Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Demogorgon & Yeenoghu

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 3:08:34 AM

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

I had a bit of an unusual experience while ascending a healer. Here's
what I think happened, I didn't write down details:

On the last Gehennom level w/ high priest and The Amulet, Demogorgon
appears suddenly (summoned by a high-level monster, I suppose). I was
wearing a ring of conflict. While he was teleported away, with telepathy
I noticed that he apparently killed the high priest. I went to look for
the amulet and it wasn't there, so I figured Demo took it. After that,
Yeenoghu appears, probably summoned by Demo. I really had no chance of
killing either as it was, I could only take a few hit points from Demo
and maybe 10-20 from Yeenoghu before they teleported away. In any case I
managed to make it to the stairs after one of them or both went
upstairs, and on the next level on the upstairs I finally slayed
Yeenoghu. He had the amulet and I saw no sign of Demo on that level or
ever since. Yeenoghu also left the amulet for me.

This is weird because I never noticed them hitting each other while they
were next to me. Could the ring of conflict have caused them to hit each
other at the upstairs while I was some 10-20 squares away beyond line of
sight, and if so, would Yeenoghu really have managed to slay Demo?

More about : demogorgon yeenoghu

Anonymous
April 6, 2005 3:08:35 AM

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

I doubt Yeenoghu could kill Demogorgon. Demo could've summoned Yeenoghu
and allowed Y to take the Amulet. Then Y and D 'port and you go up
without the D. If you REALLY want to know, try going back down to the
Sanctum and blindfolding yourself. Of course, if he's really there, you
don't want to go back down.
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 11:30:15 PM

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

Ari Nieminen <artani.rem.ove@utu.rem.ove.fi> writes:
> I had a bit of an unusual experience while ascending a healer. Here's
> what I think happened, I didn't write down details:
>
> On the last Gehennom level w/ high priest and The Amulet, Demogorgon
> appears suddenly (summoned by a high-level monster, I suppose).

Or as a post-killing-Wizard random intervention.

> I was wearing a ring of conflict. While he was teleported away, with
> telepathy I noticed that he apparently killed the high priest. I
> went to look for the amulet and it wasn't there, so I figured Demo
> took it. After that, Yeenoghu appears, probably summoned by Demo. I
> really had no chance of killing either as it was, I could only take
> a few hit points from Demo and maybe 10-20 from Yeenoghu before they
> teleported away. In any case I managed to make it to the stairs
> after one of them or both went upstairs, and on the next level on
> the upstairs I finally slayed Yeenoghu. He had the amulet and I saw
> no sign of Demo on that level or ever since. Yeenoghu also left the
> amulet for me.
>
> This is weird because I never noticed them hitting each other while
> they were next to me. Could the ring of conflict have caused them to
> hit each other at the upstairs while I was some 10-20 squares away
> beyond line of sight, and if so, would Yeenoghu really have managed to
> slay Demo?

Both Yeenoghu and Demogorgon have the M3_WANTSAMUL flag, which mean
they'll attack anyone who has the Amulet, monster or player (though
they won't turn down attacks on the player should he be around). It's
by no means impossible that Yeenoghu would have won the duel, given
that he has a paralysis attack and most of Demogorgon's special
attacks (spells, disease) aren't usable in monster-monster combat;
and, indeed, in a quick wizmode deathmatch I just ran up, he got the
victory. In your case, he was probably hurt badly enough that he
retreated upstairs at your approach.

--
: Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ :
: "Nothing matters very much, and few things matter at all." :
: -- A.J. Balfour :
Related resources
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 10:46:05 AM

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

Adam Borowski wrote:
[snip]
> reflection: in my mode, all it is good for is averting the risk of
wands
> of lightnings (rare!) destroying your rings (if the wand goes past
your
> AC, which is unlikely). In hell, you keep getting hit by fire and/or
> cold from sources that ignore reflection and ac, so you can't keep
> potions and scrolls in your main inventory anyway -- and except for
> early game, you _do_ have MR or you're dead so wands of death don't
> count. HP loss from wands? Who gives a damn about hp!

The reason I stick with reflection with any character is that
I usually don't like to see my armor disintegrated by a dragon breath.
Anyway, I've had a 500+ HP character taken down by wizard+friends, so
I do give a damn. Cursed BoH, or cursed shield + weapon is more than
enough for such an accident to happen.
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 2:50:55 PM

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

psmithnews@spod-central.org (Dylan O'Donnell) writes:

> Both Yeenoghu and Demogorgon have the M3_WANTSAMUL flag, which mean
> they'll attack anyone who has the Amulet, monster or player (though
> they won't turn down attacks on the player should he be around). It's
> by no means impossible that Yeenoghu would have won the duel, given
> that he has a paralysis attack and most of Demogorgon's special
> attacks (spells, disease) aren't usable in monster-monster combat;
> and, indeed, in a quick wizmode deathmatch I just ran up, he got the
> victory.

Incredible. Puny Yeenoghu beats Demogorgon. Seems like a
rock-paper-skissors situation. Well, Yeenoghu seems like
a good pet choice after all.. [would a tame Yeenoghu still
attack me for the amulet?]

Best,
Jakob
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 2:50:56 PM

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

Jakob Creutzig <creutzig@mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote:
>Incredible. Puny Yeenoghu beats Demogorgon. Seems like a
>rock-paper-skissors situation. Well, Yeenoghu seems like
>a good pet choice after all.. [would a tame Yeenoghu still
>attack me for the amulet?]

It is impossible to obtain a tame Yeenoghu in normal play; he is a unique
(implies cannot be produced by polymorph) covetous (implies cannot be made
tame) monster.
--
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...
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 5:53:31 PM

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

james wrote:

> In article <fAB*vGvLq@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
> David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps you are making some other false assumption.
>
> No, I'm working from experience with the Lich Dragon tango.
>
> Disintegration resistance does not protect your inventory!

