In a recent Hack'EM game I observed that the monster generation rate
had changed from 1.0 to >4.0. I was astonished what did that, and my
suspicion was that some misbehavior or finishing of quests etc. may
increase it. Otherwise such a high mid-game value would be hard to
understand. Now I read in the source code that (pre-invocation) this
behavior sees to apply, turn-based:

"The rate increases linearly with turns. The rule of thumb is that
at turn x the rate is approximately (x / 30.0000) times the normal
rate. Maximal rate is 8x the normal rate."

But I am at T:~76000 already and the rate is still 1.0, so I neither
understand that high value in my other game, nor that low value in
my current game. (A peek into the source code as well didn't help.)

Janis

On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 7:47:29 AM UTC-4, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> In a recent Hack'EM game I observed that the monster generation rate
> had changed from 1.0 to >4.0. I was astonished what did that, and my
> suspicion was that some misbehavior or finishing of quests etc. may
> increase it. Otherwise such a high mid-game value would be hard to
> understand. Now I read in the source code that (pre-invocation) this
> behavior sees to apply, turn-based:
>
> "The rate increases linearly with turns. The rule of thumb is that
> at turn x the rate is approximately (x / 30.0000) times the normal
> rate. Maximal rate is 8x the normal rate."
>
> But I am at T:~76000 already and the rate is still 1.0, so I neither
> understand that high value in my other game, nor that low value in
> my current game. (A peek into the source code as well didn't help.)
>
> Janis

This comes from EvilHack (but may have originated elsewhere?
GruntHack, maybe?) . And is an element that completely
destroys the game, in my opinion. I could live with a LOT of what is
in EvilHack if this did not exist or was not so harsh. It gets to be way
too much to the point where simple tasks are overwhelming with way
too many monsters.

Supposedly, turn count monster gen increase was removed. Maybe
Hack'EM carried it over somehow? Otherwise, it is based on different
hallmarks achieved: quest completion, getting past the Castle, etc. The
8x rate is either performing invocation or getting the Amulet, do not
recall which. It gets pretty crazy at that point!

I was initially excited for Hack'EM, but interest is severely waning.
A modern port of Slash'EM, with some things to help with balancing
and few added item? Yes, please. It is reading to be anything but. I did
start a vampire wizard, but was immediately off and parked the
character because it seems vampire hunger was removed for some
reason? Was quite a successful character otherwise. Just made it no
fun. That said, I will still be trying it out further.

--

On 14.05.2023 20:50, RecRanger wrote:
> [ dynamic monster generation rate ]
> This comes from EvilHack (but may have originated elsewhere?
> GruntHack, maybe?) . And is an element that completely
> destroys the game, in my opinion.

Yet I haven't enough experience with Hack'EM (and EvilHack is out
for me). From the numbers alone, at least, - a generation factor
of 8 ! - it appears to me that it's just unbalanced and overkill.
If I'd design such a feature from scratch I'd probably start with
a range of 1.5 to 2.5, and/or couple it with _concrete_ events,
say, (e.g.) if you disturb the Orc King orcs start swarming out
(roughly a'la LoTR, but you get the point). But only technically
(not [sort of] "semantically") adding features appears arbitrary.
The same with that shambling horror, which is obviously also only
a technical gimmick to introduce a random imbalance.

> I could live with a LOT of what is
> in EvilHack if this did not exist or was not so harsh. It gets to be way
> too much to the point where simple tasks are overwhelming with way
> too many monsters.

Here you addressed something that I had also in my mind; given
all the tons of items and monsters the dungeons appear more to be
a crowded shopping mall than a subterrestrial dungeon adventure.

There's a lot of complexity that partly certainly stems from the
original sources - Slashem was already very overloaded, EvilHack
yet more so, it seems. Hack'EM comprises a lot, probably too much.

