not be plotting
> to do anything bad anyway, if he will sit there and wait
> while you farm worms.

;)  I still have to see a worm farmer win the game

>
> Bear
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 7:57:01 PM

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

jimrandomh wrote:
> for any of the major roguelikes. (Well, except Angband, dependent as
> it is on macros, but Angband's a degenerate case.)

Hey,

Just out of curiosity, why do some people here go out of their way to knock
angband? I see comments like this pop up occasionally and I can't help but
wonder what it is that causes RL developers to hold angband to be some kind
of lesser roguelike :)  Seeing this comment reminded me of something Krice
(i think) said the other day about how nobody playes angband or some such.

I know that most or all of these comments are meant as a joke, but I don't
think i've ever seen people post derrogatory comments like this about
Nethack or Crawl. This seems rather odd to me, as from a developmental
viewpoint at least I believe angband is leaps and bounds ahead of those two
given the code cleanup by Ben Harrison a while ago. Could someone shed some
light on why this is so, or am I just getting overly defensive about my
favourite roguelike? :) 

Daniel

PS. Sorry to hijack this thread :) 
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 7:57:02 PM

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

Dnia Thu, 19 May 2005 15:57:01 +1000,
Daniel Andersen napisal(a):
> jimrandomh wrote:

> Just out of curiosity, why do some people here go out of their way to knock
> angband? I see comments like this pop up occasionally and I can't help but
> wonder what it is that causes RL developers to hold angband to be some kind
> of lesser roguelike :)  Seeing this comment reminded me of something Krice
> (i think) said the other day about how nobody playes angband or some such.

I think Angband is treated this way here because of all the variants that
weren't written form scratch ;) 
And, offcourse, the hate of munchkins who make our games sooo hard to
balance.

> I know that most or all of these comments are meant as a joke, but I don't
> think i've ever seen people post derrogatory comments like this about
> Nethack or Crawl.

Well, there occasional comments on how one's roguelike won't have
everything just randomly put together in it, sink included, and the like.
It's just a question of a good ear ;) 

> This seems rather odd to me, as from a developmental
> viewpoint at least I believe angband is leaps and bounds ahead of those two
> given the code cleanup by Ben Harrison a while ago. Could someone shed some
> light on why this is so, or am I just getting overly defensive about my
> favourite roguelike? :) 

The latter.

--
Radomir @**@_ Bee! The quest for the Real World:
`The Sheep' ('') 3 Try #1: cd /..
Dopieralski .vvVvVVVVVvVVVvv.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 7:57:02 PM

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

Daniel Andersen wrote:
> jimrandomh wrote:
>
>>for any of the major roguelikes. (Well, except Angband, dependent as
>>it is on macros, but Angband's a degenerate case.)
>
>
> Hey,
>
> Just out of curiosity, why do some people here go out of their way to knock
> angband? I see comments like this pop up occasionally and I can't help but
> wonder what it is that causes RL developers to hold angband to be some kind
> of lesser roguelike :)  Seeing this comment reminded me of something Krice
> (i think) said the other day about how nobody playes angband or some such.
>

Angband's play got simplified a lot during its code cleanup.

I guess a lot of people regard it as excessively simplistic,
and miss item interactions and monster interactions that are
more complex in other games. There are no intrinsic abilities,
for example.

Angband monsters, in particular, are all using (approx) the
same AI, and it's a pretty simple one; learning to play
Angband is largely a process of learning to exploit bugs
in its line of sight code and learning to exploit its
absolutely predictable monster AI's.

I dish on Angband because its play is excessively dominated
by resistances; It is futile to go below a certain level
without poison resistance, for example, because sooner or
later you will get an instadeath from some monster that
breathes at you from offscreen. Similar effects apply to
other resistances as well, resulting in the player doing
repetitive and boring things in order to collect all
resistances.

And Angband has no time limit. No matter how boring
something is, you can do it forever and still eventually
win. Write a mildly complicated macro, leave a golf ball
on the key, come back a week later and a billion game
turns later, and your character is up four levels! And
you're left to imagine someone spending all those game
years, just walking back and forth in a closed room
slashing at worms (or whatever) while growing old.
Morgoth must have infinite patience, or not be plotting
to do anything bad anyway, if he will sit there and wait
while you farm worms.