It protects you inventory from disintegration blasts. It does not protect
your armour from being destroyed by a lich or golden naga. For this, you
need MR.

--
Benjamin Lewis

A small, but vocal, contingent even argues that tin is superior, but they
are held by most to be the lunatic fringe of Foil Deflector Beanie science.
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 6:31:34 PM

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

Jakob Creutzig wrote:
> Incredible. Puny Yeenoghu beats Demogorgon. Seems like a
> rock-paper-skissors situation.

It's just the same case as a vampire lord being tougher than an
arch-lich: if you drop the special properties, Demogorgon has nothing
to be afraid of.

It's just the player's perspective that is highly biased towards special
attacks.

It calls for a longer rant about playing style:
<rant>
* most experienced players go for level 14, 150hp, reflection, using
Elbereth, watching out for possible danger, cautious play and the
full-pants-if-you-see-a-big-scary-minotaur-mode. It's something that
requires actually thinking when playing.
* what I prefer is level 30, 600+hp, and the 5-archons-are-nothing-but
spam mindless mode. If you eat your wraiths and don't waste !oGL on
pets, you don't even need alchemy or prayer for the hp.
This explains why more than half of rgrn disagrees with me about
reflection: in my mode, all it is good for is averting the risk of wands
of lightnings (rare!) destroying your rings (if the wand goes past your
AC, which is unlikely). In hell, you keep getting hit by fire and/or
cold from sources that ignore reflection and ac, so you can't keep
potions and scrolls in your main inventory anyway -- and except for
early game, you _do_ have MR or you're dead so wands of death don't
count. HP loss from wands? Who gives a damn about hp!
It's also a strong argument against displacement: if you can ignore hp
loss, having special attacks 15 times more likely to affect you is a bad
thing.

If you compare the two modes, you can note that the first one promotes
clever techniques. Stoning grenades, etc, are good if you need to
dispose of monsters fast -- but if you can afford the whole two rounds
it takes to kill a demon lord with a good weapons combo, you don't need
to bother with thinking. In fact, some extreme cases like me just whack
them with Magicbane.
</rant>

And this leads to extreme results. If your character is beefy enough,
you ignore everything but special attacks. You stop caring about the
damage from minotaurs, archons or Yeenoghu -- but you still are afraid
of sickness from Demogorgon, level drain or having your source of MR stolen.

> Well, Yeenoghu seems like a good pet choice after all.. [would a tame
> Yeenoghu still attack me for the amulet?]

He's not pettable. Nothing that has any of the M3_WANTSxxx flags is.

1KB
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 7:54:17 PM

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

Adam Borowski <kilobyte@mimuw.edu.pl> writes:

> This explains why more than half of rgrn disagrees with me about
> reflection: in my mode, all it is good for is averting the risk of wands
> of lightnings (rare!) destroying your rings (if the wand goes past your
> AC, which is unlikely).

Once you're *-resistant and powerful enough, you can ignore
reflection. Survival issues are important almost exclusively
*before* you hit the castle and become a killing machine.

> > Well, Yeenoghu seems like a good pet choice after all.. [would a tame
> > Yeenoghu still attack me for the amulet?]
>
> He's not pettable. Nothing that has any of the M3_WANTSxxx flags is.

I should have guessed as much.

Best,
Jakob
April 7, 2005 8:05:40 PM

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

In article <apwtre7kvq.fsf@fb04349.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de>,
Jakob Creutzig <creutzig@mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote:

>Once you're *-resistant and powerful enough, you can ignore
>reflection.

If your MR comes from a cloak (or any other item) and you ignore reflection,
you won't have MR (or survival) for very long.
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 9:31:17 PM

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

Quoting james <fishbowl@conservatory.com>:
>Jakob Creutzig <creutzig@mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote:
>>Once you're *-resistant and powerful enough, you can ignore
>>reflection.
>If your MR comes from a cloak (or any other item) and you ignore reflection,
>you won't have MR (or survival) for very long.

I suspect you believe that even disintegration-resistant characters can
have armour disintegrated. This is not the case.

Perhaps you are making some other false assumption.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is Second Mania, April.
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 10:48:34 PM

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

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Michal Brzozowski wrote:
> The reason I stick with reflection with any character is that
> I usually don't like to see my armor disintegrated by a dragon breath.
You do eat your first blackie, don't you?

> Anyway, I've had a 500+ HP character taken down by wizard+friends, so
> I do give a damn. Cursed BoH, or cursed shield + weapon is more than
> enough for such an accident to happen.
That's why I said "pure hp loss". What killed you was the wizard's
special attack (cursing), not his hand-to-hand attacks.

KiloByte, killed by pure hp loss
--
,-=========================================-. Rule #35: That which
| 1KB | does not kill you has
`-------------------------------------------' made a tactical error.
- The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 10:48:35 PM

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

Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Michal Brzozowski wrote:
>
>> The reason I stick with reflection with any character is that
>> I usually don't like to see my armor disintegrated by a dragon breath.
>
> You do eat your first blackie, don't you?
>

Your armor can eat dragons? When did this happen?

--
____ (__)
/ \ (oo) -Shadow
|Moo. > \/
\____/
April 7, 2005 11:50:08 PM

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

In article <fAB*vGvLq@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>Perhaps you are making some other false assumption.

No, I'm working from experience with the Lich Dragon tango.

Disintegration resistance does not protect your inventory!
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 3:11:07 AM

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

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, james wrote:

> In article <fAB*vGvLq@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
> David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps you are making some other false assumption.
>
> No, I'm working from experience with the Lich Dragon tango.
> Disintegration resistance does not protect your inventory!

