The Monster Memory

[Mikko Lehtinen]

I think both sides have made a reasonable, intellectually sound argument. You're probably not going to convince each other... Devs undoubtly have enough material now to base their decision on, and it's their call to do whatever they like. Right?

[Timo Pietilä]

I've fought everything. Forcing me to check the spoilers to see if a Great Balance Wyrm breathes disenchantment or not isn't exciting

If you have fought everything then that info should already be in your monster memory. There is also in-game method of getting that info even if you haven't fought it: probing.

Also, you don't need that info to survive, if you need then you are playing it with too small margins to survive deep down.

There is no "forcing" you to do anything. Requirement that you need that info is in your head, game itself doesn't force you to look into spoilers because you don't gain any really relevant info from them. This is a bit like earlier "you have to stop here and there to get this and that to survive deeper", just forget it, divers proved otherwise.

[Timo Pietilä]

I know for a fact this is not true. I played the game in the past with a separate spoiler file

Latter statement makes first false.

[Bodhi]

If the monster memory option is sufficiently hidden, is there an issue?

At this point I only use Monster Memory to check what some of the higher level monsters breathe

I've fought everything. Forcing me to check the spoilers to see if a Great Balance Wyrm breathes disenchantment or not isn't exciting

[DaviddesJ]

You are wrong in that, especially for new players. Us old folk it doesn't matter, but for someone just discovering the game it would have huge impact how he plays the game.

I know for a fact this is not true. I played the game in the past with a separate spoiler file, and now I've played it with full monster knowledge in the game, and it's exactly the same information so I play exactly the same way. The only effect is that it's quicker and more convenient and more fun, I just glance at the information I need instead of having to look it up. It's analogous to the difference between having information at your fingertips with Google vs. having to open the encyclopedia every time you want to look something up. You get the same information in the end, it's just a question of more convenient vs. less convenient.

There are also people who prefer to play without monster spoilers. But those people also aren't affected, because they can simply turn the option off. I think it's a great option to have because people who like having it off should do so. (Although Oramin is a strange case because he probes all of the monsters so that he can have all of the information that you don't want players to have because it would ruin the game....)

[DaviddesJ]

I suppose if you're looking for Angband to lose some appeal, then by all means proceed in bringing major spoilers out of the shadows and into the mainstream.

There are no "shadows". The information is in the source code and in text files that anyone can read whenever they want. Some people like that and some don't. The designer thought there was some appeal in not having the information at your fingertips, but he also understood that other people might think differently, or make different decisions in different circumstances (e.g., maybe they like playing for a while with little information, but as they get more into the game they want to find out more), so, why not give them the choice?

Today, as always, we have two kinds of people. Those who understand that different people like different things and might choose to play different ways. And those who think (and post!) that their way is the "right" way and everyone should be like them and like what they like and do what they do. But the problem is that I'm not like you. What I like is different than what you like. Is that really so hard to understand?

If you really think that people who don't like what you like shouldn't play Angband at all, then of course it makes sense not to put options into the game that other people would like and you don't. But my theory is that, when you have a game that already has a relatively niche audience, if you can expand its appeal to more people, so much the better.

[Timo Pietilä]

This is a great quote. In short looking at "major spoiler(s)" cause the game to "lose some appeal". I'll go out on a limb and equate "major spoiler(s)" with "complete monster memory" since complete monster memory is a far greater exploit that what is being referenced in the quote.

I suppose if you're looking for Angband to lose some appeal, then by all means proceed in bringing major spoilers out of the shadows and into the mainstream.

That's what I think of it. Also I think there is educational purpose too: Full monster memory is not needed if you play "right". Just those few possible surprises are what you need to learn, and we should make them available from beginning. Not which monster can do them, but that they are a possibility.

Just to repeat in case no-one read them:

1) Unresisted basic four and poison can do so much damage that it can kill even maxed out char.
2) stunning can lead to knock out which is almost always deadly.
3) same with paralyzation but in lesser decree (saving throw helps).

And that's it.

[buzzkill]

Here's another direct reference as to how one of the designers of Angband 2.4 (Sean Marsh)

Thought I'd just release the list of uniques and abilities that we have here
at Warwick. Can't guarantee that everything in this list will be completely
accurate, but it should come pretty close. It's a major spoiler so don't look
at it unless you want the game to lose some appeal.
~ Sean.

This is a great quote. In short looking at "major spoiler(s)" cause the game to "lose some appeal". I'll go out on a limb and equate "major spoiler(s)" with "complete monster memory" since complete monster memory is a far greater exploit that what is being referenced in the quote.

I suppose if you're looking for Angband to lose some appeal, then by all means proceed in bringing major spoilers out of the shadows and into the mainstream.

[Timo Pietilä]

At least one novice in my acquaintance, while understanding the pros and cons, has a strong preference for full monster knowledge.

It makes game easier. As bad as it sounds easier is not always better.

[Djabanete]

You are wrong in that, especially for new players. Us old folk it doesn't matter, but for someone just discovering the game it would have huge impact how he plays the game.

At least one novice in my acquaintance, while understanding the pros and cons, has a strong preference for full monster knowledge.

[Timo Pietilä]

and it doesn't change what playing the game is like

You are wrong in that, especially for new players. Us old folk it doesn't matter, but for someone just discovering the game it would have huge impact how he plays the game.

[Zyphyr]

Let's address one last thing - the use of language and people taking offense at it.

If a person breaks the laws regarding murder or speeding, then he or she is a "lawbreaker". Somebody who broke the Fugitive Slave Laws back in 1850's to help escaped slaves is also a "lawbreaker". That is not a moral judgment, that is a statement of fact. From a moral point of view, I hope that most of us approve of the final group of "lawbreakers".

When somebody violates the intended rules of the game (especially as enforced by the game), then he or she is a "cheat" - look it up in a dictionary. If you wish to infer moral condemnation from that, the problem is yours and not mine.

This right here makes me believe that you are not actually having the same discussion as everyone else....

You are arguing about whether or not it is currently defined as cheating (and nobody has implied that it isn't) while everyone else is arguing about if it SHOULD be defined as such.

Either that or you don't understand just how damaging your own example there is to the "but it was defined that way before, so it still needs to be" position.

[DaviddesJ]

What if I cheat and discover that the thread has Fire Immunity?

[scud]

I propose that the thread be cremated, and the ashes taken to Australia...

[MattB]

Would it be cheating to just ask pav to delete this thread and all reference to it?

I agree that this would be the most convenient way to proceed.

However, given that this would merely be the most convenient method, rather than the only method, I wouldn't be happy for my forum username to be tainted with the *cheat* flag.