Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

Mindflayer mindwipe and abuse

Tags:
  • Video Games
Last response: in PC Gaming
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 10:10:48 AM

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

It has come to my attention that keeping detailed identification notes
in case of mindflayer mindwipe is considered abusive.

Fortunately, this has had no impact on my past two ascensions, as
copious use of identify discovered the scroll of amnesia
and mindflayers were countered with "E", wands of magic missile,
polearms, and scrolls of genocide.

However, I cannot always count on being so blessed. So how is this
solved ingame?

My first thought is copious use of the #name feature -- but what about
things that can't be named? I've tried renaming a scroll of gold
detection to "gold", without success.

Perhaps I should keep an individual named specimen of each scroll
safely tucked away in a box, and if I get mindwiped go up and use the
contents of the box to refresh my memory?

Or is there a more elegant way to do this?

BTW, I'm doing this because I want my ascensions to be unquestionable
-- I'd hate to put an * next to the YAAP notation. But I've never
really understood why this is an abuse. We keep copious notes of
what's on each level and what the inventory of our stashes are, don't
we? Why do we keep those notes but destroy the object identification
ones? If a PC is relying totally on his memory, he should lose that
information as well. If he's keeping that information recorded (in a
notebook, say), why should he record the one and not the other?

Isn't it reasonable that a wizard with 18 intel who has devoted his
life to study, or an archeologist who has survived Ph.D level
coursework, would not rely solely on his memory during the most
important quest of his life? Wouldn't some method of notetaking to
track inventory management and object identification be an elementary
precaution even schoolkids will think of, much less the super-genius
types that are the nethack spellcasting classes?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

More about : mindflayer mindwipe abuse

Anonymous
September 14, 2005 2:14:01 PM

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

pendell@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> It has come to my attention that keeping detailed identification notes
> in case of mindflayer mindwipe is considered abusive.

I've rad that in the past and I mentioned it a couple
of months ago. The resulting discussion was quite
interesting.

> So how is this solved ingame?
>
> My first thought is copious use of the #name feature -- but what about
> things that can't be named? I've tried renaming a scroll of gold
> detection to "gold", without success.

I have never had any trouble doing a #name/y on any
non-artifact weapon, but then again I've never tried to
overlap it's object type either. I've named rocks
254378 in that game turn (a trick to keep them from
stacking when doing a polypile - if I get even one
jet stone from a hundred rocks it's profit of some sort),
but I've never named a rock "rock".

> Perhaps I should keep an individual named specimen of each scroll
> safely tucked away in a box, and if I get mindwiped go up and use the
> contents of the box to refresh my memory?
> Or is there a more elegant way to do this?

That's the deal, but a name like "+ vellum = cone of cold"
is considered an abuse by many.

> But I've never
> really understood why this is an abuse.

Note the feeling is not unanimous.

> We keep copious notes of
> what's on each level and what the inventory of our stashes are, don't
> we?

No. I don't and plenty of others don't. That's
not to say I keep no notes at all. I don't bother
to record interesting levels like some do as I only
keep a couple of stashes so I can remember those in
my head. I do record my current luck, whether I am
safe to pray, what my current goal luck is because
I can't remember those across saves when I don't play
every day.

> Isn't it reasonable that a wizard with 18 intel who has devoted his
> life to study, or an archeologist who has survived Ph.D level
> coursework, would not rely solely on his memory during the most
> important quest of his life? Wouldn't some method of notetaking to
> track inventory management and object identification be an elementary
> precaution even schoolkids will think of, much less the super-genius
> types that are the nethack spellcasting classes?

This is one side of the argument. I wonder how far it
should be taken. I'd rather ID amnesia and genocide
the two types of mind flayer than need to keep a stack
of runestones with notes cribbed onto them about what
type of object is what "[ snow = fumble" or
"? README = enchant armor".

Exactly what is and what isn't an abuse is a matter of
taste.
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 2:34:44 PM

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

Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> pendell@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > My first thought is copious use of the #name feature -- but what about
> > things that can't be named? I've tried renaming a scroll of gold
> > detection to "gold", without success.
>
> If you name an already identified item you won't see the 'called' name in
> the inventory listing, but you will see it in the '\' discoveries list.

Possible name/call aka #name-y/#name-n confusion?
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 3:38:03 PM

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

I was trying to do a #name-n.

Lemme cut to the core of this: If I keep copious notes on this and
other details, do I have the right to post YAAP? Or is it cheating,
the way scumsaving or (say) Exploratory mode is ?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

-- not that Exploratory mode is cheating, it's just that it doesn't
seem right to post YAAP when it was near impossible to die, even after
having been murdered by soldier ants 30 times :) 
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 3:54:03 PM

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

"That's the deal, but a name like "+ vellum = cone of cold"
is considered an abuse by many. "

Oh come now. What am I supposed to name it? "A vellum spellbook called
rhymes with old"? "A vellum spellbook called freezer?"

The entire point of putting aside a museum stash is to ensure I can
identify objects if I forget what they are. In which case, it makes
sense to give the objects clear, unmistakable, unambiguous names that
even a Valkyrie with 4 int (which is what I am now playing) couldn't
screw up.

I understand doing it in game. But why should my character deliberately
make it harder on him/herself? He/she already eschews robbing shops,
murdering peacefuls, foocubi dancing, and pudding farming. I'd say
he/she's already got enough of a row to hoe without adding deliberately
cryptic names to something that should be straightforward.

Respectfully,

Brian P.
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 3:57:37 PM

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

pendell@hotmail.com wrote:
> I was trying to do a #name-n.
>
> Lemme cut to the core of this: If I keep copious notes on this and
> other details, do I have the right to post YAAP? Or is it cheating,
> the way scumsaving or (say) Exploratory mode is ?

IMO,
Personally, I don't see using notes after a mindflayer attack to be
cheating at all.

I don't take notes, but I have a pretty good memory and usually
remember what the most important scrolls and wands are. I don't see a
good reason that taking notes is any different from just
remembering--both are out-of-game knowledge. And there's no reason
that a character couldn't #name/#call things in game to remind himself;
indeed if you know mindflayers exist then writing down maps,
identifying attributes of useful items, etc is just good sense.

The only thing out-of-game notes really buy you over #naming things,
engraving messages, etc is a better interface to text editing. Not
anything worth getting worked up about.
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 4:47:38 PM

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

pendell@hotmail.com wrote:

Calling and naming are very different things and get
very different reactions. Sure enough you have the
confusion I asked about.

> I was trying to do a #name-n.

Which does not accomplish what you want since it too
is wiped my mind flayer attacks. The word usually
used for this is "call". Calling is in the game as
a tentative form of identification and it is widely
used. Calling is a standard action in many games by
many people. Calling puts your names in the discovery
list that is subject to mind flayer wipe.

> Lemme cut to the core of this: If I keep copious notes on this and
> other details, do I have the right to post YAAP? Or is it cheating,
> the way scumsaving or (say) Exploratory mode is ?

If you do it with calling, no one will care in the
least. It's poor strategy to decline doing it.
But you did mention keeping outside notes of your
discoveries, that's not the same thing.

The objection is to putting your entire catalog of
discoveries in hoard using #name-y. The word usually
used for this is "name". (Call verus name come from
the message involved and from how to name Sting).

With call, you can only give one handle per type of
object so every time you call an object the old
meaning gets replaced. A blue gem may go through
handles like "blue soft", "blue soft common" and
"blue worthless" before being identified and the
call becomes worthless. A wand may go through
handles like "etch noth obvious" then "zap noth
obvious" before being identified and the call
becomes worthless.

Naming is a very different story. Pick up one
rock. Name it "+ vellum = identify". Drop it in
your hoard. Pick up one rock. Name it the next
entry in your discovery list. Lather rinse repeat
until you have gone through your entire discovery
list. Meet an MMF, get memory wiped. Return to
hoard, relearn it all. Many call that cheating.
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 6:03:19 PM

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

Nan Wang wrote:
> I think unless it's done in an out of the game way (notepad, eg), then
> it's not cheating.

But the only real difference between naming a pile of rocks and using a
text editor is a somewhat nicer interface (assuming you carry the
rocks, or name something you carry).

And if you're a character in a world where mindflayers live, you'd
certainly want to write this stuff down (by naming rocks or whatever)
for this very reason.

It's not cheating or abusive, it's just smart play.
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 11:15:03 PM

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

pendell@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> My first thought is copious use of the #name feature -- but what about
> things that can't be named? I've tried renaming a scroll of gold
> detection to "gold", without success.

If you name an already identified item you won't see the 'called' name in
the inventory listing, but you will see it in the '\' discoveries list.

> Perhaps I should keep an individual named specimen of each scroll
> safely tucked away in a box, and if I get mindwiped go up and use the
> contents of the box to refresh my memory?
>
> Or is there a more elegant way to do this?

Janis
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 11:41:05 PM

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

Doug Freyburger wrote:
> Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>pendell@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>My first thought is copious use of the #name feature -- but what about
>>>things that can't be named? I've tried renaming a scroll of gold
>>>detection to "gold", without success.
>>
>>If you name an already identified item you won't see the 'called' name in
>>the inventory listing, but you will see it in the '\' discoveries list.
>
> Possible name/call aka #name-y/#name-n confusion?

At the OP's or on my side? At least your question confused me _now_! ;-)

From the OP's problem with a "scroll of gold detection" and a mind flayer
I guess he wanted to 'call' it (i.e. name a non-individual object).

Janis
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 12:32:57 AM

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

I was hanging out with the cool kids in rec.games.roguelike.nethack when
pendell@hotmail.com got out a spraycan and scrawled the following:
[ ways to circumvent effects of amnesia ]
>
> BTW, I'm doing this because I want my ascensions to be unquestionable
> -- I'd hate to put an * next to the YAAP notation. But I've never
> really understood why this is an abuse. We keep copious notes of
> what's on each level and what the inventory of our stashes are, don't
> we? Why do we keep those notes but destroy the object identification
> ones? If a PC is relying totally on his memory, he should lose that
> information as well. If he's keeping that information recorded (in a
> notebook, say), why should he record the one and not the other?

Forgetting things due to a flaying is the thing I worry about most in
the late game - much more so than the worries about brainlessness (I've
never found a (M)MF before a unihorn, except when a poly trap was
nearby) - because in my nice, ordered gameplay style I want to identify
everything. And in , with its !oAmnesia (normally thrown at you by
other monsters), or the Hell Patch feat. Cthluhlu, the problem's even
worse...

However, I consider any kind of note-taking to be an abuse - if the game
says you've forgotten something, then you've forgotten it. The one time
that I did cut-and-paste the contents of my discoveries list to another
window before going up to the mind flayer, I felt like I'd cheated. The
two exceptions that I allow myself are:

The pass-tune. While I'm working it out, I write down the combinations
I've tried on a corner of an old envelope, and I usually still have the
envelope lying around until I've ascended or had YASD. However, AFAIK,
you can't forget this due to any kind of amnesia, so it's not any kind
of gain.

Things that stick in my OOC memory - normally the armour and
accessories that I'm wearing, or any other interesting combinations
(like that time that =oSD and =oFA were sapphire and steel).

--
Glyn Kennington - remove caps from email address to reply
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 12:53:19 AM

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

pendell@hotmail.com wrote:
> It has come to my attention that keeping detailed identification notes
> in case of mindflayer mindwipe is considered abusive.

I think unless it's done in an out of the game way (notepad, eg), then
it's not cheating.

Otherwise, (C)alling a nymph "bitch who stole my cloak" would be cheating
as well. Or #name my lizard corpse "VS 48 SE 62,18".

But, since #name,n does not invalidate illiteracy, your character is somehow
memorizing everything in his head, so it's a gray area.
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 12:59:33 AM

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

pendell@hotmail.com wrote:
> I was trying to do a #name-n.

Ok, so it is possible to name it as I suggested upthread.

> Lemme cut to the core of this: If I keep copious notes on this and
> other details, do I have the right to post YAAP?

Yes. (Even any less strict term than "the _right_ to post".)

> Or is it cheating,

Not a bit. IMO.

> the way scumsaving or (say) Exploratory mode is ?

Explore mode is not to compare with savescum; the latter makes
it possible to create an ascension record
  • . Though few people
    here are interested in reports of both of these, I am sure.

    Janis

  • BTW, it's easier to edit the record file without playing.
    Anonymous
    September 15, 2005 1:15:59 AM

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

    On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 pendell@hotmail.com wrote:

    > "That's the deal, but a name like "+ vellum = cone of cold"
    > is considered an abuse by many. "
    >
    > Oh come now. What am I supposed to name it? "A vellum spellbook called
    > rhymes with old"? "A vellum spellbook called freezer?"
    >
    > The entire point of putting aside a museum stash is to ensure I can
    > identify objects if I forget what they are. In which case, it makes
    > sense to give the objects clear, unmistakable, unambiguous names that
    > even a Valkyrie with 4 int (which is what I am now playing) couldn't
    > screw up.
    >
    > I understand doing it in game. But why should my character deliberately
    > make it harder on him/herself? He/she already eschews robbing shops,
    > murdering peacefuls, foocubi dancing, and pudding farming. I'd say
    > he/she's already got enough of a row to hoe without adding deliberately
    > cryptic names to something that should be straightforward.

    Is #naming a mental proceddure or a written one ? When you #name a stone
    "red - glass" after throwing it at unicorn, you probably don't write
    anything on the stone itself but take mental notes that stones looking
    like this or that are nothing valuable. Even when you price-id "READ ME"
    as being identify, you don't write on the scroll (it might alter its
    magic) but mainly take mental notes.

    Remember you don't even have paper (well, you might have if we suppose
    that blank scrolls/spellbooks are already magical) and neither markers (or
    you could write Elbereth with it rather than scratching your fingers evey
    other move).

    And if it's mental notes, then they're subject to be forgotten by mental
    attacks... Of course, amnesia could also remove some of the #naming done
    previouly to handle this in-game.

    [And amnesia should also randomize inventory letters, I once got mind
    flayed in Gehennom and only realize in front of the planes that I had
    forgotten which of my four rings where what (SD, FA, levitation and
    conflict) althought I had used them and swapped them during the whole run
    just because I knew by heart the inventory letter associated with each]

    --
    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
    September 15, 2005 1:21:29 AM

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

    Jean-Yves.Moyen@ens-lyon.org wrote:
    >
    > [And amnesia should also randomize inventory letters, I once got mind
    > flayed in Gehennom and only realize in front of the planes that I had
    > forgotten which of my four rings where what (SD, FA, levitation and
    > conflict)

    Even if you forget the types of the rings, the last two are easily and
    very quickly re-identifyable.

    > althought I had used them and swapped them during the whole run
    > just because I knew by heart the inventory letter associated with each]

    Janis
    Anonymous
    September 15, 2005 3:20:37 AM

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

    On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

    > Jean-Yves.Moyen@ens-lyon.org wrote:
    > >
    > > [And amnesia should also randomize inventory letters, I once got mind
    > > flayed in Gehennom and only realize in front of the planes that I had
    > > forgotten which of my four rings where what (SD, FA, levitation and
    > > conflict)
    >
    > Even if you forget the types of the rings, the last two are easily and
    > very quickly re-identifyable.

    Agree. But that is just to explain a bit the problem.

    I know one of these wands is cancellation and the other teleportation.
    Which one do I zap on me to save my ass ? (question becomes more obvious
    if wands have inventory letters 'C' and 'T'...)

    Of course, to prevent the "abuse" of remembering that wands of uranium are
    cancellation [obviously radioactivity is not nice with magic], you could
    even randomise appearance of forgotten items, but that would have much
    more consequence with nothing to do with amnesia.

    OTOH, that would also makes amnesia much more interesting... "Hit me again
    mind flayer, I want those fruit juice to become smoky !"

    --
    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
    September 15, 2005 3:28:42 AM

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

    On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Doug Freyburger wrote:

    > > I was trying to do a #name-n.
    >
    > Which does not accomplish what you want since it too
    > is wiped my mind flayer attacks. The word usually
    > used for this is "call". Calling is in the game as
    > a tentative form of identification and it is widely
    > used. Calling is a standard action in many games by
    > many people. Calling puts your names in the discovery
    > list that is subject to mind flayer wipe.

    > The objection is to putting your entire catalog of
    > discoveries in hoard using #name-y. The word usually
    > used for this is "name". (Call verus name come from
    > the message involved and from how to name Sting).

    Which, by the way, I find a bit strange since when you 'C'all your pet you
    don't give name to every single gray dragon in the dungeon...

    --
    Hypocoristiquement,
    Jym.
    Anonymous
    September 15, 2005 5:53:17 AM

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

    My opinion is that giving names to all your rocks seems like a
    memorisation strategy best suited for autists :-)
    Anonymous
    September 15, 2005 8:15:07 AM

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

    On 9/14/05 1:15 PM, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
    > pendell@hotmail.com wrote:
    >
    >>My first thought is copious use of the #name feature -- but what about
    >>things that can't be named? I've tried renaming a scroll of gold
    >>detection to "gold", without success.
    >
    >
    > If you name an already identified item you won't see the 'called' name in
    > the inventory listing, but you will see it in the '\' discoveries list.
    >
    True, but not helpful in this instance. "Called" item types will also be
    wiped by a mind flayer attack. Only individually #named items will remain.

    --
    Kevin Wayne

    "Stark raving sane."
    --Rosencrantz and Guildenstern
    Anonymous
    September 15, 2005 9:29:19 AM

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

    On 9/14/05 9:10 AM, pendell@hotmail.com wrote:
    > It has come to my attention that keeping detailed identification notes
    > in case of mindflayer mindwipe is considered abusive.
    >
    > Fortunately, this has had no impact on my past two ascensions, as
    > copious use of identify discovered the scroll of amnesia
    > and mindflayers were countered with "E", wands of magic missile,
    > polearms, and scrolls of genocide.
    >
    > However, I cannot always count on being so blessed. So how is this
    > solved ingame?
    >
    > My first thought is copious use of the #name feature -- but what about
    > things that can't be named? I've tried renaming a scroll of gold
    > detection to "gold", without success.

    When it asks whether you want to #name the item individually, you have
    to answer "yes." #Naming general classes of items will also be wiped by
    a mind flayer attack.
    >
    > Perhaps I should keep an individual named specimen of each scroll
    > safely tucked away in a box, and if I get mindwiped go up and use the
    > contents of the box to refresh my memory?
    >
    > Or is there a more elegant way to do this?

    Save several blessed scrolls of ID in that same box, or a blessed
    spellbook of identify. Just go back and re-id your stuff. Not a big deal.
    >
    > BTW, I'm doing this because I want my ascensions to be unquestionable
    > -- I'd hate to put an * next to the YAAP notation. But I've never
    > really understood why this is an abuse.

    It's considered by some an abuse because it gets around an obvious
    intentional effect of mind flayer attack by out-of-game means.

    > We keep copious notes of what's on each level and what the inventory
    > of our stashes are, don't we? Why do we keep those notes but destroy
    > the object identification ones?

    Not all of us keep such copious notes. But even if you recall the level
    of, say, the Sokoban entrance, if that level is wiped from your memory,
    you'll still have to re-explore it or magic map it.

    > If a PC is relying totally on his memory, he should lose that
    > information as well.

    The player isn't likely to recall the physical description of most
    identified items, since they are no longer shown to the player once the
    item is ID'd. Hence the recurring discussion involving notes.

    > If he's keeping that information recorded (in a
    > notebook, say), why should he record the one and not the other?
    >
    > Isn't it reasonable that a wizard with 18 intel who has devoted his
    > life to study, or an archeologist who has survived Ph.D level
    > coursework, would not rely solely on his memory during the most
    > important quest of his life? Wouldn't some method of notetaking to
    > track inventory management and object identification be an elementary
    > precaution even schoolkids will think of, much less the super-genius
    > types that are the nethack spellcasting classes?

    Do you write notes for yourself like, "The blue stick in my pocket is a
    pen. I use it by pushing the button on the end, and then rubbing the
    other pointy end against sheets of white stuff called paper"? Of course,
    you may not be expecting mind flayer attacks in real life, but amnesia
    does rarely occur.

    My point is that some things you simply expect to remember. Barring mind
    flayer attack, you will unfailingly recall every item you've identified,
    the layout of every level you've visited, and even such items as the
    passtune. The only reason for keeping the type of notes you're
    suggesting is specifically to get around the effects of mind flayer attack.

    I think it's unnecessary, as well. You probably won't have to deal with
    mind flayers before the Castle. By that point, you should have
    identified the identify scroll. You can stash a few blessed ID scrolls
    or a blessed spellbook of identify somewhere where you can be sure of
    finding it again, and then reread and ID all your stuff again.

    Which leads to the question, what about not exactly remembering, but
    *inferring* what former objects were? (I.e., you go back to your
    "special stash" and see a thin spellbook and 5 scrolls labeled VELOX
    NEB. If you don't "know" what they are, how plausible is it that you
    would immediately read them?) IMO, such inferrences that can be made by
    reason are perfectly okay. "This curved wand suddenly looks unfamiliar,
    but the only one I had outside my bag was a wand of death, so I'll #name
    it 'death.' I don't recognize the scrolls in this chest, but it was
    identify scrolls that I put in here, so I guess I'll read one."

    --
    Kevin Wayne

    "I am waiting for Vizzini. I will no be moved."
    --Inigo Montoya
    Anonymous
    September 15, 2005 12:32:33 PM

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

    Jean-Yves.Moyen@ens-lyon.org wrote:
    > Doug Freyburger wrote:
    >
    > > > I was trying to do a #name-n.
    >
    > > Which does not accomplish what you want since it too
    > > is wiped my mind flayer attacks. The word usually
    > > used for this is "call". Calling is in the game as
    > > a tentative form of identification and it is widely
    > > used. Calling is a standard action in many games by
    > > many people. Calling puts your names in the discovery
    > > list that is subject to mind flayer wipe.
    >
    > > The objection is to putting your entire catalog of
    > > discoveries in hoard using #name-y. The word usually
    > > used for this is "name". (Call verus name come from
    > > the message involved and from how to name Sting).
    >
    > Which, by the way, I find a bit strange since when you 'C'all your pet you
    > don't give name to every single gray dragon in the dungeon...

    I agree that it is strange with naming pets. Consider
    how items are displayed:

    a - an uncursed gem called soft black
    b - an uncursed worthless piece of yellow glass named + vellum = FoD

    The word comes from how it is displayed and naming pets
    seems to be older than that functionality.
    Anonymous
    September 15, 2005 4:50:11 PM

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

    Quoting <pendell@hotmail.com>:
    >It has come to my attention that keeping detailed identification notes
    >in case of mindflayer mindwipe is considered abusive.
    >My first thought is copious use of the #name feature --

    I really don't see any difference between that and just keeping notes.
    --
    David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
    Today is Oneiros, September.
    Anonymous
    September 15, 2005 5:10:25 PM

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

    Quoting <pendell@hotmail.com>:
    >Lemme cut to the core of this: If I keep copious notes on this and
    >other details, do I have the right to post YAAP? Or is it cheating,
    >the way scumsaving or (say) Exploratory mode is ?

    I certainly don't think it's cheating at all. Mindflayer memory loss is a
    bit of a misfeature for just this reason. There are unavoidable
    consequences such as inability to write scrolls thereafter.
    --
    David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
    Today is Oneiros, September.
    Anonymous
    September 15, 2005 5:33:55 PM

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

    Quoting Nan Wang <nwang@panix.com>:
    >pendell@hotmail.com wrote:
    >>It has come to my attention that keeping detailed identification notes
    >>in case of mindflayer mindwipe is considered abusive.
    >I think unless it's done in an out of the game way (notepad, eg), then
    >it's not cheating.

    What possible difference does using a more convenient interface to have
    the exact same effect make?
    --
    David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
    Today is Oneiros, September.
    Anonymous
    September 15, 2005 6:18:29 PM

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

    Kevin Wayne wrote:
    > On 9/14/05 1:15 PM, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
    >> pendell@hotmail.com wrote:
    >>
    >>> My first thought is copious use of the #name feature -- but what about
    >>> things that can't be named? I've tried renaming a scroll of gold
    >>> detection to "gold", without success.
    >>
    >> If you name an already identified item you won't see the 'called' name in
    >> the inventory listing, but you will see it in the '\' discoveries list.
    >>
    > True, but not helpful in this instance. "Called" item types will also be
    > wiped by a mind flayer attack. Only individually #named items will remain.

    Yes, that's right. I was just referring to the "can't be named" to clarify
    that.

    Janis
    Anonymous
    September 15, 2005 7:45:02 PM

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

    pendell@hotmail.com writes:
    > > [ keeping notes, via #name or externally, to mitigate ID-loss from
    > > mindflayer attacks ]
    > Lemme cut to the core of this: If I keep copious notes on this and
    > other details, do I have the right to post YAAP? Or is it cheating,
    > the way scumsaving or (say) Exploratory mode is ?

    IMHFO, you've always the right to post YAAP, provided you're forthcoming
    about any special circumstances, and that you forfeit the right to be
    offended if not everybody is as impressed as they would have been with
    a "clean" ascension.

