YASD - died of boredom

[Guest]

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

This pretty much sums it up:

CydeWeys (Pri Hum Fem Neu), died of starvation, 56762028 points,
HP:872, lvl:7 of Mines, max depth: 29, died twice, started on 20050710

This was around 200K turns and I had only extincted 7 species. I
stopped paying attention during macro farming and by the time I saw
what was happening my AoLS was already dusted and I was dead.

Anyway, I count this as a "completion" (it was easily Ascendable). So
now I'm done with valkyrie, samurai, wizard, and priest. Hrmmm, what
next?

 

[Guest]

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

Sean wrote:
<snip>
> You can hardly count it as a completion if you fall to one of the
> largest threats to an extinctionist. I've never tried one myself, but I
> can imagine that once you've been going for a while, the ONLY real
> threat to your character is your own carelessness. (one might even argue
> that this is the case with all Nethack characters) I mean, just look at
> your hitpoints! And I'm assuming your AC was way down there as well, so
> really, what other threats were there to avoid?
> So sure, if I could count every character who I've lost to my own
> carelessness I estimate I've had about 1000 "completions".

Also, aren't there some monsters that's hard to find you need to kill
in order to make the extinctionist game? Like Demogorgon and such?

-K

 

[Guest]

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

Kremti wrote:
> Sean wrote:
> <snip>
> > You can hardly count it as a completion if you fall to one of the
> > largest threats to an extinctionist. I've never tried one myself, but I
> > can imagine that once you've been going for a while, the ONLY real
> > threat to your character is your own carelessness. (one might even argue
> > that this is the case with all Nethack characters) I mean, just look at
> > your hitpoints! And I'm assuming your AC was way down there as well, so
> > really, what other threats were there to avoid?
> > So sure, if I could count every character who I've lost to my own
> > carelessness I estimate I've had about 1000 "completions".
>
> Also, aren't there some monsters that's hard to find you need to kill
> in order to make the extinctionist game? Like Demogorgon and such?

Yeah, but those are only hard to the medium-skilled adventurer, not to
the maxed-out extinctionist.

 

[Guest]

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

Sean wrote:
> Cyde Weys wrote:
> > This pretty much sums it up:
> >
> > CydeWeys (Pri Hum Fem Neu), died of starvation, 56762028 points,
> > HP:872, lvl:7 of Mines, max depth: 29, died twice, started on 20050710
> >
> > This was around 200K turns and I had only extincted 7 species. I
> > stopped paying attention during macro farming and by the time I saw
> > what was happening my AoLS was already dusted and I was dead.
> >
> > Anyway, I count this as a "completion" (it was easily Ascendable). So
> > now I'm done with valkyrie, samurai, wizard, and priest. Hrmmm, what
> > next?
>
> You can hardly count it as a completion if you fall to one of the
> largest threats to an extinctionist. I've never tried one myself, but I
> can imagine that once you've been going for a while, the ONLY real
> threat to your character is your own carelessness. (one might even argue
> that this is the case with all Nethack characters) I mean, just look at
> your hitpoints! And I'm assuming your AC was way down there as well, so
> really, what other threats were there to avoid?
> So sure, if I could count every character who I've lost to my own
> carelessness I estimate I've had about 1000 "completions".

I'm counting it as a completion because my character easily reached the
point where he could have Ascended, had he just gone for straight
Ascension instead of messing around with lots of dumb monsters. Maybe
someday when I've completed all 13 classes I'll go back and get
technical Ascensions on all 13, but for now, I am satisfied with a
completion.

If you want to see the ttyrec of the incredibly lame death, here it is
....

http://alt.org/nethack/ttyrec/CydeWeys/2005-07-15.14:07:07.ttyrec

 

[Guest]

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

Cyde Weys wrote:
> Sean wrote:
> > Cyde Weys wrote:
> > > Anyway, I count this as a "completion" (it was easily Ascendable). So
> > > now I'm done with valkyrie, samurai, wizard, and priest. Hrmmm, what
> > > next?
> >
> > You can hardly count it as a completion if you fall to one of the
> > largest threats to an extinctionist.
>
> I'm counting it as a completion because my character easily reached the
> point where he could have Ascended, had he just gone for straight
> Ascension instead of messing around with lots of dumb monsters. Maybe
> someday when I've completed all 13 classes I'll go back and get
> technical Ascensions on all 13, but for now, I am satisfied with a
> completion.

