Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)
Kevin Wayne wrote:
> On 3/28/05 7:42 PM, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> Kevin Wayne wrote:
>>
>>> I don't much like the approach that "Ellora (almost) did it,
>>> therefore it's possible, both theoretically and practically. QED."
>>
>> I may have missed it but I haven't seen someone stating that.
>
> I took Boudewijn's comments to be stating exactly that:
(I read his comment differently, but anyway.)
>>> There are two major problems with this approach: how unspoiled,
>>> really, was Ellora's player, and how much in that game was the
>>> product of dumb luck, as opposed to learning how to play?
>>
>> Here I have a completely different view. I am certain that there are so
>> many possibilities to make a bad move that you would need a _continuous_
>> series of good luck to compensate that. So much luck is unlikely.
>
> I think you're misreading my point. I'm not saying that Ellora's player
> was the proverbial "monkey at a typewriter." I am saying that the
> *combination* of info from D&D (which non-D&D players would have had to
> get from spoilers), extremely cautious play, and quite a bit of luck,
> all contributed to Ellora's degree of success.
As I've seen it is had been very little luck involved, because with her
cautious play she influenced the evolution of the game towards quite a
"predictable" game. I would never state that a game of Nethack could be
played without good (or bad) luck in certain circumstances (as you have
mentioned Medusa). Rather, I say that having in mind how the "gamblers"
around are playing the game, who are in many instances relying on luck
and taking into account to restart another game if they fail. Ellora
didn't; she took her fate in her own hands (up to a certain possible
degree).
> In many cases, it
> appears that he happened to be wearing the right amulets/rings/cloaks to
> survive various attacks, without really understanding what they were
> for. He thought that blessed daggers were the best weapons of the
> game--and attributed their effectiveness to blessing, not to enchantment.
Well, I think it is not necessary to know the exact values of internal
information. It suffices to have a (maybe sub-optimal) weapon which fits
you to proceed effectively ■. That's o.k. _if_ one reconsiders the
validity of any hypothesis whenever a new insight could be gained by
some game event; Ellora has done that.
■ As opposed to efficiently. You may think of some naturopath that knows
the healing effects but gives wrong explanations why the medicine/procedure
helps and maybe also makes superfluous steps which don't affect the healing
process at all.
Janis
Kevin Wayne wrote:
> On 3/28/05 7:42 PM, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> Kevin Wayne wrote:
>>
>>> I don't much like the approach that "Ellora (almost) did it,
>>> therefore it's possible, both theoretically and practically. QED."
>>
>> I may have missed it but I haven't seen someone stating that.
>
> I took Boudewijn's comments to be stating exactly that:
(I read his comment differently, but anyway.)
>>> There are two major problems with this approach: how unspoiled,
>>> really, was Ellora's player, and how much in that game was the
>>> product of dumb luck, as opposed to learning how to play?
>>
>> Here I have a completely different view. I am certain that there are so
>> many possibilities to make a bad move that you would need a _continuous_
>> series of good luck to compensate that. So much luck is unlikely.
>
> I think you're misreading my point. I'm not saying that Ellora's player
> was the proverbial "monkey at a typewriter." I am saying that the
> *combination* of info from D&D (which non-D&D players would have had to
> get from spoilers), extremely cautious play, and quite a bit of luck,
> all contributed to Ellora's degree of success.
As I've seen it is had been very little luck involved, because with her
cautious play she influenced the evolution of the game towards quite a
"predictable" game. I would never state that a game of Nethack could be
played without good (or bad) luck in certain circumstances (as you have
mentioned Medusa). Rather, I say that having in mind how the "gamblers"
around are playing the game, who are in many instances relying on luck
and taking into account to restart another game if they fail. Ellora
didn't; she took her fate in her own hands (up to a certain possible
degree).
> In many cases, it
> appears that he happened to be wearing the right amulets/rings/cloaks to
> survive various attacks, without really understanding what they were
> for. He thought that blessed daggers were the best weapons of the
> game--and attributed their effectiveness to blessing, not to enchantment.
Well, I think it is not necessary to know the exact values of internal
information. It suffices to have a (maybe sub-optimal) weapon which fits
you to proceed effectively ■. That's o.k. _if_ one reconsiders the
validity of any hypothesis whenever a new insight could be gained by
some game event; Ellora has done that.
■ As opposed to efficiently. You may think of some naturopath that knows
the healing effects but gives wrong explanations why the medicine/procedure
helps and maybe also makes superfluous steps which don't affect the healing
process at all.
Janis
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram