The Monster Memory

[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.

[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.

[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?

[DaviddesJ]

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.

You just can't stop telling other people how to play, can you?

[Djabanete]

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

Thanks, you don't need to tell me that. Nonetheless, there are novice players out there for whom the game has more appeal with monster knowledge, and the preference is orthogonal to game difficulty.

[Timo Pietilä]

Thanks, you don't need to tell me that. Nonetheless, there are novice players out there for whom the game has more appeal with monster knowledge, and the preference is orthogonal to game difficulty.

If you mean independent by that orthogonal, how can you be sure that is the case? Are they using it as monster reference without actually playing the game and enjoying the monsters before meeting them? Something like that?

[Timo Pietilä]

You just can't stop telling other people how to play, can you?

That was statement of fact, and advice how to play. You want me to stop giving people advices? How nice. Be douche, I'm setting you in ignore list so don't wonder if I'm no longer answering to your messages.

[DaviddesJ]

You want me to stop giving people advices?

"You're doing it wrong, you should play like I do instead of how you like to play" is not "advice". If people ask for suggestions, that's advice. When people tell you what they like and you tell them they should do something different, that's something entirely different.

I'm delighted to hear this is the end of this.

[jrodman]

I think the idea of checking to see if something breathes *disenchantment* goes a long way beyond survival. Do you care if your artifacts get screwed up? Maybe you don't, but to me it's worse than dying.

Similarly, at other depths things like fire or acid are pretty dang important towards not set back bigtime.

Really I'd rather see monster memory expanded, made better persisted in some fashion (account?) and more UI key to it (make it easy to see if something afflicts with acid by configuration) as opposed to reduced in relevance. A variant where the monsters are randomized on start or 'request' might make the memory quite interesting again. If it could be semi-balanced?

[Timo Pietilä]

I think the idea of checking to see if something breathes *disenchantment* goes a long way beyond survival. Do you care if your artifacts get screwed up? Maybe you don't, but to me it's worse than dying.

Dang, I hoped you wouldn't bring that into discussion. I agree.

For that reason I value resist disenchantment very high and try to keep it on if I possibly can even if it means going with sub-optimal gear.

IMO we need a better monster descriptions with hints, maybe even some monster lore scrolls beyond probing (while probing is good way to add info to monster memory, it is also not important enough that you would like to use slot for that).

Maybe also use some sort of monster family info: baby MHD breathes fire/cold/elec/acid/poison, so it would be quite obvious that other bigger versions of the same monster do the same.

Amnesia temporarily should make monster memory vanish.

Really I'd rather see monster memory expanded, made better persisted in some fashion (account?) and more UI key to it (make it easy to see if something afflicts with acid by configuration) as opposed to reduced in relevance. A variant where the monsters are randomized on start or 'request' might make the memory quite interesting again. If it could be semi-balanced?

Separate monster memory from char. Maybe link it to the char during birth process (so that you can have multiple memory files).

Random monster idea is intriguing but I would imagine really nightmarish to balance.

[Djabanete]

If you mean independent by that orthogonal, how can you be sure that is the case?

Because they said so, obviously. It's not about difficulty, it's about what kind of game they want to play. They want to play the game where they make informed strategy decisions, just like you and me. You and I both played the subgame where our best characters died because we didn't know we could be stunned by Mystics or we didn't know that Kavlax breathes gravity, etc. But since we're on the topic, I feel I should explain to the thread that some newbies who love Angband hate that subgame.

Frankly I think that this subgame is not very essential, because we all still love Angband and haven't played that subgame for years. And if anyone does want to play the subgame, it will always be there, probably as the default option.

[Timo Pietilä]

You and I both played the subgame where our best characters died because we didn't know we could be stunned by Mystics or we didn't know that Kavlax breathes gravity, etc.

I actually never played that subgame where you get killed. I don't need that info the way I play the game. One rule: if you don't know it, assume it can kill you. Double so if it is faster than you.

[debo]

Yeah, I totally disagree with that ^. I already assume everything can kill me, but I dunno how you can claim there's a specific way to play that can guard you against all threats.

When I fight a monster, I would at least like to know:

a) How much damage can it do per round in melee
b) What special powers does it have (breaths, summons, drains, etc)
c) What side-effects do those specials have (disenchant, nexus scramble, etc)
d) How fast is the thing
e) What do I (potentially) get for killing it

Sil tells me all of these things (and more) when I have monster memory, and I can get all monster memory by buying an ability called Loremaster. Players who would rather not have all of this (or who would rather discover it or remember it on their own) can opt to skip it.

I think it's difficult for V to tell me (a), which is fair. (c) is a short-list that can be looked up (i.e. if it breathes disenchant, I can look up 'disenchant' to learn that it blasts my equipment).

If you'd rather be surprised by those things, or have them vaguely hinted to in monster descriptions, that's fine. If you want to define it as 'cheating' to know those things, that is also fine. I just think that's not very much fun.

Someone made the argument earlier that most monsters are 'Tolkienien' and you can infer what they're going to do by their type. Um, lol? Jabberwocks, Dracholichs, Kavlaxes, angels of death and fire, Black Reavers... the list of wtf monsters goes on forever. And even Tolkienien monsters behave way out of their archetype (I wouldn't expect smeagol to blink, nor would I expect Saruman to ruin my equipment by hitting me.)

Another argument was that it's not fair for people using spoilers to be ranked on the ladder. Um, also lol. I came to this site when I first started playing V as a total noob. I asked questions on the forums and used the (outdated) spoilers feature because they were both available on the site. I assumed they were both fair game. I posted my dude on the ladder when I won. Is that also cheating? If so, why are we encouraging players to 'cheat' by having that section on the community site?

I'm sort of suspicious of people who have been playing the game for +inf years making broad judgments as to what a newbie needs to know to succeed. That's like me writing C++ for 20 years and then presuming I understand exactly what difficulties a new C++ programmer is going to have when just getting started. If you want to say "well that's the game, we want newbies to go through that learning experience", then that's a gameplay judgment that I think is bad, but I imagine others would like it. I would rather see that sort of thing in a shorter game, though.

[HallucinationMushroom]

This would be a more interesting tl;dr thread, if only it were about Nethack, with all of its shit-tastically fucked-up-edness. Because, damn... I think you would just about have to spoiler yourself to win that one, right? Has anyone ever won that unspoilered?

What you really need is just a purity formula, so you can calculate just how pure your victory is against everyone elses, if you care. Just mark yes or no to the following 200 questions on this survey...

[Djabanete]

I actually never played that subgame where you get killed. I don't need that info the way I play the game. One rule: if you don't know it, assume it can kill you. Double so if it is faster than you.

I'm happy to hear it, Timo. It really sucks to lose a good character to abilities that you didn't know existed.

If you're simply going to disbelieve that some new players would get more enjoyment out of Angband with a monster knowledge option, then so be it. My personal experience introducing new players to the game will not convince you.