Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

So what now??

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 1:23:50 PM

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

Well, my first vanilla Nethack ascension is under my belt.


What now?? Do people consider Nethack the standard, or is SlashEm now
what Nethack used to be??



I guess what I am asking is, which is harder/more respected?? A Nethack
or SlashEm ascension??



Or should I try and beat Angband or TOME??

More about : question

Anonymous
August 3, 2005 3:15:26 PM

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

Brigand wrote:
> Well, my first vanilla Nethack ascension is under my belt.

Congrats!

> What now?? Do people consider Nethack the standard, or is SlashEm now
> what Nethack used to be??
>
> I guess what I am asking is, which is harder/more respected?? A Nethack
> or SlashEm ascension??

I'd still consider Nethack to be "the standard", since Slash'EM is
unbalanced in a lot of ways. I'd say the early game in Slash'EM is
harder, but the mid-to-late game is much, much easier (it's not
uncommon for people to get 20+ wishes). The mid-to-late game is also a
lot more interesting and varied in Slash'EM.

Personally, I worked on Nethack until I started getting too bored with
Gehennom, then moved to Slash'EM for a while.
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 4:10:17 PM

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

>Or should I try and beat Angband or TOME??

Try ADOM, is is hackish and fun. It like NH has a particularly cruel
RNG, and a lot of fun detail. www.adom.de

or if feel like getting involved in something ridiculously crues try
IVAN. It is a newer RL that is beyond cruel. I still think all the
people who have claimed to have beaten it are lying (sarcasm).
Related resources
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 6:19:48 PM

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

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Brigand wrote:

> What now?? Do people consider Nethack the standard, or is SlashEm now
> what Nethack used to be??

Nethack is still the standard. Slashem has its cult following, but it
seems to me that most people prefer the original.

> I guess what I am asking is, which is harder/more respected?? A Nethack
> or SlashEm ascension??

My vote goes to Nethack, and I believe most people would agree, but I know
there are several that would strongly disagree.

> Or should I try and beat Angband or TOME??

This is a matter of personal preference. Angband is a much longer game
than Nethack, and rewards its players for taking things very slowly. Food
is available in unlimited supply, and dungeons are randomly regenerated
each time you enter, so theoretically you can get a full set of top-line
equipment just by scumming dlvl 1 over and over for a few years. This is
what makes Angband solvable by bots. I've played a couple Angband
characters into their 40s (max level 50), but ultimately I've stopped
playing it because it's too difficult to make progress quickly, and I
don't have the patience to play each level 5 times before moving on.
(Each of Angband's 100 levels is about 9 times the size of a Nethack
level.)

Tome is to Angband like Slashem is to Nethack. Although I'm not a Slashem
fan, I find that Tome has fixed many of the things that made Angband
boring for me, and Tome's addition of scripted events and fixed rewards
gives it a very Nethack-like feel and learning curve. One disadvantage of
Tome is that the class imbalance is far more skewed than Nethack; certain
classes gain power unbelievably fast (by Angband standards), while others
are more challenging.


- Matt
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 11:01:09 PM

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

Brigand wrote:
> Well, my first vanilla Nethack ascension is under my belt.

What character class and race did you play?

> What now??

When I had been at this point, I continued with other classes (nowadays
with other class/race combinations).

The reason is that the difficulty varies between the classes; and also
the way how to play them effectively varies.

> Do people consider Nethack the standard, or is SlashEm now
> what Nethack used to be??

If there is any such term as "standard" then Nethack is it.

Slash'em has been built on Nethack sources and has been vastly extended by
objects, monsters, and dungeons. (So if you are fed up with what Nethack
offers in this respect, go for Slash'em.)

> I guess what I am asking is, which is harder/more respected?? A Nethack
> or SlashEm ascension??

You are "respected" (whatever you expect) with every interesting game that
you post; provided that you did not cheat. That's valid for both games, IMO.

I haven't played long enough to judge, but I think Slash'em might be harder.
(And I have the impression, significantly less balanced.)

Though, if you haven't played the harder Nethack classes, you'll have quite
some new things to experience with Vanilla (=standard) Nethack.

> Or should I try and beat Angband or TOME??

Ah, BTW, congrats for your ascension!

Janis
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 11:17:10 PM

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

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Brigand wrote:

> Well, my first vanilla Nethack ascension is under my belt.

Well done.

> What now?? Do people consider Nethack the standard, or is SlashEm now
> what Nethack used to be??

We don't needing f...ing standards... Your standard is what you make.

> I guess what I am asking is, which is harder/more respected?? A Nethack
> or SlashEm ascension??

Slash'em is harder.

> Or should I try and beat Angband or TOME??

When I was at that point, I started playing Slash'em to give it a try. It
is undoubfully harder due to some nasty things such as basilisk,
guaranteed Demogorgon, Vecna or some other. My first Slash'em game was a
monk doing very well. He was killed by Vecna in a few swift moves. My
first encounter with the big D. was also disatreful.

But at the same time, Slash'em is richer and, on some point, easier. The
showweight options make life really easier and I have hard time to do
without them when playing Nethack now... And Slash'em has much more
special levels making it really funny. All the one-level branches usually
make nice distraction in the game.

See Eva's page on differences between Slash'em and Nethack if you want to
get a first idea : http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~eva/slashem/index.html

Now, I've ascended once in Slash'em but I'm still playing (now patched)
Slash'em and occasionally a few Nethack games. Plus I started writing
small patches for myself...

I would say that you should at least give a try a Slash'em and play at
least until you manage to get past Sokoban to have a glimse at the special
levels and not only at a few more objects.

--
Hypocoristiquement,
Jym.

Adresse mail plus valide à partir de septembre 2005.
Utiliser l'adresse de redirection permanente :
Jean-Yves.Moyen `at` ens-lyon.org
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 12:32:23 AM

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

From Jym's balcony, this conversation wafted into the audience:

>On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Brigand wrote:
>
>>What now?? Do people consider Nethack the standard, or is SlashEm now
>>what Nethack used to be??
>>
>>
>
>We don't needing f...ing standards... Your standard is what you make.
>
Outstanding idea!.We do need standards upon which we fly our colors.
"You raise your standard high. The orcs quail in apprehension -- more --
You blow your horn and raise your standard higher. The orcs turn to flee."
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 12:35:08 AM

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

Brigand wrote:

>Well, my first vanilla Nethack ascension is under my belt.
>
>
>What now??
>
>
You ascended a hack and slash type of character. Try a spellcaster:
wizard or healer. Much different strategy....especially with the parts
which gave you trouble in your first ascension.
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 4:27:55 AM

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

Brigand wrote:
> Well, my first vanilla Nethack ascension is under my belt.

Congratulations! You've done something countless people have sworn is
impossible. Seriously, there are people who's eyes will bug out if you
told them what you've done.

Next, I'd suggest going for a harder class. Most people's first
ascension tend to be Valkyries or Barbarians. Wizards and Tourists
must be played very different from those, but are easier in other ways,
so I'd suggest those next. Healers are a very difficult class, so if
you're feeling confident you might want to try those -- I was feeling
almost invincible after three near-consecutive ascensions, until
playing Healers put me firmly in my place.

If you're feeling really confident, then the hardest roguelike I can
recommend is the first: Rogue itself. Look for Rogue Clone IV, it's a
much simpler, yet extremely challenging, game.

My problem with Angband and its descendents (and its ancestors back to
Moria, too) is that it feels like it's ironed all the soul out of the
idea of roguelikes. Angband is wholly lacking, intentionally, all
those neat things that make Nethack like a Dungeons & Dragons
hack-and-slash adventure in a blender (dungeon features, special
levels, cool monsters, room-like shops, ingenious uses for items,
unexpected yet completely logical sources of death, and so on). ADOM
tries to be like Nethack there, but it doesn't seem as well-thought
out, and will stray towards Angbandness sometimes in the name of
"balance," a greatly-misunderstood concept in relation to many
roguelikes.

Items in Angband are generated according to depth, which ultimately
makes for a much different play experience. (This is also my biggest
problem with ADOM.) And, if you don't like that aspect of Nethack that
requires that you seek out specific intrinsics or else face certain
death later on (like I do), then you'll HATE Angband.
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 6:22:26 AM

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

Martin Read wrote:
> "John H." <JohnWH@gmail.com> wrote:
> >If you're feeling really confident, then the hardest roguelike I can
> >recommend is the first: Rogue itself. Look for Rogue Clone IV, it's a
> >much simpler, yet extremely challenging, game.
>
> Um. You have heard of Rog-O-Matic, right?

Yes. Your point?

If you're implying this means Rogue is easy, then I suggest you go out
and try to win it. (Especially PC Rogue. Oy.)

- John H.
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 9:18:47 AM

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

On 3.8.2005 19:23, Brigand wrote:
> I guess what I am asking is, which is harder/more respected?? A Nethack
> or SlashEm ascension??

I respect a NetHack ascension. On the other hand, I can't say anything
about Slash'Em because I lack the necessary experience with it to judge
its difficulty against vanilla (the best of all flavours!).

> Or should I try and beat Angband or TOME??

Time spent trying to beat a roguelike is always time well spent in my
book. Personally, I like Angband (vanilla again ;)  a lot.

Or you could just try and ascend another class in NetHack. There may not
be much variety in Ascension Kits and general strategies between the
classes, but each has its own flavor and feel that makes them all worth
playing, and ultimately, ascending!

--
Tuomas Härkönen
tharkonen, gmail and com
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 1:45:17 PM

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

"John H." <JohnWH@gmail.com> wrote:
>If you're feeling really confident, then the hardest roguelike I can
>recommend is the first: Rogue itself. Look for Rogue Clone IV, it's a
>much simpler, yet extremely challenging, game.

Um. You have heard of Rog-O-Matic, right?
--
Martin Read - my opinions are my own. share them if you wish.
illusion/kinetics controlling is love
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 3:25:39 PM

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

Martin Read wrote:

> Um. You have heard of Rog-O-Matic, right?

Rog-o-matic only wins because it doesn't mind sacrificing 1000+
characters for one win. I, on the contrary, do.

--
Boudewijn.

--
"I have hundreds of other quotes, just waiting to replace this one
as my signature..." - Me
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 3:39:49 PM

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

Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>
> One thing I read about rogue-o-matic was that it played on average much
> better than human players at the time it was programmed.
  • (AFAIR, the
    > proficiency had been compared at the university where it was developed,
    > Berkeley.)
    >
    >
  • The text was published 20 years ago by A.K.Dewdney and says that the
    > program is the best player thus far and for four years now (i.e. at that
    > time) the program playes in the league of the best players.
    >
    > Killing 1000+ characters to win a single one would hardly make it a good
    > program.

    Wasn't the original rogue a binary-only program with no
    sources distributed? I thought that rogue-o-matic was
    written before the sources came out and so it was an
    unspoiled heuristic. I thought the sources weren't made
    available and Hack was implemented ground-up to mimic
    most of rogue.

    Without spoilers and/or source-diving an automated
    player would be far harder.
    Anonymous
    August 4, 2005 5:41:44 PM

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

    Boudewijn Waijers wrote:
    > Doug Freyburger wrote:
    >
    > > Wasn't the original rogue a binary-only program with no
    > > sources distributed?
    >
    > The dos version, yes.
    >
    > However, rogue was a unix program first, and this (almost?) implies that
    > the source was available.

    I first encountered rogue on VAX UNIX BSD 4.1.

    I recall the controversy that where most developers
    chose to release source the rogue folks only chose to
    release binaries. My recollection may be faulty from
    that long ago.
    Anonymous
    August 4, 2005 7:02:05 PM

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

    Doug Freyburger wrote:
    > I first encountered rogue on VAX UNIX BSD 4.1.

    .......wow!!


    > I recall the controversy that where most developers
    > chose to release source the rogue folks only chose to
    > release binaries. My recollection may be faulty from
    > that long ago.

    That, ultimately, may be why we're not in
    rec.games.roguelike.hyperrogue right now....

    - John H.
    Anonymous
    August 4, 2005 10:47:23 PM

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

    Boudewijn Waijers wrote:
    > Martin Read wrote:
    >
    >>Um. You have heard of Rog-O-Matic, right?
    >
    > Rog-o-matic only wins because it doesn't mind sacrificing 1000+
    > characters for one win. I, on the contrary, do.

    Hmm.. - is it really so? (I mean the "1000+" thing.)

    One thing I read about rogue-o-matic was that it played on average much
    better than human players at the time it was programmed.
  • (AFAIR, the
    proficiency had been compared at the university where it was developed,
    Berkeley.)

  • The text was published 20 years ago by A.K.Dewdney and says that the
    program is the best player thus far and for four years now (i.e. at that
    time) the program playes in the league of the best players.

    Killing 1000+ characters to win a single one would hardly make it a good
    program.

    Janis
    August 4, 2005 10:47:24 PM

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

    Martin Read wrote:

    >Um. You have heard of Rog-O-Matic, right?

    All that proves is that it's (quite) easy for a computer to win at rogue.
    However, as a human, I find rogue harder than nethack. Conversely,
    it seems that computers can't (yet) win at nethack.
    Anonymous
    August 5, 2005 2:10:24 AM

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

    Doug Freyburger wrote:

    > Wasn't the original rogue a binary-only program with no
    > sources distributed?

    The dos version, yes.

    However, rogue was a unix program first, and this (almost?) implies that
    the source was available.

    > I thought that rogue-o-matic was
    > written before the sources came out and so it was an
    > unspoiled heuristic. I thought the sources weren't made
    > available and Hack was implemented ground-up to mimic
    > most of rogue.

    As said above, I doubt this.

    > Without spoilers and/or source-diving an automated
    > player would be far harder.

    Indeed.

    --
    Boudewijn.

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