>
> I was initially excited for Hack'EM, but interest is severely waning.
> A modern port of Slash'EM, with some things to help with balancing
> and few added item? Yes, please. It is reading to be anything but. I did
> start a vampire wizard, but was immediately off and parked the
> character because it seems vampire hunger was removed for some
> reason? Was quite a successful character otherwise. Just made it no
> fun. That said, I will still be trying it out further.

Some time ago (probably repeatedly) I mentioned that I'd enjoy
to have more emphasis on the dungeon generation. More random
dungeons, less fixed layouts. To have the focus more on dungeon
exploration than increasing the hack'n'slash approach even more.

The worst "enhancement" came (I think) from the Spork line; to
have X-/Y-mirroring of levels (that really add no variety) or
to have two display methods for mazes (that also adds nothing).
Some changes in EvilHack and Hack'EM go the "right" direction,
adding grass, shallow water, sewer's goo, stinking clouds from
creatures or dungeon features, with the associated new variety
this has for game-play. Other things I am still missing here.
For example the Rat King level is an (IMO) excellent new type
of level layout. The same with the Gnome King mines end level
from Slash'em. Both would be excellent level types for random
level generation (as opposed to one static level)! (For the
latter I have test-wise implemented an algorithm, but not yet
for the Rat King sewers. The algorithms are similar, though,
so one could be derived.) I'd also like Slashem's maze types
that you find on the Vibrating Square level; having not only
digable walls but also granite, lava, fog, trees, hedges, etc.
The mazes' dimensions should vary - a suggestion I made that
found its way first (I think) into Spork. But not arbitrarily;
the dx/dy dimensions should be reasonable. (For an own test
implementation I used maze paths of (x,y)-width (1,1), (2,1),
(3,1), (1,2), (2,2), (3,2), only, to give a reasonable layout.)
What I like are the rivers and lava-streams passing through
the cavernous levels. From a style perspective I'd like to
see more cavernous levels in the upper dungeons, less rooms
and corridors which appear quite artificial. Because of that
preference I'm also ambivalent about the new room shapes.
But the inner room structure is a fine variety to the plain
rooms. Last but not least I enjoy the outdoor landscapes; but
here as well I'd prefer occasionally (not generally) a more
dynamic level generation; if you played some time and you
always see the same outdoor layout it gets boring. Finally
a detail; I'd like to see more "dungeon material" - I *don't*
mean all the object material complexity, I mean the dungeon.
In Hack'EM I see colored vaults or special rooms, well, okay.
But I'd rather prefer to know from the color whether a wall
or floor is digable (e.g. clay colored) or undiggable (e.g.
gray colored) so that I get some (for me) practically more
useful information. I also like the blood coloring as style
element; you see where slaughtering took place. Although
having the blood not on the square where the creature got
killed, but on adjacent walls and floor tiles leaves use
with the impression of a splatter movie (which is probably
intended, so fine by itself).

Janis

Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "The rate increases linearly with turns. The rule of thumb is that
> at turn x the rate is approximately (x / 30.0000) times the normal
> rate. Maximal rate is 8x the normal rate."

This comment is outdated for HackEM. It still applies for EvilHack.

> But I am at T:~76000 already and the rate is still 1.0, so I neither
> understand that high value in my other game, nor that low value in
> my current game. (A peek into the source code as well didn't help.)

Monster spawn rates only change when you've done the invocation. Only
after that it will increase to 4 times the normal monster generation
rate.

Bye
Patric

--
NetHack-De: NetHack auf Deutsch - http://nethack-de.sf.net/

UnNetHack: https://unnethack.wordpress.com/

On 15.05.2023 13:19, Patric Mueller wrote:
>
> Monster spawn rates only change when you've done the invocation. Only
> after that it will increase to 4 times the normal monster generation
> rate.

Thanks for the information.

It might be that the values I observed were from EvilHack then.
Inspecting some EvilHack endgame logs I made show these values

10x Monster generation rate was 1.00x.
1x Monster generation rate was 1.07x.
1x Monster generation rate was 1.67x.
5x Monster generation rate was 2.00x.
1x Monster generation rate was 2.42x.
1x Monster generation rate was 4.44x.

