Demogorgon & Yeenoghu

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Martin Read wrote:
> Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote:
>
>>What reserve sources? I have had TC in *all* my games in which I
>>ascended, but I think that in about half of them I never got another
>>source of TC than the single ring of TC that I had found or wished for.

> Unless you are relying on black dragons and 'trice flesh to kill Rodney
> every time, it is unlikely that you never found another perfectly
> reliable source of teleport control in a successful game. You just have
> to be willing to take the Luck hit if you're human.

I am not sure what you are saying here. I said that I had teleport
control in all my successful games and that in about half of them this
was by a ring and I encountered only one ring of TC during the game.
Are you saying this is an unlikely sequence of events (and thus implying
that I was either very unlucky or lying)? What I said also means that
in the other half of successful games I got TC eventually by eating a
tengu corpse or had more than one ring of TC.

Or maybe you are saying that eating Rodney will give you TC at 100%.
I know that eating Rodney gives you TC (but was not sure that it is
100%), but I don't really see the point doing so, since I always make
sure to have TC before attacking Rodney, so I do have a ring of TC (or
TC from a tengu) and reflection. The only reason then would be to free
a ring slot, which you do not need before the planes, when it will
become free anyway. So the point is, you get this source of TC too late
in the game for it to be useful in rendering reflection "inessential".
You don't attack Rodney before being ready for ascension. Going without
reflection may then destroy your ring and your TC long before that
point. (Of course, things would be different when playing the conduct
of reflectionlessness - then eating Rodney might make sense.)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Jakob Creutzig wrote:
> David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>
>
>>Quoting KASSNER Klaus <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
>>
>>>Jakob Creutzig wrote:

> TC is extremely useful for shortening your journey back
> to lvl 1, thus diminishing the risk of a Rodney-related
> YAA/SD. However, before going for the amulet, I'm
> always resourceful enough to get tengi-TC.

Tengu-TC. Then you'll either have to wait for a long time or you see
more tengu in your games than I do in mine. Also, if you have to wait
that long and have everything else in your ascension kit, you might as
well go ahead and get TC from eating Rodney. But since you should have
teleportitis and TC before, you might as well keep your ring as source
of TC for the relatively short period between killing Rodney and the
plane of earth. It is rare that you need both ring slots for other
rings before the planes, and actually it happens only on levels where
you can't teleport anyway.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de> writes:

> Or maybe you are saying that eating Rodney will give you TC at 100%.
> I know that eating Rodney gives you TC (but was not sure that it is
> 100%),

According to

http://www.geocities.com/dcorbett42/nethack/corpse.htm,

it doesn't. It's 25%. But then, I can't check with wizmode,
so just CMIIW. (I never ate Rodney til now, mostly for
role-playing reasons.)

Best,
Jakob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de> writes:

> Jakob Creutzig wrote:
> > David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> >
> >>Quoting KASSNER Klaus <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
> >>
> >>>Jakob Creutzig wrote:
>
> > TC is extremely useful for shortening your journey back to lvl 1,
> > thus diminishing the risk of a Rodney-related YAA/SD. However,
> > before going for the amulet, I'm always resourceful enough to get
> > tengi-TC.
>
> Tengu-TC. Then you'll either have to wait for a long time or you see
> more tengu in your games than I do in mine.

I usually polypile for or just write ?oGs. After all, there are very
few scrolls which are really useful in the later game. Two c?oG
usually are more than enough to get TC.

Best,
Jakob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Jakob Creutzig wrote:
> Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de> writes:
>
>
>>Jakob Creutzig wrote:
>>
>>>David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Quoting KASSNER Klaus <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Jakob Creutzig wrote:
>>
>>>TC is extremely useful for shortening your journey back to lvl 1,
>>>thus diminishing the risk of a Rodney-related YAA/SD. However,
>>>before going for the amulet, I'm always resourceful enough to get
>>>tengi-TC.
>>
>>Tengu-TC. Then you'll either have to wait for a long time or you see
>>more tengu in your games than I do in mine.
>
>
> I usually polypile for or just write ?oGs. After all, there are very
> few scrolls which are really useful in the later game. Two c?oG
> usually are more than enough to get TC.

Ah, that's true. You don't have to wait for them to appear... So if I
really feel I need that slot for another ring or I want to go
reflectionless, I'll do that.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Quoting Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
>David Damerell wrote:
>>Quoting KASSNER Klaus <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
>>>It is not just *convenient*. It is quite often that my PC has teleport
>>>control only from a ring. Tengu are not that frequent and they don't
>>>give TC at 100%. If that ring is destroyed by a wand of lightning, your
>>>game may be destroyed as well.
>>Huh? I can see you might get into a situation where you're messed up
>>without TC, but obviously a no-reflection player wouldn't do that without
>>reserve sources of TC, if prudent.
>What reserve sources?

I'm not saying "you will have reserve sources". I am saying "if prudent
and no reflection, you won't get into a situation where the lack of TC
messes things up terminally unless you happen to have a reserve source".

What you don't seem to have justified is the "TC destroyed" => "game
destroyed" link.

>I am not talking about no-reflection conduct, by the way. Conducts are
>a different matter, and they are not an argument against regarding
>reflection essential in a regular game.

Well, yes, they are. If one can ascend reliably without reflection,
clearly it is not essential, just as the regular survivor ascensions show
us that lifesaving is not essential.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is Wednesday, April.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Quoting Jakob Creutzig <creutzig@mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de>:
>David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>>Quoting KASSNER Klaus <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
>>>It is not just *convenient*. It is quite often that my PC has teleport
>>>control only from a ring. Tengu are not that frequent and they don't
>>>give TC at 100%. If that ring is destroyed by a wand of lightning, your
>>>game may be destroyed as well.
>>Huh? I can see you might get into a situation where you're messed up
>>without TC,
>TC is extremely useful for shortening your journey back
>to lvl 1, thus diminishing the risk of a Rodney-related
>YAA/SD.

Indeed, but there are alternative methods to both shorten this journey and
render Rodney ineffective, so we still haven't made TC essential.

I still don't see how it could destroy your game unless you made yourself
vulnerable to such destruction.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is Wednesday, April.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

> Quoting Jakob Creutzig <creutzig@mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de>:
> >David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> >>Quoting KASSNER Klaus <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
> >>>It is not just *convenient*. It is quite often that my PC has teleport
> >>>control only from a ring. Tengu are not that frequent and they don't
> >>>give TC at 100%. If that ring is destroyed by a wand of lightning, your
> >>>game may be destroyed as well.
> >>Huh? I can see you might get into a situation where you're messed up
^^^
> >>without TC,
> >TC is extremely useful for shortening your journey back
> >to lvl 1, thus diminishing the risk of a Rodney-related
> >YAA/SD.
>
> Indeed, but there are alternative methods to both shorten this journey and
> render Rodney ineffective, so we still haven't made TC essential.

Well, I just misread your above "can" for a "can't", for
which I apologize. ^^^

Best,
Jakob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:

> What you don't seem to have justified is the "TC destroyed" => "game
> destroyed" link.

I don't have to, since that's not what I claimed. I said that loss of
TC *may* destroy your game, not that is has to.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting Jakob Creutzig <creutzig@mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de>:

>>TC is extremely useful for shortening your journey back
>>to lvl 1, thus diminishing the risk of a Rodney-related
>>YAA/SD.
>
>
> Indeed, but there are alternative methods to both shorten this journey and
> render Rodney ineffective, so we still haven't made TC essential.
>
> I still don't see how it could destroy your game unless you made yourself
> vulnerable to such destruction.

In fact, you don't have to have teleportitis, so no TC will not destroy
your game. Hence, if you go reflectionless, it is advisable to go
without teleportation as well. (It still does not make reflectionless
just *inconvenient*, since you might also lose your ring of levitation
on the plane of air. Or, for that matter, your wand of death before
reaching the Planes at all.) The problem is that once you have
teleportitis, loss of TC may result in desaster (it *need* not, you can
just be lucky).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Klaus Kassner wrote:
>
> The problem is that once you have
> teleportitis, loss of TC may result in desaster (it *need* not, you can
> just be lucky).

