Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

YASD - died of boredom

Tags:
  • Hewlett Packard
  • Games
  • Video Games
Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 15, 2005 11:32:17 AM

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?

More about : yasd died boredom

Anonymous
a b α HP
July 15, 2005 1:14:20 PM

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
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 15, 2005 2:29:43 PM

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.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 15, 2005 2:33:37 PM

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...
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 15, 2005 4:07:57 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 15, 2005 4:29:07 PM

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.
July 15, 2005 9:32:54 PM

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".
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 15, 2005 11:47:42 PM

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.
July 16, 2005 12:57:54 AM

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...

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!
July 16, 2005 2:18:12 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 16, 2005 2:47:26 PM

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 progress:p AIN
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 16, 2005 2:47:27 PM

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. > \/
\____/
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 18, 2005 2:17:08 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 18, 2005 4:09:33 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 18, 2005 4:11:37 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 18, 2005 4:21:25 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 18, 2005 5:10:32 PM

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
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 18, 2005 5:37:34 PM

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...
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 18, 2005 7:32:44 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 18, 2005 8:29:07 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 19, 2005 12:24:50 AM

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
> news:p ine.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...)
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 19, 2005 1:25:30 AM

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
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 19, 2005 3:04:44 AM

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

Adam Lawson <adam.lawson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:p ine.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
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 19, 2005 4:27:20 AM

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

"Paul E Collins" <find_my_real_address@CL4.org> wrote in message
news:D b93su$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.
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 19, 2005 5:10:34 AM

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
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 19, 2005 1:51:02 PM

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

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

> 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.

So because other people misbehave (and come on, we all know Dave,
so you can't claim to be surprised by that), you are allowed to
behave badly as well. Good reasoning.

Best,
Jakob
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 19, 2005 1:53:56 PM

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

Adam Lawson <adam.lawson@gmail.com> writes:

> But, from your point of view, is savescumming wrong?

Of course it's not 'wrong', since there is no 'wrong' or
'right'. Many people feel that there is no reason to
brag about being successful while savescumming, that's more
or less all about that.

Best,
Jakob
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 19, 2005 2:56:42 PM

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

Cyde Weys wrote:

> He's saying I lack a spine and am self-deceptive. I have a good
> goddamn reason to be pissed at him.

You have a good reason to moderate your tongue and ignore him.

--
Boudewijn.

--
"I have hundreds of other quotes, just waiting to replace this one
as my signature..." - Me
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 19, 2005 6:08:59 PM

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

Quoting BWIGLEY <bwigley@xtra.co.nz>:
>"Paul E Collins" <find_my_real_address@CL4.org> wrote in message
>>"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.
>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

In this game, I'd rate him at a 100% chance of not ascending.

You can't look at the chances excluding stupid mistakes. Stupid mistakes
are where it's all happening in the endgame.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is First Teleute, July.
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 19, 2005 6:21:25 PM

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

Quoting Cyde Weys <cyde@umd.edu>:
>No, David Damerell has already cast in his lot. In a prior thread he
>looked down upon everyone who *dared* to genocide ;

That's a big inferral from "such a genocide is a waste".

>because he doesn't
>and he's right and anyone who does is wasting a genocide.

Well, I am right. Deal with it. I never got any sensible explanation of
why anyone who can ascend cannot summon the mental discipline necessary to
avoid stepping next to the water at certain very specific points in the
game.

Before you interject that this is "looking down", it's a simple statement
of fact that not doing that is a matter of mental discipline and hence
someone who does it must be unable or unwilling to summon that momentary
concentration.

Clearly if you lack that mental discipline it is quite likely that you
make stupid mistakes (such as stepping next to water or indeed the mistake
which killed this unascended uncompleted priest) and you are entirely wrong
to call a character ascendable when that is only true if the player does
not make stupid mistakes.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is First Teleute, July.
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 19, 2005 6:24:57 PM

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

Quoting Cyde Weys <cyde@umd.edu>:
>He's saying I lack a spine and am self-deceptive.

How would you like me to describe the property most players have, that
when they fail to ascend a priest, they start another one - maybe not
right away, but as a fresh attempt at what they failed to do - rather than
coming up with a rationalisation as to why they don't want to ascend a
priest anymore?

Because I call that a "spine", and the opposite "self-deception" (because,
don't attempt to deny it, you wanted to ascend a priest before this
debacle, not just "complete" it in some way that didn't mean ascension);
but if you have a better set of words, feel free to suggest them.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is First Teleute, July.
July 19, 2005 9:42:06 PM

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

David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in
news:bic*v+ZTq@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk:

> Well, I am right. Deal with it. I never got any sensible explanation
> of why anyone who can ascend cannot summon the mental discipline
> necessary to avoid stepping next to the water at certain very
> specific points in the game.

The thing you never seemed to under stand was that just because you
'can' do something one way doesn't mean that you should do it that way,
or that doing it that way will be the most enjoyable. You just don't seem
to understand that some people don't enjoy standing around waiting for
eels to wander into our line of fire.
July 19, 2005 9:59:37 PM

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

damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
> Well, I am right. Deal with it.

Don't sit on the fence, David. Why not tell us what you *really*
think...

-- A.

--
My email address is hearse[AT]hotpop[DOT]com
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 19, 2005 11:36:17 PM

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

David Damerell wrote:
>
> Well, I am right. Deal with it. I never got any sensible explanation of
> why anyone who can ascend cannot summon the mental discipline necessary to
> avoid stepping next to the water at certain very specific points in the
> game.

Or else deliberately stepping next to water if having some task to do or
some unavoidable path to take, but always with an identified and charged
wand of teleport in the main inventory!

Janis
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 20, 2005 12:13:19 AM

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

Seraphim wrote:
> David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in
> news:bic*v+ZTq@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk:
>
>>Well, I am right. Deal with it. I never got any sensible explanation
>>of why anyone who can ascend cannot summon the mental discipline
>>necessary to avoid stepping next to the water at certain very
>>specific points in the game.
>
> The thing you never seemed to under stand was that just because you
> 'can' do something one way doesn't mean that you should do it that way,
> or that doing it that way will be the most enjoyable.

Enjoy dying? ;-)

> You just don't seem
> to understand that some people don't enjoy standing around waiting for
> eels to wander into our line of fire.

But there are other possibilities, too. There are weapons with range 2.
What I mostly do is simply waiting a bit until I have a free path. Or
you may teleport them away. Or cut the way for them by freezed water or
by boulders. And I am sure there are many more ways to handle with them.

If one is enjoying close melee contact with sea creatures he gets what
he deserves, I'd say, honor or death.

Janis
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 20, 2005 7:06:22 AM

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

Seraphim wrote:
> David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in
> news:bic*v+ZTq@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk:
>
>
>>Well, I am right. Deal with it. I never got any sensible explanation
>>of why anyone who can ascend cannot summon the mental discipline
>>necessary to avoid stepping next to the water at certain very
>>specific points in the game.
>
>
> The thing you never seemed to under stand was that just because you
> 'can' do something one way doesn't mean that you should do it that way,
> or that doing it that way will be the most enjoyable. You just don't seem
> to understand that some people don't enjoy standing around waiting for
> eels to wander into our line of fire.

But...does it matter in the slightest...after all (quaffs potion of full
healing, summons 8 tame Archons, locks self inside 1x1 room and ducks,
hoping to avoid wide-angle disintegration beam, showers of debris, howls
of outrage) it's only a game and not to be taken seriously...is it ?
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 20, 2005 2:54:43 PM

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

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

> Quoting Cyde Weys <cyde@umd.edu>:
> >He's saying I lack a spine and am self-deceptive.
>
> How would you like me to describe the property most players have, that
> when they fail to ascend a priest, they start another one - maybe not
> right away, but as a fresh attempt at what they failed to do - rather than
> coming up with a rationalisation as to why they don't want to ascend a
> priest anymore?

Masochism?

Best,
Jakob
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 20, 2005 6:40:53 PM

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

Quoting Seraphim <gme6@cornell.edu>:
>David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in
>>Well, I am right. Deal with it. I never got any sensible explanation
>>of why anyone who can ascend cannot summon the mental discipline
>>necessary to avoid stepping next to the water at certain very
>>specific points in the game.
>The thing you never seemed to under stand was that just because you
>'can' do something one way doesn't mean that you should do it that way,

You certainly should do it my way if you want to conserve genocides, which
since I say it is a waste is all I am driving at.

>or that doing it that way will be the most enjoyable.

Eh? I don't remember saying anything about enjoyment; I said it was a
waste. If you enjoy throwing PoFH up against the ceiling and breaking
them, that's entirely up to you; but it's still a waste of PoFH.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is First Oneiros, July.
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 20, 2005 6:43:34 PM

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

Quoting Janis Papanagnou <Janis_Papanagnou@hotmail.com>:
>David Damerell wrote:
>>Well, I am right. Deal with it. I never got any sensible explanation of
>>why anyone who can ascend cannot summon the mental discipline necessary to
>>avoid stepping next to the water at certain very specific points in the
>>game.
>Or else deliberately stepping next to water if having some task to do or
>some unavoidable path to take, but always with an identified and charged
>wand of teleport in the main inventory!

Yes. I didn't want to list all the 100% certain approaches, because there
are quite a lot of them, but there are a number of different ways to go
about it.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is First Oneiros, July.
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 21, 2005 1:37:02 PM

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

On 20 Jul 2005 14:43:34 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
<damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>Quoting Janis Papanagnou <Janis_Papanagnou@hotmail.com>:
>>David Damerell wrote:
>>>Well, I am right. Deal with it. I never got any sensible explanation of
>>>why anyone who can ascend cannot summon the mental discipline necessary to
>>>avoid stepping next to the water at certain very specific points in the
>>>game.

It's one less thing to have to keep in mind. My preparation
for the ascension run (hell, for gehennom) focuses on reducing
the number of things I have to keep in mind: all resistances,
foo-proof armor, max strength, naked AC of <= 1, triple magic
resistance.

The dread lord YASD lurks around every corner. Its armor class
is negative infinity. It can penetrate -127 ac like a hot +8
Greyswandir through butter. It does not respect Elbereth. A
level 30 knight's 32d6 magic missile won't phase it.

It bides its time, knowing it is the deadliest foe any hacker
will ever face. After all, aren't all deaths really due to
YASD?

>>Or else deliberately stepping next to water if having some task to do or
>>some unavoidable path to take, but always with an identified and charged
>>wand of teleport in the main inventory!
>
>Yes. I didn't want to list all the 100% certain approaches, because there
>are quite a lot of them, but there are a number of different ways to go
>about it.

In the dungeons, yes, with the possible exception of Juiblex
level. Personally I like skilled cone of cold to make a nice,
wide path on that level.

On the plane of water is another question. It's easy to get
over-focussed on finding the moving portal, especially if
levitating. That's the main purpose of this plane, imho.
Distracting you with finding the portal, preparing for entering
Astral, not wanting to find the portal by accident wearing
a ring of conflict, etc. all the while setting you up for a
kraken/giant eel soul-destroying instadeath.


As I just said in another thread: "Nethack is like love. If
you care it will break your heart. If you don't care it's no
fun." (Converted from golf to Nethack.)


It is just a matter of mental discipline. Conducts prove that.
So do speed ascensions. That doesn't mean any given player can
always handle "just one more thing to be aware of." (This is a
concept beloved of bosses everywhere, than any subordinate
performing (n) tasks per day can therefore do (n+1) tasks per
day.) There's a limit, it's called "task saturation."

Sure there's no need for it. You can always save and think
about the situation. But whoever does that on the Ascension run?
Besides, the knowledge that you can save and think may be the
one thing you lose sight of.

Especially on the plane of water! You're sooooo close. "Let
me get to Astral then I'll save & go to sleep (at 3:00am)."
Not bloody likely. More setup by the devteam.


And you've spent all the time in the dungeons with mostly
smaller, much more easily escaped bodies of water. A cursed
potion of gain level won't save you now. The up/down stairs
or a safe land area aren't x many moves away. You can't
cone-of-cold a safe area. A cursed scroll of teleportation has
no chance of helping you. Any safe area you're in on the plane
of water can close in all around you until you're surrounded by
water. You can't engrave Elbereth. You don't have an infinite
supply of rocks. You can't go up or down stairs to rest or get
something that will help.

You will deal with the plane of water until you escape through
the portal, or until you die on the plane of water.

Most of the preventative/escape methods you've slowly and
painstakingly trained up to instinctive use will get you killed
on the plane of water. That's a lot more thinking to do. And
you have to know about it before you can do the thinking.


Compare it to the plane of fire. Anything that helped with
lava before still will. Fireproof water-walking boots and you're
laughing. (At the lava, anyway.) Doesn't it seem odd that
water-walking boots can be useful on the plane of fire, but not
on the plane of water? Plus, about half of the area is solid
land. An amulet of magical breathing, fire resistance and
walking along the bottom of the lava would be a neat way to
escape an Archon, don't you think? Plus, nothing is going to
pull you into the lava for an insta-death. Even if a steam
vortex picks you up and drops you into lava you have a few turns
to pray, or freeze the lava, etc.


OTOH wands of teleport or cancellation will save you from being
dragged under by a ";". A canceled monster can't wrap itself
around you and all ";" have a 0% base magic resistance saving
throw. The "/" command will let you see which monster is
holding you. "(holding you)" will be in its description.

(See <http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/nh/wan2-343.txt&gt; and
<http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/nh/mon1-343.txt&gt;)


For someone who's never ascended, I think blessed genocide of
";" is a good idea. (I also think not trying for conducts is a
good idea in that situation.)

A blessed genocide of ";" is a comfort in a time of worry and
confusion on the plane of water.


Jove
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 22, 2005 2:43:48 AM

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

Jove wrote:
> On 20 Jul 2005 14:43:34 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
> <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>Yes. I didn't want to list all the 100% certain approaches, because there
>>are quite a lot of them, but there are a number of different ways to go
>>about it.
>
> In the dungeons, yes, with the possible exception of Juiblex
> level. Personally I like skilled cone of cold to make a nice,
> wide path on that level.

Though you don't need it for the sea creatures; there are just jellyfish
(no krakens, no eels) on Juiblex' level.

> [Problems with Elemental Plane of Water]
>
> You will deal with the plane of water until you escape through
> the portal, or until you die on the plane of water.

Just to put that sentence in the adequate relation...

Location Deaths
---------------------------
The Astral plane 1058
The Water plane 2
The Fire plane 14
The Air plane 15
The Earth plane 7

[Current values taken from n.a.o]

> Most of the preventative/escape methods you've slowly and
> painstakingly trained up to instinctive use will get you killed
> on the plane of water. That's a lot more thinking to do. And
> you have to know about it before you can do the thinking.
>
> Compare it to the plane of fire. Anything that helped with
> lava before still will. Fireproof water-walking boots and you're
> laughing. (At the lava, anyway.) Doesn't it seem odd that
> water-walking boots can be useful on the plane of fire, but not
> on the plane of water? Plus, about half of the area is solid
> land. An amulet of magical breathing, fire resistance and
> walking along the bottom of the lava would be a neat way to
> escape an Archon, don't you think? Plus, nothing is going to
> pull you into the lava for an insta-death. Even if a steam
> vortex picks you up and drops you into lava you have a few turns
> to pray, or freeze the lava, etc.

(You may want to reconsider your thoughts given the statistics above.)

