Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

2006 NetHack Tournament

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the may-those-who-are-about-to-die-salute-you dept.

61

robin writes "With another Halloween here and gone, the fall NetHack season is open once again. The 8th annual /dev/null/nethack Tournament started at midnight on November 1st, and will last through the rest of the month. You may wish to read the instructions and see what trophies are available this year before registering to compete."

cancel ×

61 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Porn (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16744251)

n@n

Re:Porn (2, Informative)

Fjornir (516960) | more than 7 years ago | (#16744743)

That's hawt.

And whoever modded this offtopic has clearly never played nethack.

Re:Porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16745113)

I agree. It's a reference from this comment [slashdot.org] from two years ago.

Re:Porn (1)

Zarel (900479) | more than 7 years ago | (#16746623)

I would've gone with &@&, personally.

Re:Porn (1)

dasunt (249686) | more than 7 years ago | (#16748841)

I would've gone with &@&, personally.

You seek experience, wisdom and a strong constitution.

Different strokes, I guess (1)

Aero (98829) | more than 7 years ago | (#16750099)

Making a sandwich with Orcus and a mail daemon? Whatever floats your boat, I guess...

Re:Porn (1)

tietokone-olmi (26595) | more than 7 years ago | (#16750997)

A softcore man, I see. Here in Europe, we skip the "n"s and go straight (pun intended) to

&@&

Those are incubuses, of course.

Re:Porn (1)

Lord Kestrel (91395) | more than 7 years ago | (#16753791)

I prefer the sucubus.

Just started (1)

wrackedmind (902061) | more than 7 years ago | (#16744469)

I just started playing Nethack, it is such a fantastic game. If I went here I would get smoked. If something like this could ever be made graphical I would eat it alive.

Re:Just started (3, Informative)

wertarbyte (811674) | more than 7 years ago | (#16744597)

There are many gui frontends for nethack, I especially like this one [maemo.org] for my Nokia 770 :-)

Re:Just started (1)

BlueCodeWarrior (638065) | more than 7 years ago | (#16744623)

Try Tiles Mode [wikipedia.org] then...

Re:Just started (3, Informative)

pla (258480) | more than 7 years ago | (#16744647)

If something like this could ever be made graphical I would eat it alive.

Although I think, based on that statement, that you might not quite "get" the charm of NetHack...

Falcon's Eye [users.tkk.fi] does exactly what you ask for, a fully (isometric) 3d interface on top of core game engine.

Re:Just started (2, Informative)

hurfy (735314) | more than 7 years ago | (#16745289)

Semi-informative perhaps...

Appears Falcon's eye is a couple versions old with no updates in many years :(
Vulture's Eye is a *nix GUI replacement for current version.

Appears you have to hack em together yourself for a current windows GUI :(

Darn sounded interesting...always liked the play of nethack and moria.

Re:Just started (2, Informative)

pla (258480) | more than 7 years ago | (#16745413)

Appears you have to hack em together yourself for a current windows GUI :(

Strangely enough, thanks to this Slashdot FP rekindling my ancient almost-beaten addiction to NetHack, I discovered Vuture shortly after I posted.

The newest version (2.1.0) actually supports Windows directly, and runs windowed as well (Falcon's would only run fullscreen). You can grab it from here [darkarts.co.za] .

Re:Just started (1)

misleb (129952) | more than 7 years ago | (#16745447)

Of course, the 3D interfaces are difficult to play. But maybe I'm must too used to having the full dumgeon map laid out in small, succinct characters for maximum information. Falcon's Eye, while nice looking, was unplayable, IMO.

-matthew

Re:Just started (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 7 years ago | (#16752143)

Of course, the 3D interfaces are difficult to play. But maybe I'm must too used to having the full dumgeon map laid out in small, succinct characters for maximum information. Falcon's Eye, while nice looking, was unplayable, IMO.

The problem with normal text mode is that you can't tell a ghost (" ") form a darkened portion of the room (also " ") without specifically looking around. Realistic, perhaps, but also annoying.

I once, long ago, when i still used DOS, found a program that replaced the font with special symbols. It wasn't exactly graphical, but it was just enough to turn the game from ascetic to comfortable. Ah, the hours I spent chasing after succubi...

Er, I mean :|...

Re:Just started (1)

misleb (129952) | more than 7 years ago | (#16754507)

The problem with normal text mode is that you can't tell a ghost (" ") form a darkened portion of the room (also " ") without specifically looking around. Realistic, perhaps, but also annoying.


