Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NetHack 3.6.6

nethack.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 90 posts

Re: NetHack 3.6.6

#31

Post by Yuioup »

picozeta wrote: post #30

It's famous in the roguelike world but I dislike that it is practically pretty much impossible to win without spoilers [0] (which means you have to read about it in wikis and co. to find a strategy that works). [0 I know there are some people who managed to ascend (win) without reading up, but they are probably in the < 0.01% so it's definitely not the norm.

Thank you! I've been giving up on Nethack for over 20 years because I can't figure out how to play this stupid game. After all this time it wasn't me.

Re: NetHack 3.6.6

#32

Post by htfy96 »

vorpalhex wrote: post #28
kalium_xyz wrote: post #2

https://www.nethack.org/security/CVE-2020-5254.html Never considered nethack as part of my security model

There were (and probably still are) some shared *nix systems that allowed you to connect and play/spectate Nethack games.

I often play with ssh nethack@hardfought.org . Multiple variants available.

Re: NetHack 3.6.6

#33

Post by htfy96 »

jl6 wrote: post #21
bhaak wrote: post #4

Most of those security bugs have been found by using http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/afl/ for fuzzing the config parser of NetHack. Also read the hilarious account how neglecting the integer range of parsing a number lead to a config that gives you an almost invincible character from the start: https://dpmendenhall.blogspot.com/2020/03/nethack-366-or-how...

The great thing about NetHack is that even a +127 cloak of magic resistance still won’t protect you from cockatrice stoning, disease from major demons, choking on food, drowning, nymphs stealing the cloak, poisoning, starvation, drawbridges, disintegration, brainlessness due to mind flayers, angry gods, or level drain. In short, there’s plenty of ways to die in NetHack!

Also, be aware that today happens to be Friday the 13th, which will make your luck decrease by 1 and increases the difficulty a little bit ;p

Re: NetHack 3.6.6

#34

Post by eropple »

picozeta wrote: post #30

It's famous in the roguelike world but I dislike that it is practically pretty much impossible to win without spoilers [0] (which means you have to read about it in wikis and co. to find a strategy that works). [0 I know there are some people who managed to ascend (win) without reading up, but they are probably in the < 0.01% so it's definitely not the norm.

I kinda like that about Nethack and always have, to be honest. I like that even when I know exactly how it works I have to execute effectively.

Having all the rules right there for thinking through from one turn to the next was really compelling to me. (I've ascended almost every role now, but that started only like four years ago!)

Re: NetHack 3.6.6

#35

Post by pfarrell »

floren wrote: post #22
rs23296008n1 wrote: post #20

I had completely forgotten about this old chestnut. Have they made a multiplayer version yet?

I think multiplayer would completely wreck the strategic / thoughtful gameplay of NetHack. When I'm playing, if I get into a sticky situation I'll frequently make perhaps one move per minute, because until I act the monsters can't act either, so I have lots of time to look through my potions and spells and decide on a plan. How does this translate in multiplayer?

The nethack faq [0] agrees with you, with the exact reasoning you describe.

0: https://www.nethack.org/common/info.html#not

Re: NetHack 3.6.6

#36

Post by 76543210 »

picozeta wrote: post #30

It's famous in the roguelike world but I dislike that it is practically pretty much impossible to win without spoilers [0] (which means you have to read about it in wikis and co. to find a strategy that works). [0 I know there are some people who managed to ascend (win) without reading up, but they are probably in the < 0.01% so it's definitely not the norm.

You can win?

I assumed it never ends.

Re: NetHack 3.6.6

#37

Post by haolez »

I love NetHack. My only gripe with it is that the AI is dumb most of the times and the context of some levels is simply bizarre. The Castle, for example, is just a huge pile of different monsters all trying to kill you just because :)

Re: NetHack 3.6.6

#39

Post by JadeNB »

bhaak wrote: post #26
OskarS wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, if we're going to play this game, they're all roguelikes and thus they're all descended from Rogue. Which, in turn, descends from Colossal Cave Adventure and Dungeons & Dragons, which is descended from traditional war-gaming, and if we continue down far enough we're back at the Royal Game of Ur.

It's more than that. Both Angband and NetHack are forks of their ancestors. There is an unbroken line of continous development of the same code base coming from the 80s. Hack and Moria OTOH were clones of Rogue and didn't share any source code with it. There is still non trivial code from 1984 in NetHack: https://i.imgur.com/H4HpjYf.png With Angband, the case is a bit more complicated as the original Moria was writte…

I seriously love this whole discussion. It's "well, actually"ism at its best—and actually useful.

Re: NetHack 3.6.6

#40

Post by tripa »

76543210 wrote: post #36
picozeta wrote: post #30

It's famous in the roguelike world but I dislike that it is practically pretty much impossible to win without spoilers [0] (which means you have to read about it in wikis and co. to find a strategy that works). [0 I know there are some people who managed to ascend (win) without reading up, but they are probably in the < 0.01% so it's definitely not the norm.

You can win? I assumed it never ends.

People win it every day.

And publicly too: https://alt.org/nethack/top-3.6.php

Post reply on HN