Author Topic: [ROGUE] Okay let's play some NetHack (and DCSS!) (and Angband!) (and Slash'em!)  (Read 86620 times)

helvetica

  • Arcade Maid
  • *
  • United Federation
Sorry for the late reply.  It's a codepage issue and I'm trying to track down which locale I need to add as my IRC client can't display the affected symbols and I run off of henrietta :V


Twitter: @hipsterfont | Discord: helvetica#0573 | LINE: hipsterfont

He thought that on that same day he was to take the city of Priam, but he little knew what was in the mind of Jove, who had many another hard-fought fight in store alike for Danaans and Trojans."


Seventh Holy Scripture

  • Err... d'ya need somethin' from me?
  • *
7HS'S CHENGBAND CLASS REVIEWS (pointless because no one else will ever play it)

  • Tourist: Better than in Nethack. They have no skill caps so they're like warriors with Arcane magic. Which means they're almost as boring as Warriors.
  • Magic-Eater: Good class to start with, you can spam magic missiles and don't afraid of anything. Can be a little tricky until you get some powerful wands to consume, but they're decent warriors too, so overall easy.
  • Imitator: The true challenge class IMO. Plays like a weaker warrior much of the time, but can copy monster abilities that were recently performed. Unfortunately, the strength of monsters tends to rapidly outpace the strength of their abilities (and yours) during the early game, so it's a tough ride until you start getting dragon breaths and such.
  • Blood Knight: I was skeptical too when I started a game and saw my starting ability had the description "Cut yourself," but these guys are cool. They're warrior-types with an early burst damage ability for crowd control and who get much stronger as they lose HP, adding a lot more tension to the melee game as you try to stay at medium health rather than full. Just make sure your wounds are healed before you hit "rest" or you'll bleed out like I did. >_>
  • Duelist: Fighters that can focus on one opponent and have various skill and passive abilities to use on them. Briefly interesting, but since the fundamental weakness of melee characters is already that they're poor at dealing with huge packs of opponents, it doesn't help any.
  • Sniper: Sort of like Duelist but with ranged weapons. Also, instead of paying HP to use skills you have to 'concentrate' for a certain number of turns. Their skills don't seem very good; most are just elemental brands. Better than an Archer, I suppose.
  • Time-Lord: Plays like a Warrior early game like so many other classes in Cheng; mine never got any good abilities before dying. Apparently they eventually get a slow that no monsters are immune to, and the speed bonuses are probably really powerful late game. Meh for me, though.

more may be added if I resume playing

helvetica

  • Arcade Maid
  • *
  • United Federation
Superbump.

Got my little brother into playing NetHack, let's just say his first few times were special :B


Twitter: @hipsterfont | Discord: helvetica#0573 | LINE: hipsterfont

He thought that on that same day he was to take the city of Priam, but he little knew what was in the mind of Jove, who had many another hard-fought fight in store alike for Danaans and Trojans."


Zengar Zombolt

  • Space-Time Tuning Circle - Wd/Fr
  • Green-Red Divine Clock
logs whare

VIVIT

  • Robot maid
  • ow my hand
Just lost a promising wizard to a unicorn hiding behind a Sokoban boulder. He had at least five low-level spells, and I could probably have gotten Haste Self online if I remembered to jump with the spell instead of with my boots.

Oh, and he had the +6 Sting.

Hello Purvis

  • *
  • Hello Jerry
Ah man, I feel you there. Unicorn ambushes are awful.

Reminds me of how many promising characters I've lost to Mumaks.

VIVIT

  • Robot maid
  • ow my hand
Ah man, I feel you there. Unicorn ambushes are awful.

Reminds me of how many promising characters I've lost to Mumaks.
q is a pretty good target for blessed genocide, I've found. Not as good as a or, for the late game, L, but still pretty decent choice.

Hello Purvis

  • *
  • Hello Jerry
This was my genocide list from the one time I ascended:

Genocided or extinct species:
  master mind flayers
  liches
  demiliches
  master liches
  arch-liches
  disenchanters

VIVIT

  • Robot maid
  • ow my hand
Genocide is an interesting mechanic. It lets you entirely remove certain threats from the game if you don't want to deal with them. Kind of fits NetHack's design philosophy of letting the player play how they want to play.

Hello Purvis

  • *
  • Hello Jerry
There are many things that need to be erased.

It's been for ages since I played Nethack, though. What's the deal with the new version? All I know is that it has automatic arrow pickup.

MatsuriSakuragi

Holy shit this thread still exists? It's been almost 6 years since I started it. It's a modern-day relic :*

I haven't played NetHack in ages, but suddenly, it sounds like good times.

NekoNekoRex

  • Catgirls are Charming!
  • *
  • Catgirl Enthusiast
yeah this made me want to go back and try and beat Slashem again but unfortunately I forgot how to really play nethack, never learned how to play without using Vultures, realized that the Vultures dev is now selling the game (somehow) for money on steam, found out the Vultures dev removed the free version on his website but left the source code, and I don't know shit about code.

Also last time I tried to play Vultures Slashem I couldn't because it would constantly crash, but I don't know if he ever actually fucking fixed his fucking game because I don't want to fund a game that was (and should be by all rights) free and was buggy as shit anyway (how the fuck do you mess up fucking Nethack of all things?)

There's DCSS I guess but god damn fuck DCSS, every time I try to play I just feel miserable.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2016, 08:39:27 AM by NekoNekoRex »
Kilga is this right; like is this person seriously the player, and it's not some alias or something that's designed to be deliberately obfuscating? NekoNekoRex. Who the hell is that :C   ~Poya Aaaa (Serela), Bunny Must Die Mafia

VIVIT

  • Robot maid
  • ow my hand
It's been for ages since I played Nethack, though. What's the deal with the new version? All I know is that it has automatic arrow pickup.
It's got some nice new quality-of-life features, not the least of which is darkening all squares that you can't see -- this means that even in dark rooms you can tell which squares you have seen but cannot currently see. My favorite new thing is the fact that you can #name objects lying on the ground without picking them up.
Spoiler:
Elbereth is nerfed, though; and as far as I can tell pudding farming has been removed altogether.

yeah this made me want to go back and try and beat Slashem again but unfortunately I forgot how to really play nethack, never learned how to play without using Vultures, realized that the Vultures dev is now selling the game (somehow) for money on steam, found out the Vultures dev removed the free version on his website but left the source code, and I don't know shit about code.

Also last time I tried to play Vultures Slashem I couldn't because it would constantly crash, but I don't know if he ever actually fucking fixed his fucking game because I don't want to fund a game that was (and should be by all rights) free and was buggy as shit anyway (how the fuck do you mess up fucking Nethack of all things?)
NetHack is actually a pretty convoluted spaghetti plate of a program beneath the hood. It's not as bad as Angband, but unlike Angband, it doesn't have raws to edit for easy surface modding.

Nethack isn't that hard to learn to play in ASCII though. Just remember that ; is farlook and you'll be alright. One YouTube Let's Player I enjoy began (and then promptly abandoned) a NetHack tutorial video series, but that first video is still pretty informative. I'd watch through to the end it even if you think you already know all it has to say about its specific topic (moving around). There's some valuable stuff I learned from it.
Spoiler:
He does, however, offer inaccurate information when he says that the numpad is the best way to move around when clearly, the vi-keys are the superior method.

Quote
There's DCSS I guess but god damn fuck DCSS, every time I try to play I just feel miserable.
DCSS is what you get when you put a bunch of amateur devs with a whole lot of half-baked armchair game design ideas into one room together, give them the source code for a good game, and tell them to improve upon it. Then they try to turn it into an e-sport. That game has so much wasted potential. Switch VIVIT to verbose mode? (y/n)


nav'

  • nothing to see here
  • definitely not a Ditto
Switch VIVIT to verbose mode? (y/n)
y
Рабинович глядит на плакат ?Ленин умер, но дело его живет!?
? уж лучше бы о он жил!

VIVIT

  • Robot maid
  • ow my hand
DCSS has a number of problems, but most of them come back around to hypocrisy on the part of the dev team in one way or another. One of the simplest examples is how they parade the game as allowing the player to beat it with no prior knowledge of the game, in contrast to NetHack, where you can gain a really distinct advantage by memorizing spoiler post like Bible verses. But this just plain isn't true. DCSS is just as bad about this as NetHack is, perhaps worse. It just relies on a different kind of spoilers from NetHack.

NetHack is a highly strategic roguelike. It's less about the way individual fights play out (heck, it's barely even about the fights at all) and more about the goals you set and your plan for achieving them. The strategic depth in NetHack is incredible -- if you want something to happen, you can make it happen if you know what you're doing. When it comes to major decisions in NetHack, there really isn't any wrong answer. If you die in NetHack, it's probably because you made a short-term tactical error: maybe you forgot that minotaurs didn't respect Elbereth, or that a wand that makes the floor engravings vanish could be turn invisible as well as teleportation.

DCSS, on the other hand, is a high tactical roguelike. It's absolutely about the way individual fights play out. It's about resource management, preparation for battle, and taking advantage of what resources you have in the heat of battle. It's quite deep in this regard. This means that the game is more like a series of self-contained encounters with bands of monsters which you either survive or don't, and the preparation between those battles. The rest of the game literally plays itself on autopilot. If you die in DCSS, it's either because you made a short-term tactical error (probably something along the lines of forgetting that you can't run away from jackals, or that it's a BAD IDEA to engage those orcs with their priest in line-of-sight) OR because of some long-term strategic error, probably something like training the wrong combination of skills.

Now, in both games, the tactical errors are pretty easy to pick up on. The difference is that in NetHack, there's a lot of esoteric information to learn on the wiki that can improve your play -- there are some fantastic techniques that are completely inaccessible to you if you don't know the ins and outs of how a specific item works. DCSS looks at that and says, "That's bullshit; Players shouldn't have to read the wiki to figure out the best way to play," without realizing that it does the exact same thing with overall strategy! How is the player supposed to know what specific combinations of skills will lead the way to victory without spending hours reading up on strategy or with even more hours of trial and error?


Another problem with DCSS is that it assumes all players will take every advantage they can get when playing the game, even if it means doing extremely boring things. They removed Nemelex Xobeh's sacrifice mechanic because it meant that players could gain an advantage from playing "dungeon janitor" and sacrificing every piece of junk equipment they came across. According to NetHack's philosophy, such strategies are their own punishment. According to DCSS's philosophy, simply having that strategy possible in the game forces the player down that path.

Another example is the way DCSS discourages grinding. They have a food mechanic, yes, but they also have an OoD clock: if you stick around too long on a floor, stronger monsters will start to show up, forcing you onward. Some players, including myself, would use this mechanic to tempt fate -- wait around on the floor for the strong monsters to start spawning, and then face those monsters down to reap EXP rewards. This was a fun and exciting way to play the game.

Then the developers said they intended to crack down on this strategy by removing the EXP rewards for monsters spawned in this way.

I realized then just how short a leash DCSS kept is players on.

VIVIT

  • Robot maid
  • ow my hand
I've been sitting on ideas for a fork of Crawl for quite some time now, most of them to make the game more like NetHack (and also more like Linley's original Dungeon Crawl). Unfortunately, I just don't have the coding chops to make it work -- not yet anyway.

nav'

  • nothing to see here
  • definitely not a Ditto
I see. Thanks for taking the time to write the above. I have only ever played one roguelike semi-seriously myself, and that is Tales of Maj'Eyal (and by "semi-seriously" I mean "won it exactly once on Normal difficulty"), but I'm constantly considering taking up another, better one, so your analysis will prove quite useful when it comes to decision time. Two more things, if I may:

If I understand your main point correctly, your criticism is based on the fact that DCSS betrays its own design philosophy; the developers claim it's winnable without foreknowledge, but in practice you still need to read up or die a lot before winning. That's obviously a problem for the developers, but perhaps not for the player? The game failing to achieve an arbitrary goal set by the development team does not necessarily mean it's not fun to play, so I assume there are other, even more significant problems. Which brings me to the second thing:

Another problem with DCSS is that it assumes all players will take every advantage they can get when playing the game, even if it means doing extremely boring things. They removed Nemelex Xobeh's sacrifice mechanic because it meant that players could gain an advantage from playing "dungeon janitor" and sacrificing every piece of junk equipment they came across. According to NetHack's philosophy, such strategies are their own punishment. According to DCSS's philosophy, simply having that strategy possible in the game forces the player down that path.
So can you elaborate on this a bit more? What kind of annoying, repetitive strategies are necessary in DCSS? Is the game outright unwinnable should the player decide to avoid implementing them?
« Last Edit: July 28, 2016, 05:27:02 PM by nav' »
Рабинович глядит на плакат ?Ленин умер, но дело его живет!?
? уж лучше бы о он жил!

Raikaria

  • Do Tank Girls Dream...
  • *
  • Of Floating Eyeballs?
If you die in DCSS, it's either because you made a short-term tactical error (probably something along the lines of forgetting that you can't run away from jackals, or that it's a BAD IDEA to engage those orcs with their priest in line-of-sight) OR because of some long-term strategic error, probably something like training the wrong combination of skills.

My personal favorite is dying because you open a door; get into a situation where the best play is to teleport out; and you teleport somewhere WORSE.

Seriously that's how every game where I've got 2 runes ends. I've not quite managed to win yet but I'm almost there.

Tried playing nethack but I really don't like the ASCII UI of it. Main reason I prefer crawl; because it has a gui.


http://www.malevole.com/mv/misc/tribute/
I don't even remember who put the above in my sig. [Wasn't me] Nor do I understand why I keep it here anymore.
Those two facts sum me up pretty well.

VIVIT

  • Robot maid
  • ow my hand
I see. Thanks for taking the time to write the above. I have only ever played one roguelike semi-seriously myself, and that is Tales of Maj'Eyal (and by "semi-seriously" I mean "won it exactly once on Normal difficulty"), but I'm constantly considering taking up another, better one, so your analysis will prove quite useful when it comes to decision time. Two more things, if I may:

If I understand your main point correctly, your criticism is based on the fact that DCSS betrays its own design philosophy; the developers claim it's winnable without foreknowledge, but in practice you still need to read up or die a lot before winning. That's obviously a problem for the developers, but perhaps not for the player? The game failing to achieve an arbitrary goal set by the development team does not necessarily mean it's not fun to play, so I assume there are other, even more significant problems.
It isn't about how they fail to meet their own goals; it's about what is lost in the attempt to do so.

DCSS sacrifices so much at the altar of its design philosophy, to the degree that, for me at least, it makes the game much less fun. It's a roguelike that removes much of what I enjoy about roguelikes. I understand that that's highly subjective, but the designers don't even try to design for any kind of playstyle other than what they have in mind: in fact, their design strategy eliminates certain playstyles by punishing the player for attempting them.

Do you play Metroidvania? A good analogy would be developers patching out sequence breaks.

Which brings me to the second thing:
So can you elaborate on this a bit more? What kind of annoying, repetitive strategies are necessary in DCSS? Is the game outright unwinnable should the player decide to avoid implementing them?
There are practically none, because the devs have ironed them all out. But in ironing out the wrinkles, they've damaged the dress.

In both NetHack and in older versions of DC, the long-term advantage such strategies may give you is marginal at best. Yet DCSS devs still feel the need remove features of the game that allow those strategies, without considering what good those features may contribute. NetHack keeps such strategies in place so that players can take lean on them a little bit if their plans require. You can walk around the dungeon in NetHack selling every piece of scrap metal you find, and you do get money for it, but the advantage is minuscule in the long run. I sometimes collect up a bit of junk weapons and armor if I need a little more money to make a purchase I have in mind, but otherwise, I never resort to this tactic.

DCSS devs assume the player will eke out whatever advantage is available, no matter how tedious the means or how insignificant the gains. As a result, they remove everything that might cause a player to grind, or scum, or do anything else boring. In NetHack, the response to "doctor doctor it's boring when I do this" is "Well don't do it, then."


You may find this article informative. It's pretty verbose, but I don't regret reading it through to the end multiple times.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2016, 06:19:31 PM by VIVIT »

nav'

  • nothing to see here
  • definitely not a Ditto
It isn't about how they fail to meet their own goals; it's about what is lost in the attempt to do so.

DCSS sacrifices so much at the altar of its design philosophy, to the degree that, for me at least, it makes the game much less fun. It's a roguelike that removes much of what I enjoy about roguelikes. I understand that that's highly subjective, but the designers don't even try to design for any kind of playstyle other than what they have in mind: in fact, their design strategy eliminates certain playstyles by punishing the player for attempting them.

Do you play Metroidvania? A good analogy would be developers patching out sequence breaks.
Well, the last exploration plaftormer I played was An Untitled Story, but I'm familiar enough with the basics of the genre to understand your analogy. You dislike DCSS because it discards fluidity and freedom of approach in favor of a rigid playstyle, in what is ultimately a failed attempt to achieve a game winnable without foreknowledge.

Your description of DCSS reminds me a bit of Tales of Maj'Eyal, in that ToME is a highly tactical game to the extent of not having consumables at all; everything boils down to managing your cooldown-limited skills in particular fights while remaining careful not to attract more enemies than you can handle. Still, ToME features so many radically different character classes and builds that experimenting with them all was rewarding in and of itself.