    In my own games, I expend considerable effort to ensure that I never
    come anywhere near a mind-flayer. They're the genocide target of first
    resort (save perhaps when I play dwarves), and at the top of the
    "chase down and kill with ranged attacks" list, even when that means
    using up scarce resources (e.g. /oDeaf charges) or taking other risks.

    But I'm not above keeping notes. Justification (if any) is "my character
    has certain equipment not mentioned in-game, such as underclothing and
    a notebook and pencil". (Granted, this is more credible for wizards
    than for Persons of Cave.)

    I'm not personally inclined to post YAAP, but I'd be neither surprised
    nor offended by those who take issues with my note-taking. OTOH, their
    objections wouldn't restrain my behavior; my nethack playing style is
    meant to make me happy, not other people.
    Anonymous
    September 15, 2005 9:16:19 PM

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

    "Doug Freyburger" <dfreybur@yahoo.com> wrote:
    ['C'alling pets vs. #name'ing items]
    >The word comes from how it is displayed and naming pets
    >seems to be older than that functionality.

    In early versions of Hack, 'c' was the command for 'c'alling items,
    and 'C' the command for 'C'alling pets. Doors behaved like those in
    rogue; they were simply opaque but passable floor squares.

    At some point, doors became 'o'penable; this required the addition of a
    matching 'c'lose command, and 'c'all item became #name item.
    --
    Martin Read - my opinions are my own. share them if you wish.
    \_\/_/ http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~mpread/dungeonbash/
    \ / the sweeney's doing ninety cos they've got the word to go they've got a
    \/ bunch of villains in a shed up at Heathrow -- Squeeze, "Cool For Cats"
    Anonymous
    September 15, 2005 9:29:16 PM

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

    On 9/15/05 8:10 AM, David Damerell wrote:
    > Quoting <pendell@hotmail.com>:
    >
    >>Lemme cut to the core of this: If I keep copious notes on this and
    >>other details, do I have the right to post YAAP? Or is it cheating,
    >>the way scumsaving or (say) Exploratory mode is ?
    >
    > I certainly don't think it's cheating at all. Mindflayer memory loss is a
    > bit of a misfeature for just this reason. There are unavoidable
    > consequences such as inability to write scrolls thereafter.

    What is it that you consider a misfeature? The inability to write
    forgotten scrolls would seem to be intentional.

    --
    Kevin Wayne

    "Stark raving sane."
    --Rosencrantz and Guildenstern
    Anonymous
    September 15, 2005 9:30:54 PM

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

    On 9/15/05 8:33 AM, David Damerell wrote:
    > Quoting Nan Wang <nwang@panix.com>:
    >
    >>pendell@hotmail.com wrote:
    >>
    >>>It has come to my attention that keeping detailed identification notes
    >>>in case of mindflayer mindwipe is considered abusive.
    >>
    >>I think unless it's done in an out of the game way (notepad, eg), then
    >>it's not cheating.
    >
    >
    > What possible difference does using a more convenient interface to have
    > the exact same effect make?

    Agreed. Notes are notes.

    --
    Kevin Wayne

    "Stark raving sane."
    --Rosencrantz and Guildenstern
    Anonymous
    September 16, 2005 12:56:01 AM

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

    pendell@hotmail.com wrote:
    >
    > But
    > I don't like having a plan that says "don't let this happen" -- because
    > if there's one thing this game has done for me, it has made me a
    > believer that anything that can go wrong will go wrong.

    That's a general principle in Real Life; NH's RNG has just inherited it.
    ;-)

    Janis
    Anonymous
    September 16, 2005 6:06:14 AM

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

    On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 15:45:02 GMT, Douglas Henke
    <henke@kharendaen.dyndns.org> wrote:

    >pendell@hotmail.com writes:
    >> > [ keeping notes, via #name or externally, to mitigate ID-loss from
    >> > mindflayer attacks ]
    >> Lemme cut to the core of this: If I keep copious notes on this and
    >> other details, do I have the right to post YAAP? Or is it cheating,
    >> the way scumsaving or (say) Exploratory mode is ?
    >
    >IMHFO, you've always the right to post YAAP, provided you're forthcoming
    >about any special circumstances, and that you forfeit the right to be
    >offended if not everybody is as impressed as they would have been with
    >a "clean" ascension.
    >

    Well said. Some people are less impressed when a demigod used
    "Elbereth" as part of ascending, for example.

    >In my own games, I expend considerable effort to ensure that I never
    >come anywhere near a mind-flayer. They're the genocide target of first
    >resort (save perhaps when I play dwarves), and at the top of the
    >"chase down and kill with ranged attacks" list, even when that means
    >using up scarce resources (e.g. /oDeaf charges) or taking other risks.

    Great typo! (Or was it a new way of introducing a YANI? ;^)


    And I'm glad to say that I followed my own advice today when I
    met two different mindflayers without having found any genocide
    scrolls.

    I had Magicbane, and so could have been almost completely safe
    by engraving. Having telepathy and controllable blinding was
    more important.

    One of the mindflayers was in a room with one exit toward my
    side. Luckily there was a convenient boulder to push into the
    doorway. (I am happy I thought of doing it.)

    Blind telepathy and a stack of daggers combined with a blockage
    daggers can be thrown past, equals one dead mind flayer. I felt
    smart, too!

    The other mindflayer situation didn't come equipped with a
    handy boulder. So I killed it at range 3 to 4 with daggers and
    spell of drain life (my best attack spell then.)

    I was very fast (which is a big help.) But the mind flayers
    seemed exceptionally slow even for that. (Nothing like a rust
    monster or disenchanter, for instance.)

    And the mind flayers showed no inclination to charge me. Which
    possibility I was *very* sensitive to, trust me.

    The main advantage you have with (master) mind flayers is that
    they let you know they're around.


    <snip much good stuff>

    --
    All the best,

    Jove
    Anonymous
    September 16, 2005 6:45:02 AM

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

    Jove <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:
    > > /oDeaf
    > Great typo! (Or was it a new way of introducing a YANI? ;^)

    Thanks, but not originally mine. It's an oblique reference to
    "A wand of deaf is a more dangerous weapon than a wand of sheep."
    (per rumors.fal line 22).
    Anonymous
    September 16, 2005 1:34:48 PM

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

    Jove wrote:
    > (And trying to pre-emptively define the question strictly in
    > terms of the interface used is a bit...naughty. Bad DD, no
    > doughnut. ;^)

    No it isn't. It's the core of the issue. You're not getting any
    advantage over in-game facilities other than a slightly different UI.

    > And again, I agree to your point that the interface is
    > immaterial. But I also think that discussing the problem
    > strictly in terms of interface does not address the heart of the
    > issue.

    Disagree. The only difference is the interface, so that is the heart
    of the issue.
    Anonymous
    September 16, 2005 11:35:46 PM

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

    On 16 Sep 2005 09:34:48 -0700, "sjdevnull@yahoo.com"
    <sjdevnull@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >Jove wrote:
    >> (And trying to pre-emptively define the question strictly in
    >> terms of the interface used is a bit...naughty. Bad DD, no
    >> doughnut. ;^)
    >
    >No it isn't. It's the core of the issue. You're not getting any
    >advantage over in-game facilities other than a slightly different UI.
    >
    >> And again, I agree to your point that the interface is
    >> immaterial. But I also think that discussing the problem
    >> strictly in terms of interface does not address the heart of the
    >> issue.
    >
    >Disagree. The only difference is the interface, so that is the heart
    >of the issue.

    I believe you'll find there are differences in capabilities
    between a text file and individual naming. (If you're comparing
    NON-individual naming to a text file, you may be in for a bit
    of a shock the next time you get memory-wiped. ;^)

    Naming an item individually means you can't just hit '\'
    and bring up the information, you must actually see that
    individual item. This does not seem to be true with a text
    file. (Please correct me if I'm wrong. ;^)

    So right there we seem to have a significant difference in
    functionality, apart from the interface.

    If you name an individual gray stone "luckstone", it won't
    help you with the next gray stone you see on the ground.
    (Ditto for recording info in a text file, too. ;^)

    Name a helm individually to be "Helm of Opposite Alignment"
    and it won't help you with the next strange helm you see, either.
    (Unless you're carrying the helm named HoOA with you. :-)
    But the description recorded in a text file is always available.

    And there are some restrictions on naming items individually.
    e.g. naming an individual luckstone something like "Heart of
    Ahriman". (I don't currently see how that could be signicant,
    but that may not be the comfort I'd like it to be, either ;^)

    And, in the context of this thread, what others think is
    taken to be significant. The OP wanted to make sure all of
    his ascensions were "untainted" in the minds of others.

    And there seems to be some doubt about using individual
    nameing this way. The main reason I see is the in-game
    evidence against it being the equivalent to marking on
    individual items:

    E.G: Naming items individually takes no game time. Instant
    permanent engraving is impossible on the ground, why should
    it be easier on metal and/or rock?

    I can also say that I would play a long time using nothing but
    individual naming to record information before I would
    confidently claim that the only difference between that and using
    a text file was the interface. But that's me. My opinion is
    that you should ignore my opinion. (Try to disobey that! ;-)

    If you believe a text file is acceptable, what do you care what
    others think? Every player is his own NetHack god, judging right
    and wrong.

    (And you are aware that some players feel that the interface is
    an important part of NetHack? That changing the interface to
    make some actions easier is a bad idea? ;^)

    And, yet again, in conclusion let me say that how you play
    the game is up to you, and you alone. But if you want others
    approval of the way you play, you need to do what those others
    approve of.




    --
    All the best,

    Jove
    Anonymous
    September 16, 2005 11:45:40 PM

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

    sjdevnull@yahoo.com <sjdevnull@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > Jove wrote:
    > > (And trying to pre-emptively define the question strictly in
    > > terms of the interface used is a bit...naughty. Bad DD, no
    > > doughnut. ;^)

    > No it isn't. It's the core of the issue. You're not getting any
    > advantage over in-game facilities other than a slightly different UI.

    Yes, you are. You can open the text file any time you like, but if you
    #name a bunch of rocks or whatever, you need to carry them around.
    Anonymous
    September 17, 2005 1:50:34 AM

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

    Jove wrote:

    > Name a helm individually to be "Helm of Opposite Alignment"
    > and it won't help you with the next strange helm you see, either.
    > (Unless you're carrying the helm named HoOA with you. :-)

    Not even then, because helms don't stack. Works with daggers, though, and
    expensive clear potions.

    Raisse, killed by a dagger
    --
    irina@valdyas.org LegoHack: http://www.valdyas.org/irina/nethack/
    Status of Raisse (piously neutral): Level 8 HP 63(67) AC -3, fast.
    September 17, 2005 9:24:11 AM

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

    pendell@hotmail.com wrote:
    > I was trying to do a #name-n.
    >
    > Lemme cut to the core of this: If I keep copious notes on this and
    > other details, do I have the right to post YAAP? Or is it cheating,
    > the way scumsaving or (say) Exploratory mode is ?

    Some people would argue that it is cheating, whilst blithely using
    price-ID to figure out what kit they have, which I think is much worse.

    If you're not allowing out-of-game knowledge, how can a new adventure
    know the price difference between scrolls of destroy and enchant
    armour, for example? One could assume that a higher-cost item is more
    powerful, but that's all.

    My moral take is that one should ID by what one sees directly in the
    dungeon, by trying items on and using them, seeing them used, or by
    spell/scroll of ID.

    The logical conclusion of that would be too hard to play for me to play
    though, so I compromise. As a player I already know what scrolls to
    use in what state to achieve a given effect, such as being confused and
    having a scroll b/u/c. To be extremely moral one would have to
    'experiment' for each of those outcomes yourself, and not use anything
    that the character hasn't seen. Not easy!

    It's all down to you though, pick a level which suits you. From
    reading this group it seems that most people don't consider it
    cheating. If they did, 90% of YAAP [pure guess] would probably have
    that disclaimer, as people are generally honest about such things.


    Regards,
    Rob Wilderspin
    Anonymous
    September 17, 2005 2:27:10 PM

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

    Jove <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:

    > Naming an item individually means you can't just hit '\'
    > and bring up the information, you must actually see that
    > individual item. This does not seem to be true with a text
    > file. (Please correct me if I'm wrong. ;^)

    Umm, I would say that you need to actually see the text file as well :-)

    --
    Jukka Lahtinen
    Anonymous
    September 17, 2005 7:45:19 PM

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

    spoon wrote:
    >
    > Some people would argue that it is cheating, whilst blithely using
    > price-ID to figure out what kit they have, which I think is much worse.

    The price system is quite good designed, IMO. There's often equally
    priced objects[1,2] that have a bad one in the set...