Janis
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 27, 2005 1:55:16 AM

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

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 22:43:48 +0200, Janis Papanagnou
<Janis_Papanagnou@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Jove wrote:
>> On 20 Jul 2005 14:43:34 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
>> <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>Yes. I didn't want to list all the 100% certain approaches, because there
>>>are quite a lot of them, but there are a number of different ways to go
>>>about it.
>>
>> In the dungeons, yes, with the possible exception of Juiblex
>> level. Personally I like skilled cone of cold to make a nice,
>> wide path on that level.
>
>Though you don't need it for the sea creatures; there are just jellyfish
>(no krakens, no eels) on Juiblex' level.
>
>> [Problems with Elemental Plane of Water]
>>
>> You will deal with the plane of water until you escape through
>> the portal, or until you die on the plane of water.
>
>Just to put that sentence in the adequate relation...
>
> Location Deaths
> ---------------------------
> The Astral plane 1058
> The Water plane 2
> The Fire plane 14
> The Air plane 15
> The Earth plane 7
>
> [Current values taken from n.a.o]
>
>
>(You may want to reconsider your thoughts given the statistics above.)
>
Well the players who died on the plane of Water support the
second part of the statement. The ones who died on Astral support
the first (they escaped through the portal).

Looks like the data are in violent agreement with the statement.

Evidence of players quitting on the Plane of Air might have
been cause for reconsideration. That's less likely now with the
overwhelming evidence above in support of the statement.


Grateful for the support as always,

Jove
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 27, 2005 4:54:41 PM

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

Quoting Jove <invalid@invalid.invalid>:
><Janis_Papanagnou@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Jove wrote:
>>>You will deal with the plane of water until you escape through
>>>the portal, or until you die on the plane of water.
>>Just to put that sentence in the adequate relation...
>> Location Deaths
>> ---------------------------
>> The Astral plane 1058
>> The Water plane 2
>> The Fire plane 14
>> The Air plane 15
>> The Earth plane 7
Well the players who died on the plane of Water support the
>second part of the statement.

But this is a bit of a dodge away from the original point, which is that
although we accept that eels pose zero risk in the main dungeon, you
assert that they post a risk on the Plane of Water.

It seems clear from Janis's posting that the risk they pose is somewhere
between microscopic and zero - we don't know if either of those 2 deaths
was eel-caused let alone if they were avoidable with careful play, so it
could be a microscopic but non-zero risk.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is Second Teleute, July.
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 29, 2005 3:59:06 AM

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

On 27 Jul 2005 12:54:41 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
<damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>Quoting Jove <invalid@invalid.invalid>:
>><Janis_Papanagnou@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>Jove wrote:
>>>>You will deal with the plane of water until you escape through
>>>>the portal, or until you die on the plane of water.
>>>Just to put that sentence in the adequate relation...
>>> Location Deaths
>>> ---------------------------
>>> The Astral plane 1058
>>> The Water plane 2
>>> The Fire plane 14
>>> The Air plane 15
>>> The Earth plane 7
> Well the players who died on the plane of Water support the
>>second part of the statement.
>
>But this is a bit of a dodge away from the original point, which is that
>although we accept that eels pose zero risk in the main dungeon, you
>assert that they post a risk on the Plane of Water.
>
>It seems clear from Janis's posting that the risk they pose is somewhere
>between microscopic and zero - we don't know if either of those 2 deaths
>was eel-caused let alone if they were avoidable with careful play, so it
>could be a microscopic but non-zero risk.


Did he post that none of the players making it to Astral had
blessed-genocided ';'?

If the players followed dogma, they would have b-geno'd ';'.


Jove
July 29, 2005 10:13:50 AM

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

Jove <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
news:D kdje1hps0tmlj0kuslotsn3tmrog8rod0@4ax.com:

> If the players followed dogma, they would have b-geno'd ';'.

Genociding ; is hardly dogma.
July 29, 2005 10:28:31 AM

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

David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in
news:rvr*a2DUq@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk:

> Quoting Jove <invalid@invalid.invalid>:
>><Janis_Papanagnou@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>Jove wrote:
>>>>You will deal with the plane of water until you escape through
>>>>the portal, or until you die on the plane of water.
>>>Just to put that sentence in the adequate relation...
>>> Location Deaths
>>> ---------------------------
>>> The Astral plane 1058
>>> The Water plane 2
>>> The Fire plane 14
>>> The Air plane 15
>>> The Earth plane 7
>> Well the players who died on the plane of Water support the
>>second part of the statement.
>
> It seems clear from Janis's posting that the risk they pose is
> somewhere between microscopic and zero - we don't know if either of
> those 2 deaths was eel-caused let alone if they were avoidable with
> careful play, so it could be a microscopic but non-zero risk.