Disint resistance doesn't protect against liches crumbling your armour to
dust, yeah. You need _magic_ resist for this.

--
,-=========================================-. Rule #35: That which
| 1KB | does not kill you has
`-------------------------------------------' made a tactical error.
- The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 3:24:51 AM

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

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Shadow wrote:
> Adam Borowski wrote:
>> [disint resistance]
>> You do eat your first blackie, don't you?
> Your armor can eat dragons? When did this happen?

I see you have never heard of vorpal bunny slippers...


,-=========================================-. Rule #35: That which
| 1KB | does not kill you has
`-------------------------------------------' made a tactical error.
- The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 1:23:05 PM

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

fishbowl@conservatory.com (james) writes:


[Quoting inserted]
> >>> Once you're *-resistant and powerful enough, you can ignore
> >>> reflection.
+-
|> >> If your MR comes from a cloak (or any other item) and you ignore
|> >> reflection, you won't have MR (or survival) for very long.
+-
> In article <fAB*vGvLq@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
> David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> >I suspect you believe that even disintegration-resistant characters can
> >have armour disintegrated. This is not the case.

> >Perhaps you are making some other false assumption.
>
> No, I'm working from experience with the Lich Dragon tango.
>
> Disintegration resistance does not protect your inventory!

Nevertheless, your above (marked) statement is completely
wrong. If you have MR and DR, neither a disint nor a
destroy-armor-attack can destroy any of your armor.
It is convenient to have reflection, mainly due to
the lightning business, but not for disint/destroy-armor
reasons.

Best,
Jakob
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 4:02:03 PM

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

Quoting james <fishbowl@conservatory.com>:
>David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>Quoting james <fishbowl@conservatory.com>:
>>>If your MR comes from a cloak (or any other item) and you ignore reflection,
>>>you won't have MR (or survival) for very long.
>>Perhaps you are making some other false assumption.
>No, I'm working from experience with the Lich Dragon tango.

Your "experience" cannot happen in game.

>Disintegration resistance does not protect your inventory!

It does from disintegration beams from the dragon. MR protects you from
the lich destroying armour. You can sit there and laugh at that tango all
day.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is Second Aponoia, April.
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 5:42:33 PM

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

james wrote:

> In article <Pine.LNX.4.62.0504072309480.21914@angband.pl>,
> Adam Borowski <kilobyte@mimuw.edu.pl> wrote:
>
>> Disint resistance doesn't protect against liches crumbling your armour
>> to dust, yeah. You need _magic_ resist for this.
>
> Exactly my point. I think someone believes that disintegration
> resistance with magic resistance means you can get away without
> reflection, and that's a dangerous belief.

How is that exactly your point? As Adam says, with disintegration
resistance and magic resistance your armor is safe from black dragons and
liches, whether or not you have reflection.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Evelyn the dog, having undergone further modification, pondered the
significance of short-person behavior in pedal-depressed panchromatic
resonance and other highly ambient domains... "Arf", she said.
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 7:23:58 PM

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

Jakob Creutzig wrote:

> It is convenient to have reflection, mainly due to
> the lightning business, but not for disint/destroy-armor
> reasons.

It is not just *convenient*. It is quite often that my PC has teleport
control only from a ring. Tengu are not that frequent and they don't
give TC at 100%. If that ring is destroyed by a wand of lightning, your
game may be destroyed as well.
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 8:05:22 PM

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

Quoting KASSNER Klaus <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
>Jakob Creutzig wrote:
>>It is convenient to have reflection, mainly due to
>>the lightning business, but not for disint/destroy-armor
>>reasons.
>It is not just *convenient*. It is quite often that my PC has teleport
>control only from a ring. Tengu are not that frequent and they don't
>give TC at 100%. If that ring is destroyed by a wand of lightning, your
>game may be destroyed as well.

Huh? I can see you might get into a situation where you're messed up
without TC, but obviously a no-reflection player wouldn't do that without
reserve sources of TC, if prudent.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is Second Aponoia, April.
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 11:01:34 PM

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

David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting KASSNER Klaus <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
>
>>Jakob Creutzig wrote:
>>
>>>It is convenient to have reflection, mainly due to
>>>the lightning business, but not for disint/destroy-armor
>>>reasons.
>>
>>It is not just *convenient*. It is quite often that my PC has teleport
>>control only from a ring. Tengu are not that frequent and they don't
>>give TC at 100%. If that ring is destroyed by a wand of lightning, your
>>game may be destroyed as well.

> Huh? I can see you might get into a situation where you're messed up
> without TC, but obviously a no-reflection player wouldn't do that without
> reserve sources of TC, if prudent.

What reserve sources? I have had TC in *all* my games in which I
ascended, but I think that in about half of them I never got another
source of TC than the single ring of TC that I had found or wished for.
Of course, you can keep a reserve wish just for that occasion where
you are blasted by a wand of lightning and your ring disintegrates
(hopefully you've kept your wand of wishing in a bag...). But that is
precisely a situation where I would say that reflection is a bit more
than just *convenient*. It can save you from having to use up a wish
that might be your life insurance in other ways, to remedy a stupid
accident.

I am not talking about no-reflection conduct, by the way. Conducts are
a different matter, and they are not an argument against regarding
reflection essential in a regular game. (It is no longer essential once
you are on the Astral Plane, and of course you can throw away your ring
of TC as soon as you enter Earth. In slashem you might even do so as
soon as you have the Amulet, although I would not consider that a clever
strategy. But you can free the ring slot.)

--
Klaus Kassner
April 9, 2005 12:14:55 AM

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

In article <Pine.LNX.4.62.0504072309480.21914@angband.pl>,
Adam Borowski <kilobyte@mimuw.edu.pl> wrote:

>Disint resistance doesn't protect against liches crumbling your armour to
>dust, yeah. You need _magic_ resist for this.

Exactly my point. I think someone believes that disintegration
resistance with magic resistance means you can get away without
reflection, and that's a dangerous belief.
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 2:18:14 PM

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

David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

> Quoting KASSNER Klaus <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
> >Jakob Creutzig wrote:
> >>It is convenient to have reflection, mainly due to
> >>the lightning business, but not for disint/destroy-armor
> >>reasons.
> >It is not just *convenient*. It is quite often that my PC has teleport
> >control only from a ring. Tengu are not that frequent and they don't
> >give TC at 100%. If that ring is destroyed by a wand of lightning, your
> >game may be destroyed as well.
>
> Huh? I can see you might get into a situation where you're messed up
> without TC,

TC is extremely useful for shortening your journey back
to lvl 1, thus diminishing the risk of a Rodney-related
YAA/SD. However, before going for the amulet, I'm
always resourceful enough to get tengi-TC.

Best,
Jakob
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 6:39:44 PM

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

Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote:
>What reserve sources? I have had TC in *all* my games in which I
>ascended, but I think that in about half of them I never got another
>source of TC than the single ring of TC that I had found or wished for.

Unless you are relying on black dragons and 'trice flesh to kill Rodney
every time, it is unlikely that you never found another perfectly
reliable source of teleport control in a successful game. You just have
to be willing to take the Luck hit if you're human.
--
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...
Good riddance to the Pope.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 2:13:48 PM

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

Martin Read wrote:
> Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote:
>
>>What reserve sources? I have had TC in *all* my games in which I
>>ascended, but I think that in about half of them I never got another
>>source of TC than the single ring of TC that I had found or wished for.

> Unless you are relying on black dragons and 'trice flesh to kill Rodney
> every time, it is unlikely that you never found another perfectly
> reliable source of teleport control in a successful game. You just have
> to be willing to take the Luck hit if you're human.

I am not sure what you are saying here. I said that I had teleport
control in all my successful games and that in about half of them this
was by a ring and I encountered only one ring of TC during the game.
Are you saying this is an unlikely sequence of events (and thus implying
that I was either very unlucky or lying)? What I said also means that
in the other half of successful games I got TC eventually by eating a
tengu corpse or had more than one ring of TC.

Or maybe you are saying that eating Rodney will give you TC at 100%.
I know that eating Rodney gives you TC (but was not sure that it is
100%), but I don't really see the point doing so, since I always make
sure to have TC before attacking Rodney, so I do have a ring of TC (or
TC from a tengu) and reflection. The only reason then would be to free
a ring slot, which you do not need before the planes, when it will
become free anyway. So the point is, you get this source of TC too late
in the game for it to be useful in rendering reflection "inessential".
You don't attack Rodney before being ready for ascension. Going without
reflection may then destroy your ring and your TC long before that
point. (Of course, things would be different when playing the conduct
of reflectionlessness - then eating Rodney might make sense.)
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 2:18:40 PM

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

Jakob Creutzig wrote:
> David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>
>
>>Quoting KASSNER Klaus <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
>>
>>>Jakob Creutzig wrote:

> TC is extremely useful for shortening your journey back
> to lvl 1, thus diminishing the risk of a Rodney-related
> YAA/SD. However, before going for the amulet, I'm
> always resourceful enough to get tengi-TC.

Tengu-TC. Then you'll either have to wait for a long time or you see
more tengu in your games than I do in mine. Also, if you have to wait
that long and have everything else in your ascension kit, you might as
well go ahead and get TC from eating Rodney. But since you should have
teleportitis and TC before, you might as well keep your ring as source
of TC for the relatively short period between killing Rodney and the
plane of earth. It is rare that you need both ring slots for other
rings before the planes, and actually it happens only on levels where
you can't teleport anyway.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 2:39:44 PM

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

Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de> writes:

> Or maybe you are saying that eating Rodney will give you TC at 100%.
> I know that eating Rodney gives you TC (but was not sure that it is
> 100%),

According to

http://www.geocities.com/dcorbett42/nethack/corpse.htm,

it doesn't. It's 25%. But then, I can't check with wizmode,
so just CMIIW. (I never ate Rodney til now, mostly for
role-playing reasons.)

Best,
Jakob
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 2:44:47 PM

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

Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de> writes:

> Jakob Creutzig wrote:
> > David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> >
> >>Quoting KASSNER Klaus <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
> >>
> >>>Jakob Creutzig wrote:
>
> > TC is extremely useful for shortening your journey back to lvl 1,
> > thus diminishing the risk of a Rodney-related YAA/SD. However,
> > before going for the amulet, I'm always resourceful enough to get
> > tengi-TC.
>
> Tengu-TC. Then you'll either have to wait for a long time or you see
> more tengu in your games than I do in mine.

I usually polypile for or just write ?oGs. After all, there are very
few scrolls which are really useful in the later game. Two c?oG
usually are more than enough to get TC.

Best,
Jakob
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 9:26:51 PM

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

Jakob Creutzig wrote:
> Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de> writes:
>
>
>>Jakob Creutzig wrote:
>>
>>>David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Quoting KASSNER Klaus <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Jakob Creutzig wrote:
>>
>>>TC is extremely useful for shortening your journey back to lvl 1,
>>>thus diminishing the risk of a Rodney-related YAA/SD. However,
>>>before going for the amulet, I'm always resourceful enough to get
>>>tengi-TC.
>>
>>Tengu-TC. Then you'll either have to wait for a long time or you see
>>more tengu in your games than I do in mine.
>
>
> I usually polypile for or just write ?oGs. After all, there are very
> few scrolls which are really useful in the later game. Two c?oG
> usually are more than enough to get TC.