    - helm of blilliance and telepathy vs. opposite alignment,
    - gauntlets of power and dexterity vs. fumbling,
    - the rings of the 300 Zorkmids class with (cursed) polymorph,
    - the amulets are all (no nitpicks, please :-) of equal price,
    - potions of gain ability and gain level vs. paralysis,
    - full healing and speed vs. polymorph (and levitation),
    - (acid and oil? - would dipping a weapon in acid corrode it?),
    - many scrolls, good and bad, are in the 100 Zorkmid class,
    - earth and taming (or create monster) vs. amnesia (and create monster)

    Usually you need additional means to identify the items; altar (or pet),
    engraving wands, dipping projectiles, etc. This combination of methods
    is part of Nethacks fun for me.

    [1] Also the charisma factor adds to uncertainty (e.g. an 80 Zorkmid
    scroll could be enchant armor; there are scrolls with worse effects).
    [2] Some objects (like scrolls of ID) have intentionally unique prices.

    > If you're not allowing out-of-game knowledge, how can a new adventure
    > know the price difference between scrolls of destroy and enchant
    > armour, for example? One could assume that a higher-cost item is more
    > powerful, but that's all.

    Though that's not always the case.

    > My moral take is that one should ID by what one sees directly in the
    > dungeon, by trying items on and using them, seeing them used, or by
    > spell/scroll of ID.

    Janis
    Anonymous
    September 19, 2005 1:04:44 PM

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

    Janis Papanagnou wrote:
    > spoon wrote:
    >
    > > Some people would argue that it is cheating, whilst blithely using
    > > price-ID to figure out what kit they have, which I think is much worse.
    >
    > The price system is quite good designed, IMO. There's often equally
    > priced objects[1,2] that have a bad one in the set...

    Note that in some of the examples below, the so-called
    bad item actually has a use that when you really need
    it makes the bad item at least as valuable as the
    others.

    > - helm of blilliance and telepathy vs. opposite alignment,

    Consider a non-chaotic character climbing back up with
    the Amulet.

    > - gauntlets of power and dexterity vs. fumbling,
    > - the rings of the 300 Zorkmids class with (cursed) polymorph,

    Consider the rogue class's Quest.

    > - the amulets are all (no nitpicks, please :-) of equal price,
    > - potions of gain ability and gain level vs. paralysis,

    Consider facing an extremely nasty monster with or without
    a potion of paralysis.

    > - full healing and speed vs. polymorph (and levitation),
    > - (acid and oil? - would dipping a weapon in acid corrode it?),
    > - many scrolls, good and bad, are in the 100 Zorkmid class,
    > - earth and taming (or create monster) vs. amnesia (and create monster)
    >
    > Usually you need additional means to identify the items; altar (or pet),
    > engraving wands, dipping projectiles, etc. This combination of methods
    > is part of Nethacks fun for me.

    Absolutely.

    > [1] Also the charisma factor adds to uncertainty (e.g. an 80 Zorkmid
    > scroll could be enchant armor; there are scrolls with worse effects).
    > [2] Some objects (like scrolls of ID) have intentionally unique prices.
    >
    > > If you're not allowing out-of-game knowledge, how can a new adventure
    > > know the price difference between scrolls of destroy and enchant
    > > armour, for example? One could assume that a higher-cost item is more
    > > powerful, but that's all.
    >
    > Though that's not always the case.
    >
    > > My moral take is that one should ID by what one sees directly in the
    > > dungeon, by trying items on and using them, seeing them used, or by
    > > spell/scroll of ID.
    >
    > Janis
    Anonymous
    September 19, 2005 2:49:22 PM

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

    spoon wrote:
    > Some people would argue that it is cheating, whilst blithely using
    > price-ID to figure out what kit they have, which I think is much worse.
    >
    > If you're not allowing out-of-game knowledge, how can a new adventure
    > know the price difference between scrolls of destroy and enchant
    > armour, for example? One could assume that a higher-cost item is more
    > powerful, but that's all.

    I dunno. A lot of the game requires knowing things about it that you
    may have discovered in earlier attempts. Perhaps rumors reach the
    overworld about things in the dungeon.

    But deciphering some of the wand-id or detect ? messages (when the
    thing to be detected isn't around) requires similar leaps. Yet those
    messages are clearly included to make such identification possible.
    Anonymous
    September 19, 2005 5:26:47 PM

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

    Quoting Kevin Wayne <killedbyafoo@yahoo.com>:
    >On 9/15/05 8:10 AM, David Damerell wrote:
    >>Quoting <pendell@hotmail.com>:
    >>>Lemme cut to the core of this: If I keep copious notes on this and
    >>>other details, do I have the right to post YAAP? Or is it cheating,
    >>>the way scumsaving or (say) Exploratory mode is ?
    >>I certainly don't think it's cheating at all. Mindflayer memory loss is a
    >>bit of a misfeature for just this reason. There are unavoidable
    >>consequences such as inability to write scrolls thereafter.
    >What is it that you consider a misfeature? The inability to write
    >forgotten scrolls would seem to be intentional.

    I think the loss of level maps and inability to write scrolls is working
    just fine. The other consequences - the ones that can be avoided by
    trivial note-taking - I regard as a misfeature. I see the game remembering
    object identifications as primarily an interface convenience, not a
    property of the character (obviously the ability to write a scroll is a
    property of the character so I don't have a problem with it) and I don't
    think interface-awkwardness attacks are a sensible thing in a game with no
    time constraints on the player. It's for the same reason that I reacted
    badly to the proposal that the "pack vibrates" effect of magic traps
    should shuffle inventory letters.
    --
    David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
    Today is Olethros, September - a weekend.
    Anonymous
    September 19, 2005 6:10:52 PM

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

    Quoting spoon <spoon_ggl@wilderspin.org>:
    >My moral take is that one should ID by what one sees directly in the
    >dungeon, by trying items on and using them, seeing them used, or by
    >spell/scroll of ID.

    But that's obviously preposterous; the game is quite clearly designed to
    be learned by players who roll over knowledge, and that includes price-ID.
    You're being fooled by the way computer games are called "roleplaying
    games" when they're not.
    --
    David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
    Today is Olethros, September - a weekend.
    Anonymous
    September 19, 2005 6:20:09 PM

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

    Quoting Jove <invalid@invalid.invalid>:
    > I believe you'll find there are differences in capabilities
    >between a text file and individual naming.

    You're wrong, then, save for the pretty trivial consideration that one of
    your note items might be stolen (and you can reduce this possibility to
    near-zero with duplicate notes and reduplication if you lose one).

    > Naming an item individually means you can't just hit '\'
    >and bring up the information, you must actually see that
    >individual item.