I'm with Sean. The only thing you "completed" was dying in the Mines
with a pumped-up character. Having lots of hitpoints doesn't mean a
guaranteed ascension.

 

[Guest]

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

micromoog wrote:
> Cyde Weys wrote:
> > Sean wrote:
> > > Cyde Weys wrote:
> > > > Anyway, I count this as a "completion" (it was easily Ascendable). So
> > > > now I'm done with valkyrie, samurai, wizard, and priest. Hrmmm, what
> > > > next?
> > >
> > > You can hardly count it as a completion if you fall to one of the
> > > largest threats to an extinctionist.
> >
> > I'm counting it as a completion because my character easily reached the
> > point where he could have Ascended, had he just gone for straight
> > Ascension instead of messing around with lots of dumb monsters. Maybe
> > someday when I've completed all 13 classes I'll go back and get
> > technical Ascensions on all 13, but for now, I am satisfied with a
> > completion.
>
> I'm with Sean. The only thing you "completed" was dying in the Mines
> with a pumped-up character. Having lots of hitpoints doesn't mean a
> guaranteed ascension.

Full Ascension kit, greater than average HP, Pow, AC, maxed stats, eye
of tapioca, and multiple unspent wishes = the closest thing to a
guaranteed Ascension that exists in Nethack.

But I don't have to defend myself against you. I don't care whether
YOU think I have "completed" the priest class; all I care is that I
have completed the priest class, and will move on to playing as someone
else.

 

[Sean]

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

Cyde Weys wrote:
> This pretty much sums it up:
>
> CydeWeys (Pri Hum Fem Neu), died of starvation, 56762028 points,
> HP:872, lvl:7 of Mines, max depth: 29, died twice, started on 20050710
>
> This was around 200K turns and I had only extincted 7 species. I
> stopped paying attention during macro farming and by the time I saw
> what was happening my AoLS was already dusted and I was dead.
>
> Anyway, I count this as a "completion" (it was easily Ascendable). So
> now I'm done with valkyrie, samurai, wizard, and priest. Hrmmm, what
> next?

You can hardly count it as a completion if you fall to one of the
largest threats to an extinctionist. I've never tried one myself, but I
can imagine that once you've been going for a while, the ONLY real
threat to your character is your own carelessness. (one might even argue
that this is the case with all Nethack characters) I mean, just look at
your hitpoints! And I'm assuming your AC was way down there as well, so
really, what other threats were there to avoid?
So sure, if I could count every character who I've lost to my own
carelessness I estimate I've had about 1000 "completions".

 

[Guest]

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

"Cyde Weys" <cyde@umd.edu> wrote:

> Full Ascension kit, greater than average HP, Pow, AC,
> maxed stats, eye of tapioca, and multiple unspent wishes
> = the closest thing to a guaranteed Ascension that exists
> in Nethack.

But you didn't ascend.

> But I don't have to defend myself against you. I don't care
> whether YOU think I have "completed" the priest class; all
> I care is that I have completed the priest class,

But you didn't ascend.

P.

 

[Sean]

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

Cyde Weys wrote:

>>>This pretty much sums it up:
>>>
>>>CydeWeys (Pri Hum Fem Neu), died of starvation, 56762028 points,
>>>HP:872, lvl:7 of Mines, max depth: 29, died twice, started on 20050710
>>>
>>>This was around 200K turns and I had only extincted 7 species. I
>>>stopped paying attention during macro farming and by the time I saw
>>>what was happening my AoLS was already dusted and I was dead.
>>>
>>>Anyway, I count this as a "completion" (it was easily Ascendable). So
>>>now I'm done with valkyrie, samurai, wizard, and priest. Hrmmm, what
>>>next?
>>
>>You can hardly count it as a completion if you fall to one of the
>>largest threats to an extinctionist. I've never tried one myself, but I
>>can imagine that once you've been going for a while, the ONLY real
>>threat to your character is your own carelessness. (one might even argue
>>that this is the case with all Nethack characters) I mean, just look at
>>your hitpoints! And I'm assuming your AC was way down there as well, so
>>really, what other threats were there to avoid?
>>So sure, if I could count every character who I've lost to my own
>>carelessness I estimate I've had about 1000 "completions".
>
> I'm counting it as a completion because my character easily reached the
> point where he could have Ascended, had he just gone for straight
> Ascension instead of messing around with lots of dumb monsters. Maybe
> someday when I've completed all 13 classes I'll go back and get
> technical Ascensions on all 13, but for now, I am satisfied with a
> completion.
>
> If you want to see the ttyrec of the incredibly lame death, here it is
> ...
>
> http://alt.org/nethack/ttyrec/CydeWeys/2005-07-15.14:07:07.ttyrec

Well heck, I've had adventurers reach that point only to have them fall
to one YASD after another, IMO the biggest (again, some would say the
only) threat to be avoided in Nethack!
Still, don't think I'm trying to trivialize your effort here! I'm not
nearly skilled (careful/patient) enough to even try an extinctionist yet
and I admire anyone who is!

 

[Sean]

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

Cyde Weys wrote:

>>>>>Anyway, I count this as a "completion" (it was easily Ascendable). So
>>>>>now I'm done with valkyrie, samurai, wizard, and priest. Hrmmm, what
>>>>>next?
>>>>
>>>>You can hardly count it as a completion if you fall to one of the
>>>>largest threats to an extinctionist.
>>>
>>>I'm counting it as a completion because my character easily reached the
>>>point where he could have Ascended, had he just gone for straight
>>>Ascension instead of messing around with lots of dumb monsters. Maybe
>>>someday when I've completed all 13 classes I'll go back and get
>>>technical Ascensions on all 13, but for now, I am satisfied with a
>>>completion.
>>
>>I'm with Sean. The only thing you "completed" was dying in the Mines
>>with a pumped-up character. Having lots of hitpoints doesn't mean a
>>guaranteed ascension.
>
> Full Ascension kit, greater than average HP, Pow, AC, maxed stats, eye
> of tapioca, and multiple unspent wishes = the closest thing to a
> guaranteed Ascension that exists in Nethack.
>
> But I don't have to defend myself against you. I don't care whether
> YOU think I have "completed" the priest class; all I care is that I
> have completed the priest class, and will move on to playing as someone
> else.

I can well understand that you feel you've squeezed everything you want
to squeeze out of the class, that by your own personal standards, you've
completed it. Hey, I would too.
But that doesn't change the fact that the mistake that got you killed
can't be overlooked as trivial any more than can that of the first level
character who bumps into a floating eye on dlvl1 and meets his demise at
the tiny canines of the first lucky newt who comes along.

 

[Guest]

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

In article <1121455747.933975.141760@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
cyde@umd.edu says...
>
>
> micromoog wrote:
>
> > I'm with Sean. The only thing you "completed" was dying in the Mines
> > with a pumped-up character. Having lots of hitpoints doesn't mean a
> > guaranteed ascension.
>
> Full Ascension kit, greater than average HP, Pow, AC, maxed stats, eye
> of tapioca, and multiple unspent wishes = the closest thing to a
> guaranteed Ascension that exists in Nethack.
>
> But I don't have to defend myself against you. I don't care whether
> YOU think I have "completed" the priest class; all I care is that I
> have completed the priest class, and will move on to playing as someone
> else.

I do also understand very well, especially as it was an extinctionist
attempt. I also had an "almost" done Pacifist (bumped into a shade)
that I did again propely ways later.

But I have to object to such a word as "guaranteed" as it doesn't exist
in nethack. You are going to drown in lava, while 14 Archons have
summoned 800 Captains that all wield a cockatrice corpse eating away
your 59 "oLS. Ok, as an extinctionist that wouldn't happen but you get
the picture. If nothing else you are going to offer the amulet at the
wrong altar because you are so exhausted you cannot see straight after
playing for 29h straight.


Eskimo

--
//------------------------------
//Remove tämä all the way to and including soomee to mail directly.
//Ascended:W,V (genopolywish),P(ill ath), T,K,H,S,B,C,P,W
(naked),Ro,Ra,A,W,almost pacifist A
//In progressAIN

 

[Guest]

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

lmfback wrote:
> In article <1121455747.933975.141760@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> cyde@umd.edu says...
>
> I do also understand very well, especially as it was an extinctionist
> attempt. I also had an "almost" done Pacifist (bumped into a shade)
> that I did again propely ways later.
>

IIRC, you have to actually kill a monster to break pacifist conduct,
just attacking one won't matter.

Just started a new nethack game, after attacking but not killing a
lichen, #conduct still tells me I'm a pacifist, so you should be okay.