Bear
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 11:23:16 PM

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

"Ray Dillinger" <bear@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:D uYie.1267$W51.9541@typhoon.sonic.net...
> Daniel Andersen wrote:
>> jimrandomh wrote:
>>
>>>for any of the major roguelikes. (Well, except Angband, dependent as
>>>it is on macros, but Angband's a degenerate case.)
>>
>>
>> Hey,
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, why do some people here go out of their way to
>> knock
>> angband? I see comments like this pop up occasionally and I can't help
>> but
>> wonder what it is that causes RL developers to hold angband to be some
>> kind
>> of lesser roguelike :)  Seeing this comment reminded me of something Krice
>> (i think) said the other day about how nobody playes angband or some
>> such.
>>
>
> Angband's play got simplified a lot during its code cleanup.
>
> I guess a lot of people regard it as excessively simplistic,
> and miss item interactions and monster interactions that are
> more complex in other games. There are no intrinsic abilities,
> for example.
>
> [AI Quibble]
>
> [Res. Quibble]
>
> [Scum Quibble]

Hey, there are *way* more problems with Vanilla Angband than that ;) .
This is why people have made variants. I think that among the top-rankers
are ZAngband, OAngband, SAngband and recently NPPAngband. ToME is more like
it's own game now, sharing little to none of the original Angband code.
I'll just say that all of the above mentioned variants deal with these
problems (some in the same way), although the Scum Quibble requries the
ironman option ;) . (Reference current SAngband competition.)

--
Glen
L:p yt E+++ T-- R+ P+++ D+ G+ F:*band !RL RLA-
W:AF Q+++ AI++ GFX++ SFX-- RN++++ PO--- !Hp Re-- S+
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 12:56:12 AM

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

"Krice" <paulkp@mbnet.fi> wrote in message
news:1116499948.350573.195700@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Daniel Andersen wrote:
>> wonder what it is that causes RL developers to hold angband to be
> some kind
>> of lesser roguelike :)  Seeing this comment reminded me of something
> Krice
>> (i think) said the other day about how nobody playes angband or some
> such.
>
> Mr. Andersen... *sarcastic smile*
> Khm.. well, for me there are at least two big reasons: poor UI and
> discarded levels. I'd like the levels to stay.
>

Wow, that's unfounded (first) and highly subjective (second).
The UI of Angband is one of the best.

--
Glen
L:p yt E+++ T-- R+ P+++ D+ G+ F:*band !RL RLA-
W:AF Q+++ AI++ GFX++ SFX-- RN++++ PO--- !Hp Re-- S+
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 1:05:08 AM

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

"Krice" <paulkp@mbnet.fi> wrote in message
news:1116500402.517250.249540@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Glen Wheeler wrote:
>> The UI of Angband is one of the best.
>
> Let me guess.. You use Linux and love progams like Vi?:) 
>

Close enough...perhaps the UI of *band appeals to programmers.
Still, it's much more powerful and hands-down better than say Crawl.

--
Glen
L:p yt E+++ T-- R+ P+++ D+ G+ F:*band !RL RLA-
W:AF Q+++ AI++ GFX++ SFX-- RN++++ PO--- !Hp Re-- S+
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 1:05:09 AM

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

"Glen Wheeler" <gew75@uow.edu.au> wrote:
>"Krice" <paulkp@mbnet.fi> wrote in message
>news:1116500402.517250.249540@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Let me guess.. You use Linux and love progams like Vi?:) 
>
> Close enough...perhaps the UI of *band appeals to programmers.
> Still, it's much more powerful and hands-down better than say Crawl.

The UI of Angband is powerful, but much of the capability it provides is
derived from the need to work around a host of design infelicities. Many
of those infelicities simply don't exist in Crawl. I definitely prefer
Crawl's UI to Angband's.

(And don't even get me *started* on Angband variant maintainers who don't
maintain the Roguelike keyset properly.)
--
Martin Read - my opinions are my own. share them if you wish.
My roguelike games page (including my BSD-licenced roguelike) can be found at:
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~mpread/roguelikes.ht...
bounce. bounce. bounce. bounce bounce bounce bounce.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 2:19:25 AM

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

Martin Read wrote:
> "Glen Wheeler" <gew75@uow.edu.au> wrote:
>
>>"Krice" <paulkp@mbnet.fi> wrote in message
>>news:1116500402.517250.249540@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>Let me guess.. You use Linux and love progams like Vi?:) 
>>
>> Close enough...perhaps the UI of *band appeals to programmers.
>> Still, it's much more powerful and hands-down better than say Crawl.
>
> The UI of Angband is powerful, but much of the capability it provides is
> derived from the need to work around a host of design infelicities. Many
> of those infelicities simply don't exist in Crawl. I definitely prefer
> Crawl's UI to Angband's.

Personally I don't find the UI to be Angband's stand
out spur - nor do I find it to be the quality of its
code. It is the, IMO, gameplay design being as it is
the most munchkin of any RL I have ever played.