The numbers in Janis's post are meaningless.
First, I'd be willing to bet money that 1009 of those 1058 "deaths"
were people who ascended. This means that you're drawing from a pool of
people who out of over a thousand ascentions had less then 40 stupid
deaths on the Astral Plane. I don't think that would qualify as a
represenative sample of Nethack players.

Second, If you look at the "Deaths by type"[1] on NAO you find that:
Death has killed 1 person
Pestilance has killed 7 people
Famine has killed 13 people
Using your argument (fewer deaths equals less risk) I could say that
Famine is the most dangerouns rider and Death is the least dangerouns
one.

[1] "Top types weighted by score (most dangerous endings)" gives higher
numbers for Pestilance and Famine (14 and 15 respectivly) but still
lists just a single death to Death.
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 29, 2005 4:32:24 PM

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

Jove <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:

> Did he post that none of the players making it to Astral had
> blessed-genocided ';'?

Add me to the list of people who think that genociding ';' is a waste.
I don't know how many ascensions I have made (current logfile has 54
and there are at least 30 precious ones).

I have been killed on the Plane of Earth two times. I've been killed
on the Plane of Air a number of times (don't remember exact stats).
I've been killed three times on the Plane of Fire. And I've been
killed perhaps a ten times or so in the Astral Plane. But I haven't
been killed in the Plane of Water, ever.

By the time you reach the Endgame you should be tough enough to kill
both giant and electric eels in melee in one turn (two with bad luck)
and krakens in three turns (two with good luck). This is fast enough
to prevent them from drowning you. Then, you only have to be a little
bit careful to prevent three or four of them attacking at the same
time.
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 29, 2005 5:19:43 PM

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

Seraphim wrote on Fri, 29 Jul 2005 06:13:50 +0000 (UTC):
> Jove <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
> news:D kdje1hps0tmlj0kuslotsn3tmrog8rod0@4ax.com:
>
> > If the players followed dogma, they would have b-geno'd ';'.
>
> Genociding ; is hardly dogma.

I disagree. The trinity of Lh; are commonly understood to be the most
useful genocide targets. A quick google groups check of the last 20 RGRN
threads with "YAAP" in the subject line reveals:

7 where the player did not genocide anything
6 where ; were genocided
3 where monsters other than ; were genocided
and 4 where the player did not include genocide information in his post


--
"Do you think that they, with their Battles, Famine, Black Death
and Serfdom, were less enlightened than we are, with our Wars,
Blockade, Influenza and Conscription?" -- T. H. White
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 29, 2005 5:19:44 PM

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

Rast wrote:
> Seraphim wrote on Fri, 29 Jul 2005 06:13:50 +0000 (UTC):
>
>>Jove <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
>>news:D kdje1hps0tmlj0kuslotsn3tmrog8rod0@4ax.com:
>>
>>
>>> If the players followed dogma, they would have b-geno'd ';'.
>>
>>Genociding ; is hardly dogma.
>
>
> I disagree. The trinity of Lh; are commonly understood to be the most
> useful genocide targets. A quick google groups check of the last 20 RGRN
> threads with "YAAP" in the subject line reveals:
>
> 7 where the player did not genocide anything
> 6 where ; were genocided
> 3 where monsters other than ; were genocided
> and 4 where the player did not include genocide information in his post

And I question whether searching Google groups for YAAP represents a
good cross-section of actual ascension results. I have ascended 8
different characters personally, and have never posted YAAP. The most
recent 5 have been with geno-less conduct, and only the first one (I
didn't have dumplog at the time) might have had a genocide for ";", but
I'm fairly certain it didn't.

It is, in my opinion, not widely accepted that sea monster genocides are
a key to ascending for the player who has never ascended. Therefore,
calling it part of dogma seems unwarranted. YMMV, of course!

-Ken
Anonymous
a b α HP
July 29, 2005 7:36:16 PM

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

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 13:19:43 -0400
Rast <rast2@hotmail.com> wrote:

>threads with "YAAP" in the subject line reveals:
You didn't search for YAFAP I see, you you must mean >1st time ascenders.
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!