Did new monsters appear randomly in the map while player explores the dungeon level?

[lea2501]

I noticed that several times, i encounter new sleeping monsters at places that i were before and that previously the monsters were not there, i mean, like the new monsters suddendly appeared from the void as it the dungeon level were just generated.

It's really the way it happen? or the undiscovered monsters from the dungeon wake up, walk a little, and then sleep again? im really curious.

[Derakon]

New monsters spawn in as time passes. They shouldn't spawn close to you but they will continue to arrive. Generally this means the level gets more dangerous as time passes.

[lea2501]

So, if i stay in place and rest thousands of turns, the map will be full of monsters? its for a number of turns? or random between values of turns? its so interesting, thanks!

[Sideways]

So, if i stay in place and rest thousands of turns, the map will be full of monsters?

After a sufficiently long rest, yes; but it will take quite a while. There's a 1 in 500 chance of new monsters being generated each turn.

It was a lot easier to notice in older versions of Angband; the chance was higher (1 in 160), pack sizes were larger (so larger groups of new monsters would appear), and playstyles were different (people spent more time on levels, and were more likely to clear them fully instead of just passing through or having a quick look). But as you've discovered, it can still be noticed

[Pete Mack]

Also, monsters were always generated awake.

[lea2501]

After a sufficiently long rest, yes; but it will take quite a while. There's a 1 in 500 chance of new monsters being generated each turn.

It was a lot easier to notice in older versions of Angband; the chance was higher (1 in 160), pack sizes were larger (so larger groups of new monsters would appear), and playstyles were different (people spent more time on levels, and were more likely to clear them fully instead of just passing through or having a quick look). But as you've discovered, it can still be noticed

I found funny, that you described my natural playing style, i usually clear levels before going down the next level, more so if the level feeling for treasures is above 4, lol, you said that in the past, people tend to play like me, clearing levels, why have people changed their playing style then? im curious

[Philip]

The short version is, if you clear levels, you spend less time at the optimal depth for your character. Optimal depth being understood as a sort of risk/reward function, where you weigh the rate of acquiring power against the chance of dying, keeping in mind that a) acquiring power reduces the chance of dying, meaning acquiring power is more valuable than it intuitively seems, because it also reduces the time until you win, meaning there's less time in which to die (if you die 5x more per turn, but on average take 10% of turns to win the game than you ordinarily would, then you will win twice as many games as you would otherwise) b) boredom and overconfidence from hanging around low risk areas can increase your chance of dying because you lose focus and c) if you play for wins/time and not wins/character, then increasing the rate of power acquisition at the cost of high chance of dying is worthwhile, because if you die, then you can just immediately make a new character.

Ultimately, if you are diligent and/or value winning with as many of your characters as possible, rather than as many times as possible in a set amount of time, then level-clearing can be correct. Also some characters with poor stealth and detection handle being deep worse than others. That said, even then you should feel free to leave any level at any time, just because your optimal depth is shallow doesn't mean you should clear every level you enter. Ultimately the reason not to stay on levels and clear them (unless you feel like playing that way and don't care about "optimal" play, which is a completely valid and correct way to play) is that there is no particular mechanical reason to do so. Level feelings are too vague to be an interesting indicator past the first couple levels (and even then you can find useless stuff), and the new level is, on average, roughly the same as the old one, except the new level hasn't had new monsters spawn in on it yet, so is probably safer.

[lea2501]

Optimal depth being understood as a sort of risk/reward function, where you weigh the rate of acquiring power against the chance of dying

Thanks for the big and detailed answer! i really appreciated it.

I some "let's play" videos y watched about angband at the time i was learning how to play it, i remembered the guy telling that one common strategy is to have the player level 4 times ahead of the dungeon level, but lately, i feel more like diving and leveling killing monsters that give me more experience, like you told before, is like the risk of dying pays really well.

Level feelings are too vague to be an interesting indicator past the first couple levels (and even then you can find useless stuff), and the new level is, on average, roughly the same as the old one, except the new level hasn't had new monsters spawn in on it yet, so is probably safer.

But usually when the monster feeling is like above 7, like 8 and 9, i see like rooms filled with really difficult monsters. Some time i kill some or all, and other times the enemyes are not worth the risk, like monsters that can reduce strength, experience, constitution, and the like. I mean, i really found it useful as an indicator of what could i find in the level, and its usually true.

[Sky]

Also, monsters were always generated awake.

are you totally sure this is right?

[DavidMedley]

if you die 5x more per turn, but on average take 10% of turns to win the game than you ordinarily would, then you will win twice as many games as you would otherwise

What are the numbers behind this maxim? Really rough order-of-magnitude calculation:
10% win rate
100,000 turns to win
Let SSR be Safe Survival Rate
SSR^100,000 = 0.1
SSR = 0.99997697441
Let RSR be Risky Survival Rate
RSR = 0.99988487207
RSR ^ 90,000 = 0.00003160768
1 in 30,000 wins?

1% win rate
100,000 turns to win
SSR = 0.99995394935
RSR = 0.99976974679
RSR ^ 90,000 = Really low... I think one in a million?

[Derakon]

are you totally sure this is right?

I'm sure. In older versions, monsters that spawned into the level after you entered it were always generated awake.

What are the numbers behind this maxim? Really rough order-of-magnitude calculation:

Let's say that any given action has a 1 in 400000 chance of killing you. We can call this a super-"safe" playstyle, where you strive to avoid any risk that can be avoided and don't dive until you feel secure. Your odds of not dying in your first 100k turns then is (399999/400000)^100000 ~= 78%. If you take 200k turns then your odds of survival drop to ~60%. 400k turns and it drops to ~37%.

Now let's say that any given action has a 1 in 200000 chance of killing you. Twice as dangerous! Now your odds of not dying in your first 100k turns is ~60%, and of surviving 200k turns is 37% (it happens that the math works out that way: (199/200)^100 ~= (399/400)^200).

Now obviously these odds-of-dying numbers are made up, but hopefully it illustrates the principle. Anecdotally, when I see winning dumps posted by the "slow and careful" players, they tend to have turn counts north of 200k, while fast players usually come in under 100k.

With the death odds posted above, two such characters would have equal odds of having died prior to victory, but one has twice as much real-world time invested in it. So if your metric for success is "victories per real-world hour", then an aggressive playstyle seems appropriate. On the other hand, if your metric for success is cumulative victory rate (e.g. you're going for a win streak), then a slower and more methodical style makes sense.

[Pete Mack]

Back in the day, slow and careful meant (roughly) over 1,000,000 game turns, often well over that.

[DavidMedley]

if you die 5x more per turn, but on average take 10% of turns to win the game than you ordinarily would, then you will win twice as many games as you would otherwise.

I see now that I misread this. I thought he meant 10% less turns, but he means 10% total turns aka 90% less turns. Yeah, that kind of speed would be worth some risks!!

[Sideways]

Back in the day, slow and careful meant (roughly) over 1,000,000 game turns, often well over that.

Game turns are different from player turns, though; and the V ladder displays player turns now. 1,000,000 game turns wouldn't stand out as an exceptionally slow run even today.