The main problem that I see _in the first place_ is taking the risk to
get teleportitis (without having *intrinsic* TC - ...problem here).■

Risking it and losing the ring, OTOH, still won't spoil a game (for me);
it just makes the game last longer (with all negative consequences, but
none had been in any way close to "desastrous" or required any specific
luck. Rather it required a careful play despite the nerving boredom of
being teleported around).

Uncontrolled teleportitis in the early(!) game will more likely spoil a
game.

■ In the past I had been quite careless and accepted teleportitis, so
that losing a ring was not very different to not having the ring at all.

Janis

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Quoting Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
>David Damerell wrote:
>>What you don't seem to have justified is the "TC destroyed" => "game
>>destroyed" link.
>I don't have to, since that's not what I claimed. I said that loss of
>TC *may* destroy your game, not that is has to.

But you haven't explained how a prudent player without reflection would
get into such a situation; so you still have not justified the assertion
that reflection is not merely convenient.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is Thursday, April.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Quoting Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
>David Damerell wrote:
>>I still don't see how it could destroy your game unless you made yourself
>>vulnerable to such destruction.
>In fact, you don't have to have teleportitis, so no TC will not destroy
>your game.

Quite. For example, I almost never have teleportitis.

>Hence, if you go reflectionless, it is advisable to go
>without teleportation as well. (It still does not make reflectionless
>just *inconvenient*, since you might also lose your ring of levitation
>on the plane of air.

Which is just inconvenient if prepared; bring boots, a flying steed and the
means to resurrect it, the spell of levitation, a spare ring, potions, an
artifact that provides levitation, or a barrel of hitpoints and AC that
will let you struggle across.

>Or, for that matter, your wand of death before
>reaching the Planes at all.)

I often do the Planes without a WoDeath, so I guess that's just
inconvenient.

>The problem is that once you have teleportitis, loss of TC may result
>in desaster (it *need* not, you can just be lucky).

True but irrelevant, since obviously a prudent player who plans to do
without reflection will not get teleportitis.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is Thursday, April.

 

[James]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

In article <d3ma0j$15q$1@online.de>,
Janis Papanagnou <Janis_Papanagnou@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Uncontrolled teleportitis in the early(!) game will more likely spoil a
>game.

I guess it gets me out of trouble and helps me explore faster, so it's
not a total liability.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:

>>David Damerell wrote:

>>Hence, if you go reflectionless, it is advisable to go
>>without teleportation as well. (It still does not make reflectionless
>>just *inconvenient*, since you might also lose your ring of levitation
>>on the plane of air.

> Which is just inconvenient if prepared; bring boots, a flying steed and the
> means to resurrect it, the spell of levitation, a spare ring, potions, an
> artifact that provides levitation, or a barrel of hitpoints and AC that
> will let you struggle across.

I would consider this as more than just inconvenient. So it boils down
to a matter of taste, I guess.

>>Or, for that matter, your wand of death before
>>reaching the Planes at all.)

> I often do the Planes without a WoDeath, so I guess that's just
> inconvenient.

Here we might agree. While I never do the Planes without a wand of
death, the wand has become less and less essential as the riders have
become less vulnerable to it. It is still useful for priests...

>>The problem is that once you have teleportitis, loss of TC may result
>>in desaster (it *need* not, you can just be lucky).

> True but irrelevant, since obviously a prudent player who plans to do
> without reflection will not get teleportitis.

I would rather say this answer is irrelevant, because I explicitly
excluded the conduct of going reflectionless from the discussion. If
you want to do this conduct, fine with me. In that case arguing whether
it is just an inconvenience or more, is rather pointless. Conducts will
be done despite or even because of being more than an inconvenience.

The point I wanted to discuss (and of course I let myself distract) is
whether in an ordinary game, reflection should be considered
sufficiently essential to consider its absence more than an
inconvenience. Since I do want teleportitis and teleport control, I
usually am satisfied with having the latter via a ring *and* having
reflection. Losing reflection at this point would be more than
inconvenient. Going without reflection on purpose is an altogether
different matter.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
>
>>David Damerell wrote:
>>
>>>What you don't seem to have justified is the "TC destroyed" => "game
>>>destroyed" link.
>>
>>I don't have to, since that's not what I claimed. I said that loss of
>>TC *may* destroy your game, not that is has to.
>
>
> But you haven't explained how a prudent player without reflection would
> get into such a situation; so you still have not justified the assertion
> that reflection is not merely convenient.

I think every experienced player can imagine how that could happen. But
I can make up a scenario for you, if I have more time 🙂.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> Klaus Kassner wrote:

>> The problem is that once you have teleportitis, loss of TC may result
>> in desaster (it *need* not, you can just be lucky).

> The main problem that I see _in the first place_ is taking the risk to
> get teleportitis (without having *intrinsic* TC - ...problem here).■

It is no risk, if you have reflection and a ring of TC.

> Risking it and losing the ring, OTOH, still won't spoil a game (for me);

In most cases, you will still survive. But you cannot be sure... I am
talking about the difference between a 0% probability and a positive one.

> it just makes the game last longer (with all negative consequences, but
> none had been in any way close to "desastrous" or required any specific
> luck. Rather it required a careful play despite the nerving boredom of
> being teleported around).

> Uncontrolled teleportitis in the early(!) game will more likely spoil a
> game.

I was not making a difference between early and late game. Once you
have a ring of TC, you can have teleportitis as early as you want - if
you also have reflection. If you lose TC, because you did not have
reflection, your game might be messed up. It could still be won, to be
sure, but you might just lose it *because* of your loss of TC.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Klaus Kassner wrote:

> David Damerell wrote:
>> Quoting Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
>>
>>> I was not making a difference between early and late game. Once you
>>> have a ring of TC, you can have teleportitis as early as you want - if
>>> you also have reflection. If you lose TC, because you did not have
>>> reflection, your game might be messed up. It could still be won, to be
>>> sure, but you might just lose it *because* of your loss of TC.
>> Yes, but this is all ignoring the point that a prudent player who plans
>> to do without reflection will not get teleportitis _at all_, unless they
>> have redundant sources of TC.
>
> No, it is not, because I was not even discussing the situation that you
> plan to go without reflection. This is a conduct, and for conducts,
> different rules apply.

So wait until you *have* reflection before getting teleportitis.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Evelyn the dog, having undergone further modification, pondered the
significance of short-person behavior in pedal-depressed panchromatic
resonance and other highly ambient domains... "Arf", she said.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Quoting Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
>David Damerell wrote:
>>Quoting Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
>>>I don't have to, since that's not what I claimed. I said that loss of
>>>TC *may* destroy your game, not that is has to.
>>But you haven't explained how a prudent player without reflection would
>>get into such a situation; so you still have not justified the assertion
>>that reflection is not merely convenient.
>I think every experienced player can imagine how that could happen. But
>I can make up a scenario for you, if I have more time 🙂.

Please do so.

I think of myself as a prudent player; I have ascended 19 times and died
once below the Castle. I almost always avoid teleportitis, which seems a
simple approach which would prevent the loss of TC from destroying my
game.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is Friday, April.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Quoting Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
>I was not making a difference between early and late game. Once you
>have a ring of TC, you can have teleportitis as early as you want - if
>you also have reflection. If you lose TC, because you did not have
>reflection, your game might be messed up. It could still be won, to be
>sure, but you might just lose it *because* of your loss of TC.

Yes, but this is all ignoring the point that a prudent player who plans to
do without reflection will not get teleportitis _at all_, unless they have
redundant sources of TC.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is Friday, April.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Quoting Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
>David Damerell wrote:
>>Quoting Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
>>>David Damerell wrote:
>>>Hence, if you go reflectionless, it is advisable to go
>>>without teleportation as well. (It still does not make reflectionless
>>>just *inconvenient*, since you might also lose your ring of levitation
>>>on the plane of air.
>>Which is just inconvenient if prepared; bring boots, a flying steed and the
>>means to resurrect it, the spell of levitation, a spare ring, potions, an
>>artifact that provides levitation, or a barrel of hitpoints and AC that
>>will let you struggle across.
>I would consider this as more than just inconvenient.

Well, the only two quantities we've had are "inconvient" and "destroys
your game". Manifestly this does not destroy your game. Personally many of
these options strike me as quite harmless - for example, using the spell
frees up a ring slot.