I think that is kinda the point.

I once, long ago, when i still used DOS, found a program that replaced the font with special symbols. It wasn't exactly graphical, but it was just enough to turn the game from ascetic to comfortable. Ah, the hours I spent chasing after succubi...


I agree, roguelikes are better with some sort of extended ASCII rendering (real line draw characters instead of the generic # walls, for example). The reason more roguelikes don't do it by default is portability. A lot of systems won't display extended ASCII the way DOS did.

-matthew

Re:Just started (1)

connect4 (209782) | more than 7 years ago | (#16760725)

I have been able to get the "IBM graphics" option to work on linux by setting the terminal program (eg gnometerm) encoding to "Western" (not UTF8), then setting TERM=pcansi in the shell and doing "tput reset". Start nethack and set the IBM Graphics and colour option, and this should give you the proper walls, shaded corridors etc

I started playing Hack over twenty years ago on an Olivetti M21, and I've never been able to handle the unix graphics.

On the contrary, (2, Informative)

patio11 (857072) | more than 7 years ago | (#16747679)

... "eat it alive" is exactly the NetHack mentality. Just don't do it to a cockatrice. Bad idea unless you've been polymorphed into something with immunity to stoning, have a ring of anti-petrification, etc. Oh, don't eat Pestilence alive, either. Save that for trolls, it stops them from regenerating. (No, really, I swear: this is Informative, not Funny.)

Re:Just started (3, Insightful)

grumbel (592662) | more than 7 years ago | (#16747823)

The problem with Falcon's Eye and virtually every other NetHack GUI is that they basically only replace the ASCII characters with graphical tiles, they neither change the interface nor gameplay, which however would be needed to have a good looking and well playable graphical client. The result is that the graphic clients still look ugly (no animation, no smooth scrolling, walls don't differ from unexplored terrain, ...) nor play well (gtk dialogs are not what you want to use to navigate nethack, mouse interface is there, but basically unplayable so you need keyboard, ...).

I would love to see a nethack version/fork that adds real current day graphics and interfaces, while staying true to the core of the original game, but so far none of the GUI additions come even close to that, they don't even try.

Re:Just started (1)

AcidLacedPenguiN (835552) | more than 7 years ago | (#16750449)

As far as I know the GUIs aren't supposed to add whizz-bang graphics, I think they're made only to help newbies identify friends, foes, items, and objects. Speaking as a slashdotter who has never had the pleasure of enjoying NetHack simply because I don't have the time nor have taken the effort to memorize each of the ascii chars used, I would probably have an easier time learning with pictures. (bonus points if I can switch between the graphical tiles and the ascii chars on the fly)

Re:Just started (1)

kalirion (728907) | more than 7 years ago | (#16750913)

You know that Diablo is basically a real-time Roguelike. Also, a neat little game called Dungeon Hack [mobygames.com] came out in the early 90s which melded Roguelikes with AD&D (Eye of the Beholder style). I still play it once in a while with DOSBox.

Re:Just started (1)

wrackedmind (902061) | more than 7 years ago | (#16748441)

I play the game in tile based and sometimes classic mode and it is fantastic, I do "get" the charm. You use your imagination. I was not specific enough in my first post, I meant if it was ever fully rendered and well made into a three dimensional modern game that could take what I see in my imagination and perfectly capture it. Which I doubt is going to happen anytime soon. Vultures eye and the Slash'EM mod (I think vultures claw) really hurt the game for someone who has never played it before I think. A game like this is similar to a MUD in that it is (would be) extremely hard to satisfactorily make a modern game (with all the pretty eye candy) which captures the gameplay perfectly and would still hold appeal to the hardcore type gamers I think this game tends to appeal to.

Re:Just started (1)

sixpaw (648825) | more than 7 years ago | (#16744927)

If something like this could ever be made graphical I would eat it alive.
They did. It was called Diablo, and you might have heard something about it...

Re:Just started (1)

misleb (129952) | more than 7 years ago | (#16745519)

They did. It was called Diablo, and you might have heard something about it...


Oh please. They're barely in the same genre. For one thing, Diablo is real-time/action where Nethack is turn based/strategy...

-matthew

Re:Just started (1)

GaryPatterson (852699) | more than 7 years ago | (#16748693)

Diablo started as a turn-based game, but the team made a (very good) decision to go real-time. I read an interview with the devs some years back.

