I should have done this a while ago

[Therem Harth]

Stopped savescumming, that is.

My excuse of old was that I didn't have the time to deal with permadeath. In this statement is that tacit assumption that, if you use permadeath, you'll spend a lot of time dying.

But that is not actually the case! It turns out (for me anyway) that permadeath encourages a more cautious and thoughtful style of play. In T2 I usually suffer my first death fooling around with dragons in the wilderness. This last time, though, I played more cautiously... And didn't die until an OoD Mezzodaemon paralyzed me in the Maze.

I'd honestly forgotten how much more fun a non-savescummed game is. I think, now, that permadeath is what keeps a roguelike from being Yet Another Fantasy RPG; it makes you think more, and shifts the focus from "just winning the game" to developing your character and having a good time.

So yeah. Consider my opinion to have done a 180. I am now wholly opposed to removing permadeath in any way, shape, or form, and think the Cheat Death debug option should stay as is.

[buzzkill]

Yep. Yep. Yep.

[ghengiz]

Glad you abandoned the dark side

[PowerDiver]

Glad you abandoned the dark side

Man, you guys are harsh.

Playing with save-scumming is like practicing tennis by hitting against a wall. It's not the real game, but it has its place if you want to learn to play better and other methods are not working for you.

[tigpup]

Man, you guys are harsh.

Playing with save-scumming is like practicing tennis by hitting against a wall. It's not the real game, but it has its place if you want to learn to play better and other methods are not working for you.

Man, that's a bad metaphor, Eddie.

To me (having done it many times), it's more like playing strip-poker with your little sister's dollies.

- N

[ghengiz]

Man, you guys are harsh.

Playing with save-scumming is like practicing tennis by hitting against a wall. It's not the real game, but it has its place if you want to learn to play better and other methods are not working for you.

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound harsh...maybe a would have been a bit more clear than

[Derakon]

Man, that's a bad metaphor, Eddie.

To me (having done it many times), it's more like playing strip-poker with your little sister's dollies.

No, I'm with Eddie here. If you had never played tennis before, and you went out and played against someone who knew what they were doing and was playing to win, you wouldn't have a good time. You'd be frustrated at your total inability to return the ball, repeated 40-0 scores, etc. Playing against the wall gives you a more forgiving setting in which to learn basic skills, so that when you go up against the "real" opponent, you know enough to at least enjoy yourself, even if you don't win. Even if you got roundly trounced.

[Nick]

To me (having done it many times), it's more like playing strip-poker with your little sister's dollies.

Wait, which one have you done many times?

[HallucinationMushroom]

Yeah, but you can never beat the wall.

[buzzkill]

No, I'm with Eddie here. If you had never played tennis before, and you went out and played against someone who knew what they were doing and was playing to win, you wouldn't have a good time.

Not really. Playing tennis against a wall (without explicit instruction) while possibly more fun than real competition, will undoubtedly teach you poor technique such as hitting softly and hitting to your opponent (in this case yourself) which won't gain you success in a real match against a competitively schooled peer.

Angband allows you learn at your own pace. It certainly doesn't start out trouncing you. The early levels are a (too) gentle introduction and the difficulty eventually ramps up from there. What Angband does lack is instruction.

If feel that if a player fails at Angabnd (quits playing), it's more likely because they didn't know the rules (how to play) and assumed that it is like most other RPG's, rather than it being too difficult (to win). If I were to play cricket and assumed it was almost exactly like baseball and there was no one there to set me straight, I would probably quickly get discouraged at my lack of success and quit. Whacking my wicket against a wall wouldn't help (I know nothing of cricket), learning the rules would.

The best way to learn just about anything, is to compete against someone who is better than you at it. While playing against an unmerciful ass who only desires to humiliate you isn't the best scenario, it will still work better than playing against a wall, and Angband is certainly not unmerciful (to start), just unfriendly (edit: as a tennis opponent who, while an expert player, intentionally thumbs down his game to just above your level, but always still beats you in the end no matter how well you play, and offers no critique or advice to you along the way).

Save scumming is more akin to playing "Guitar Hero" because learning to play a real guitar to too hard and practice is tedious. Yes, you'll have more fun while doing something that is arguably similar, but you won't get any better at the real thing.

[Derakon]

When I was a kid, my parents bought me a cheap wooden tennis racket. They told me I could get a nicer one once I could manage to hit the ball against the wall ten times in a row. That took me a significant amount of practice to be able to manage. Granted that I was less than ten years old, but the point is that there are a lot of basic skills that you can learn just as well against a wall as you can against a real opponent. Better, even, because with the wall you can set your own pace for practicing. Imagine pitting an inexperienced adult against someone who takes advantage of that inexperience -- they consistently hit the ball into the corner, return it with spin, and so on. For someone who has trouble returning a gently-served ball placed such that they don't even need to move to hit it, playing against such an opponent would be next to impossible. Some people might relish that challenge; others would just find it pointlessly frustrating.

Does playing against a wall eventually teach you bad play habits? Of course. But there's way more fundamental skills that the wall teaches that have to be learned before you can start worrying about the bad lessons.

Of course I'm hyperbolizing here; Angband doesn't intentionally take advantage of the player's inexperience. But the takeaway is the same: cheating death is a bad idea in the long run, but as a means to learn how the game works, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

[bio_hazard]

I was a horrible save-scummer when I first picked up Angband in the '90's. Part of it was laziness (I made it this far, why would I want to do all this over), and part was justified by a feeling that the game was so hard that it was virtually impossible to win without cheating.

I found Angband fun, but in retrospect, it was almost more in the way a slot machine can be fun- the randomized nature of the game made waiting to see what that next drop was, and whether that big square room would be empty or a pit, or when you'd finally get that "You have an excellent feeling that your luck is turning"

Now that I refuse to save scum I've definitely focused more on the gameplay itself, and get more enjoyment from what I perceive as me making good choices in the game rather than just getting lucky with the rng. There might be a side effect in that as I now am a little more critical about Angband gameplay as I branch out into other roguelikes.

[PowerDiver]

Not really. Playing tennis against a wall (without explicit instruction) while possibly more fun than real competition, will undoubtedly teach you poor technique such as hitting softly and hitting to your opponent (in this case yourself) which won't gain you success in a real match against a competitively schooled peer.

Angband allows you learn at your own pace. It certainly doesn't start out trouncing you. The early levels are a (too) gentle introduction and the difficulty eventually ramps up from there. What Angband does lack is instruction.

Playing the first 20 levels of Angband repeatedly teaches plenty of bad habits. Things that will get you killed at DL 50 are optimal techniques at DL 10. My view is that time spent replaying early levels repeatedly is worse than time wasted walking around picking up missed tennis balls.

I believe a fair percentage of people could improve their techniques by using save scumming. I know I did. Early on, I sometimes replayed a particularly hairy level a dozen times, to compare the costs and benefits of two different approaches. If you want to practice taking M down with CL < 40, save scumming is the best way to do it.

The game has become so trivial, and the advice to dive so prevalent, that perhaps save scumming isn't so useful any more. My gut tells me save scumming still has a place even in this context.

[Estie]

One way to look at this is to differentiate between two aspects:

1. the game knowledge; like, knowing when ancient green dragons start appearing and that they have to be avoided unless you have enough hit points/poison resistance.

2. the "hardcore" mindset to always play in a way that doesnt take too many risks.

2. is not restricted to roguelikes and the harder part to learn. 1. becomes trivial as PD said and I strongly suspect that people who play for years without winning are good enough at 1., but cant get 2. right.

Loading saves can improve 1., but not 2.