Ah, that's true. You don't have to wait for them to appear... So if I
really feel I need that slot for another ring or I want to go
reflectionless, I'll do that.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 9:39:51 PM

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

Quoting Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
>David Damerell wrote:
>>Quoting KASSNER Klaus <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
>>>It is not just *convenient*. It is quite often that my PC has teleport
>>>control only from a ring. Tengu are not that frequent and they don't
>>>give TC at 100%. If that ring is destroyed by a wand of lightning, your
>>>game may be destroyed as well.
>>Huh? I can see you might get into a situation where you're messed up
>>without TC, but obviously a no-reflection player wouldn't do that without
>>reserve sources of TC, if prudent.
>What reserve sources?

I'm not saying "you will have reserve sources". I am saying "if prudent
and no reflection, you won't get into a situation where the lack of TC
messes things up terminally unless you happen to have a reserve source".

What you don't seem to have justified is the "TC destroyed" => "game
destroyed" link.

>I am not talking about no-reflection conduct, by the way. Conducts are
>a different matter, and they are not an argument against regarding
>reflection essential in a regular game.

Well, yes, they are. If one can ascend reliably without reflection,
clearly it is not essential, just as the regular survivor ascensions show
us that lifesaving is not essential.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is Wednesday, April.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 9:42:14 PM

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

Quoting Jakob Creutzig <creutzig@mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de>:
>David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>>Quoting KASSNER Klaus <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
>>>It is not just *convenient*. It is quite often that my PC has teleport
>>>control only from a ring. Tengu are not that frequent and they don't
>>>give TC at 100%. If that ring is destroyed by a wand of lightning, your
>>>game may be destroyed as well.
>>Huh? I can see you might get into a situation where you're messed up
>>without TC,
>TC is extremely useful for shortening your journey back
>to lvl 1, thus diminishing the risk of a Rodney-related
>YAA/SD.

Indeed, but there are alternative methods to both shorten this journey and
render Rodney ineffective, so we still haven't made TC essential.

I still don't see how it could destroy your game unless you made yourself
vulnerable to such destruction.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is Wednesday, April.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 12:03:17 AM

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

David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

> Quoting Jakob Creutzig <creutzig@mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de>:
> >David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> >>Quoting KASSNER Klaus <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
> >>>It is not just *convenient*. It is quite often that my PC has teleport
> >>>control only from a ring. Tengu are not that frequent and they don't
> >>>give TC at 100%. If that ring is destroyed by a wand of lightning, your
> >>>game may be destroyed as well.
> >>Huh? I can see you might get into a situation where you're messed up
^^^
> >>without TC,
> >TC is extremely useful for shortening your journey back
> >to lvl 1, thus diminishing the risk of a Rodney-related
> >YAA/SD.
>
> Indeed, but there are alternative methods to both shorten this journey and
> render Rodney ineffective, so we still haven't made TC essential.

Well, I just misread your above "can" for a "can't", for
which I apologize. ^^^

Best,
Jakob
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 9:53:08 PM

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

David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:

> What you don't seem to have justified is the "TC destroyed" => "game
> destroyed" link.

I don't have to, since that's not what I claimed. I said that loss of
TC *may* destroy your game, not that is has to.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 9:57:27 PM

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

David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting Jakob Creutzig <creutzig@mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de>:

>>TC is extremely useful for shortening your journey back
>>to lvl 1, thus diminishing the risk of a Rodney-related
>>YAA/SD.
>
>
> Indeed, but there are alternative methods to both shorten this journey and
> render Rodney ineffective, so we still haven't made TC essential.
>
> I still don't see how it could destroy your game unless you made yourself
> vulnerable to such destruction.

In fact, you don't have to have teleportitis, so no TC will not destroy
your game. Hence, if you go reflectionless, it is advisable to go
without teleportation as well. (It still does not make reflectionless
just *inconvenient*, since you might also lose your ring of levitation
on the plane of air. Or, for that matter, your wand of death before
reaching the Planes at all.) The problem is that once you have
teleportitis, loss of TC may result in desaster (it *need* not, you can
just be lucky).
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 11:41:38 PM

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

Klaus Kassner wrote:
>
> The problem is that once you have
> teleportitis, loss of TC may result in desaster (it *need* not, you can
> just be lucky).

The main problem that I see _in the first place_ is taking the risk to
get teleportitis (without having *intrinsic* TC - ...problem here).


  • Risking it and losing the ring, OTOH, still won't spoil a game (for me);
    it just makes the game last longer (with all negative consequences, but
    none had been in any way close to "desastrous" or required any specific
    luck. Rather it required a careful play despite the nerving boredom of
    being teleported around).

    Uncontrolled teleportitis in the early(!) game will more likely spoil a
    game.

  • In the past I had been quite careless and accepted teleportitis, so
    that losing a ring was not very different to not having the ring at all.

    Janis
    Anonymous
    April 15, 2005 12:08:40 AM

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

    Quoting Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
    >David Damerell wrote:
    >>What you don't seem to have justified is the "TC destroyed" => "game
    >>destroyed" link.
    >I don't have to, since that's not what I claimed. I said that loss of
    >TC *may* destroy your game, not that is has to.

    But you haven't explained how a prudent player without reflection would
    get into such a situation; so you still have not justified the assertion
    that reflection is not merely convenient.
    --
    David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
    Today is Thursday, April.
    Anonymous
    April 15, 2005 12:12:45 AM

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

    Quoting Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
    >David Damerell wrote:
    >>I still don't see how it could destroy your game unless you made yourself
    >>vulnerable to such destruction.
    >In fact, you don't have to have teleportitis, so no TC will not destroy
    >your game.

    Quite. For example, I almost never have teleportitis.