Janis

On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 2:50:04 PM UTC-4, RecRanger wrote:
> I did start a vampire wizard, but was immediately off and parked the
> character because it seems vampire hunger was removed for some
> reason? Was quite a successful character otherwise. Just made it no
> fun. That said, I will still be trying it out further.
>
> --

This is hothraxxa. Background: I've ascended all variants except hackem and notdnethack. I have vampire wizard ascensions in dynahack, slashem, slashthem, and unnethack. I've been playing vampire wizard in hackem and I have no doubt that it is a harder role in hackem than in any other variant I've played.

I'm not sure what you mean by vampire hunger. Hunger kicks in at xl10. Even with a ring of slow digestion, I find it necessary to pray for hunger relief more often than in other variants. This is probably because you no longer the ability to drain corpses. This is a major change. Since they also removed the #monster shapechanging ability for vampires, crowning is pretty much mandatory. You can't gain intrinsics otherwise without polymorphing, which is a difficult mechanic to manage.

Whether or not you find this fun is a personal thing. I for one do not, but I want an ascension in every variant, so... I am a strong believer in the right of developers to make any changes they like, but if a variant is not fun to play then I stop playing it. A great example of this is sporkhack, which has what I consider absolutely horrible "gotchas". The straw that broke the camel's back was when my orc priest completed the quest and discovered that in my game, the Miter of Holiness was a tinfoil hat. I will play sporkhack now only for the 1000 turns in junenethack.

On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 7:27:38 PM UTC-4, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> If I'd design such a feature from scratch I'd probably start with...
>
> Janis

Could you? Please? PLEASE make your own variant.

On 15.05.2023 15:15, Keith Simpson wrote:
> On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 7:27:38 PM UTC-4, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> If I'd design such a feature from scratch I'd probably start with...
>
> Could you? Please? PLEASE make your own variant.

Why should I? (I neither have the intention nor the time for that.)

And since you were obviously inattentive; I spoke about "design" not
about "implementation". I think we have enough variants already that
have been just adding features borrowed from each other, and IMO we
don't need yet more of that. YMMV.

I think it's better to improve existing variants. YMMV. (Mind this is
a thread labeled [hackem]; and the author of that variant explicitly
asked for feedback.)

In case you were missing the point; we were just discussing features
(and how some variants implemented these). - If you're interested to
contribute to that discussion feel free to join.

Janis

On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 10:08:41 AM UTC-4, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 15.05.2023 15:15, Keith Simpson wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 7:27:38 PM UTC-4, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> >> If I'd design such a feature from scratch I'd probably start with...
> >
> > Could you? Please? PLEASE make your own variant.
> Why should I? (I neither have the intention nor the time for that.)
>
> And since you were obviously inattentive; I spoke about "design" not
> about "implementation". I think we have enough variants already that
> have been just adding features borrowed from each other, and IMO we
> don't need yet more of that. YMMV.
>
> I think it's better to improve existing variants. YMMV. (Mind this is
> a thread labeled [hackem]; and the author of that variant explicitly
> asked for feedback.)
>
> In case you were missing the point; we were just discussing features
> (and how some variants implemented these). - If you're interested to
> contribute to that discussion feel free to join.
>
> Janis

Oh no, on the contrary - I've been extremely attentive to everything you say, I've even
been taking notes. Obviously you're the most knowledgeable nethack player here on
RGRN, it only makes sense that you should create your own variant, this way the rest
of us lowly variant devs can witness what a truly balanced and thought-out game
looks like, free of errors and balance issues. Just a great playing experience every time,
start to finish! I beg of you, please, if not for me, do it for the rest of the community.
Grace us with your brilliance.

