The Monster Memory

[Scatha]

If you label something a cheat option, lots of players won't think about it and will assume it's a generally less enjoyable way of engaging with the game. I know if I came across a game I'd tend to take it at its own terms. I might play around with 'options', but I'd be quite likely to just use defaults, and unlikely to use options labelled as 'cheat' until I was familiar enough with the game to judge for myself.

You have some duty as a game designer to label the enjoyable ways to play. I think this is debo's point. Leaving it as a cheat option should be a statement that this is something which makes the game easier but a large majority of people will find less satisfying (such as infinite lives). If it's a majority but not a large one, it could be sensible to have it as an option, but not a default one. If a majority of players are likely to find it more satisfying, there's a good case for it being the default option.

[Oramin]

Debo:

The key point that I've been trying to make is that the free complete monster memory *is* an option which anybody can already activate if they find it to be more "fun" or "convenient".

The real argument is based on whether or not it *should* continue to be considered to be a "cheat" option and, for the aforementioned reasons, I believe it should remain a "cheat" option.


Edit:

Maybe a real life analogy would make more sense.

Consider speeding and murder. There are laws against both. Let's equate save-scumming with murder and activating the complete free monster memory with speeding.

Obviously they aren't the same level of infraction but if you violate either set of laws then you are a lawbreaker.

Whenever I speed, I have no problem admitting that by doing so, I'm a lawbreaker.

Sure, it is more fun and convenient to speed and I can almost always get away with it, but I'm still a lawbreaker.

I could argue that the law should be changed but, personally, I don't think that arguing fun, convenience, or ease of ignoring the law are particularly good arguments.

If I want to change it, I need to show that the underlying reason for the law is flawed.

Yes, I realize that there's a difference between a game and real life but this is just an analogy to explain a point.

Getting a free complete monster memory was originally considered to be cheating by the folks who put the option into the game. I believe I have already explained why the game design indicates that this *should* be cheating.

So, fine, since the cheater flag doesn't stop you from using it (other than not wanting to get flagged) and there's no way to catch you using spoilers, why do the players who want a free complete monster memory feel the need to have their gameplay choices validated by not having the cheater label contrary to the design of the game?

[debo]

This definitely sounds like a grumpy old man thread, imo. We have a bunch of players saying "the monster memory is not something I like", and others trying to argue from first principles that they're "wrong". I don't particularly care what anyone think of my playstyle, so if asked my opinion I would tell the truth. However, if the game designers decided that was the "wrong" way to play -- well, it's their baby, and I'm fine with that.

I think this comes down to a "do the designers make the game they want to play, or the one the players want to play" call. I think history has shown that either approach can be right. The interesting part of this is that the intersection of those groups in this case seems to be somewhat large

There is a lot of (solicited) noise on some of the Sil topics, where people are basically saying "I don't like it this way and here is why", and in some cases the designers are saying "this was our reasoning and we believe we're correct". In some cases, they're making the suggested changes. I'm totally fine with that, and I will continue to play the game because the majority of the decisions they're making are ones that I like, and none of them are dealbreakers for me.

The monster memory thing in V isn't a dealbreaker for me either. I just personally don't like the decision.

One last thing -- Oramin mentioned before that length is inherent to the design of V, and that it's supposed to be a marathon. That's fine, but it's not why I liked V. For me, V's homogeneity of experience (dive, kill stuff, back to town, repeat) meant that it was easy for me to pick up, play a few levels, come back a day later, and keep doing the same thing. There aren't any huge skill trees for me to study or forks through the game for me to decide on, I just have to get to D100 and kill the big guy. That was why I liked it, in that my play could be sort of memoryless. The only thing impeding that playstyle was -- you guessed it -- not knowing anything about which monsters were dangerous, and so I used the spoilers.

(At the time I played, it was also very easy (3.2 -3.3). I was looking for a game with some risk, but not for one that was hard as nails. That incarnation of V definitely fit the bill, and I had a lot of fun with it.)

Anyhow, do what you will I just don't really understand the point of soliciting opinions from players on a topic if counterarguments are going to be made from the angle of "right" or "wrong" rather than "fun" or "annoying".

[Oramin]

As I indicated earlier in the thread, I think the fact that Probing is a spell available in the game indicates that the game design is to provide information about monsters in-game only after learning about the monsters by playing the game.

I think that this is an important part of the game and should remain as it is.

Of course, I also think that people should learn how to do math in school before being allowed the convenience of calculators and I also think that people should learn how to spell and not rely on their (there/they're) spell checkers. Perhaps I'm just turning into a grumpy old man (and I'm only in my early 40s).

