Scumming Woes

[Guest]

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

I'm depressed over scumming. It turns out that there's a bug in the
performance skill in GearHead. By repeatedly performing over and over
in town, it's possible to get infinite cash and experience. This isn't
the first time such an exploit has come to my attention. Previous
examples have included attacking the stairs for XP and allowing oneself
to be attacked repeatedly by weak monsters for XP.

I'm of two minds about all this. On the one hand, I feel that as a
developer I should do my best to block all obvious exploits, in order
to prevent any particular skill or tactic from being overpowered. On
the other hand, I think that trying to block all forms of scumming is a
fool's errand. There's no way I'm ever going to eliminate every
possible exploit.

Right now no effort is made to prevent save-scumming. In fact, there's
a configuration option to turn off automatic saving for people who want
to play GH more like a standard CRPG. There isn't any effort to prevent
other types of cheating, either. All the support files are plain text,
and the debugging console command is well known. I trust my players to
play the game in a way that's fun for them.

What's different about scumming for XP, though, is that it feels like
an activity that's sanctioned by the game. To cheat through other
methods you must step out of character and do some typing. To scum, all
you have to do is be patient.

I can change things so that scumming becomes less convenient, but I
can't think of how to change things so it becomes downright impossible.
I could announce to my message board that scumming is de facto
cheating, but there's enough grey area present to make such an
announcement meaningless. Alternatively, I could just fix up the
obvious problems with the performance skill and just assume that if my
players want to spend all their time scumming they can go play FF8
instead.

This is more of a rant than anything else, but I'm interested to hear
what other developers feel about the subject.

- Joseph Hewitt

 

[Guest]

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

On 21 May 2005 07:51:44 -0700, "Joe Hewitt" <pyrrho12@gmail.com> wrote:

>I'm depressed over scumming. It turns out that there's a bug in the
>performance skill in GearHead. By repeatedly performing over and over
>in town, it's possible to get infinite cash and experience. This isn't
>the first time such an exploit has come to my attention. Previous
>examples have included attacking the stairs for XP and allowing oneself
>to be attacked repeatedly by weak monsters for XP.
>
>I'm of two minds about all this. On the one hand, I feel that as a
>developer I should do my best to block all obvious exploits, in order
>to prevent any particular skill or tactic from being overpowered. On
>the other hand, I think that trying to block all forms of scumming is a
>fool's errand. There's no way I'm ever going to eliminate every
>possible exploit.

Instead of trying to block the exploits, try giving them some
non-obvious results.
- A level 20 warrior wading into a band of low-level monsters might be
mistaken for a vengeful god, causing all monsters on that dungeon level
to depart.
- Too many performances in a row might get you picked up for vagrancy by
the local police.
- Attack the stairs? While you might get XP, they can only be destroyed
once, and then how do you get back up?

Think creatively; don't limit yourself to the mundane.
--
auric underscore underscore at hotmail dot com
*****
Depending on the slime's temperature, this could take anywhere between a
minute and six weeks.

 

[Guest]

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

Joe Hewitt <pyrrho12@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm of two minds about all this. On the one hand, I feel that as a
> developer I should do my best to block all obvious exploits, in order
> to prevent any particular skill or tactic from being overpowered. On
> the other hand, I think that trying to block all forms of scumming is
> a fool's errand. There's no way I'm ever going to eliminate every
> possible exploit.

You also have to realize that sometimes it's difficult for the player to
distinguish between scumming and actual gameplay. I can't play
Morrowind, because it's impossible for me to tell when I should level
up. I normally wouldn't level up until I've acquired enough skill to
have get the maximum benifit from leveling up. However, this makes my
character incredibly strong, and the game incredibly easy and tedious,
and I soon lost interest. I feel like Morrowind's leveling behavior is
incredibly broken, but you could say that I was scumming; either way, it
made me not like the game. (Not to mention that Morrowind has both
infinite XP and money scums.)

I encourage you to block all forms of 'scumming' in your game. You can
say that a real or good player would never do these things, but there's
a line where it's difficult for the player to distinguish between what
is and isn't scumming, and removing this choice for the player makes the
game more fun. If I knew there were a way to get infinite XP or money,
how am I supposed to know how much XP and money it's alright for me to
get this way?

--
Jim Strathmeyer

 

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 21 May 2005 09:34:26 -0700, I wrote:

>- A level 20 warrior

Read that as "high-level character".
--
auric underscore underscore at hotmail dot com
*****
- ...you want to know if I'm okay with you dating my sister?
- We're in love!
- Does she even know?
- I'm sure she's vaguely aware of it.

 

[Guest]

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

Dnia 21 May 2005 07:51:44 -0700,
Joe Hewitt napisal(a):

> I can change things so that scumming becomes less convenient, but I
> can't think of how to change things so it becomes downright impossible.

I think it could be interesting to try to detect player's repetitive
behavior.

For example, you could note important events, and if the same event
pattern repeats itself in short amount of time, you know that the player
is doing something boring and save him from his boredom.
It's pretty hard to do in general, but at least you force the player
to repeat his action in slightly different way every time, and this is
some improvement, methinks.

How to save players from their own boredom? Well, there are many methods.
A warning message ("Gee, *again*?") would be good for a start. Then you
could lower the effectivity or chance of success of the repeated actions.
Or just give some penalties (ie. lowering the morale because of boredom,
or introducing new 'bored' state). You could also prohibit repeating
something.

But my favorite is just increasing the chance for events that normally
would be very unlikely. Up to some insta-death events, if the player
didn't "get the message". This mechanism could be probably used for
scumming too, but a least would make it interesting.

--
Radomir @**@_ Bee! The quest for the Real World:
`The Sheep' ('') 3 Try #1: cd /..
Dopieralski .vvVvVVVVVvVVVvv.

 

[Guest]

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

The Sheep wrote:
> But my favorite is just increasing the chance for events that normally
> would be very unlikely. Up to some insta-death events, if the player
> didn't "get the message". This mechanism could be probably used for
> scumming too, but a least would make it interesting.

Just cap the XP/stuff that can be gotten from any one encounter or in
any one place without moving on.

--
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."

 

[Guest]

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

Joe Hewitt wrote:
> I'm depressed over scumming. It turns out that there's a bug in the
> performance skill in GearHead. By repeatedly performing over and over
> in town, it's possible to get infinite cash and experience. This isn't
> the first time such an exploit has come to my attention. Previous
> examples have included attacking the stairs for XP and allowing oneself
> to be attacked repeatedly by weak monsters for XP.

> This is more of a rant than anything else, but I'm interested to hear
> what other developers feel about the subject.

Diminishing returns sets in after a while. Or at least, it
should. There's only so much experience to be had from performing
a particular skill at a particular level; you can award, say, 5% of
whatever experience is left in it at that level whenever a
performance happens. Eventually someone is getting one experience
point, or less, per performance, and might as well do something
else. I don't award experience for skills, but this is what I'm
doing with monsters; there's only so much experience to be had from
fighting any given monster species; once they've got no more
surprises (or, evidently, risk) for you, you get no more
experience from them.

Also, remember what street performers make; basically, enough to
buy sandwiches and coffee, or, if they're good, pay rent on a very
small apartment. And no town can support more than one or two
street performers per 5000 population or thereabouts. Taking it
beyond this level requires the efforts of lots of people - an agent,
a producer, a promoter, an investor, media technicians such as
cameramen and soundmen, content syndicators, broadcasters,
advertisers, etc. You could make an entire game out of assembling
the team and so on if you felt like it, but I don't think that's
the game you're trying to make.

Finally, you may want to consider separating "experience" and
"score." Achieving *goals* adds to score, and taking lots of
time subtracts from it. Experience is a different thing altogether.
If a 6th-level character sneaks past all the horrors of the
lower chambers and steals the McGuffin from under the pillow of
boss monster while boss monster is asleep, then I'd feel no
qualms about awarding an all time high score for masterful
play, even though the character was relatively inexperienced.