> (And don't even get me *started* on Angband variant maintainers who don't
> maintain the Roguelike keyset properly.)

*turns*key* /engine/starts/ so who doesn't maintain the
keysets?

--
ABCGi ---- (abcgi@yahoo.com) ---- http://codemonkey.sunsite.dk
Fun RLs in rgrd that I have tested recently!
DoomRL - DwellerMobile - HWorld - AburaTan - DiabloRL
Heroic Adventure - Powder - Shuruppak - TheTombs
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 2:19:26 AM

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

abcgi@yahoo.com wrote:
>Martin Read wrote:
>> The UI of Angband is powerful, but much of the capability it provides is
>> derived from the need to work around a host of design infelicities. Many
>> of those infelicities simply don't exist in Crawl. I definitely prefer
>> Crawl's UI to Angband's.
>
>Personally I don't find the UI to be Angband's stand
>out spur - nor do I find it to be the quality of its
>code. It is the, IMO, gameplay design being as it is
>the most munchkin of any RL I have ever played.

I didn't say what the design infelicities *were*, merely that they
exist in Angband and that many of them do not exist in Crawl.

(The Angband spellcasting interface is a royal pain in the butt, IME.)
--
Martin Read - my opinions are my own. share them if you wish.
My roguelike games page (including my BSD-licenced roguelike) can be found at:
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~mpread/roguelikes.ht...
bounce. bounce. bounce. bounce bounce bounce bounce.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 4:11:19 AM

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

In article <428c5b03$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
"Glen Wheeler" <gew75@uow.edu.au> wrote:

> "Ray Dillinger" <bear@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:D uYie.1267$W51.9541@typhoon.sonic.net...
> > Daniel Andersen wrote:
> >> jimrandomh wrote:
> >>
> >>>for any of the major roguelikes. (Well, except Angband, dependent as
> >>>it is on macros, but Angband's a degenerate case.)
> > [AI Quibble]
> >
> > [Res. Quibble]
> >
> > [Scum Quibble]
>
> Hey, there are *way* more problems with Vanilla Angband than that ;) .
> This is why people have made variants. I think that among the top-rankers
> are ZAngband, OAngband, SAngband and recently NPPAngband. ToME is more like
> it's own game now, sharing little to none of the original Angband code.
> I'll just say that all of the above mentioned variants deal with these
> problems (some in the same way), although the Scum Quibble requries the
> ironman option ;) . (Reference current SAngband competition.)

Don't forget Steamband - I've been working on these problems also.
-Campbell
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 2:06:33 PM

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

Krice wrote:
> Mr. Andersen... *sarcastic smile*

Gah, stupid matrix, I'll never escape these jokes :) 

> Khm.. well, for me there are at least two big reasons: poor UI and
> discarded levels. I'd like the levels to stay.

As far as poor UI goes I'd be inclined to make similar accusations towards
nethack. Any game that required me to learn a different keypress to equip
different types of items is intrinsically broken :)  I mean where is the
benefit to putton on rings and wearing a piece of armour being different
actions? I mean sure, it lets me wield a shoe as a weapon, but why would I
want to?
The whole wielding basilisks as weapons or whatever is the only obvious
benefit to this, but its stuff like that which puts me off nethack to start
with. The game feels like the code is a huge mass of if statements to check
i'm not doing some magical thing which will unexpectedly trigger some
bizarre event.
I guess in the end its Angbands basic simplicity that appeals to me. And
before you argue, I know angband is far from simple, with its squintillino
dfferent monsters and item types. I was referring to a more conceptual
simplicity, where you can predict what objects will do and how they will
interact, you're not going to get instakilled by picking up a monsters
coprse :) 
As far as time limits and discarded levels go, I personally like to be able
to play at my own pace without some imposed restriction on how much I can
do with my character before starving or running out of things to kill.

But thats just my opinion :) 

Daniel
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 2:06:34 PM

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

Daniel Andersen <news@zedar.org> wrote:
> As far as poor UI goes I'd be inclined to make similar accusations
> towards nethack. Any game that required me to learn a different
> keypress to equip different types of items is intrinsically broken :) 
> I mean where is the benefit to putton on rings and wearing a piece of
> armour being different actions? I mean sure, it lets me wield a shoe
> as a weapon, but why would I want to?

> But thats just my opinion :) 

Nethack is open source; if you think your way is better, code it up, so
we can see.

The benefit of different buttons for different actions is that they
bring up only the items that can do that option; it's a shortcut.

So no, it's not just intresically broken.

But that's just my opinion.

--
Jim Strathmeyer
!