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

81–90 of 90 posts

Re: NetHack 3.6.6

#81

Post by catach »

brmgb wrote: post #45
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.

Nethacks like most traditional roguelike is amongst these games I like to call checklist tickers, which is to say with a moderate amount of luck, if you plod through the required amount of trivia and perfectly follow the winning moves checklist you should succeed. It kind of ruins the fun for me - playing feels more like a chore than an actual game - but it seems really enjoyable to some.

I would submit that those who enjoy the genre most are probably those who largely attempt to uncover the "winning moves checklist" for themselves.

Re: NetHack 3.6.6

#82

Post by schoen »

pmoriarty wrote: post #74
schoen wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The interactions with gods, shops, and pets tends to be richer and more complex in Nethack. The things you can do to and with items is as well. Agreed about all of these except for gods. In NetHack you can't easily choose your god during the game (though you can sometimes not-easily choose your god during the game) and the difference in behavior from one god to the next is minimal. In Crawl, you can usually choose…

"Agreed about all of these except for gods. In NetHack you can't easily choose your god during the game (though you can sometimes not-easily choose your god during the game) and the difference in behavior from one god to the next is minimal. In Crawl, you can usually choose your god and thereby get different abilities, status effects, and effectively mini-conduct challenges based on what each god disapproves of. I th…

Good point, I wasn't thinking about altars. They absolutely have the character that you mention.

Conversely, in NetHack you can pretty much ignore which specific god you worship over the course of the game, which is less true for Crawl.

Re: NetHack 3.6.6

#83

Post by orbital-decay »

zoeey123 wrote: post #80
orbital-decay wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, in DCSS they certainly trade tactical depth and crazy combinations of Nethack for what they call streamlining, aggressively cutting features from the game. Autoexplore in particular feels to me like a plug for the lack of micro, which is less important in DCSS than in Nethack. Not to say one is better or worse than another - DCCS is a great entry point into the "big four" of roguelikes - they just follow differ…

What are the other 3?

The big 4 is what classics sometimes called. Angband, NetHack, Dungeon Crawl, and Ancient Domains of Mystery.

Re: NetHack 3.6.6

#84

Post by csours »

csours wrote: post #29
OskarS wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check it out: ssh nethack@alt.org EDIT: no audio, obviously, but you can send mail to players you're spectating

OT: Why can't I put ssh://nethack@alt.org in my browser? Why isn't the browser a ssh client? I'm sure there's an extension or some such, and I know there are a lot of admin portals that have ssh accessible from the browser. edit: for instance here's is one such extension: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/secure-shell-app/p...

I can't edit anymore, but I've thought about this all day, and I think it comes back to trust. It is easy to configure weak keys or keys without passphrases or all sorts of things that you don't want exposed to the internet. Or your server may have poor config so you don't even want people to know that your server exists.

I do wonder, though if it is possible to do use whitelisted features of ssh, like strong keys with strong passphrases, good crypto libraries, etc.

I mean people already type their passwords into a browser.

Re: NetHack 3.6.6

#85

Post by danudey »

catach wrote: post #81
brmgb wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nethacks like most traditional roguelike is amongst these games I like to call checklist tickers, which is to say with a moderate amount of luck, if you plod through the required amount of trivia and perfectly follow the winning moves checklist you should succeed. It kind of ruins the fun for me - playing feels more like a chore than an actual game - but it seems really enjoyable to some.

I would submit that those who enjoy the genre most are probably those who largely attempt to uncover the "winning moves checklist" for themselves.

I enjoy games like this (and also other genres, like city sims or turn-based strategy games) because I enjoy seeing what happens. It's a process of discovery and interaction.

In the case of NetHack, though, it's mostly about how much hilarious stupid stuff happens, like the time I started a dungeon, took my first step, and my kitten triggered a boulder trap and killed my instantly. Thanks, kitten.

Re: NetHack 3.6.6

#87

Post by antepodius »

schoen wrote: post #82
pmoriarty wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Agreed about all of these except for gods. In NetHack you can't easily choose your god during the game (though you can sometimes not-easily choose your god during the game) and the difference in behavior from one god to the next is minimal. In Crawl, you can usually choose your god and thereby get different abilities, status effects, and effectively mini-conduct challenges based on what each god disapproves of. I th…

Good point, I wasn't thinking about altars. They absolutely have the character that you mention. Conversely, in NetHack you can pretty much ignore which specific god you worship over the course of the game, which is less true for Crawl.

I don't know, cannibalism for chaotics is pretty good. But so is having peaceful angels on the astral pland as lawful. Neutrals get shafted, as ever.

Re: NetHack 3.6.6

#88

Post by ta999999171 »

somacert wrote: post #56
csours wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OT: Why can't I put ssh://nethack@alt.org in my browser? Why isn't the browser a ssh client? I'm sure there's an extension or some such, and I know there are a lot of admin portals that have ssh accessible from the browser. edit: for instance here's is one such extension: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/secure-shell-app/p...

Personally I would like to see s http:// (http over ssh) as a valid protocol. Realistically, I know this would end up being just as bad and broken as every other web tech. However due to the superb openssh implementation I tend to view ssh as the superior transport technology vs tls

It doesn't have to be. Mail the keys.

Re: NetHack 3.6.6

#89

Post by antepodius »

dleslie wrote: post #47
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.

NetHack is more about trial and error than simply progressing and winning. It's definitely a throwback to an era of gaming where it was hard to have a lot of content, and so time was often spent on mastering challenges.

I don't know. I'd say if it's one thing nethack has, it's content. There's a huge number of monsters and items (and an especially huge amount of interactions between them!)
Post reply on HN