On 15.05.2023 16:27, Keith Simpson wrote:
>
> Oh no, on the contrary - I've been extremely attentive to everything you say, I've even
> been taking notes. Obviously you're the most knowledgeable nethack player here on
> RGRN, it only makes sense that you should create your own variant, this way the rest
> of us lowly variant devs can witness what a truly balanced and thought-out game
> looks like, free of errors and balance issues. Just a great playing experience every time,
> start to finish! I beg of you, please, if not for me, do it for the rest of the community.
> Grace us with your brilliance.

Your arrogance is priceless.

On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 10:30:48 AM UTC-4, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 15.05.2023 16:27, Keith Simpson wrote:
> >
> > Oh no, on the contrary - I've been extremely attentive to everything you say, I've even
> > been taking notes. Obviously you're the most knowledgeable nethack player here on
> > RGRN, it only makes sense that you should create your own variant, this way the rest
> > of us lowly variant devs can witness what a truly balanced and thought-out game
> > looks like, free of errors and balance issues. Just a great playing experience every time,
> > start to finish! I beg of you, please, if not for me, do it for the rest of the community.
> > Grace us with your brilliance.
> Your arrogance is priceless.

No arrogance here sir, I can assure you. I think we would all benefit from your insight and
expertise if you were to create a game that embodied all of your observations. Please let me
know if I have offended you, I am trying to convey sincerity as respectfully as possible.

On 15.05.2023 16:38, Keith Simpson wrote:
> On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 10:30:48 AM UTC-4, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> On 15.05.2023 16:27, Keith Simpson wrote:
>>>
>>> Oh no, on the contrary - I've been extremely attentive to everything you say, I've even
>>> been taking notes. Obviously you're the most knowledgeable nethack player here on
>>> RGRN, it only makes sense that you should create your own variant, this way the rest
>>> of us lowly variant devs can witness what a truly balanced and thought-out game
>>> looks like, free of errors and balance issues. Just a great playing experience every time,
>>> start to finish! I beg of you, please, if not for me, do it for the rest of the community.
>>> Grace us with your brilliance.
>> Your arrogance is priceless.
>
> No arrogance here sir, I can assure you. I think we would all benefit from your insight and
> expertise if you were to create a game that embodied all of your observations. Please let me
> know if I have offended you, I am trying to convey sincerity as respectfully as possible.
>

You're continuing babbling nonsense and completely ignore what already
has been said.

Your writing style is not subtle enough; you can spare your obviously
cynical and flippant comments. More so if you don't want to contribute
to the discussions of features (in this [hackem] thread or elsewhere).

If you'd (seriously) be asking me about my opinion of offensive content
in your post; yes, I think that your text is meant offensive. If you're
asking (as literally written) whether I feel offended; no, any offender
needs some grandeur to offend.

But really, now. Spare us that noise. If you don't want do discuss the
features and various opinions on features and variants that's fine,
just ignore these posts. If your intention is to exchange flippant talk
there's better places in the Internet, I've heard, so just leave this
place for #evilhack (as you've already announced here some time ago).

Again:
If you're interested to contribute to that discussion feel free to join.

Yet I haven't heard anything on-topical from you in this Hack'EM thread.