[MattB]

how does my new character know what my old character knew?)

Before you went out into the big bad dungeon on your own, your Daddy sat you down on his knee and told you everything he knew about the baddies that lurk within, in the hope that you might come back to see him with all of your limbs attached. Someof the knowledge was passed down to him from his father, and his father's father and so on.

It should only work with dynasties (e.g. Funt I, Funt II, Funt III etc).

[dzilla77]

I have no real opinion one way or the other on this matter, but I think the issue boils very simply down to two points:

If moster discovery is deemed an important part of game play, then monster memory should be tied to the character (i.e. it starts at 0 for each @).

If monster discovery is not deemed an important part of game play, then monster memory should be available at game start for all players.

Since I am not a developer of the game (and only recently found the game), I have no way of knowing what the original/current design intent was.

Giving monster memory to the player as a reward for longevity does not keep everyone on equal footing with respect to the ladder or comps and seems like a strange mechanic (i.e. how does my new character know what my old character knew?)

[Raajaton]

Personally I wouldn't view having a full monster memory option as cheating. Angband is all about making tactical decisions to survive while the game is actively trying to kill you. Sure, having all of the information available to you may help nudge you in the right direction, however you still need to make good decisions in order to survive. I've died on plenty of occasions knowing full well what the enemy can do.

Perhaps this isn't the greatest example, but it came to mind while I was reading the discussion. I played a game some of you may have heard of called I Wanna Be The Guy. For those that don't, it is an incredibly difficult and sadistic 2d platformer. It requires incredible amounts of speed and precision in order to beat even the most basic obstacles. While attempting to beat the game, I on many occasions would look at YouTube videos of people playing that particular area to see how in the hell they beat it. Now, for many games I would consider looking at a walkthrough to be pure cheating. However, for that game, seeing somebody else beat it didn't make it any easier for me. It still required me to play properly in order to do it myself.

I also think that the argument about people having many more games to occupy their time is a valid one. Those of us that play roguelikes are absolutely gluttons for punishment, however I think for many people there is a frustrating line where 20 hours in to a game you die to the unknown and know you have to start over from the beginning. Many people will throw their hands up, say fuck this, and play something else. But, with the option of having full monster memory on, even if they died in the exact same manner, they'll know that it's because they made a mistake and MIGHT be interested in playing again to try to overcome their mistake and be a better player rather than be annoyed that all their time and effort got taken from them for god knows what reason.

Perhaps you can say that roguelikes aren't the type of game for those people, and the community should remain the small, hardcore community that it already is. I happen to disagree. There are a lot of games coming out lately that at least have roguelike elements to them, and I see the genre making somewhat of a resurgence. In my opinion, Angband is the best and my personal favorite game of the entire genre. I believe adding an option (particularly one that does not in any way effect your own gameplay, as you don't have to enable it) that might make the game a bit more accessible to more players (and possibly future developers) is a very good thing. Angband has a lot to offer to this community, why should we keep it purely to ourselves?

[Oramin]

The last few posters:

The ladder isn't actually the point of my argument, but thanks for the laugh.

[MattB]

Ideally, there would be separate ladders for *each* of these tags. That way, we don't mix things up. Pav?

Actually, Pav, we need a ladder for each COMBINATION of these flags.
And how about:

SLACKER - for those players who cheat by turning off the 'pick up items matching inventory' option, instead of repeatedly hitting <g> every time. An immoral practice, if ever I saw one.

[chris]

Oooh, flags! Can I suggest some too?

• PRESERVED - played with preserve on (don't want to confuse those with the hardcore heroes who risked losing artifacts by not clearing levels)
• UNIRONIC - non-ironman players
• CONSUMER - those who gave in and allowed themselves to play with shops
• STACKED - allowed gear to pile up willy-nilly around them instead of being destroyed when there was nowhere for it to go like the RNG intended
• CONNECTED - losers who didn't blindfold themselves and spin around three times on reaching the bottom of the stairs

By thus classifying we maintain ladder purity!

Ideally, there would be separate ladders for *each* of these tags. That way, we don't mix things up. Pav?

[Nick]

Maybe we just need a "SPOILED" flag, since players who are merely spoiled don't want to be conflated with real "cheaters", save scummers and the like.

If it weren't for the ladder none of this would matter, but there is a ladder and for the ladder to mean anything, then equal footing MUST be maintained. By flat out eliminating the cheater flag for spoilers, you're throwing all previous ladder entries under the bus.