Bear

 

[Guest]

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

Jim Strathmeyer wrote:

> Joe Hewitt <pyrrho12@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm of two minds about all this. On the one hand, I feel that as a
>> developer I should do my best to block all obvious exploits, in order
>> to prevent any particular skill or tactic from being overpowered. On
>> the other hand, I think that trying to block all forms of scumming is
>> a fool's errand. There's no way I'm ever going to eliminate every
>> possible exploit.
>
> You also have to realize that sometimes it's difficult for the player to
> distinguish between scumming and actual gameplay. I can't play
> Morrowind, because it's impossible for me to tell when I should level
> up. I normally wouldn't level up until I've acquired enough skill to
> have get the maximum benifit from leveling up.

Well, there are a few ways to play Morrowind and you should try the "I don't
care" way. Chose a class with a few standard skills, the ones you can train
as you go without having to get out of the way and scumm. And just forget
about the levels.

I still prefered the leveling system in Daggerfall. Probably because you get
a constant number of stat points at levelup and so you don't feel the need
need to "optimise" your training. Also, they gimped the magic far too much
in Morrowind I guess the best thing they could do in Morrowind is to get
rid altogether of the levels and the increasing stats at levelup. That way,
all that mattered would be the current skill levels and so training would
fell less artificial like that.

> However, this makes my
> character incredibly strong, and the game incredibly easy and tedious,
> and I soon lost interest. I feel like Morrowind's leveling behavior is
> incredibly broken, but you could say that I was scumming; either way, it
> made me not like the game. (Not to mention that Morrowind has both
> infinite XP and money scums.)

You forgot to speak of the alchemist potions of god-like power

> I encourage you to block all forms of 'scumming' in your game. You can
> say that a real or good player would never do these things, but there's
> a line where it's difficult for the player to distinguish between what
> is and isn't scumming, and removing this choice for the player makes the
> game more fun. If I knew there were a way to get infinite XP or money,
> how am I supposed to know how much XP and money it's alright for me to
> get this way?

Why don't you leave it at the players choice ? Scumming isn't just something
incredibly boring done by players. Most scumming is a way for the player to
adjust the difficulty to his own taste. Are monsters getting too difficult
for you ? Kill lower level critters until you get a few more levels and
you're good to go. On games which take more than 1 or 2 hours to create a
PC and get it to the end, this is desirable behaviour unless you somehow
manage to keep the PC level always at the right value to the challenge
he'll face.

 

[Guest]

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

Christophe Cavalaria <chris.cavalaria@free.fr> wrote:
> Jim Strathmeyer wrote:
>> [bitching about Morrowind]

> You forgot to speak of the alchemist potions of god-like power

I never even got that far. I only did about five hours of gameplay,
playing a magic user (obviously I can remember very little about the
game) and only got to the third town. The game was rediculously easy,
and I just felt like I was waling through a story without a story, so I
stopped.

--
Jim Strathmeyer

 

[Guest]

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

Glen Wheeler wrote:

> Implement a new mechanic: you don't get
> experience from performing unless you get some money as well. Then unless
> you find an infinitely rich infinitely pleasable NPC, the exploit is gone.
> Better is that the exploit is gone in a thematic way.

If "experience" is really supposed to be a quantification for a new
experience, just make the experience reward gained from any given action
diminish very rapidly after the first time. As the PC becomes used to
performing, further performances only train her ability to perform.

Performing is also presumably somewhat time-consuming and exhausting, in
which case a good performer could earn a decent living by performing at
most a few times per day, but perfoming dozens of times and all night
long should be right out. Food and lodging ought to be good enough
reasons to limit the net money flow as well.

Of course, if the player wants to make performing his in-game day job,
that's his boredom...

> With weak critters hitting the player to train some defensive
> skill...well, that makes a kind of annoying amount of sense to me.

I agree, but there should probably be some threshold as to when a
"sparring opponent" is relatively as clumsy as to be useless for
training. Circumstances such as being confronted by multiple enemies at
once could raise that threshold.

> That's this vapourware developer's opinion .

This one joins in with his own. Heck, I don't even have proper vapour
yet, just a box of ideas.

 

[Guest]

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

Aki Rossi <aki.rossi@iki.fi> wrote:
> Glen Wheeler wrote:
>> That's this vapourware developer's opinion .
> This one joins in with his own. Heck, I don't even have proper vapour
> yet, just a box of ideas.