Janis

On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 11:08:09 AM UTC-4, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 15.05.2023 16:38, Keith Simpson wrote:
> > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 10:30:48 AM UTC-4, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> >> On 15.05.2023 16:27, Keith Simpson wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Oh no, on the contrary - I've been extremely attentive to everything you say, I've even
> >>> been taking notes. Obviously you're the most knowledgeable nethack player here on
> >>> RGRN, it only makes sense that you should create your own variant, this way the rest
> >>> of us lowly variant devs can witness what a truly balanced and thought-out game
> >>> looks like, free of errors and balance issues. Just a great playing experience every time,
> >>> start to finish! I beg of you, please, if not for me, do it for the rest of the community.
> >>> Grace us with your brilliance.
> >> Your arrogance is priceless.
> >
> > No arrogance here sir, I can assure you. I think we would all benefit from your insight and
> > expertise if you were to create a game that embodied all of your observations. Please let me
> > know if I have offended you, I am trying to convey sincerity as respectfully as possible.
> >
> You're continuing babbling nonsense and completely ignore what already
> has been said.
>
> Your writing style is not subtle enough; you can spare your obviously
> cynical and flippant comments. More so if you don't want to contribute
> to the discussions of features (in this [hackem] thread or elsewhere).
>
> If you'd (seriously) be asking me about my opinion of offensive content
> in your post; yes, I think that your text is meant offensive. If you're
> asking (as literally written) whether I feel offended; no, any offender
> needs some grandeur to offend.
>
> But really, now. Spare us that noise. If you don't want do discuss the
> features and various opinions on features and variants that's fine,
> just ignore these posts. If your intention is to exchange flippant talk
> there's better places in the Internet, I've heard, so just leave this
> place for #evilhack (as you've already announced here some time ago).
>
> Again:
> If you're interested to contribute to that discussion feel free to join.
> Yet I haven't heard anything on-topical from you in this Hack'EM thread.
>
> Janis

Janis, your words hurt. Why the insults? I'm not joking, I legitimately would like
to see you make a variant of NetHack. I know it's a stretch to assume such a
thing, but you might learn something new, such as:

* the countless hours spent on your own time creating something new, without
any compensation in return

* having the courage to make it publicly available, opening yourself up to
scrutiny from all corners of the internet

* knowing the joy when players tell you how much fun your game is

* and also knowing how awful it can feel when some pompous asshat know-it-all
rips your creation apart in public without offering anything constructive in return

Janis, I really think you should channel all of the immense knowledge and wisdom
you've gained over the years playing NetHack, and create the perfect variant. I think
it'd be fun 😊

On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 1:49:59 PM UTC-4, Keith Simpson wrote:
> On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 11:08:09 AM UTC-4, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> > On 15.05.2023 16:38, Keith Simpson wrote:
> > > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 10:30:48 AM UTC-4, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> > >> On 15.05.2023 16:27, Keith Simpson wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Oh no, on the contrary - I've been extremely attentive to everything you say, I've even
> > >>> been taking notes. Obviously you're the most knowledgeable nethack player here on
> > >>> RGRN, it only makes sense that you should create your own variant, this way the rest
> > >>> of us lowly variant devs can witness what a truly balanced and thought-out game
> > >>> looks like, free of errors and balance issues. Just a great playing experience every time,
> > >>> start to finish! I beg of you, please, if not for me, do it for the rest of the community.
> > >>> Grace us with your brilliance.
> > >> Your arrogance is priceless.
> > >
> > > No arrogance here sir, I can assure you. I think we would all benefit from your insight and
> > > expertise if you were to create a game that embodied all of your observations. Please let me
> > > know if I have offended you, I am trying to convey sincerity as respectfully as possible.
> > >
> > You're continuing babbling nonsense and completely ignore what already
> > has been said.
> >
> > Your writing style is not subtle enough; you can spare your obviously
> > cynical and flippant comments. More so if you don't want to contribute
> > to the discussions of features (in this [hackem] thread or elsewhere).
> >
> > If you'd (seriously) be asking me about my opinion of offensive content
> > in your post; yes, I think that your text is meant offensive. If you're
> > asking (as literally written) whether I feel offended; no, any offender
> > needs some grandeur to offend.
> >
> > But really, now. Spare us that noise. If you don't want do discuss the
> > features and various opinions on features and variants that's fine,
> > just ignore these posts. If your intention is to exchange flippant talk
> > there's better places in the Internet, I've heard, so just leave this
> > place for #evilhack (as you've already announced here some time ago).
> >
> > Again:
> > If you're interested to contribute to that discussion feel free to join..
> > Yet I haven't heard anything on-topical from you in this Hack'EM thread..
> >
> > Janis
> Janis, your words hurt. Why the insults? I'm not joking, I legitimately would like
> to see you make a variant of NetHack. I know it's a stretch to assume such a
> thing, but you might learn something new, such as:
>
> * the countless hours spent on your own time creating something new, without
> any compensation in return
>
> * having the courage to make it publicly available, opening yourself up to
> scrutiny from all corners of the internet
>
> * knowing the joy when players tell you how much fun your game is
>
> * and also knowing how awful it can feel when some pompous asshat know-it-all
> rips your creation apart in public without offering anything constructive in return
>
> Janis, I really think you should channel all of the immense knowledge and wisdom
> you've gained over the years playing NetHack, and create the perfect variant. I think
> it'd be fun 😊