There are practically none, because the devs have ironed them all out. But in ironing out the wrinkles, they've damaged the dress.

In both NetHack and in older versions of DC, the long-term advantage such strategies may give you is marginal at best. Yet DCSS devs still feel the need remove features of the game that allow those strategies, without considering what good those features may contribute. NetHack keeps such strategies in place so that players can take lean on them a little bit if their plans require. You can walk around the dungeon in NetHack selling every piece of scrap metal you find, and you do get money for it, but the advantage is minuscule in the long run. I sometimes collect up a bit of junk weapons and armor if I need a little more money to make a purchase I have in mind, but otherwise, I never resort to this tactic.

DCSS devs assume the player will eke out whatever advantage is available, no matter how tedious the means or how insignificant the gains. As a result, they remove everything that might cause a player to grind, or scum, or do anything else boring. In NetHack, the response to "doctor doctor it's boring when I do this" is "Well don't do it, then."
Ah, understood. I misinterpreted your post initially, thinking that DCSS requires you to do boring stuff just to retain a chance of winning. I agree that removing any and all exploits and repetitive strategies seems unnecessarily restrictive (to use a different analogy, part of the fun of Morrowind is how easy it is to completely break the game if you try).
« Last Edit: July 28, 2016, 07:33:00 PM by nav' »
Рабинович глядит на плакат ?Ленин умер, но дело его живет!?
? уж лучше бы о он жил!

Hello Purvis

  • *
  • Hello Jerry
Another of Crawl's big issue are that you have to micromemorize everything. A lot of monsters have very specific ways to fuck you over that comes up very rarely, but you meet so many that these are going to be assured to happen. For instance, Crawl loves (used to love?) wild damage, for instance. That is, monsters that can do a very wide range of damage; so a single attack might only scratch you, or might knock out a huge portion of your HP. Thus putting you in a terrible situation due to luck. So you have to memorize how many things can do that, how badly, and so on. And every possibly side ability they have.

Then you have to learn every movement pattern. You have to know exactly how crawl monsters prefer to move, and be able to predict it from round to round. This is literally the difference between yet another stupid death and a flawless victory a surprising number of times, because if you end up actually being in danger, it's already too late to do anything about it.

ONCE YOU REACH THIS LEVEL, however. Then the game opens up. That's when you can start doing silly stupid stunt runs, because you have learned essentially the entire algorithm. But getting to that point is such an unfun fucking slog, and even when you are there you still won't win more than half the time unless you always play the good combos.

And yeah, Crawl innately works off the assumption you will always do the most broken thing possible all the time, so you are punished more and more severely if you are not going for the most optimal things. There's a lot of genius ideas in it and honestly fun things, but they get drowned out by the learning curve and the need to always be optimal. Combine this with a mod tendency to nerf out fun things because they are good and optimally skilled players can get some abuse out of them, and you get what VIVIT was describing.

Nethack is a bit more relaxed in that regard, and gives you more tools to save yourself with if things go south. It also has its micromemorizing, but it's not nearly as severe and there's more surefire ways around the Fuck You barriers.

Shame Nethack's interface is not nearly as good as Crawl's. I love me some Crawl interface.

VIVIT

  • Robot maid
  • ow my hand
Yeah, the interface really is a thing of beauty. I also like the game's system of records. Every weapon in your inventory remembers where you picked it up; it records when every unique spawns for you, when every unique dies, and a whole lot more. I really wish a game like NetHack, where the long-term story is more interesting, had features like those.

NekoNekoRex

  • Catgirls are Charming!
  • *
  • Catgirl Enthusiast
Yeah I'd play Nethack a lot more if it had Crawl's interface. At least Vultures was half decent, but I need not repeat what I said above.
Kilga is this right; like is this person seriously the player, and it's not some alias or something that's designed to be deliberately obfuscating? NekoNekoRex. Who the hell is that :C   ~Poya Aaaa (Serela), Bunny Must Die Mafia

VIVIT

  • Robot maid
  • ow my hand
The new NetHack version made some pretty decent improvements to interface, actually. Remove is now partly interchangeable with Take off, and Wear with Put on. Call and #name now both bring up menus that ask you what you want to do in very clear terms.