In order for it to become vapour, we need for you to tell us your
ideas... over and over... in every thread...

--
Jim Strathmeyer

 

[Guest]

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

Jim Strathmeyer wrote:

> Christophe Cavalaria <chris.cavalaria@free.fr> wrote:
>> Jim Strathmeyer wrote:
>>> [bitching about Morrowind]
>
>> You forgot to speak of the alchemist potions of god-like power
>
> I never even got that far. I only did about five hours of gameplay,

Well, once you know how it's done, you need only a very short play time to
get that. Probably one of the most broken aspect of the game

> playing a magic user (obviously I can remember very little about the
> game) and only got to the third town. The game was rediculously easy,
> and I just felt like I was waling through a story without a story, so I
> stopped.

Funny, I though that fighters have it easy and magic users are very hard to
play. Also, there is a difficulty setting now.

 

[Guest]

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

Jim Strathmeyer wrote:
> Aki Rossi <aki.rossi@iki.fi> wrote:
>
>>Glen Wheeler wrote:
>>
>>> That's this vapourware developer's opinion .
>>
>>This one joins in with his own. Heck, I don't even have proper vapour
>>yet, just a box of ideas.
>
> In order for it to become vapour, we need for you to tell us your
> ideas... over and over... in every thread...

I should also make up a catchy name for a game I'll develop forever but
will never surface, except after many years as a huge letdown compared
to the inflated expectations my musings will create.

DaikatanaRL?

 

[Guest]

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

Joe Hewitt napisał(a):
> I'm depressed over scumming. It turns out that there's a bug in the
> performance skill in GearHead. By repeatedly performing over and over
> in town, it's possible to get infinite cash and experience. This isn't
> the first time such an exploit has come to my attention. Previous
> examples have included attacking the stairs for XP and allowing oneself
> to be attacked repeatedly by weak monsters for XP.
[...]

The salvation is hunger. Each performance would need much food
and performing few times in row would make it less profitable. When
performance needs food of cost larger than profit from it, player either
die from starvation or finally do something different.

Attacking the stairs or something else is quite realistic way of
practicing, so it shouldn't be blocked, but destroying it by strong hit
is realistic too. Such training would need some food too forcing player
to move further/deeper.

Weak monster attacking player repeatedly would advance in skills quite
fast and repeated attacks would increase chance for critical.

--
Milesss
m i l e s s s @ i n t e r i a . p l
www.milesss.mylog.pl
"/0"

 

[Guest]

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

Aki Rossi wrote:
> I should also make up a catchy name for a game I'll develop forever but
> will never surface, except after many years as a huge letdown compared
> to the inflated expectations my musings will create.
>
> DaikatanaRL?

I'd rather go with DukeNukemForeverRL, or Elite4RL -- Diakatana *was*
finally released after all ;-)
--
At your service,
Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
"The name of GenRogue, has become a warning against excessively
complex design." -- RGRD FAQ

 

[Guest]

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

Milesss wrote:
> Weak monster attacking player repeatedly would advance in skills quite
> fast and repeated attacks would increase chance for critical.

The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat looks a bit more intelligent.
The rat hits you where your armor is weak, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you where your armor is weak, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you where your armor is weak, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you where your armor is weak, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you where your armor is weak, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you where your armor is weak, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you where your armor is weak, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you where your armor is weak, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you where your armor is weak, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you where your armor is weak, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you where your armor is weak, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you where your armor is weak, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you where your armor is weak, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you where your armor is weak, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you where your armor is weak, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you where your armor is weak, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you where your armor is weak, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you where your armor is weak, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat hits you where your armor is weak, but doesn't do any damage.
The rat seems to be mutating and evolving!
The rat looks stronger.
The rat is now a ratman. Its eyes clearly show intelligence; its muscles
bulge; it stands as high as your waist; and it is constructing something
using nearby rocks.
The ratman hits you with a stone knife!
The ratman hits you with a stone knife!
The ratman hits you with a stone knife!
The ratman hits you with a stone knife!
Low hitpoint warning!
The ratman hits you with a stone knife!
Low hitpoint warning!
The ratman hits you with a stone knife!
Low hitpoint warning!
The ratman hits you with a stone knife!
Low hitpoint warning!
The ratman hits you with a stone knife!
You die.