> Janis, I really think you should channel all of the immense knowledge and wisdom
> you've gained over the years playing NetHack, and create the perfect variant. I think
> it'd be fun 😊

Hello Janis, welcome to Evilhack!

The voice of K2 rings out: "No, mortal, that shall not be done!"

Suddenly, the dungeon collapses around you!

Do not pass Go. Do not collect 200 zorkmids.

On Monday 15 May 2023 at 18:19:42 UTC, Ed Gooding wrote:
> > Janis, I really think you should channel all of the immense knowledge and wisdom
> > you've gained over the years playing NetHack, and create the perfect variant. I think
> > it'd be fun 😊
> Hello Janis, welcome to Evilhack!
>
> The voice of K2 rings out: "No, mortal, that shall not be done!"
>
> Suddenly, the dungeon collapses around you!
>
> Do not pass Go. Do not collect 200 zorkmids.

As Mister Simpson indicates, Mister Papanagnou is undoubtedly one of the most experienced players of Nethack or its varieties. It would not be out of place for Mister Papanagnou to create his own variety of Nethack (whether only for playing himself or, much better, offered to other players), but that is a personal decision. It is not because of a lack of 'time', for he obviously spends a long time playing the addictive game. It is because of lack of interest or knowledge of programming. Probably lack of interest, because he knows how to delve into the source for finding exact features of the complex game. On the other hand, he is right that there are rather too many varieties of Nethack already, and of similar turn-based, dungeon adventure, rôle play games in the wake of Hack, Rogue, or Dungeons and Dragons. Not all of those varieties have been well thought, unfortunately, and few of them can be called balanced and truly engaging.

It is entirely the decision of Mister Papanagnou, of course. I can only comment that if I have available an executable created by him for playing a new variety of Nethack in my Samsung Android telephone or my Apple IPad tablet, I shall at least once experiment playing with it. Probably more than once, with different kinds of heroes or of other attributes for obtaining a more complete view of the game, and perhaps commenting here in the Nethack group or other places.

He can also just provide the source and leave to every one of us the task of translating and linking it into executable for different operating systems or various platforms. In theory he can even make his variety available as interpreted, interactive programme via a remote server. Or he can simply dismiss the whole idea of a new Nethack variety, but still continue informing in detail of his adventures, because he has become an encyclopaedia of Nethack, all by himself.

Receive Confederate Greetings, Gentlemen.

On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 10:30:48 AM UTC-4, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 15.05.2023 16:27, Keith Simpson wrote:
> >
> > Oh no, on the contrary - I've been extremely attentive to everything you say, I've even
> > been taking notes. Obviously you're the most knowledgeable nethack player here on
> > RGRN, it only makes sense that you should create your own variant, this way the rest
> > of us lowly variant devs can witness what a truly balanced and thought-out game
> > looks like, free of errors and balance issues. Just a great playing experience every time,
> > start to finish! I beg of you, please, if not for me, do it for the rest of the community.
> > Grace us with your brilliance.

'
> Your arrogance is priceless.

This also turned me off of EvilHack. I tried to, many versions ago, give feedback — but was
*extremely* dismissive, arrogant and made fun of my plight instead offering any form
of support. It may be have been playful teasing/razzing that males are so fond of, but I
did not appreciate it. I expressed I was genuinely upset with their response and they
made fun of that, too.