I playeed Angband, a nethack variant set in the First Age of Middle Earth. Well, sort of set then.

Diablo randomly generates levels. Angband randomly generates levels.
Diablo randomly generates a level full of monsters, including a handful of 'boss' monsters. Angband does the same, but the special levels are far harder and can contain many 'boss' monsters.
Diablo has a range of randomly-generated items scattered through the level and left behind by monsters. Angband has the same.
Diablo has a very limited range of items and monsters. Angband has many times more.

After thoroughly playing Diablo one and two, I got the feeling that it was "Angband lite" - prettier but with less substance. I sold my copies of D1 and D2 and returned to Angband. I was much happier, although I was forced to imagine more.

Re:Just started (1)

misleb (129952) | more than 7 years ago | (#16752821)

Diablo started as a turn-based game, but the team made a (very good) decision to go real-time. I read an interview with the devs some years back.


Whether or not the developers started Diablo as turn-based is irrelevent. It isn't turn-based. The turn-based nature of Nethack (and since you brought it up, Andband) is one of the primary features that makes the (sub)genre we call "roguelike" in which Diablo is not included.

Diablo randomly generates levels. Angband randomly generates levels.


Lots of games randomly generate things.

Diablo randomly generates a level full of monsters, including a handful of 'boss' monsters. Angband does the same, but the special levels are far harder and can contain many 'boss' monsters.


The *bands, and rouguelikes, in general are not nearly as focused on 'bosses' as Diablo was (note, I only played II). In roguelikes, they are often call "uniques." Nethack has surprisingly few uniques if you think about it. Rogue didn't have any that I am aware of. It is not a primary feature of a the (sub)genre. The focus in roguelikes is on the common monsters and trying not to die Yet Another Stupid Death. In Diablo, death is rather inconsequential. Just restore from a save game...

Diablo has a range of randomly-generated items scattered through the level and left behind by monsters. Angband has the same.


Methinks you are pushing this "randomly generated" commonality too far. It is common in nearly all RPG games for monsters to carry loot that is randomly generated to some degree or another.

Diablo has a very limited range of items and monsters. Angband has many times more.


Wow. They both have a range of items and monsters. Imagine that.

After thoroughly playing Diablo one and two, I got the feeling that it was "Angband lite" - prettier but with less substance. I sold my copies of D1 and D2 and returned to Angband. I was much happier, although I was forced to imagine more.


No, Rogue was Angband-lite (if it is fair to compare games a decade or more apart). Diablo was a real-time RPG that allowed you to save your progression.

-matthew

Re:Just started (1)

GaryPatterson (852699) | more than 7 years ago | (#16764869)

Ah. Someone who responds to every sentence.

We clearly disagree, and that you refer to Diablo as a RPG shows you clearly haven't played a real RPG. Like NetHack, it's a dungeon crawler. Sadly it never had the variety of NetHack, Angband or many variants. It's just dull. Levels full of one type of monster or (shock gasp!) two! The excitement was just... never there.

Nice that you enjoyed it though. It was very popular, but as someone who likes a lot more substance I found it boring. I'm clearly out of step with the gaming community.

Re:Just started (1)

misleb (129952) | more than 7 years ago | (#16769365)

How can we disagree? I don't even think we are having the same conversation. It might help if you actually responded to my points directly instead of pretending they never existed. You seem to think that I am expounding upon the virtues of Diablo. I'm just saying that it isn't in the same class as roguelikes like Nethack or Angband. Not because rouguelikes are better or more interesting (although I agree that they are), but just because roguelikes are a class of their own. The styles of gameplay are just different. There are, in fact, graphical frontends for Nethack. And they aren't Diablo.

-matthew

Re:Just started (2, Informative)

HanClinto (621615) | more than 7 years ago | (#16746177)

I see that many other people here have suggested Vultures/Falcon's Eye. That one's okay, but I don't like the fixed isometric perspective or the way it handles mouse navigation. My personal favorite has been [url=http://www.darkarts.co.za/projects/noegnud/]n oeGNUd[/url] -- it's got fairly recent builds for Windows, the text-based pseudo-graphical tile sets that are available are well done (like a little red "d" with a white tip for a fox). I also really like the way it does 3d, with letting you spin the camera around with the mouse and check out the field of play from different angles. I highly recommend it.

Happy hacking!

Re:Just started (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 7 years ago | (#16753597)

I just started playing Nethack, it is such a fantastic game. If I went here I would get smoked. If something like this could ever be made graphical I would eat it alive.