    >Hence, if you go reflectionless, it is advisable to go
    >without teleportation as well. (It still does not make reflectionless
    >just *inconvenient*, since you might also lose your ring of levitation
    >on the plane of air.

    Which is just inconvenient if prepared; bring boots, a flying steed and the
    means to resurrect it, the spell of levitation, a spare ring, potions, an
    artifact that provides levitation, or a barrel of hitpoints and AC that
    will let you struggle across.

    >Or, for that matter, your wand of death before
    >reaching the Planes at all.)

    I often do the Planes without a WoDeath, so I guess that's just
    inconvenient.

    >The problem is that once you have teleportitis, loss of TC may result
    >in desaster (it *need* not, you can just be lucky).

    True but irrelevant, since obviously a prudent player who plans to do
    without reflection will not get teleportitis.
    --
    David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
    Today is Thursday, April.
    April 15, 2005 4:05:15 AM

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

    In article <d3ma0j$15q$1@online.de>,
    Janis Papanagnou <Janis_Papanagnou@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >Uncontrolled teleportitis in the early(!) game will more likely spoil a
    >game.

    I guess it gets me out of trouble and helps me explore faster, so it's
    not a total liability.
    Anonymous
    April 15, 2005 2:48:28 PM

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

    David Damerell wrote:
    > Quoting Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:

    >>David Damerell wrote:

    >>Hence, if you go reflectionless, it is advisable to go
    >>without teleportation as well. (It still does not make reflectionless
    >>just *inconvenient*, since you might also lose your ring of levitation
    >>on the plane of air.

    > Which is just inconvenient if prepared; bring boots, a flying steed and the
    > means to resurrect it, the spell of levitation, a spare ring, potions, an
    > artifact that provides levitation, or a barrel of hitpoints and AC that
    > will let you struggle across.

    I would consider this as more than just inconvenient. So it boils down
    to a matter of taste, I guess.

    >>Or, for that matter, your wand of death before
    >>reaching the Planes at all.)

    > I often do the Planes without a WoDeath, so I guess that's just
    > inconvenient.

    Here we might agree. While I never do the Planes without a wand of
    death, the wand has become less and less essential as the riders have
    become less vulnerable to it. It is still useful for priests...

    >>The problem is that once you have teleportitis, loss of TC may result
    >>in desaster (it *need* not, you can just be lucky).

    > True but irrelevant, since obviously a prudent player who plans to do
    > without reflection will not get teleportitis.

    I would rather say this answer is irrelevant, because I explicitly
    excluded the conduct of going reflectionless from the discussion. If
    you want to do this conduct, fine with me. In that case arguing whether
    it is just an inconvenience or more, is rather pointless. Conducts will
    be done despite or even because of being more than an inconvenience.

    The point I wanted to discuss (and of course I let myself distract) is
    whether in an ordinary game, reflection should be considered
    sufficiently essential to consider its absence more than an
    inconvenience. Since I do want teleportitis and teleport control, I
    usually am satisfied with having the latter via a ring *and* having
    reflection. Losing reflection at this point would be more than
    inconvenient. Going without reflection on purpose is an altogether
    different matter.
    Anonymous
    April 15, 2005 2:53:22 PM

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

    David Damerell wrote:
    > Quoting Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
    >
    >>David Damerell wrote:
    >>
    >>>What you don't seem to have justified is the "TC destroyed" => "game
    >>>destroyed" link.
    >>
    >>I don't have to, since that's not what I claimed. I said that loss of
    >>TC *may* destroy your game, not that is has to.
    >
    >
    > But you haven't explained how a prudent player without reflection would
    > get into such a situation; so you still have not justified the assertion
    > that reflection is not merely convenient.

    I think every experienced player can imagine how that could happen. But
    I can make up a scenario for you, if I have more time :-).
    Anonymous
    April 15, 2005 2:57:47 PM

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

    Janis Papanagnou wrote:
    > Klaus Kassner wrote:

    >> The problem is that once you have teleportitis, loss of TC may result
    >> in desaster (it *need* not, you can just be lucky).

    > The main problem that I see _in the first place_ is taking the risk to
    > get teleportitis (without having *intrinsic* TC - ...problem here).


  • It is no risk, if you have reflection and a ring of TC.

    > Risking it and losing the ring, OTOH, still won't spoil a game (for me);

    In most cases, you will still survive. But you cannot be sure... I am
    talking about the difference between a 0% probability and a positive one.

    > it just makes the game last longer (with all negative consequences, but
    > none had been in any way close to "desastrous" or required any specific
    > luck. Rather it required a careful play despite the nerving boredom of
    > being teleported around).

    > Uncontrolled teleportitis in the early(!) game will more likely spoil a
    > game.

    I was not making a difference between early and late game. Once you
    have a ring of TC, you can have teleportitis as early as you want - if
    you also have reflection. If you lose TC, because you did not have
    reflection, your game might be messed up. It could still be won, to be
    sure, but you might just lose it *because* of your loss of TC.
    Anonymous
    April 15, 2005 4:02:52 PM

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

    Klaus Kassner wrote:

    > David Damerell wrote:
    >> Quoting Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
    >>
    >>> I was not making a difference between early and late game. Once you
    >>> have a ring of TC, you can have teleportitis as early as you want - if
    >>> you also have reflection. If you lose TC, because you did not have
    >>> reflection, your game might be messed up. It could still be won, to be
    >>> sure, but you might just lose it *because* of your loss of TC.
    >> Yes, but this is all ignoring the point that a prudent player who plans
    >> to do without reflection will not get teleportitis _at all_, unless they
    >> have redundant sources of TC.
    >
    > No, it is not, because I was not even discussing the situation that you
    > plan to go without reflection. This is a conduct, and for conducts,
    > different rules apply.

    So wait until you *have* reflection before getting teleportitis.

