Angband Forums

Angband Forums (http://angband.oook.cz/forum/index.php)
-   Vanilla (http://angband.oook.cz/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   The Monster Memory (http://angband.oook.cz/forum/showthread.php?t=6251)

Oramin August 10, 2013 18:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by takkaria (Post 83487)
Christ, I've been doing this for six years and a half years now, through hundreds of discussions like this and with hundreds of thousands of lines of code that I and other contributors have altered. I'd have to be pretty stupid and throughly uninterested in listening to what anyone else has to say not to have considered how much the game has changed. Please credit the people who have developed the game in the past six years with a bit of intelligence. We're not a bunch of cretins who do stuff willy-nilly with nary a thought about how it affects the big picture.

Everyone wants different things. If you want an Angband true to the original artistic ideas of the original creators, go play 2.4 in a DOS terminal. If you're playing 3.3.2 you're playing a ridiclously easy version anyway. That's probably the biggest change in terms of gameplay compared to earlier versions, so I recommend you back up to 2.9.3 if you're going to complain about game difficulty.

I think people always overlook the fact that if the original maintainers were still here they would probably be making loads of changes that fit in variant territory. There was an earlier version of Angband - before 2.4 - that was entirely internal to the university where it was developed which added all kinds of terrain types, quest levels you could stumble across and probably a bunch of other stuff that never made it to the public record. It got lost though and never released.

Takkaria:

Nice tantrum.

I'm getting really fed up with people making straw man arguments about what I'm saying so they can rationalize feeling insulted. I never suggested that you folks were changing the game "willy-nilly".

When the hell does asking people to consider the implications or logical consistency of changes they might make constitute calling them cretins?

I'm sure you've done a bunch of work over the past, what was it, 6.5 years and that you've done a bunch of great work. If you'll recall, when I first posted here, I explicitly thanked the devs for their work in maintaining a great game.

I'm very sorry you feel put upon about me stating my opinion about how Angband should continue to change (or not change) in this *one* particular instance but, quite frankly, your over-reaction seems more the result of defensiveness and not reason.

I applaud the time and work you've put into the game. When you step down, what would you think if the new group of devs decided to roll-back every change that you've ever made? I personally think that it would disrespectful of the time and effort you and the other devs have put it just like having the attitude of "the old devs have no authority" (not an actual quotations) is disrespectful of *their* contributions.

Raajaton is right. I'm probably not going to update anyway *because* of the recent tweaks.

You folks claim to be worried about keeping players to justify your changes. You've just lost this one - which I'm sure will come as a relief to the immature among you.

Oh, and Derakon, the logical fallacy is better described as a "False Appeal to Authority" and you're not even applying it right. The original designers *are* authorities on how they intended to game to be played and therefore pointing out game design features as indicative of how they intended the game was intended to be played is legitimate; the fact that they no longer have the power to alter the current game design is irrelevant to that issue. Here's a link for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Let me guess, you just didn't like me pointing out earlier that you should do people the courtesy of reading their arguments before evaluating them and so you tried to find a similar flaw in my arguments? Frankly, I thought better of you.


Let's address one last thing - the use of language and people taking offense at it.

If a person breaks the laws regarding murder or speeding, then he or she is a "lawbreaker". Somebody who broke the Fugitive Slave Laws back in 1850's to help escaped slaves is also a "lawbreaker". That is not a moral judgment, that is a statement of fact. From a moral point of view, I hope that most of us approve of the final group of "lawbreakers".

When somebody violates the intended rules of the game (especially as enforced by the game), then he or she is a "cheat" - look it up in a dictionary. If you wish to infer moral condemnation from that, the problem is yours and not mine.

I will say, however, I don't think much of the character of people who know that the game is going to label them a cheater for doing something and then try bypass it outside of the parameters of the game. Anybody who wants to think me smug or judgmental for having that attitude is welcome to his or her opinion.

Oramin August 10, 2013 18:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaviddesJ (Post 83491)
If arguments about the "original vision" had any weight at all, surely that would apply much more to core gameplay changes that affect everyone whether they like them or not (of which there are plenty!), rather than simple options that anyone can just turn off if they don't like them. Let's remember this whole thread is about one person who is upset at the idea that other people might have an option that the he doesn't want them to have. Or he wants them to only have it if they change one line in their source code before compiling. Or something.


Which is, once again, misrepresenting the argument.

This argument isn't about me being "upset at the idea that other people might have an option that he doesn't want them to have."

The option already exists in the game for monster omniscience and I'm perfectly happy that it remain as it is.

The reason for the discussion is that *you* and others of your opinion wish to *change* the game as it currently exists to reflect *your* view of the preferred set of rules.

As I already indicated, we're only having this discussion because you don't think you should be called a cheater.


I've already explained in great detail why I think it should be considered a cheating option.

From this point on if you wish to continue trying to mischaracterize my point of view then go for it.

If the participants in this thread wish to let you continue getting away with it and reward you for it by giving you what you want then that is their choice. Not, in my opinion, an honorable choice, but their choice nevertheless.

DaviddesJ August 10, 2013 18:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oramin (Post 83495)
As I already indicated, we're only having this discussion because you don't think you should be called a cheater.

I don't care what I'm called. I'm way too far along in my life to give a damn what other people think, especially the likes of you. It's just inconvenient to exclude characters from leaderboards, uploads, etc. Those things serve a purpose, they bring people together and make the game more social, and if you exclude half of the players then you lose some of the value. So I think it's worse for the game. But it doesn't affect me personally, either way. I play the same. I just don't upload my characters.

If you're going to stop playing in a fit of pique because I get offered an option that you don't want me to have, well, there's only so much one can do about childish behavior. You ever raise children?

Derakon August 10, 2013 19:18

Frankly, Oramin, I don't care about the rigours of how to have a proper argument here, because it's clear that nobody is ever going to change their minds. It's all about point-scoring, apparently, and I don't want to play that game.

If I thought there was an actual problem we were trying to solve, I'd be much more engaged in this "debate". But it's just a bunch of people shouting past each other and occasionally insulting each other, accidentally or not.

Let this be my last post in this thread; if I come back, someone needs to beat me over the head with a baseball bat. Really, everyone ought to stop posting in this thread, because it's just poisoning the community. Like the bad old days on RGRA when Neo was posting.

DaviddesJ August 10, 2013 19:29

Here's another direct reference as to how one of the designers of Angband 2.4 (Sean Marsh) felt about the game, in 1993:

http://web.mit.edu/games/lib/angband...cials.hints.gz

Thought I'd just release the list of uniques and abilities that we have here
at Warwick. Can't guarantee that everything in this list will be completely
accurate, but it should come pretty close. It's a major spoiler so don't look
at it unless you want the game to lose some appeal.
Sean.


None of "you're a cheater". Just, play the way you want.

DaviddesJ August 10, 2013 20:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derakon (Post 83498)
If I thought there was an actual problem we were trying to solve, I'd be much more engaged in this "debate".

I think the actual problem is to build a community for a decades-old, niche type of game. Most people are never going to play a game like Angband, these days. But we need to have a critical mass of enough people with interest in the game to keep it going. My answer to that is to provide options, where possible, so that people with different preferences about how to play can still play the same game, participate in the same community. Of course, the proliferation of options can also come with a cost. Monster memory fits right in the sweet spot in that it costs almost nothing to implement (because the monster recall features are in the game already, it's just a flag that needs to be checked in a few places in the code), and it doesn't change what playing the game is like or create such differences that divide the community (because anyone who wants to read spoilers was already doing so).

Of course, that raises a meta-problem of how to deal with the situation where some people will intensely dislike whatever you propose, and you can't afford to lose many people from the aforementioned small community. That's a kind of problem that's beyond me. I thought that options that players can just decide not to use if they don't like them, would avoid that issue. But apparently not.

MattB August 10, 2013 23:04

[Deep breath]

Right, as far as I can tell, this deeply unpleasant thread serves one purpose, and one purpose only: to establish whether more people think that using monster info is cheating or not (for the purpose of ladders and competitions). For that reason, here is my opinion...

I think that it is a minor form of cheating.

However, I don't mind if that is changed in the game, or if the majority feel otherwise.

Why not have a simple poll to determine if more people think it should have the cheat flag than not? It would save all of this bickering.

Finally, and much as I don't want to get involved in all the personal attacks on this thread, I can't resist this one final comment...

Calling someone's opinions a 'tantrum' is just plain wrong.

[Breathes out]

Nick August 11, 2013 00:20

Would it be cheating to just ask pav to delete this thread and all reference to it?

MattB August 11, 2013 00:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick (Post 83511)
Would it be cheating to just ask pav to delete this thread and all reference to it?

I agree that this would be the most convenient way to proceed.

However, given that this would merely be the most convenient method, rather than the only method, I wouldn't be happy for my forum username to be tainted with the *cheat* flag.

scud August 11, 2013 02:25

I propose that the thread be cremated, and the ashes taken to Australia...


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 13:21.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.