Graphics just get in the way. Eventually you just "see" through the characters and your imagination does the rest. Use the console, and use the 'hjkl' keys. These are essential for the complete nethack experience.

Above all, don't give up. I started playing in 2002 and just ascended this year. It's so worth it.

dupe (1)

sdaemon (25357) | more than 7 years ago | (#16744555)

dupe from several days ago.

I *heart* nethack (3, Interesting)

joe 155 (937621) | more than 7 years ago | (#16744577)

Nethack is an ace game, I usually play as a male human neutral ranger, and over my few games I've gradually been getting deeper - so far I could win one award, well, I say award it is "Killed By A Trickery", which happened to me today... all the word text from pick ups got stuck on parts of the screen so I couldn't tell what was an enemy and then I was killed very slyly by something random like a cyote...

By the way, what is a good level to get to on nethack for a short game after having been playing for a little while?

Re:I *heart* nethack (3, Informative)

AdamTrace (255409) | more than 7 years ago | (#16744767)

I think completing the Gnomish Mines and Sokoban are good goals for a newbie player... Afterwards follow the Quest, Medusa, and the Castle...

Re:I *heart* nethack (1)

misleb (129952) | more than 7 years ago | (#16745235)

You should at least be able to get to the castle (killed by a drawbridge lately?) often. Although, sadly, I often don't make it through the gnomish mines. Once I make it through there, i'm usually in for a good long game.

My favorite character is a valkyrie. Gauntlets of Power + Mjollnir == serious ass kicking.

Although I don't play Nethack anymore. I'm a total ToME [t-o-m-e.net] convert.

-matthew
 

Re:I *heart* nethack (1)

MilenCent (219397) | more than 7 years ago | (#16749615)

Bring killed by a trickery, on a multi-user system, practically always means killed by a game bug. If you were playing it on the tournament site then it's probably because of a bug in the patch they use to implement this year's "challenge."

Trickeries occur when the game notices a problem with a save file or one of the temporary level files that causes it to suspect they have been tampered with. Thus, game bugs can also cause them, although "panic" and "killed by a collapsing dungeon" are also possible responses.

NetHack GUI for OS X (1)

MBCook (132727) | more than 7 years ago | (#16744619)

Does anyone know of a good NetHack GUI for OS X? All I've found is the old Carbon version, and something based on QT. They are both incredibly ugly. I also know there is the command line version, but I fell in love with the Windows GUI and I was wondering if anyone knew of a similar GUI for OS X?

As for me? I'm terrible. I have gotten to the end of the Gnomish mines two or three times. Doing that and getting back up to the main dungeon then down a few levels is my biggest accomplishment.

Re:NetHack GUI for OS X (1)

Bongo Bill (853669) | more than 7 years ago | (#16745239)

I don't know about a GUI, but if an ugly tileset is your only problem, you could replace it with this one [olywa.net] , my personal favorite.

Re:NetHack GUI for OS X (1)

misleb (129952) | more than 7 years ago | (#16745355)

Mind if I ask what you need a GUI for? If I remember correctly, the Windows version isn't significantly different than the old fashioned console version. Do you need tiles? Personally, I won't use anything that doesn't show monsters as letters. There is no better way to identify/classify the myriad of monsters in Nethack than letters. The tiles are usually too small to be very informative. And not knowing what you are up against is usually fatal.

-matthew

Re:NetHack GUI for OS X (1)

ClamIAm (926466) | more than 7 years ago | (#16747133)

I heard terminal.app is pretty good.

Re:NetHack GUI for OS X (2, Insightful)

Slashcrap (869349) | more than 7 years ago | (#16749449)

Does anyone know of a good NetHack GUI for OS X? All I've found is the old Carbon version, and something based on QT. They are both incredibly ugly.

So not only do you need a GUI to play a fundamentally text based game but you're complaining that the window decorations on the GUI you have clash with your oh-so-pretty OSX.

Are you trying to be a parody of the whiniest, most irritating Mac user ever created or are you just like that in real life?

Rogue season. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16744707)

> "With another Halloween here and gone, the fall NetHack season is open once again.

daffy: Rogue season!
bugs: Nethack season!
daffy: Rogue season!
bugs: Nethack season!
daffy: Rogue season!
bugs: Rogue season!
daffy: Nethack season! Fire!
@: *BLAM*
daffy was killed by a buwwet

*reload*

daffy: OK. This time you start it.
bugs: Right! Rogu-
daffy: Nethack! FIRE!
@: *BLAM*

daffy takes 10 HP of damage.