--

On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 10:08:41 AM UTC-4, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 15.05.2023 15:15, Keith Simpson wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 7:27:38 PM UTC-4, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> >> If I'd design such a feature from scratch I'd probably start with...
> >
> > Could you? Please? PLEASE make your own variant.
> Why should I? (I neither have the intention nor the time for that.)
>

Honestly, I was just thinking this the other day — that it would be interesting
to play *your* variant!

--

On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 8:02:35 AM UTC-4, FC Pakalolo wrote:
> On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 2:50:04 PM UTC-4, RecRanger wrote:
> > I did start a vampire wizard, but was immediately off and parked the
> > character because it seems vampire hunger was removed for some
> > reason? Was quite a successful character otherwise. Just made it no
> > fun. That said, I will still be trying it out further.
> >
> > --
> This is hothraxxa. Background: I've ascended all variants except hackem and notdnethack. I have vampire wizard ascensions in dynahack, slashem, slashthem, and unnethack. I've been playing vampire wizard in hackem and I have no doubt that it is a harder role in hackem than in any other variant I've played.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by vampire hunger. Hunger kicks in at xl10. Even with a ring of slow digestion, I find it necessary to pray for hunger relief more often than in other variants. This is probably because you no longer the ability to drain corpses. This is a major change. Since they also removed the #monster shapechanging ability for vampires, crowning is pretty much mandatory. You can't gain intrinsics otherwise without polymorphing, which is a difficult mechanic to manage.
>
> Whether or not you find this fun is a personal thing. I for one do not, but I want an ascension in every variant, so... I am a strong believer in the right of developers to make any changes they like, but if a variant is not fun to play then I stop playing it. A great example of this is sporkhack, which has what I consider absolutely horrible "gotchas". The straw that broke the camel's back was when my orc priest completed the quest and discovered that in my game, the Miter of Holiness was a tinfoil hat. I will play sporkhack now only for the 1000 turns in junenethack.

I know you, hothraxxa. Fun to watch. :)

Not sure if I've encountered some odd bug, or if it was an early release.
I was at several thousand turns into the game (with a lot of lucky
findings/happenings) and never reached 'Hungry' status. And, yes,
I also did not like that you cannot drain corpses.

I like the challenge of the vampire race, as you are on the verge of
starvation.

--

On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 6:59:50 PM UTC-4, RecRanger wrote:
> On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 10:30:48 AM UTC-4, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> > On 15.05.2023 16:27, Keith Simpson wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh no, on the contrary - I've been extremely attentive to everything you say, I've even
> > > been taking notes. Obviously you're the most knowledgeable nethack player here on
> > > RGRN, it only makes sense that you should create your own variant, this way the rest
> > > of us lowly variant devs can witness what a truly balanced and thought-out game
> > > looks like, free of errors and balance issues. Just a great playing experience every time,
> > > start to finish! I beg of you, please, if not for me, do it for the rest of the community.
> > > Grace us with your brilliance.
>
> '
> > Your arrogance is priceless.
> This also turned me off of EvilHack. I tried to, many versions ago, give feedback — but was
> *extremely* dismissive, arrogant and made fun of my plight instead offering any form
> of support. It may be have been playful teasing/razzing that males are so fond of, but I
> did not appreciate it. I expressed I was genuinely upset with their response and they
> made fun of that, too.
>
> --

RecRanger,

That is not how I am, you're either making this up or at the very least exaggerating an exchange
we may have had, I get it if you received an answer that you didn't like. You have a conversation
log you can reference? Everything in #hardfought and #evilhack is logged and publicly accessible,
or maybe it was an email exchange? I save those as well.

I'm messing with Janis here a lil bit because quite frankly, he deserves it..

Monster generation rates - given when the rates jump up, by the time you're at that point, you should
be of a high enough level to be able to handle whatever comes your way. It can even be a boon,
especially if you're low on a particular resource, as monsters tend to drop a fair amount of basically
everything.