    --
    Benjamin Lewis

    Evelyn the dog, having undergone further modification, pondered the
    significance of short-person behavior in pedal-depressed panchromatic
    resonance and other highly ambient domains... "Arf", she said.
    Anonymous
    April 15, 2005 8:15:46 PM

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

    Quoting Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
    >David Damerell wrote:
    >>Quoting Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
    >>>I don't have to, since that's not what I claimed. I said that loss of
    >>>TC *may* destroy your game, not that is has to.
    >>But you haven't explained how a prudent player without reflection would
    >>get into such a situation; so you still have not justified the assertion
    >>that reflection is not merely convenient.
    >I think every experienced player can imagine how that could happen. But
    >I can make up a scenario for you, if I have more time :-).

    Please do so.

    I think of myself as a prudent player; I have ascended 19 times and died
    once below the Castle. I almost always avoid teleportitis, which seems a
    simple approach which would prevent the loss of TC from destroying my
    game.
    --
    David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
    Today is Friday, April.
    Anonymous
    April 15, 2005 8:17:03 PM

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

    Quoting Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
    >I was not making a difference between early and late game. Once you
    >have a ring of TC, you can have teleportitis as early as you want - if
    >you also have reflection. If you lose TC, because you did not have
    >reflection, your game might be messed up. It could still be won, to be
    >sure, but you might just lose it *because* of your loss of TC.

    Yes, but this is all ignoring the point that a prudent player who plans to
    do without reflection will not get teleportitis _at all_, unless they have
    redundant sources of TC.
    --
    David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
    Today is Friday, April.
    Anonymous
    April 15, 2005 8:24:43 PM

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

    Quoting Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
    >David Damerell wrote:
    >>Quoting Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
    >>>David Damerell wrote:
    >>>Hence, if you go reflectionless, it is advisable to go
    >>>without teleportation as well. (It still does not make reflectionless
    >>>just *inconvenient*, since you might also lose your ring of levitation
    >>>on the plane of air.
    >>Which is just inconvenient if prepared; bring boots, a flying steed and the
    >>means to resurrect it, the spell of levitation, a spare ring, potions, an
    >>artifact that provides levitation, or a barrel of hitpoints and AC that
    >>will let you struggle across.
    >I would consider this as more than just inconvenient.

    Well, the only two quantities we've had are "inconvient" and "destroys
    your game". Manifestly this does not destroy your game. Personally many of
    these options strike me as quite harmless - for example, using the spell
    frees up a ring slot.

    >>>The problem is that once you have teleportitis, loss of TC may result
    >>>in desaster (it *need* not, you can just be lucky).
    >>True but irrelevant, since obviously a prudent player who plans to do
    >>without reflection will not get teleportitis.
    >I would rather say this answer is irrelevant, because I explicitly
    >excluded the conduct of going reflectionless from the discussion.

    What conduct? It's just a plan; the player believes they can get utility
    from, for example, two-weaponing without needing either AoR or SDSM.

    >The point I wanted to discuss (and of course I let myself distract) is
    >whether in an ordinary game, reflection should be considered
    >sufficiently essential to consider its absence more than an
    >inconvenience. Since I do want teleportitis and teleport control, I
    >usually am satisfied with having the latter via a ring *and* having
    >reflection. Losing reflection at this point would be more than
    >inconvenient. Going without reflection on purpose is an altogether
    >different matter.

    The original discussion was about purposeful rejection of reflection!

    Of course losing reflection can be a disaster if you didn't plan for the
    possibility, but that's not what we were talking about.

    This all started with Adam Borowski discussing his preferred playing style
    in article <3qlfi2-1hk.ln1@angband.pl>. It is perfectly clear from that
    that he accepts the risk of ring destruction and hence will not get
    teleportitis if his only source of TC is from a ring.
    --
    David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
    Today is Friday, April.
    Anonymous
    April 15, 2005 11:43:11 PM

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

    David Damerell wrote:
    > Quoting Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
    >
    >>David Damerell wrote:
    >>
    >>>Quoting Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
    >>>
    >>>>I don't have to, since that's not what I claimed. I said that loss of
    >>>>TC *may* destroy your game, not that is has to.
    >>>
    >>>But you haven't explained how a prudent player without reflection would
    >>>get into such a situation; so you still have not justified the assertion
    >>>that reflection is not merely convenient.
    >>
    >>I think every experienced player can imagine how that could happen. But
    >>I can make up a scenario for you, if I have more time :-).
    >
    >
    > Please do so.

    O.k. Suppose you are on Dlvl about 20, have an AC of -15, 130 Hp, TC by
    a ring and teleportitis but no reflection. Normally a perfectly
    ascendable character (except for the lack of reflection, of course :-) ).

    Along comes an elf with a wand of lightning and destroys your ring as
    well as your wand of teleportation. You kill the bastard. Next corner,
    a lich, so you put your bag of holding into your sack, just to make
    sure. The lich summons a number of monsters among which three giants
    that surround you and start pounding on you. Your Hp start descending
    ominously, and you would need two moves to get to one of the scrolls of
    teleportation that you have in your bag of holding. So you decide to
    flee using your wand of digging instead, you fall through the hole and
    land on Medusa's level, the titan version. The titan starts summoning
    monsters, too, and you are still low on Hp, so you dig through again.
    Maze level. Everything calm at first sight. You find the upstairs.

    But then you are teleported, without control - at two squares distance
    from a minotaur. The minotaur starts attacking you and your Hp go down
    too fast, so all you can do is dig through again. Castle level. A
    master lich teleports next to you and summons a crowd, among which a
    minotaur and a baluchitherium, more than you can handle at half your Hp.
    You manage to reach the stairs and try to escape upstairs, the lich
    follows, of course.

