Extra Monster attacks?

[Guest]

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

It seems like monsters that are adjacent to both you and a pet often
get twice as many attacks as normal: once toward the pet and once
toward you.

The giant mimic misses the large cat.
The giant mimic misses the large cat.
The giant mimic hits!
The giant mimic hits!

If that weren't bad enough, it also seems that they get attacks every
turn, while if you were fighting by yourself they would get to attack
only once every n turns. Is this my imagination or what?

 

[Guest]

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

Dylan O'Donnell wrote:

> (This may seem rather unfair, but I think it works; if a monster
> were attacking pets on its own move, I believe it'd tilt the balance
> too far in the direction of encouraging acquiring hordes of wimpy
pets
> to distract the hostiles from attacking you (wererat #monstering, for
> example).)

I think it *is* unfair, this behavior is completely counter to
intuition. The proper way to handle the enemy monster is for it to
determine if the wimpy pets are weak enough to take out quickly and how
much of a threat they pose to it, and to go after the player. The
situation as your describe it would be simply a cover for poor monster
decision-making.

That said, is this really the situation in the game as of 3.4.3? Can
anyone skilled in the ways of the source out there take a look and let
us know for sure?

- John H.

 

[Guest]

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

Dylan O'Donnell wrote:

> (This may seem rather unfair, but I think it works; if a monster
> were attacking pets on its own move, I believe it'd tilt the balance
> too far in the direction of encouraging acquiring hordes of wimpy
pets
> to distract the hostiles from attacking you (wererat #monstering, for
> example).)

I think it *is* unfair, this behavior is completely counter to
intuition. The proper way to handle the enemy monster is for it to
determine if the wimpy pets are weak enough to take out quickly and how
much of a threat they pose to it, and to go after the player or pet or
flee to a better (less surrounded) position accordingly, with attacking
the player being the fallback choice if it's too hard to judge. The
situation as your describe it would be simply a cover for poor monster
decision-making.

That said, is this really the situation in the game as of 3.4.3? Can
anyone skilled in the ways of the source out there take a look and let
us know for sure?

- John H.

 

[Guest]

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

Argh... sorry for the duplicate post guys, my bad.

- John H.

 

[Guest]

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

"Philip Bollom" <philip_bollom@yahoo.com> writes:
> It seems like monsters that are adjacent to both you and a pet often
> get twice as many attacks as normal: once toward the pet and once
> toward you.

This is normal. A monster retaliating against a pet attacks in the pet's
move, not the monster's move; it gets its own attacks (which it'll
always use against you, barring conflict) in its own move.

> If that weren't bad enough, it also seems that they get attacks every
> turn, while if you were fighting by yourself they would get to attack
> only once every n turns. Is this my imagination or what?

That will depend on your pet's speed, and so how often _it's_ getting
to attack and thus the monster to retaliate.

(This may seem rather unfair, but I think it works; if a monster
were attacking pets on its own move, I believe it'd tilt the balance
too far in the direction of encouraging acquiring hordes of wimpy pets
to distract the hostiles from attacking you (wererat #monstering, for
example).)

--
: Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ :
: "You boil it in sawdust: you salt it in glue: / You condense it with :
: locusts and tape: / Still keeping one principal object in view -- / :
: To preserve its symmetrical shape." [ Lewis Carroll, "THotS" ] :

 

[Guest]

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

"John H." <JohnWH@gmail.com> writes:
> Dylan O'Donnell wrote:
>
> > (This may seem rather unfair, but I think it works; if a monster
> > were attacking pets on its own move, I believe it'd tilt the
> > balance too far in the direction of encouraging acquiring hordes
> > of wimpy pets to distract the hostiles from attacking you (wererat
> > #monstering, for example).)
>
> I think it *is* unfair, this behavior is completely counter to
> intuition. The proper way to handle the enemy monster is for it to
> determine if the wimpy pets are weak enough to take out quickly and how
> much of a threat they pose to it, and to go after the player or pet or
> flee to a better (less surrounded) position accordingly, with attacking
> the player being the fallback choice if it's too hard to judge. The
> situation as your describe it would be simply a cover for poor monster
> decision-making.

Very well, I amend my statement. "In lieu of a significant increase in
monster AI (which does not seem imminent), I think it works."

Combat in NetHack is inevitably unbalanced, just due to the fact
that you're expected to kill X thousand gribbleys and each of those is
only expected to kill a few (you primarily, your pets secondarily).
You have enough advantages over the monsters as it is, and I don't see
anything too wrong in their having an advantage over your allies to
help compensate.

> That said, is this really the situation in the game as of 3.4.3? Can
> anyone skilled in the ways of the source out there take a look and let
> us know for sure?