>>>The problem is that once you have teleportitis, loss of TC may result
>>>in desaster (it *need* not, you can just be lucky).
>>True but irrelevant, since obviously a prudent player who plans to do
>>without reflection will not get teleportitis.
>I would rather say this answer is irrelevant, because I explicitly
>excluded the conduct of going reflectionless from the discussion.

What conduct? It's just a plan; the player believes they can get utility
from, for example, two-weaponing without needing either AoR or SDSM.

>The point I wanted to discuss (and of course I let myself distract) is
>whether in an ordinary game, reflection should be considered
>sufficiently essential to consider its absence more than an
>inconvenience. Since I do want teleportitis and teleport control, I
>usually am satisfied with having the latter via a ring *and* having
>reflection. Losing reflection at this point would be more than
>inconvenient. Going without reflection on purpose is an altogether
>different matter.

The original discussion was about purposeful rejection of reflection!

Of course losing reflection can be a disaster if you didn't plan for the
possibility, but that's not what we were talking about.

This all started with Adam Borowski discussing his preferred playing style
in article <3qlfi2-1hk.ln1@angband.pl>. It is perfectly clear from that
that he accepts the risk of ring destruction and hence will not get
teleportitis if his only source of TC is from a ring.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is Friday, April.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
>
>>David Damerell wrote:
>>
>>>Quoting Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
>>>
>>>>I don't have to, since that's not what I claimed. I said that loss of
>>>>TC *may* destroy your game, not that is has to.
>>>
>>>But you haven't explained how a prudent player without reflection would
>>>get into such a situation; so you still have not justified the assertion
>>>that reflection is not merely convenient.
>>
>>I think every experienced player can imagine how that could happen. But
>>I can make up a scenario for you, if I have more time 🙂.
>
>
> Please do so.

O.k. Suppose you are on Dlvl about 20, have an AC of -15, 130 Hp, TC by
a ring and teleportitis but no reflection. Normally a perfectly
ascendable character (except for the lack of reflection, of course 🙂 ).

Along comes an elf with a wand of lightning and destroys your ring as
well as your wand of teleportation. You kill the bastard. Next corner,
a lich, so you put your bag of holding into your sack, just to make
sure. The lich summons a number of monsters among which three giants
that surround you and start pounding on you. Your Hp start descending
ominously, and you would need two moves to get to one of the scrolls of
teleportation that you have in your bag of holding. So you decide to
flee using your wand of digging instead, you fall through the hole and
land on Medusa's level, the titan version. The titan starts summoning
monsters, too, and you are still low on Hp, so you dig through again.
Maze level. Everything calm at first sight. You find the upstairs.

But then you are teleported, without control - at two squares distance
from a minotaur. The minotaur starts attacking you and your Hp go down
too fast, so all you can do is dig through again. Castle level. A
master lich teleports next to you and summons a crowd, among which a
minotaur and a baluchitherium, more than you can handle at half your Hp.
You manage to reach the stairs and try to escape upstairs, the lich
follows, of course.

Now if you had TC, you would teleport to the upstairs, put your
blindfold on and move up, possibly after having killed the master lich,
to heal before finishing off the crowd (you would of course have to kill
Medusa on the level above). If you can't get him killed fast, you
might at least get temporarily rid of him on Medusa's level. However,
you don't have TC, so you have to fight him whenever he turns up, not
without summoning a few monsters, and to try to get through to the
staircase. Of course, he can always teleport back and heal... You
still make it almost to the staircase, running away from most monsters
that he summoned (fortunately no minotaur this time), but before you
reach it, random teleport sets in...

In the meantime, you may have had time to get out a teleportation scroll
from your bag (and also have quaffed a few badly needed potions of extra
healing, for lack of full healing), so when you are once again
surrounded by a crowd and the master lich teleports next to you, you can
teleport away. Note that if you had TC, this might have already saved
you, for if you teleport immediately after the lich has gotten next to
you, you may get your second move (assuming you are fast or very fast)
to go upstairs, before he can teleport next to you again (this would be
useful only, if you had your blindfold on already). But as it is, you
never make it to the staircase and your wand of digging is empty. Not
that it would have helped much, as you would have fallen down to the
castle level, where a minotaur and a baluchitherium are still waiting...
Unfortunately, there are now so many nasty monsters on the level, and
unfortunately, one of your uncontrolled teleports takes you close to one
of the crowds so this time you cannot save your neck...