    Now if you had TC, you would teleport to the upstairs, put your
    blindfold on and move up, possibly after having killed the master lich,
    to heal before finishing off the crowd (you would of course have to kill
    Medusa on the level above). If you can't get him killed fast, you
    might at least get temporarily rid of him on Medusa's level. However,
    you don't have TC, so you have to fight him whenever he turns up, not
    without summoning a few monsters, and to try to get through to the
    staircase. Of course, he can always teleport back and heal... You
    still make it almost to the staircase, running away from most monsters
    that he summoned (fortunately no minotaur this time), but before you
    reach it, random teleport sets in...

    In the meantime, you may have had time to get out a teleportation scroll
    from your bag (and also have quaffed a few badly needed potions of extra
    healing, for lack of full healing), so when you are once again
    surrounded by a crowd and the master lich teleports next to you, you can
    teleport away. Note that if you had TC, this might have already saved
    you, for if you teleport immediately after the lich has gotten next to
    you, you may get your second move (assuming you are fast or very fast)
    to go upstairs, before he can teleport next to you again (this would be
    useful only, if you had your blindfold on already). But as it is, you
    never make it to the staircase and your wand of digging is empty. Not
    that it would have helped much, as you would have fallen down to the
    castle level, where a minotaur and a baluchitherium are still waiting...
    Unfortunately, there are now so many nasty monsters on the level, and
    unfortunately, one of your uncontrolled teleports takes you close to one
    of the crowds so this time you cannot save your neck...

    > I think of myself as a prudent player; I have ascended 19 times and died
    > once below the Castle. I almost always avoid teleportitis, which seems a
    > simple approach which would prevent the loss of TC from destroying my
    > game.

    I consider myself prudent, too. I have ascended about 40 times (didn't
    keep track of the exact number) and never died after reaching the
    castle, nor for that matter, after reaching an AC better than -15; the
    only case where that happened, was a slashem game (and I had not reached
    the castle either). In fact, I never died after having completed the
    quest (terminally, I did die once to Famine, while wearing an amulet of
    life saving).

    I always acquire teleportitis, but my requirements usually are to have
    teleport control first and to have reflection, if I get TC by a ring.
    Now the latter is not a big deal, because I usually have reflection long
    before TC.
    April 15, 2005 11:43:12 PM

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

    Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote in
    news:D 3oufk$gqt$1@rhone.ujf-grenoble.fr:

    > David Damerell wrote:
    >> Quoting Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
    >>
    >>>David Damerell wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Quoting Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
    >>>>
    >>>>>I don't have to, since that's not what I claimed. I said that
    >>>>>loss of TC *may* destroy your game, not that is has to.
    >>>>
    >>>>But you haven't explained how a prudent player without reflection
    >>>>would get into such a situation; so you still have not justified
    >>>>the assertion that reflection is not merely convenient.
    >>>
    >>>I think every experienced player can imagine how that could happen.
    >>> But I can make up a scenario for you, if I have more time :-).
    >
    > O.k. Suppose you are on Dlvl about 20, have an AC of -15, 130 Hp, TC
    > by a ring and teleportitis but no reflection. Normally a perfectly
    > ascendable character (except for the lack of reflection, of course
    > :-) ).

    How would a prudent player get in to this situation to begin with? I may
    be missing something, but you seem to be totally ignoring Davids
    argument, namely that no prudent player would get teleportitis if they
    didn't have a source of reflection. Your argument seems to be based on
    comming up with situations without any explanation of how the player got
    there. There isn't a single thing in the game that forces you to get
    teleportits, so if you manage to get it without being totally prepared
    for it, then I can't see how you can consider yourself a prudent player.
    Anonymous
    April 15, 2005 11:44:25 PM

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

    David Damerell wrote:
    > Quoting Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
    >
    >>I was not making a difference between early and late game. Once you
    >>have a ring of TC, you can have teleportitis as early as you want - if
    >>you also have reflection. If you lose TC, because you did not have
    >>reflection, your game might be messed up. It could still be won, to be
    >>sure, but you might just lose it *because* of your loss of TC.
    >
    >
    > Yes, but this is all ignoring the point that a prudent player who plans to
    > do without reflection will not get teleportitis _at all_, unless they have
    > redundant sources of TC.

    No, it is not, because I was not even discussing the situation that you
    plan to go without reflection. This is a conduct, and for conducts,
    different rules apply.
    Anonymous
    April 15, 2005 11:56:48 PM

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

    David Damerell wrote:
    > Quoting Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:

    > The original discussion was about purposeful rejection of reflection!

    > Of course losing reflection can be a disaster if you didn't plan for the
    > possibility, but that's not what we were talking about.

    That's exactly what we were talking about. I said from the start that
    *I* for one thing was not discussing the the possibility of purposeful
    renunciation of reflection.

    You may call it a plan instead of a conduct. However, I consider it
    such a bad plan that it acqires the quality of a conduct for me. I just
    would not plan on going without reflection except as a purposeful
    handicap making things more difficult - which is more or less the
    definition of a conduct. Even you were admitting that going without
    reflection would be an "inconvenience", so it seems it would not be a
    well-designed plan after all, if you can reach the same goal - ascension
    - more conveniently. All I was saying is that for me it would be more
    than inconvenient to go without reflection - in fact, sufficiently more
    than inconvenient so I would call it a conduct.

    > This all started with Adam Borowski discussing his preferred playing style
    > in article <3qlfi2-1hk.ln1@angband.pl>. It is perfectly clear from that
    > that he accepts the risk of ring destruction and hence will not get
    > teleportitis if his only source of TC is from a ring.

    That may well be, but it was not the situation I was talking about, and
    I think I was clear about what I was discussing. My first contribution
    to this thread was not in response to Adam Borowski's.
    !