> That is not how I am, you're either making this up or at the very least exaggerating an exchange
> we may have had, I get it if you received an answer that you didn't like. You have a conversation
> log you can reference? Everything in #hardfought and #evilhack is logged and publicly accessible,
> or maybe it was an email exchange? I save those as well.

FWIW, I have made several suggestions for new features and bug reports to Keith and he has always been friendly and accommodating. I have been playing Nethack and its predecessors since 1989 and in my opinion EvilHack is the best thing to happen to the game in at least a decade.

There is enough character assassination on the Internet already that I don't think we need to add any more in this ng. Particularly at the expense of a developer who has not only created a splendid variant, but also hosts the public server where everyone can play his favorite free of charge.
--MightyQuinn

On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 8:10:21 AM UTC-4, Keith Simpson wrote:
> On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 6:59:50 PM UTC-4, RecRanger wrote:
> > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 10:30:48 AM UTC-4, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> > > On 15.05.2023 16:27, Keith Simpson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Oh no, on the contrary - I've been extremely attentive to everything you say, I've even
> > > > been taking notes. Obviously you're the most knowledgeable nethack player here on
> > > > RGRN, it only makes sense that you should create your own variant, this way the rest
> > > > of us lowly variant devs can witness what a truly balanced and thought-out game
> > > > looks like, free of errors and balance issues. Just a great playing experience every time,
> > > > start to finish! I beg of you, please, if not for me, do it for the rest of the community.
> > > > Grace us with your brilliance.
> >
> > '
> > > Your arrogance is priceless.
> > This also turned me off of EvilHack. I tried to, many versions ago, give feedback — but was
> > *extremely* dismissive, arrogant and made fun of my plight instead offering any form
> > of support. It may be have been playful teasing/razzing that males are so fond of, but I
> > did not appreciate it. I expressed I was genuinely upset with their response and they
> > made fun of that, too.
> >
> > --
> RecRanger,
>
> That is not how I am, you're either making this up or at the very least exaggerating an exchange
> we may have had, I get it if you received an answer that you didn't like. You have a conversation
> log you can reference? Everything in #hardfought and #evilhack is logged and publicly accessible,
> or maybe it was an email exchange? I save those as well.
>
> I'm messing with Janis here a lil bit because quite frankly, he deserves it.
>
> Monster generation rates - given when the rates jump up, by the time you're at that point, you should
> be of a high enough level to be able to handle whatever comes your way. It can even be a boon,
> especially if you're low on a particular resource, as monsters tend to drop a fair amount of basically
> everything.

I know this is the way group posting can be (with overwhelming negativity and sh!tposting), but, I have
no desire to waste my time making things up in such a situation. Like I said, afterthought has led me
to believe it was probably the hazing and razzing males just love to do to each other. I am defensive,
to a fault. I've been bullied my whole life. And me just saying this will lead to more.

The monster gen rat interferes with basic tasks like simply reading more advanced spells, moving
stashes can get downright annoying. It also messes up a lot of conduct games.

--

On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 4:22:42 PM UTC-4, Ed Gooding wrote:
> > That is not how I am, you're either making this up or at the very least exaggerating an exchange
> > we may have had, I get it if you received an answer that you didn't like. You have a conversation
> > log you can reference? Everything in #hardfought and #evilhack is logged and publicly accessible,
> > or maybe it was an email exchange? I save those as well.
> FWIW, I have made several suggestions for new features and bug reports to Keith and he has always been friendly and accommodating. I have been playing Nethack and its predecessors since 1989 and in my opinion EvilHack is the best thing to happen to the game in at least a decade.
>
> There is enough character assassination on the Internet already that I don't think we need to add any more in this ng. Particularly at the expense of a developer who has not only created a splendid variant, but also hosts the public server where everyone can play his favorite free of charge.
> --MightyQuinn

Him keeping 3.4.3 (which is utter classic), alone, gives me abundant love for him. And yes, EvilHack
in may ways is utterly splendid. I've always tried to make my appreciation and love for it known.

--