@: *click*
@: WTF? No more buwwets.
daffy: No more buwwets?
bugs: Hey laughing boy, no more buwwets!
@: has been pickpocketed by a duck
daffy: *BLAM* @: Well whaddya know! One buwwet weft!
bugs: Hey laughing boy! There was o
daffy: I know, I KNOW!

daffy has been killed by one buwwet weft.

Re:Rogue season. (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#16749911)

What would be the analogue of Elmer Fudd season?

If stuck... (3, Informative)

ZzzzSleep (606571) | more than 7 years ago | (#16745033)

If you need some help, here are some of the best places to visit.
rec.games.roguelike.nethack [google.com] .
Dylan O'Donnell's nethack spoiler page [spod-central.org] .

Enjoy and good luck everybody!

Re:If stuck... (1)

aero2600-5 (797736) | more than 7 years ago | (#16746959)

For my information, I personally like Wikihack [wikia.com] . It has just about everything.

Of course, I'm still not that great at the game. I've gotten to the quest portion, but only by savescumming [wikia.com] . I know it's frowned upon, but savescumming is a good way to learn what the hell you're doing. And when I did get to the quest, I wasn't high enough level to start it, which sucked because there were two liches (a master lich [wikia.com] and an arch-lich [wikia.com] ) on the same level as the quest master. That sucked.

Aero

Re:If stuck... (2, Interesting)

ZzzzSleep (606571) | more than 7 years ago | (#16749001)

It may sound strange, but your skills will improve once you stop savescumming. I used to savescum, but wouldn't be able to keep motivated to keep playing. Once I stopped, my playstyle improved and I was able to ascend. When you savescum, there is no need to constantly improve your character, because you can always restart at the last save point.

Re:If stuck... (1)

aero2600-5 (797736) | more than 7 years ago | (#16749819)

Actually, I agree with you completely. I can honestly say that taking one rogue to level 12 by savescumming did help me a lot, though. I learned a lot about the creatures I need to be on the lookout for. I haven't done it since that character.

You're right though. Saving it like that does make the game pretty boring pretty quickly. But dying constantly also makes it pretty boring.

aero

Re:If stuck... (1)

SQLGuru (980662) | more than 7 years ago | (#16751267)

I'd recommend one pass through the game in Wizard mode (see documentation on how to enable it). You get to see everything and it doesn't resort to save scumming (since you can prevent death). Plus, you don't pollute the high score table. Then, try to repeat in normal mode. Repeat until successful.

Layne

Re:If stuck... (2, Insightful)

jandrese (485) | more than 7 years ago | (#16757369)

I second that thought. One thing I've never much liked about Nethack is that as you get better you can often make games last for hours before finding a situation you've never encountered before, but handling the situation wrong (and the proper solution isn't correct) basically just dumps you back at level 1 with nothing. That gets disheartening real fast because there are a lot of dangers on the lower levels that can kill or screw you over in a single action and basically stop your 12 hour run right on the spot. I also get kinda tired of fighting the same low level enemies over and over again just to get to the parts of the game I havn't seen yet.

The "death is final" aspect of Nethack (and in fact almost all roguelike games) is both a blessing and a curse. It's a blessing because it means the game has a ton of replay value, because you'll need thousands of hours to discover everything in it (because you have to grind the low levels so many times), but it's a curse that keeps the game on the fringe because most people will shut it down and not start it again if they get 5 hours into the game and then lose everything to what is basically an unavoidable situation.

I'm not sure if there is any real solution to this. You could have a set number of lives, but that will make the game too easy for people who have spent 20 years mastering it (and really, these are the people who do the most development). I have a sneaking suspicion that if this were the case then they would feel compelled to make some other aspect of the game even harder. That said, there are certainly no lack of extra-hard nethack clones available (I played on once on the Mac where spells would "burn out" if you used them too often (20 casts was enough to burn out the "fireball" spell, but even just 50 Magic Missiles would burn it out, and once it was burnt out you had no way (that I found) of ever casting that spell again), which make Wizards really hard to play.

Don't forget to read up . . . (1)

greenreaper (205818) | more than 7 years ago | (#16745051)

You can find just about every spoiler at Wikihack [wikia.com] , along with a whole lot more than you ever needed to know.

TIme to head into the dungeons... (1)

TopShelf (92521) | more than 7 years ago | (#16745405)

Goodbye, dear family - if all goes well, I'll bring a D's tooth back for each of you.

Re:TIme to head into the dungeons... (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 7 years ago | (#16753627)

D's don't leave teeth. That's w. D leave scales.

Local Networked Nethack? (1)

Jonah Hex (651948) | more than 7 years ago | (#16745783)

What about a networked game locally of Nethack? My daughter's computer is an old piece of junk, and I've been looking for games we can network together. Of course I'd want a GUI frontend like Falcon's Eye, but for the server I can put it on either Linux or Windows.

Jonah HEX

Re:Local Networked Nethack? (1)

Fjornir (516960) | more than 7 years ago | (#16747231)

Dunno about nethack but there are multiplayer angbands.

Re:Local Networked Nethack? (1)

6350' (936630) | more than 7 years ago | (#16747807)

Yes, there are multiplayer variants of a number of roguelikes. The url in name/blrb deal above is to a multiplayer Angband variant that I'm a big fan of.

Now, we all know that Diablo draws some clear inspiration from Roguelikes (randomly generated dungeons in a stack under a town, with the main bad dude at the bottom). However, I recently hear tale that originally, Diablo was turn-based! It ran, thus, almost completely like a graphical roguelike. One programmer thought it would be a fun game if it were to be made to run in real time. He didn't get much support for this, so he modified the game as a side project. Once his coworkers at Blizzard gave his realtime version a shot, they knew they had a winner.

But it's not nethack (1)

stry_cat (558859) | more than 7 years ago | (#16750451)

The two challenges -- the grues and the no-Elbereth -- really make the game not nethack. The first challenge cuts off the mines and any dark room until you find a magic lamp or learn the light spell. These are things that don't usually happen until you've done most of the mines or made it down to the castle. Plus without the mines your character will not gain the 3-6 levels and asorted items it needs to survive the big room and below. Not to mention that it makes trapdoors almost an instadeath if you happen to land in a dark room.

And lets talk about the 2nd challenge which takes away Elbereth. Usually I only need the E-word when I'm a weak char and have a horde of "a"'s or "q"'s heading for me. By the time I'm strong enough to fight the Wizard the E-word might as well be forgotten. The challenge really shows how the game is too hard to start with and how underequipped our heros are when they enter the dungeon. Would you go on such a quest with only your char's starting equipment and knowledge?

Sure you can ignore the challenges, but lets face it no one is going to respect you if you do.

The only way to win is to not play the game.

Re:But it's not nethack (1)

HanClinto (621615) | more than 7 years ago | (#16752721)

Sure you can ignore the challenges, but lets face it no one is going to respect you if you do.


I've happily ignored both challenges and feel no qualms about either. I'm kindof sorry I ignored the Grue challenge as it sounds like it could be a lot of fun, but I'm plodding ahead regardless. I don't feel that I've lost any "respect" from my Nethack-playing-peers, as if that's what I was playing the game for. Personally I think Robin has done a great job with the tournament and I for one welcome him as our Nethack-tourney-overlord. :)

Wait... (1)

Hrothgar The Great (36761) | more than 7 years ago | (#16753115)

So, no one will respect you if you ignore the challenges, but they WILL if you complain about the challenges and then completely refuse to play...? Is that where we're at here?

I love the Grue challenge. I've decided to ignore the KOL challenge because there is no way I'm getting anywhere near the Wizard during this tournament anyway (because I suck). As for the darkness, though, all you need is a wand of light and a wand of digging (or a pickaxe), and you can buy a lamp in the Gnome town. I've made it that far on every game so far, despite the darkness.

I really don't understand why there are so many really good Nethack players who complain about new content in the game. If you're able to ascend so frequently, then maybe the game isn't challenging enough for you. Try something new.

Re:But it's not nethack (1)

Miaomiao (618330) | more than 7 years ago | (#16753471)

Actually I very rarely use the E-word for just repelling monsters, and the swarms of a's and q's are better avoided by other means (such as dancing away and throwing things at them).

Most commonly (unless I'm going illiterate) I use the Elbereth to keep things such as b's away from my stashes (mainly the gelotonous variety). Coming back to find your massive cache of scrolls has been eaten or dragged all over the map by intelligent monsters is not a pretty site. Especially the large box gets eaten by a b, b gets killed, G picks up the / o' death and you're currently playing with an incubus when you meet it. Unlikely, but it can happen.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>