The Monster Memory

[takkaria]

AFAIK whole ID sub-game is going thru overhaul so that you get rune-based ID: once you learn what firebrand is you recognize it automatically on new items.

IMO that should be huge improvement as long as you get that even without picking things up, just seeing them should be enough.

Yeah, we've not done that in V yet - it is in v4 though. I wonder if it's actually overly complex - I'd probably prefer the ego item flavour approach, so when you learn one flavour of ego item, you can ID them all on sight. Maybe combined with artifact knowledge saved over characters. What do you think?

[takkaria]

I think that the changing the official rules of the game in this way violates the integrity of the earlier design choices.

In which case, I and others have broken the design integrity of the game many times and I expect future developers to do so in future. That's part of what it is to have a living game.

The earlier programmers of the game came up with a balance they preferred and decided that instant monster omniscience violated that balance. I personally think that since this was an earlier choice, some respect should be given to that determination by the current devs.

Monster memory goes right back to Moria; but the cheat option goes back to Ben, circa 2.7. I'm not sure that the team of people who made the first version of Angband really thought about it much - it certainly wasn't modified very much and remains in much the same form today. So I don't think you can rely on the fact there was an intentional decision about monster memory, because there probably wasn't.

[Mikko Lehtinen]

Yeah, we've not done that in V yet - it is in v4 though. I wonder if it's actually overly complex - I'd probably prefer the ego item flavour approach, so when you learn one flavour of ego item, you can ID them all on sight. Maybe combined with artifact knowledge saved over characters. What do you think?

I like! But what about weapons that only have plusses/minuses?

I'd prefer plusses and minuses on weapons and armour to be always visible. Unidentified ego weapons could be marked with (ego).

After these changes, Identify could be made much rarer and more expensive, to encourage identifying potions and scrolls by use. IMO that's the fun part of the identify system.

EDIT: But actually v4's rune-based system solves the identifying chore with non-ego weapons more elegantly. Simple plusses/minuses are based on runes, too, right? Does the game tell you if a weapon has no runes at all, or do you need to identify it to be sure?

[buzzkill]

If I'm just playing on my own system, it makes no difference that I'm labeled as "cheating", but it's inconvenient for participating in the ladder, competitions, etc. If you want fewer participants in those things then the "cheat" setting serves that purpose.

It's not any less convenient. It's exactly the same.

Competitions and ladder entries is the ONLY reason why this should be an issue (that I can think of). I could care less if you achieve ***WINNER*** status with full info turned on in your own little world. I DO care if you nose me out in a competition, or romp on my ladder entries (to a much lesser extent, but other more serious players may care more) while playing with thumbed down difficulty, and full monster info is a difficulty thing. I go so far as to say if you're using spoilers in lieu of "in game cheats", you should state so in your comments.

Angband isn't a variant. I'd err on the side of original intent and historical precedent. It's not the maintainer's, to do with as they choose. They should strive for minimal change to core gameplay and start a variant if they get the urge to get creative.

Splitting monster memory from the save file is exactly the type of thing the maintainer should be tackling. It's been discussed for years now. It would render this a discussion nearly irrelevant. It would also be hard to do. This is easier.

[Oramin]

Takkaria:

It depends on how far you want to go. The ID mini-game has sped up but people still have to ID things during the course of the game. That's a design concept that you've kept in the game but if speeding things up or making things more convenient is the primary issue then why bother with IDing things at all? And if individual playing style is more important than design integrity then why is having infinite lives flagged as a "cheat" option.

Of course, as I recall, you folks recently removed the "Angels" in favor of "Maia" (I believe, I haven't updated from 3.3.2). While it is more consistent with the Tolkien theme, I think it undermines the earlier artistic choice just like I wouldn't care for removing creatures from Greek mythology or AD&D. That's part of the flavor of the game.

So if you want to change things, well, as you pointed out, this is a "living" game - but it also is "Angband" and not somebody's personal variant. Just consider how far you're changing it from previous versions.

[takkaria]

Takkaria:

It depends on how far you want to go. The ID mini-game has sped up but people still have to ID things during the course of the game. That's a design concept that you've kept in the game but if speeding things up or making things more convenient is the primary issue then why bother with IDing things at all? And if individual playing style is more important than design integrity then why is having infinite lives flagged as a "cheat" option.

Of course, as I recall, you folks recently removed the "Angels" in favor of "Maia" (I believe, I haven't updated from 3.3.2). While it is more consistent with the Tolkien theme, I think it undermines the earlier artistic choice just like I wouldn't care for removing creatures from Greek mythology or AD&D. That's part of the flavor of the game.

So if you want to change things, well, as you pointed out, this is a "living" game - but it also is "Angband" and not somebody's personal variant. Just consider how far you're changing it from previous versions.