    Which is why you take notes on the items you would be carrying anyway, and
    transfer notes every time you change that set.

    > If you name an individual gray stone "luckstone", it won't
    >help you with the next gray stone you see on the ground.
    >(Ditto for recording info in a text file, too. ;^)

    So not a difference.

    > Name a helm individually to be "Helm of Opposite Alignment"
    >and it won't help you with the next strange helm you see, either.

    Yes, but you aren't doing that. You're naming an object you carry "plumed
    is HoOA" or whatever, just as you would write in a text editor.

    > And there seems to be some doubt about using individual
    >nameing this way.

    Yes, there is, and I'm not arguing against that doubt - provided that
    there is an equal doubt about using a text editor to keep notes. What I am
    arguing about is the claim that these are different.

    > I can also say that I would play a long time using nothing but
    >individual naming to record information before I would
    >confidently claim that the only difference between that and using
    >a text file was the interface. But that's me.

    That's also self-evidently false.
    --
    David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
    Today is Olethros, September - a weekend.
    Anonymous
    September 19, 2005 6:20:45 PM

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

    Quoting Nan Wang <nwang@panix.com>:
    >sjdevnull@yahoo.com <sjdevnull@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>No it isn't. It's the core of the issue. You're not getting any
    >>advantage over in-game facilities other than a slightly different UI.
    >Yes, you are. You can open the text file any time you like, but if you
    >#name a bunch of rocks or whatever, you need to carry them around.

    As we know NH characters regularly run around without any objects at all.
    --
    David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
    Today is Olethros, September - a weekend.
    Anonymous
    September 19, 2005 6:20:46 PM

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

    David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
    > Quoting Nan Wang <nwang@panix.com>:
    > >sjdevnull@yahoo.com <sjdevnull@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > >>No it isn't. It's the core of the issue. You're not getting any
    > >>advantage over in-game facilities other than a slightly different UI.
    > >Yes, you are. You can open the text file any time you like, but if you
    > >#name a bunch of rocks or whatever, you need to carry them around.

    > As we know NH characters regularly run around without any objects at all.

    As we know those items never get tossed, stashed, used up or stolen.
    Anonymous
    September 19, 2005 8:48:22 PM

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

    Quoting Nan Wang <nwang@panix.com>:
    >David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
    >>Quoting Nan Wang <nwang@panix.com>:
    >>>sjdevnull@yahoo.com <sjdevnull@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>>>No it isn't. It's the core of the issue. You're not getting any
    >>>>advantage over in-game facilities other than a slightly different UI.
    >>>Yes, you are. You can open the text file any time you like, but if you
    >>As we know NH characters regularly run around without any objects at all.
    >As we know those items never get tossed, stashed, used up or stolen.

    See, sarcasm doesn't work when you're wrong. Keep multiple copies of each
    note and reduplicate copies every time you lose a note object; duplicating
    notes consumes no game time, so you can always do this.

    Only in the case where you're stripped of items *and* mindflayed before
    you can recover the stash does this fail; that's pretty unlikely.
    Furthermore, you can use alternative (very cumbersome) techniques to roll
    information through the message scrollback indefinitely without any
    possibility of losing it.
    --
    David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
    Today is Olethros, September - a weekend.
    Anonymous
    September 19, 2005 8:59:02 PM

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

    On 9/19/05 9:20 AM, David Damerell wrote:

    > As we know NH characters regularly run around without any objects at all.

    Now *there's* what I would confidently call an impossible ascension
    conduct. The "Vow of Poverty" ascension. Relinquish all items in
    inventory on turn 1. Use nothing but your bare hands and what spells you
    might have been given at the start of the game.

    --
    Kevin Wayne

    "Stark raving sane."
    --Rosencrantz and Guildenstern
    Anonymous
    September 19, 2005 10:15:02 PM

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

    Kevin Wayne <killedbyafoo@yahoo.com> writes:
    > Now *there's* what I would confidently call an impossible ascension
    > conduct. The "Vow of Poverty" ascension. Relinquish all items in
    > inventory on turn 1. Use nothing but your bare hands and what spells
    > you might have been given at the start of the game.

    There are eleven items in the game which you are absolutely, positively
    required to have in your inventory at some point[1] in order to ascend.
    If you cannot pick them up, it is indeed impossible (not just very
    unlikely) that you'll win.

    If you allow an exception for these, it may be vaguely possible. I'd
    suggest "armies of pets and an early self-poly" as one potentially useful
    approach. Throne wishes and sacfests might also play a big part.

    [1]-- Seven candles, the three invocation items and the "oY.
    Anonymous
    September 19, 2005 11:16:06 PM

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

    Doug Freyburger wrote:
    > Janis Papanagnou wrote:
    >>spoon wrote:
    >>
    >>>Some people would argue that it is cheating, whilst blithely using
    >>>price-ID to figure out what kit they have, which I think is much worse.
    >>
    >>The price system is quite good designed, IMO. There's often equally
    >>priced objects[1,2] that have a bad one in the set...
    >
    > Note that in some of the examples below, the so-called
    > bad item actually has a use that when you really need
    > it makes the bad item at least as valuable as the
    > others.

    Yes, of course. I agree especially for the mid to late game. But when
    identification is necessary, and the objects unknown, you cannot take
    the objects apart by price alone, and [my point] it's inconvenient or
    even dangerous to try them out.

    >> - helm of blilliance and telepathy vs. opposite alignment,
    >
    > Consider a non-chaotic character climbing back up with
    > the Amulet.

    See above. In the mid game, e.g., you'll lose your protection points.

    >> - gauntlets of power and dexterity vs. fumbling,
    >> - the rings of the 300 Zorkmids class with (cursed) polymorph,
    >
    > Consider the rogue class's Quest.

    Usually these rings are cursed, as indicated. You shouldn't (IMO) put
    on a 300$ ring without knowing its BUC status. Otherwise yes, but only
    if you have controlled polymorph.

    >> - the amulets are all (no nitpicks, please :-) of equal price,
    >> - potions of gain ability and gain level vs. paralysis,
    >
    > Consider facing an extremely nasty monster with or without
    > a potion of paralysis.

    Good if already identified. But don't drink a 300$ potion in hope that
    it's a "gain foo" when there's a possibility that some creature comes
    around the corner (in this case always some soldier ants or a mumak ;-)
    to beat you while paralysed.

    Janis
        • 1 / 3
        • 2
        • 3
        • Newest