- From: David Ploog <ploog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 23:54:11 +0200
On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 universal.darts.champion@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On May 31, 2:20 pm, David Ploog <pl...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:(E.g. the weapon choice is Crawl
is largely not, but the skill choices are.)
[snip interesting comments on how weapon choice is not that bad]
A good game should provide interesting choices from start to finish.
Just curious: would you say that a character should be making
interesting choices from the very beginning (choice of species, class,
initial weapons, religion) if they are trying to get very high scores?
I don't really care about this. Some combinations lead to easier games, and others lead to better chances for speedruns or all-runers. All of this, and the non-uniformity, are fine by me.
If a specific species is generally harder than the rest (I hear you say Ogre and Naga), then so be it. Much more important (for me) is that all species play differently and are fun in their own way.
There are a few types of character which are best suited for doing all-
runers in a minimal number of turns (the ones represented on the top
10 scores on CAO, for example, but also I think there a few other
character types that are very plausible options for doing fast all-
runers which aren't represented there), but many interesting options
are just not plausible for 12 million point games.
I have never been guided by (high) scores. To me, score is a very crude means of comparing single games. A much better means of comparing players is winning rate (or length of streak for those who win reliably), ideally for randomly chosen good combinations.
- Prev by Date: Re: UnNethack
- Next by Date: Re: roguelike without a name yet
- Previous by thread: Re: UnNethack
- Next by thread: Re: UnNethack