The places in the code that mattackm() get called from seem clear
enough to me, though I'm willing to be contradicted. There's only a
few cases where a monster will attack a pet of its own accord and on
its own time (as opposed to aiming at you but missing): covetous
monsters if it has something they want, a purple worm attacking a
shrieker, or your steed being targetted while you're riding it.

--
: Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ :
: "You boil it in sawdust: you salt it in glue: / You condense it with :
: locusts and tape: / Still keeping one principal object in view -- / :
: To preserve its symmetrical shape." [ Lewis Carroll, "THotS" ] :

 

[Guest]

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

John H. wrote:
> Dylan O'Donnell wrote:

>> (This may seem rather unfair, but I think it works; if a monster
>> were attacking pets on its own move, I believe it'd tilt the balance
>> too far in the direction of encouraging acquiring hordes of wimpy
>> pets to distract the hostiles from attacking you (wererat
>> #monstering, for example).)

> I think it *is* unfair, this behavior is completely counter to
> intuition. The proper way to handle the enemy monster is for it to
> determine if the wimpy pets are weak enough to take out quickly and
> how much of a threat they pose to it, and to go after the player. The
> situation as your describe it would be simply a cover for poor monster
> decision-making.

Maybe it's unfair, but other solutions would be even more unfair. If it
were changed so that monsters wouldn't get to retaliate against your
pet, the game would have to generate *more* monsters to keep the threat
to you the same as it is now. This would of course be extremely unfair
if you played *without* a pet.

> That said, is this really the situation in the game as of 3.4.3? Can
> anyone skilled in the ways of the source out there take a look and let
> us know for sure?


I don't think you'll find many posters here that are as skilled in the
ways of the source as Dylan is.

--
Boudewijn Waijers (kroisos at home.nl).

The garden of happiness is surrounded by a wall so low only children
can look over it. - "the Orphanage of Hits", former Dutch radio show.

 

[Guest]

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

Dylan O'Donnell wrote:
> Combat in NetHack is inevitably unbalanced, just due to the fact
> that you're expected to kill X thousand gribbleys and each of those
is
> only expected to kill a few (you primarily, your pets secondarily).

It would seem to me, from this statement, that it is the monsters that
have the advantage and not the player. Certain monsters tend to have
an advantage over the player at different points in the game (soldier
ants, cockatrices, mumaks, mind flayers, lich-types) -- it is a basic
play goal to nullify or reverse those advantages whenever possible,
which tends to lead to a perception that the player has an advantage if
he is skilled and knowledgable about the game.

However, from the perspective of a newbie just wandering through the
dungeon killing what he finds and using whatever is lying around, the
monsters have a tremendous advantage.


> You have enough advantages over the monsters as it is, and I don't
see
> anything too wrong in their having an advantage over your allies to
> help compensate.

I don't have problems with giving monsters advantages (indeed Nethack
is starting to seem <gasp> easy to me, and some monsters could use some
extra advantages). The problem I have is the nature of the advantage.
This doesn't fit in with the intuitive, turn-oriented model that the
game follows in cases where you don't have a pet. It's like NH grants
monsters D&D 3rd Edition-style attacks of opportunity if they're next
to a pet. Which wouldn't be a problem, except the player doesn't get
them, and it seems like he should.

- John H.

 

[Guest]

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

John H. wrote:

> However, from the perspective of a newbie just wandering through the
> dungeon killing what he finds and using whatever is lying around, the
> monsters have a tremendous advantage.

You shouldn't judge a game's difficulty from the perspective of a
newbie.

Granted, if a game is too difficult, newbies will be discouraged from
playing it, so the game shouldn't be TOO difficult, but players should
always have the feeling that they can win if they try enough.

> I don't have problems with giving monsters advantages (indeed Nethack
> is starting to seem <gasp> easy to me, and some monsters could use
> some extra advantages).

Which shows my previous point.

> The problem I have is the nature of the
> advantage. This doesn't fit in with the intuitive, turn-oriented
> model that the game follows in cases where you don't have a pet.

But that "intuitive" model is wrong in the first place. As it is now,
you and the monsters *don't* get alternating turns, but sometimes you
get more and sometimes the monsters get more.

> It's like NH grants monsters D&D 3rd Edition-style attacks of
> opportunity if they're next to a pet. Which wouldn't be a problem,
> except the player doesn't get them, and it seems like he should.

The pet doesn't get them either, not even when a monster attacks it
because of conflict.

The reason why the monsters only get retaliation attacks is that dungeon
creatures normally don't attack one another. When they do, the other
retaliates. Otherwise, I think monsters should *also* attack your pets
unprovoked, which would normally mean that pets wouldn't survive.

--
Boudewijn Waijers (kroisos at home.nl).

The garden of happiness is surrounded by a wall so low only children
can look over it. - "the Orphanage of Hits", former Dutch radio show.