The thing I miss most from Crawl is how, after taking inventory, you can press the letter of an item to examine it, and then from that screen press the letter of a command to perform that command on the item. It's especially elegant with slot reassignment (=).
« Last Edit: July 30, 2016, 02:47:58 AM by VIVIT »

Raikaria

  • Do Tank Girls Dream...
  • *
  • Of Floating Eyeballs?
Another of Crawl's big issue are that you have to micromemorize everything. A lot of monsters have very specific ways to fuck you over that comes up very rarely, but you meet so many that these are going to be assured to happen. For instance, Crawl loves (used to love?) wild damage, for instance. That is, monsters that can do a very wide range of damage; so a single attack might only scratch you, or might knock out a huge portion of your HP. Thus putting you in a terrible situation due to luck. So you have to memorize how many things can do that, how badly, and so on. And every possibly side ability they have.

It's kinda weird about damage in Crawl.

The majority of damage is actually pretty standard in terms of how much it deals; but how AC [Armor] works makes it vary wildly; since basically it's Damage - [Random number up to AC value]. So if you have 40 AC and get hit for 40 physical damage; you can take anywhere from 0 to 40 damage, depending on your armor roll [Also heavier armor guarantees you a percentage of damage reduction minimum] Honestly; it tends to be player damage that's more random; since monsters have AC and there's more variables in player damage.

Things get uglier when magic is involved because that does tend to have variable damage, usually XdY. Some lategame magic cast by monsters can get as high as 3d48 damage. Theoretically; the damage range of an Ancient Lich that casts Crystal Spear on you is 3~144 [144; by the way; is enough to oneshot pretty much any non-warrior build. And of course; since it's 3d; the odds of actually getting hit for 144 is really; really low.]

Although; in most cases, it's not the raw damage you need to worry about when it comes to 'random damage'. It's things like 'Lich shows up and instantly decides it will Abyss 5 you and it passes the MR check'.

But it's a Rougelike. It's part and parcel of the genre that stuff like this is going to happen. If you are not willing to take some deaths due to RNG, you're in the wrong genre. No matter how good you are at a rougelike; you are still going to lose sometimes due to a bad roll.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2016, 09:06:38 PM by Raikaria »


http://www.malevole.com/mv/misc/tribute/
I don't even remember who put the above in my sig. [Wasn't me] Nor do I understand why I keep it here anymore.
Those two facts sum me up pretty well.

NekoNekoRex

  • Catgirls are Charming!
  • *
  • Catgirl Enthusiast
Crawl is pretty shitty in exactly HOW variable heavy it is. The worst example is the teleport scroll since it's a very long boot up time for what amounts essentially to 'this could get you out of trouble but probably won't' Abyss is another good example since RNG could decide to leave you in there for hours unless you delve into the even more deadly parts of it, or there could be a door right next to you when you land (independent of having the rune or not). Recent versions fixed this a little by giving you more doors if you kill shit, but that's only feasible if you're actually strong enough to survive in the Abyss in the first place, when it wouldn't be a problem.
Kilga is this right; like is this person seriously the player, and it's not some alias or something that's designed to be deliberately obfuscating? NekoNekoRex. Who the hell is that :C   ~Poya Aaaa (Serela), Bunny Must Die Mafia

Hello Purvis

  • *
  • Hello Jerry
Yeah, there's a difference between death due to RNG, and frontloading RNG fuckery in a way that, once it happens, there's nothing you can possibly do about it and what you should have done was never gotten into this fight to begin with.

Thanks for reminding me about the AC thing, though. Because that's also some bullshit. "Well your class concept is based around having heavy defense. Oh by the way it won't work a lot of the time have fun with that~~~" Crawl lives deeply in fear that a player might get an advantage somewhere, and works hard to kneecap anything good.

VIVIT

  • Robot maid
  • ow my hand
Was just talking about Brogue with DracoOmega on #maidenhack yesterday. Any of you guys play that game? What do you think of it? He thought it was a little too luck-based, and I kind of agree a little. Once you're on the path for a particular build and spend resources to further that build, you can't get off that path very easily even if the items you need for the build stop spawning later on.

Otherwise, though, it's a really cool game. Lots of interesting emergent gameplay.

nav'

  • nothing to see here
  • definitely not a Ditto
#maidenhack
Wait, what?

Why am I always the last one to find out that places like that exist
Рабинович глядит на плакат ?Ленин умер, но дело его живет!?
? уж лучше бы о он жил!

Hello Purvis

  • *
  • Hello Jerry
Heh, don't get too excited; VIVIT is pretty much the only one who breathes any life into it. Otherwise it's been dormant for literally years.

Also Brogue still sounds like a frat boy's DnD character.