So what now??

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??
18 answers Last reply
More about tomshardware
  1. 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.
  2. 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).
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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."
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. 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
Ask a new question

Read More

Vanilla Games Video Games