Oooh, flags! Can I suggest some too?

• PRESERVED - played with preserve on (don't want to confuse those with the hardcore heroes who risked losing artifacts by not clearing levels)
• UNIRONIC - non-ironman players
• CONSUMER - those who gave in and allowed themselves to play with shops
• STACKED - allowed gear to pile up willy-nilly around them instead of being destroyed when there was nowhere for it to go like the RNG intended
• CONNECTED - losers who didn't blindfold themselves and spin around three times on reaching the bottom of the stairs

By thus classifying we maintain ladder purity!

[buzzkill]

Maybe we just need a "SPOILED" flag, since players who are merely spoiled don't want to be conflated with real "cheaters", save scummers and the like.

If it weren't for the ladder none of this would matter, but there is a ladder and for the ladder to mean anything, then equal footing MUST be maintained. By flat out eliminating the cheater flag for spoilers, you're throwing all previous ladder entries under the bus.

@ Oramin: .

[Oramin]

Takkaria:

All fair points. I freely admit that when I first played Angband about 20 or so years ago, I save-scummed in the OS (I don't recall if it was an in-game cheat option then). I also freely admit that I was cheating by doing so.

If people are playing just for fun then it shouldn't matter to them that the game labels certain options cheating. As I observed earlier, players *already* have the option to play the game with the free complete monster memory; the only penalty is that a cheater flag gets enabled.

Therefore, the *only* reason we're having the discussion about making it a non-cheat option is for those players to avoid getting hit with the cheater flag.

The *WINNER* status for characters, IMO, should be for those players who have accepted the equivalent of Championship Mode from CM2100 as I discussed in an earlier post.

Take on the challenge, get the reward.

[takkaria]

Ok, then how do you suggest it be done? If the point is that certain behavior is considered cheating, do you think it would be better to argue that I'm against cheating because I do the behavior considered cheating all the time? In that case I could be accused of hypocrisy - I'd prefer to be accused of being "smug".

All I'm saying is that insinuating someone's character is flawed because their opinion on or actions in a frankly ancient game that they play in their free time for fun, in a way that affects no-one else's enjoyment of the game, is going a little bit far.

Playing the game is fundamentally about having fun. If people are having fun, I don't really mind how they do it. I used to savefile-scum when I started playing ZAngband, and I've tried playing V a few times with cheat_death on, but it's not as satisfying. If other people find those options satisfying, good for them. Obviously it's not the same kind of achievement - I would be lying if I claimed a clean win after savefile scumming - and I think if you use those options you miss out on a big part of the point of the game. But honestly, how other people play the game does not really bother me and I don't think it reflects their character in any way.

TLDR; It's fine (obviously!) that you have an opinion and you're discussing it, I wouldn't want you to stop. But making out that you are a better person than someone else ain't gonna get you anywhere.

Seriously, how often do people willingly admit that their behavior is cheating? They typically have some sort of rationalization why it isn't (see, Lance Armstrong).

If people think that fun and convenience and playing solo are adequate justification for using it, then why are they so offended about it being a "cheat" option?

I'm not sure I've seen anyone be offended at it being a 'cheat' option; some people just think it shouldn't be. From the tone of people's arguments, I don't think anyone is trying to rationalise some kind of behaviour they feel is wrong. I suspect that like with many other gameplay issues, different people feel different things about how the game should be played, and find different things fun. I have no problem with the game catering to these different feelings.

[Oramin]

I believe Djabanete was referring to the quote you posted, not the original post where literally used the word 'douche', which was quite a direct attack on another poster's character IMO.

True, but then that was after I politely permitted him to have the last word by stating that I wouldn't continue in that thread and he abused that courtesy by engaging in an attack on my character.

The thing is that people disagree about whether it constitutes cheating. Trying to get one up in the argument by invoking your higher moral status isn't going to make people agree with you, it'll just get people's backs up.

Ok, then how do you suggest it be done? If the point is that certain behavior is considered cheating, do you think it would be better to argue that I'm against cheating because I do the behavior considered cheating all the time? In that case I could be accused of hypocrisy - I'd prefer to be accused of being "smug".


Seriously, how often do people willingly admit that their behavior is cheating? They typically have some sort of rationalization why it isn't (see, Lance Armstrong).

I've explained why I think certain behavior is cheating and why I think that a free monster memory should continue to be a cheating option. If people think that fun and convenience and playing solo are adequate justification for using it, then why are they so offended about it being a "cheat" option?