--
____ (__)
/ \ (oo) -Zarel
|Moo. > \/
\____/

 

[Guest]

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

David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting Cyde Weys <cyde@umd.edu>:
> >Full Ascension kit, greater than average HP, Pow, AC, maxed stats, eye
> >of tapioca, and multiple unspent wishes = the closest thing to a
> >guaranteed Ascension that exists in Nethack.
>
> Not in the least. The closest thing to a guaranteed ascension is a player
> who doesn't make mistakes. You didn't have that, and you didn't ascend.
>
> Failing that, someone who makes mistakes standing on the right altar with
> the Amulet who somehow arranges not to #offer it had the closest thing to
> a guaranteed ascension, much closer than you.
>
> But you know, when they do make that mistake, any player with a spine says
> "Oh, well, that was stupid. I won't make that mistake next time." Not
> "Well, I guess I can pretend I ascended."
>
> >But I don't have to defend myself against you. I don't care whether
> >YOU think I have "completed" the priest class; all I care is that I
> >have completed the priest class,
>
> No, you haven't, no matter your capacity for self-deception, because you
> didn't ascend.

Or, you know, you could just stop being a goddamn jerk, because I
didn't say I "Ascended", I said I counted it as a completion.

 

[Guest]

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

Adam Lawson wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Cyde Weys wrote:
> >
> > David Damerell wrote:
> >> Quoting Cyde Weys <cyde@umd.edu>:
> >>
> >>> But I don't have to defend myself against you. I don't care whether
> >>> YOU think I have "completed" the priest class; all I care is that I
> >>> have completed the priest class,
> >>
> >> No, you haven't, no matter your capacity for self-deception, because you
> >> didn't ascend.
> >
> > Or, you know, you could just stop being a goddamn jerk, because I
> > didn't say I "Ascended", I said I counted it as a completion.
> >
>
> Whoa whoa, hey, no need to be so defensive, and definitely no need for
> that kind of language.

He's saying I lack a spine and am self-deceptive. I have a good
goddamn reason to be pissed at him. I come on here just to relay my
dumb mistake with trying an extinctionist and say I'm moving on from
the priest class. Then I get attacked by David. I don't care whether
he thinks I should move on from the priest class or not; I'm moving on.
But it wasn't appropriate for him to attack my CHARACTER for how I
choose to proceed in a videogame.

 

[Guest]

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

Quoting Cyde Weys <cyde@umd.edu>:
>Full Ascension kit, greater than average HP, Pow, AC, maxed stats, eye
>of tapioca, and multiple unspent wishes = the closest thing to a
>guaranteed Ascension that exists in Nethack.

Not in the least. The closest thing to a guaranteed ascension is a player
who doesn't make mistakes. You didn't have that, and you didn't ascend.

Failing that, someone who makes mistakes standing on the right altar with
the Amulet who somehow arranges not to #offer it had the closest thing to
a guaranteed ascension, much closer than you.

But you know, when they do make that mistake, any player with a spine says
"Oh, well, that was stupid. I won't make that mistake next time." Not
"Well, I guess I can pretend I ascended."

>But I don't have to defend myself against you. I don't care whether
>YOU think I have "completed" the priest class; all I care is that I
>have completed the priest class,

No, you haven't, no matter your capacity for self-deception, because you
didn't ascend.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is First Potmos, July.

 

[Guest]

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

Adam Lawson wrote:

> We're all friends here. You have ascended other classes and you're
> obviously pretty good at that. No one is saying you have to ascend priest
> class or anything. But you didn't technically "complete" it -- as in reach
> the goal. You could very well have. And you could be "through" with the
> priest class, in your own feelings.

The "goal"? Now you're opening up a whole can of worms. Who's to say
what the goal of any videogame is? I would say the goal is to have
fun. When a game is no longer fun, I stop playing. Just because you
think the goal of Nethack is to Ascend doesn't mean that's what I
think. I've already Ascended twice - more than enough for me. At the
higher level all classes are pretty much the same and it's redundant
and boring to do eleven more all to the same goal. That's where
conducts come in. In that priest game that didn't turn out so well, I
was doing polyless, polyselfless, and genoless, and hopefully going for
extinctionist (which didn't happen). My goal was NOT Ascension! I've
already done that twice! (Plus offered once on the wrong altar,
hehehe, damn you Odin!)