> I think of myself as a prudent player; I have ascended 19 times and died
> once below the Castle. I almost always avoid teleportitis, which seems a
> simple approach which would prevent the loss of TC from destroying my
> game.

I consider myself prudent, too. I have ascended about 40 times (didn't
keep track of the exact number) and never died after reaching the
castle, nor for that matter, after reaching an AC better than -15; the
only case where that happened, was a slashem game (and I had not reached
the castle either). In fact, I never died after having completed the
quest (terminally, I did die once to Famine, while wearing an amulet of
life saving).

I always acquire teleportitis, but my requirements usually are to have
teleport control first and to have reflection, if I get TC by a ring.
Now the latter is not a big deal, because I usually have reflection long
before TC.

 

[seraphim]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote in
news:d3oufk$gqt$1@rhone.ujf-grenoble.fr:

> David Damerell wrote:
>> Quoting Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
>>
>>>David Damerell wrote:
>>>
>>>>Quoting Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
>>>>
>>>>>I don't have to, since that's not what I claimed. I said that
>>>>>loss of TC *may* destroy your game, not that is has to.
>>>>
>>>>But you haven't explained how a prudent player without reflection
>>>>would get into such a situation; so you still have not justified
>>>>the assertion that reflection is not merely convenient.
>>>
>>>I think every experienced player can imagine how that could happen.
>>> But I can make up a scenario for you, if I have more time 🙂.
>
> O.k. Suppose you are on Dlvl about 20, have an AC of -15, 130 Hp, TC
> by a ring and teleportitis but no reflection. Normally a perfectly
> ascendable character (except for the lack of reflection, of course
> 🙂 ).

How would a prudent player get in to this situation to begin with? I may
be missing something, but you seem to be totally ignoring Davids
argument, namely that no prudent player would get teleportitis if they
didn't have a source of reflection. Your argument seems to be based on
comming up with situations without any explanation of how the player got
there. There isn't a single thing in the game that forces you to get
teleportits, so if you manage to get it without being totally prepared
for it, then I can't see how you can consider yourself a prudent player.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:
>
>>I was not making a difference between early and late game. Once you
>>have a ring of TC, you can have teleportitis as early as you want - if
>>you also have reflection. If you lose TC, because you did not have
>>reflection, your game might be messed up. It could still be won, to be
>>sure, but you might just lose it *because* of your loss of TC.
>
>
> Yes, but this is all ignoring the point that a prudent player who plans to
> do without reflection will not get teleportitis _at all_, unless they have
> redundant sources of TC.

No, it is not, because I was not even discussing the situation that you
plan to go without reflection. This is a conduct, and for conducts,
different rules apply.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting Klaus Kassner <Klaus.Kassner@physik.uni-magdeburg.de>:

> The original discussion was about purposeful rejection of reflection!

> Of course losing reflection can be a disaster if you didn't plan for the
> possibility, but that's not what we were talking about.

That's exactly what we were talking about. I said from the start that
*I* for one thing was not discussing the the possibility of purposeful
renunciation of reflection.

You may call it a plan instead of a conduct. However, I consider it
such a bad plan that it acqires the quality of a conduct for me. I just
would not plan on going without reflection except as a purposeful
handicap making things more difficult - which is more or less the
definition of a conduct. Even you were admitting that going without
reflection would be an "inconvenience", so it seems it would not be a
well-designed plan after all, if you can reach the same goal - ascension
- more conveniently. All I was saying is that for me it would be more
than inconvenient to go without reflection - in fact, sufficiently more
than inconvenient so I would call it a conduct.

> This all started with Adam Borowski discussing his preferred playing style
> in article <3qlfi2-1hk.ln1@angband.pl>. It is perfectly clear from that
> that he accepts the risk of ring destruction and hence will not get
> teleportitis if his only source of TC is from a ring.

That may well be, but it was not the situation I was talking about, and
I think I was clear about what I was discussing. My first contribution
to this thread was not in response to Adam Borowski's.