--
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."

 

[Guest]

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

Twisted One wrote:
> The ratman hits you with a stone knife!
> Low hitpoint warning!
> The ratman hits you with a stone knife!
> Low hitpoint warning!
> The ratman hits you with a stone knife!
> You die.

And lest I forget...

Murgluk, the level 5 Golem Warrior
Survived 64,485,768 years, 56 days, 9 hours and 0 minutes before being
killed by a ratman on level 3 of the dungeon.
Evolution's a bitch, ain't it?
Golems don't need to eat ... don't need to sleep ... and can't adapt
even over geological spans of time, owing to not having any DNA.
Murgluk scored: 5825 experience points.

--
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."

 

[Guest]

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

"Kornel Kisielewicz" <kisielewicz@gazeta.pl> wrote in message
news:d6qdpq$jba$6@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Aki Rossi wrote:
>> I should also make up a catchy name for a game I'll develop forever but
>> will never surface, except after many years as a huge letdown compared to
>> the inflated expectations my musings will create.
>>
>> DaikatanaRL?
>
> I'd rather go with DukeNukemForeverRL, or Elite4RL -- Diakatana *was*
> finally released after all ;-)

Yes, it was, but with great disappointment. Which, I believe, is Aki's
point.

--
Glen
Lyt E+++ T-- R+ P+++ D+ G+ F:*band !RL RLA-
W:AF Q+++ AI++ GFX++ SFX-- RN++++ PO--- !Hp Re-- S+

 

[Guest]

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

In article <-LednVXhPZ9G2AzfRVn-qA@rogers.com>, twisted0n3
@gmail.invalid says...

> The ratman hits you with a stone knife!
> Low hitpoint warning!
> The ratman hits you with a stone knife!
> You die.

The solution is to allow the player to evolve too.

The rat hits Gonzo the level 17 warrior but does no damage.

[Leave game running]

Level 463 Rat God tailswipes Gonzo the level 472 Herculian Incarnation
for 175662 points of damage.
Gonzo punches Rat God for 67488 points. The dungeon explodes. Gonzo
taps his little finger and heals 100000 points.
Rat God summons 18 Rat Dragons (level 200)
Rat Dragon breathes for 1800 points of acid damage
A nearby wall melts.

[etc.]

- Gerry Quinn

 

[Guest]

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

Glen Wheeler wrote:
> "Kornel Kisielewicz" <kisielewicz@gazeta.pl> wrote in message
> news:d6qdpq$jba$6@inews.gazeta.pl...
>
>>Aki Rossi wrote:
>>
>>>I should also make up a catchy name for a game I'll develop forever but
>>>will never surface, except after many years as a huge letdown compared to
>>>the inflated expectations my musings will create.
>>>
>>>DaikatanaRL?
>>
>>I'd rather go with DukeNukemForeverRL, or Elite4RL -- Diakatana *was*
>>finally released after all ;-)
>
> Yes, it was, but with great disappointment. Which, I believe, is Aki's
> point.

Well, Elite4 if it ever comes out will be a great disappointment too...
but I get your point.
--
At your service,
Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
"Gott weiss, Ich will kein Engel sein..." -- Rammstein /Engel/

 

[Guest]

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

Kornel Kisielewicz wrote:

> Well, Elite4 if it ever comes out will be a great disappointment too...
> but I get your point.

To be honest I didn't even know an Elite4 has been in the making. I
guess if they'd want to meet all the ambitions of the other sequels and
make the game seem even remotely modern, it's really going to take forever.

I'm beginning to have similar doubts about the holy grail of Fallout 3,
but at least Bethesda isn't notorious for ridiculously long development
times. As far as I know, anyway.