I just find it rather intrusive that everyone thinks they can tell me
what I should be getting out of the game and what goal I should be
attempting to reach. I don't care one whit if David doesn't think I'm
done with the priest class. But I DO care that he resorted to ad
hominems in his lame-assed argument against my completion. Had he
remained civil, so would I. I just think it's ridiculous for it for
come down to flaming over a GAME.

 

[Guest]

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

On 2005-07-18, David Damerell wrote:
>>But I don't have to defend myself against you. I don't care whether
>>YOU think I have "completed" the priest class; all I care is that I
>>have completed the priest class,
>
> No, you haven't, no matter your capacity for self-deception, because you
> didn't ascend.

I think the whole point is that the OP used the term "to complete" to
mean "to check the class off the list of classes to ascend" because he
personally felt that the game he played and didn't ascend taught him all
he wanted to learn about playing priests. He didn't brag with an
ascension or anything, so no use arguing here.

Ohle

--
Jann Ohle Claussen | GPG-Key-ID E7149169
http://www.stud.uni-goettingen.de/~s251251
BOFH Excuse #272:
Netscape has crashed

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Cyde Weys wrote:
>
> David Damerell wrote:
>> Quoting Cyde Weys <cyde@umd.edu>:
>>
>>> But I don't have to defend myself against you. I don't care whether
>>> YOU think I have "completed" the priest class; all I care is that I
>>> have completed the priest class,
>>
>> No, you haven't, no matter your capacity for self-deception, because you
>> didn't ascend.
>
> Or, you know, you could just stop being a goddamn jerk, because I
> didn't say I "Ascended", I said I counted it as a completion.
>

Whoa whoa, hey, no need to be so defensive, and definitely no need for
that kind of language.

I see both of your points here. You feel like you did enough with the
Priest class. I don't want to speak for others exactly but it looks
like David and the others feel that you shouldn't necessarily say
"completion." It just sounds bad here.

Ascending is looked at as something really tricky and hard and the general
feeling amoung posters is not to pull anything with regards to ascending
and playing with words seems like pulling something.

We're all friends here. You have ascended other classes and you're
obviously pretty good at that. No one is saying you have to ascend priest
class or anything. But you didn't technically "complete" it -- as in reach
the goal. You could very well have. And you could be "through" with the
priest class, in your own feelings.

It's just the language, really -- complete in this case sounds like
"reached the goal", which is ascending. Dying is not the goal. I mean no
offense by this, at all. I just think this situation should be diffused.
The argument isn't necessary...

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Cyde Weys wrote:

>
>
> Adam Lawson wrote:
>
>> We're all friends here. You have ascended other classes and you're
>> obviously pretty good at that. No one is saying you have to ascend priest
>> class or anything. But you didn't technically "complete" it -- as in reach
>> the goal. You could very well have. And you could be "through" with the
>> priest class, in your own feelings.
>
> The "goal"? Now you're opening up a whole can of worms. Who's to say
> what the goal of any videogame is? I would say the goal is to have
> fun. When a game is no longer fun, I stop playing. Just because you
> think the goal of Nethack is to Ascend doesn't mean that's what I
> think. I've already Ascended twice - more than enough for me. At the
> higher level all classes are pretty much the same and it's redundant
> and boring to do eleven more all to the same goal.

Well, I have absolutely zero intention of ascending all the classes. I'd
go mad. I don't think anyone is saying play if you don't have fun and do
it our way.

But, from your point of view, is savescumming wrong? If it makes it more
fun... Just a question.

I don't want to argue here, or anything. I'll admit to not completely
reading every message in the thread, but sort of skimming them. The only
reason I replied in the first place was because your reply caught my eye
and it surprised me -- this is rgrn, things are generally more cordial.

> My goal was NOT Ascension!

Then you completed your goal, and why do you care?

> I just find it rather intrusive that everyone thinks they can tell me
> what I should be getting out of the game and what goal I should be
> attempting to reach.

But you said you completed it, on rgrn. If I ascend by savescumming, and
say I ascended here, is that all right? I mean if that was my goal. It's
just the way the group looks at the language.

Your argument was, you counted it as a completion because you could have
ascended. That looks like the point where people are taking issue with. I
could have ascended my last valk that had almost a full ascension kit
before sokoban (got very lucky and found a HoB at +3 in a shop!). But I
died because I wasn't paying attention.

Things only really got nasty when you replied to micromoog saying "I don't
have to defend myself against you." He hadn't made any real assertion
other than "Having lots of hitpoints doesn't mean a guaranteed ascension."