Christ, I've been doing this for six years and a half years now, through hundreds of discussions like this and with hundreds of thousands of lines of code that I and other contributors have altered. I'd have to be pretty stupid and throughly uninterested in listening to what anyone else has to say not to have considered how much the game has changed. Please credit the people who have developed the game in the past six years with a bit of intelligence. We're not a bunch of cretins who do stuff willy-nilly with nary a thought about how it affects the big picture.

Everyone wants different things. If you want an Angband true to the original artistic ideas of the original creators, go play 2.4 in a DOS terminal. If you're playing 3.3.2 you're playing a ridiclously easy version anyway. That's probably the biggest change in terms of gameplay compared to earlier versions, so I recommend you back up to 2.9.3 if you're going to complain about game difficulty.

I think people always overlook the fact that if the original maintainers were still here they would probably be making loads of changes that fit in variant territory. There was an earlier version of Angband - before 2.4 - that was entirely internal to the university where it was developed which added all kinds of terrain types, quest levels you could stumble across and probably a bunch of other stuff that never made it to the public record. It got lost though and never released.

[Derakon]

Siding with Takkaria here. The original maintainers ceded their authority to control the direction the game goes in as soon as they stopped controlling its development. If they disagree with what has happened to the game, they are more than welcome to come here, fork the game code, and try to establish a competing "True" Angband. Same goes for anyone else who doesn't like what the latest versions are doing.

In the absence of anyone actually doing that, arguing about the Original Maintainers' Vision is just an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy because the Original Maintainers have no authority. It's also really insulting to the Actual Maintainers, which is the only reason I stuck my nose into this clusterfuck of a thread again.

[Raajaton]

I'm sure there are many things, even in 3.3.2, that was never intended by the original devs. A great many things have been added or changed to the game to make it significantly easier than early versions of the game, so I don't understand why this now suddenly has become such a big issue. Particularly when a) it's an option you do not have to enable in your own playthrough and b) in Oramin's case it would be included in a version of the game he's not likely to play anyway. I know I've read a few posts regarding certain issues that have since been fixed in newer versions, and you haven't updated anyway.

IMO people are free to enjoy the game however they want. The developers are free to make any decisions they want in regards to how to change the game. We're not talking about the constitution here, we're talking about a video game we all play for fun. The beauty of this particular game is that the major versions of the game are archived, so you can continue to play whichever one you decide fits your vision of Angband the best. Let everyone else decide what they like best as well.

[DaviddesJ]

Competitions and ladder entries is the ONLY reason why this should be an issue (that I can think of). I could care less if you achieve ***WINNER*** status with full info turned on in your own little world. I DO care if you nose me out in a competition, or romp on my ladder entries (to a much lesser extent, but other more serious players may care more) while playing with thumbed down difficulty, and full monster info is a difficulty thing. I go so far as to say if you're using spoilers in lieu of "in game cheats", you should state so in your comments.

Monster info, by itself, isn't a difficulty parameter, because the same information is available to everyone in other ways, regardless of what game settings they use.

You can look at the comments from people posting about the game way back to 1993. People say things like, "Don't look at the spoiler files unless you want to take away the surprise." It's a game designed to be fun. Some people have fun being surprised by monsters they come across and have no idea what they do. Some people want to know what the enemies will be able to do so they can fight them with more strategy. Both attitudes toward the game have existed from the very beginning. I think virtually everyone who stuck with the game for more than a few hours came to look at spoilers or get information from online discussions, at least occasionally. But it's up to each of them how they do that.

If you want to create a competition, then you can create whatever competition rules you want. If you want a special ladder for people who have never viewed any spoiler file or ever read a forum posting that would reveal anything about any monster, you could create that. I don't think you would have very many players, though. Oramin says he looks at monster spoilers when he wants, plus he probes all of the monsters so that his subsequent characters can have complete monster info, which gives him the same information that you say players shouldn't have. I think it's pretty hard to find any two people who have exactly the same views as you about this. But I have no problem if you want to give it a shot.

[DaviddesJ]

If arguments about the "original vision" had any weight at all, surely that would apply much more to core gameplay changes that affect everyone whether they like them or not (of which there are plenty!), rather than simple options that anyone can just turn off if they don't like them. Let's remember this whole thread is about one person who is upset at the idea that other people might have an option that the he doesn't want them to have. Or he wants them to only have it if they change one line in their source code before compiling. Or something.

[Oramin]

Christ, I've been doing this for six years and a half years now, through hundreds of discussions like this and with hundreds of thousands of lines of code that I and other contributors have altered. I'd have to be pretty stupid and throughly uninterested in listening to what anyone else has to say not to have considered how much the game has changed. Please credit the people who have developed the game in the past six years with a bit of intelligence. We're not a bunch of cretins who do stuff willy-nilly with nary a thought about how it affects the big picture.

Everyone wants different things. If you want an Angband true to the original artistic ideas of the original creators, go play 2.4 in a DOS terminal. If you're playing 3.3.2 you're playing a ridiclously easy version anyway. That's probably the biggest change in terms of gameplay compared to earlier versions, so I recommend you back up to 2.9.3 if you're going to complain about game difficulty.