 

[Antoine]

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

Twisted One wrote:
> Milesss wrote:
> > Weak monster attacking player repeatedly would advance in skills
quite
> > fast and repeated attacks would increase chance for critical.
>
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat looks a bit more intelligent.
> The rat hits you where your armor is weak, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you where your armor is weak, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you where your armor is weak, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you where your armor is weak, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you where your armor is weak, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you where your armor is weak, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you where your armor is weak, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you where your armor is weak, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you where your armor is weak, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you where your armor is weak, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you where your armor is weak, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you where your armor is weak, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you where your armor is weak, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you where your armor is weak, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you where your armor is weak, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you where your armor is weak, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you where your armor is weak, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you where your armor is weak, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat hits you where your armor is weak, but doesn't do any damage.
> The rat seems to be mutating and evolving!
> The rat looks stronger.
> The rat is now a ratman. Its eyes clearly show intelligence; its
muscles
> bulge; it stands as high as your waist; and it is constructing
something
> using nearby rocks.
> The ratman hits you with a stone knife!
> The ratman hits you with a stone knife!
> The ratman hits you with a stone knife!
> The ratman hits you with a stone knife!
> Low hitpoint warning!
> The ratman hits you with a stone knife!
> Low hitpoint warning!
> The ratman hits you with a stone knife!
> Low hitpoint warning!
> The ratman hits you with a stone knife!
> Low hitpoint warning!
> The ratman hits you with a stone knife!
> You die.

[LOL] Great post.

A.

 

[Antoine]

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

Milesss wrote:
> Joe Hewitt napisal(a):
> > I'm depressed over scumming. It turns out that there's a bug in the
> > performance skill in GearHead. By repeatedly performing over and
over
> > in town, it's possible to get infinite cash and experience. This
isn't
> > the first time such an exploit has come to my attention. Previous
> > examples have included attacking the stairs for XP and allowing
oneself
> > to be attacked repeatedly by weak monsters for XP.
> [...]
>
> The salvation is hunger. Each performance would need much food
> and performing few times in row would make it less profitable. When
> performance needs food of cost larger than profit from it, player
either
> die from starvation or finally do something different.
>
> Attacking the stairs or something else is quite realistic way of
> practicing, so it shouldn't be blocked

Quite right Milesss, back when I was taking Karate lessons we used to
stand about and attack the stairs all the time. Its a key part of
training.

A.

 

[Antoine]

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

Joe Hewitt wrote:
> I'm depressed over scumming. It turns out that there's a bug in the
> performance skill in GearHead. By repeatedly performing over and over
> in town, it's possible to get infinite cash and experience. This
isn't
> the first time such an exploit has come to my attention. Previous
> examples have included attacking the stairs for XP and allowing
oneself
> to be attacked repeatedly by weak monsters for XP.
>
> I'm of two minds about all this. On the one hand, I feel that as a
> developer I should do my best to block all obvious exploits, in order
> to prevent any particular skill or tactic from being overpowered. On
> the other hand, I think that trying to block all forms of scumming is
a
> fool's errand. There's no way I'm ever going to eliminate every
> possible exploit.

Right. So you need a systematic method of dealing with this, which
works across all forms of XP-gaining activity.

Perhaps (numbers made up) any activity that gains you y XP should only
do so until you have 100y XP, so for example, if you gain 3 XP from
being attacked by a rat, you can do this until you hit 301 XP but after
that it gains you nothing.

Then every XP exploit is blocked eventually.

A.

 

[Antoine]

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

Gerry Quinn wrote:
> In article <-LednVXhPZ9G2AzfRVn-qA@rogers.com>, twisted0n3
> @gmail.invalid says...
>
> > The ratman hits you with a stone knife!
> > Low hitpoint warning!
> > The ratman hits you with a stone knife!
> > You die.
>
> The solution is to allow the player to evolve too.
>
> The rat hits Gonzo the level 17 warrior but does no damage.
>
> [Leave game running]
>
> Level 463 Rat God tailswipes Gonzo the level 472 Herculian
Incarnation
> for 175662 points of damage.
> Gonzo punches Rat God for 67488 points. The dungeon explodes. Gonzo

> taps his little finger and heals 100000 points.
> Rat God summons 18 Rat Dragons (level 200)
> Rat Dragon breathes for 1800 points of acid damage
> A nearby wall melts.

An interesting point there - why is it that very few of the awesome
sounding monster attacks in Angband damage walls? You'd think that all
those Acid Balls and Mana Storms and Nether Something or Others would
chew up the dungeon a bit.

A.