Your reply to him saying that is what David replied to. I'm not going to
defend what David said. I'm sure he'll do that if he sees fit. I'm not
going to argue whether or not you completed it or not -- whatever floats
your boat man. If you think you got enough out of priests, more power to
you. I got enough out of magic users to last me a while, without ascending
one. I'm not going to tell you what class to play.

I think the problem in the thread boils down to you saying you could have
ascended, and using that as your rational for completion. If you just said
"I got all I wanted out of priests anyway, I want to play another class" I
don't think anyone would object. No one really cares much about which
classes other people play -- we congratulate YAAPs all the same.

I don't care if you ascend a priest or not. That's not my point. If you're
having fun, more power to you. If savescumming were your thing, same
answer -- just careful of the verbage on rgrn, because people have strong
feelings about "completion" for this game. Because it is very hard. I'm
not justifying any response or anything... I just don't think anyone
should take things too harshly here.

I didn't notice David's response at first, and looking at it in google
groups, yeah, it's a bit harsh, but your response was about ten times
harsher.

 

[Guest]

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

Boudewijn Waijers wrote:
> Cyde Weys wrote:
>
> > I don't consider "I don't have to defend myself to you" as nasty.
> > Nasty is assaulting someone's character.
>
> You may think so, but you should consider that different people may
> consider different things "nasty". Such things are always in the eye of
> the beholder (not yet implemented in vanilla), and it's not up to you or
> me to judge what others might consider nasty.

But intent matters too, and I was just trying to explain intent.

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Cyde Weys wrote:

> Adam Lawson <adam.lawson@gmail.com> wrote in
> newsine.WNT.4.63.0507181516260.3144@Zelda:
>
>
>> Well, I have absolutely zero intention of ascending all the classes.
>> I'd go mad. I don't think anyone is saying play if you don't have fun
>> and do it our way.
>
> No, David Damerell has already cast in his lot. In a prior thread he
> looked down upon everyone who *dared* to genocide ; because he doesn't
> and he's right and anyone who does is wasting a genocide. So you must
> consider my response in the context of the past things he's said.

Well, I skimmed over that discussion, too, so I didn't see what he said.
It just didn't hold my interest as a topic. Serious snippage, I didn't
realize how long winded I got.

>>> My goal was NOT Ascension!
>>
>> Then you completed your goal, and why do you care?
>
> Because he attacked me personally. I don't care one whit about what he
> thinks about my goals.

But why do you care that he attacked you? At least, enough to bother
replying?

>
>> Things only really got nasty when you replied to micromoog saying "I
>> don't have to defend myself against you." He hadn't made any real
>> assertion other than "Having lots of hitpoints doesn't mean a
>> guaranteed ascension."
>
> I don't consider "I don't have to defend myself to you" as nasty. Nasty
> is assaulting someone's character.

I wasn't necessarily saying that was the nasty quote, just that things got
nasty then. You seemed a bit defensive, but text lacks a lot of the
meaning that tone of voice can have, so I may just be reading more into
that. It may have just seemed harsh to me.

> We disagree here, but we disagree civilly. You're cool man, my qualm is
> with David.

Good to know. Like I said, I'm not out to defend what was said, or
anything. I just caught enough of the conversation that it threw me off --
"Hey wait, this is rgrn, what the hell?" sort of thing. I don't want to
see a flame war erupt over what looks like a small issue.

'Course, I haven't been around for long, so this place still retains the
wonder of being 99.5% troll and spam free, and the readability and
intelligence of the posts is /so very much/ higher than a lot of internet
sites. That's why it just took me off guard. Not used to seeing things get
so personal.

Not since every killfiled that last troll, anyway. (I can't recall his
name but he was the guy hooking rgrn up with a bunch of crossposts
unrelated. Irritated the hell out of me...)

 

[Guest]

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

In article <1121713773.217112.296150@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Cyde Weys <cyde@umd.edu> wrote:
> But it wasn't appropriate for him to attack my CHARACTER for how I
>choose to proceed in a videogame.

Oh, next you're going to be saying that savescummers aren't moral lepers
who ought to be kept someplace they can't hurt the rest of us, like
Alcatraz or Mars. Be warned, them newfangled liberal views are
considered vile heresy 'round about these here parts.