I think people always overlook the fact that if the original maintainers were still here they would probably be making loads of changes that fit in variant territory. There was an earlier version of Angband - before 2.4 - that was entirely internal to the university where it was developed which added all kinds of terrain types, quest levels you could stumble across and probably a bunch of other stuff that never made it to the public record. It got lost though and never released.

Takkaria:

Nice tantrum.

I'm getting really fed up with people making straw man arguments about what I'm saying so they can rationalize feeling insulted. I never suggested that you folks were changing the game "willy-nilly".

When the hell does asking people to consider the implications or logical consistency of changes they might make constitute calling them cretins?

I'm sure you've done a bunch of work over the past, what was it, 6.5 years and that you've done a bunch of great work. If you'll recall, when I first posted here, I explicitly thanked the devs for their work in maintaining a great game.

I'm very sorry you feel put upon about me stating my opinion about how Angband should continue to change (or not change) in this *one* particular instance but, quite frankly, your over-reaction seems more the result of defensiveness and not reason.

I applaud the time and work you've put into the game. When you step down, what would you think if the new group of devs decided to roll-back every change that you've ever made? I personally think that it would disrespectful of the time and effort you and the other devs have put it just like having the attitude of "the old devs have no authority" (not an actual quotations) is disrespectful of *their* contributions.

Raajaton is right. I'm probably not going to update anyway *because* of the recent tweaks.

You folks claim to be worried about keeping players to justify your changes. You've just lost this one - which I'm sure will come as a relief to the immature among you.

Oh, and Derakon, the logical fallacy is better described as a "False Appeal to Authority" and you're not even applying it right. The original designers *are* authorities on how they intended to game to be played and therefore pointing out game design features as indicative of how they intended the game was intended to be played is legitimate; the fact that they no longer have the power to alter the current game design is irrelevant to that issue. Here's a link for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Let me guess, you just didn't like me pointing out earlier that you should do people the courtesy of reading their arguments before evaluating them and so you tried to find a similar flaw in my arguments? Frankly, I thought better of you.


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.

I will say, however, I don't think much of the character of people who know that the game is going to label them a cheater for doing something and then try bypass it outside of the parameters of the game. Anybody who wants to think me smug or judgmental for having that attitude is welcome to his or her opinion.

[Oramin]

If arguments about the "original vision" had any weight at all, surely that would apply much more to core gameplay changes that affect everyone whether they like them or not (of which there are plenty!), rather than simple options that anyone can just turn off if they don't like them. Let's remember this whole thread is about one person who is upset at the idea that other people might have an option that the he doesn't want them to have. Or he wants them to only have it if they change one line in their source code before compiling. Or something.

Which is, once again, misrepresenting the argument.

This argument isn't about me being "upset at the idea that other people might have an option that he doesn't want them to have."

The option already exists in the game for monster omniscience and I'm perfectly happy that it remain as it is.

The reason for the discussion is that *you* and others of your opinion wish to *change* the game as it currently exists to reflect *your* view of the preferred set of rules.

As I already indicated, we're only having this discussion because you don't think you should be called a cheater.


I've already explained in great detail why I think it should be considered a cheating option.

From this point on if you wish to continue trying to mischaracterize my point of view then go for it.

If the participants in this thread wish to let you continue getting away with it and reward you for it by giving you what you want then that is their choice. Not, in my opinion, an honorable choice, but their choice nevertheless.

[DaviddesJ]

As I already indicated, we're only having this discussion because you don't think you should be called a cheater.

I don't care what I'm called. I'm way too far along in my life to give a damn what other people think, especially the likes of you. It's just inconvenient to exclude characters from leaderboards, uploads, etc. Those things serve a purpose, they bring people together and make the game more social, and if you exclude half of the players then you lose some of the value. So I think it's worse for the game. But it doesn't affect me personally, either way. I play the same. I just don't upload my characters.

If you're going to stop playing in a fit of pique because I get offered an option that you don't want me to have, well, there's only so much one can do about childish behavior. You ever raise children?

[Derakon]

Frankly, Oramin, I don't care about the rigours of how to have a proper argument here, because it's clear that nobody is ever going to change their minds. It's all about point-scoring, apparently, and I don't want to play that game.

If I thought there was an actual problem we were trying to solve, I'd be much more engaged in this "debate". But it's just a bunch of people shouting past each other and occasionally insulting each other, accidentally or not.

Let this be my last post in this thread; if I come back, someone needs to beat me over the head with a baseball bat. Really, everyone ought to stop posting in this thread, because it's just poisoning the community. Like the bad old days on RGRA when Neo was posting.

[DaviddesJ]

Here's another direct reference as to how one of the designers of Angband 2.4 (Sean Marsh) felt about the game, in 1993:

http://web.mit.edu/games/lib/angband/old/spoilers/specials.hints.gz

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.

None of "you're a cheater". Just, play the way you want.