Adam

 

[Guest]

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

Adam Lawson <adam.lawson@gmail.com> wrote in
newsine.WNT.4.63.0507181516260.3144@Zelda:


> Well, I have absolutely zero intention of ascending all the classes.
> I'd go mad. I don't think anyone is saying play if you don't have fun
> and do it our way.

No, David Damerell has already cast in his lot. In a prior thread he
looked down upon everyone who *dared* to genocide ; because he doesn't
and he's right and anyone who does is wasting a genocide. So you must
consider my response in the context of the past things he's said.

> But, from your point of view, is savescumming wrong? If it makes it
> more fun... Just a question.

Personally I don't savescum because while a stupid death may be
frustrating in the short term, savescumming takes a lot of the challenge
out of the game in the long run, and frankly the challenge is what makes
Nethack so fun.

But I don't look down on people who savescum. Whatever floats their
boat, as you say. Although I am for full disclosure. There would be
something wrong with posting a YAAP or YAFAP here without disclosing
that they savescummed. That's why I always disclose whatever "dubious"
means I've used, whether it be pudding farming, automated pudding
farming, or considering a priest complete even though she didn't Ascend.

> I don't want to argue here, or anything. I'll admit to not completely
> reading every message in the thread, but sort of skimming them. The
> only reason I replied in the first place was because your reply caught
> my eye and it surprised me -- this is rgrn, things are generally more
> cordial.

I agree, things generally are more cordial, but I'm not yet mature
enough not to stoop to the level of the attacker when I'm crafting my
responses.

>> My goal was NOT Ascension!
>
> Then you completed your goal, and why do you care?

Because he attacked me personally. I don't care one whit about what he
thinks about my goals.

>> I just find it rather intrusive that everyone thinks they can tell me
>> what I should be getting out of the game and what goal I should be
>> attempting to reach.
>
> But you said you completed it, on rgrn. If I ascend by savescumming,
> and say I ascended here, is that all right? I mean if that was my
> goal. It's just the way the group looks at the language.

As long as you disclose that you savescummed, there is no problem. As
long as I disclosed that my "completion" didn't involve actually
Ascending, there should be no problem.

> Your argument was, you counted it as a completion because you could
> have ascended. That looks like the point where people are taking issue
> with. I could have ascended my last valk that had almost a full
> ascension kit before sokoban (got very lucky and found a HoB at +3 in
> a shop!). But I died because I wasn't paying attention.

I'm not saying it was a guaranteed Ascension, just good enough for me to
consider myself done with the class until I get around to completing all
of the others.

> Things only really got nasty when you replied to micromoog saying "I
> don't have to defend myself against you." He hadn't made any real
> assertion other than "Having lots of hitpoints doesn't mean a
> guaranteed ascension."

I don't consider "I don't have to defend myself to you" as nasty. Nasty
is assaulting someone's character.

> I didn't notice David's response at first, and looking at it in google
> groups, yeah, it's a bit harsh, but your response was about ten times
> harsher.

We disagree here, but we disagree civilly. You're cool man, my qualm is
with David.

--
~ Cyde Weys ~

Mana du vortes, mana du vortes
Aeria gloris, aeria gloris

 

[Guest]

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

"Paul E Collins" <find_my_real_address@CL4.org> wrote in message
news:db93su$s1d$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> "Cyde Weys" <cyde@umd.edu> wrote:
>
> > Full Ascension kit, greater than average HP, Pow, AC,
> > maxed stats, eye of tapioca, and multiple unspent wishes
> > = the closest thing to a guaranteed Ascension that exists
> > in Nethack.
>
> But you didn't ascend.
>
> > But I don't have to defend myself against you. I don't care
> > whether YOU think I have "completed" the priest class; all
> > I care is that I have completed the priest class,
>
> But you didn't ascend.

I think (he) realizes that, but honestly having enough ascensions under his
belt, and everything else, I would rate him at about a 0.1% chance of not
ascending and am willing to say that he could ascend a priest, and might as
well have done. So what if he didn't _actually_ ascend, IMHO he has
completed the class and also in his, which is what matters.

 

[Guest]

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

Cyde Weys wrote:

> I don't consider "I don't have to defend myself to you" as nasty.
> Nasty is assaulting someone's character.

You may think so, but you should consider that different people may
consider different things "nasty". Such things are always in the eye of
the beholder (not yet implemented in vanilla), and it's not up to you or
me to judge what others might consider nasty.

--
Boudewijn.

--
"I have hundreds of other quotes, just waiting to replace this one
as my signature..." - Me