Register new account
Edit account
Search

Ancient Domains Of Mystery, forum overview / Spoilers / New Group Challenge Proposal

Online users ( Unknown)
Application object not working properly at the moment, no clue who is online...

* Numbers in parentheses are the number of minutes since the user last loaded a page. Logged-in users time out after 40 minutes (unless they manually log out), lurkers and anonymous posters after 20.

This thread is 3 pages long.
Go to page 1 2 3
Darren Grey
Registered user

Last page view:

2847 days, 17 hours, 5 minutes and 59 seconds ago.
Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2008 at 21:42 (GMT -5)

Following the success of the mighty Rhea I propose a new group game we can play. This is designed to be more competitive, and more inclusive of both new and advanced players. It'll involve a lot more stupid deaths, like the many traditional challenge games we've played over the years, and thus will generally be more light-hearted and less pressuring than the RRC. I call it "The Weakest Link", based off a game show we have here.

The idea is that one of us creates a character (I recommend a drakeling priest for this, for many reasons, though random is an option) that will go on an instant ID dive, circulated amongst the group members (playing order random). Each person has control for 2000 turns. During those turns they must advance through the ID by at least one level, though they can go as deep as they like in the turns available to them, if they really dare. You must go at least one level deeper though, so that on each consecutive player's turn the game gets more dangerous.

If you die, then "You are the Weakest Link, goodbye!" (in the words of Anne Robinson). You are out of the game, and the previous save file goes to whoever's next on the list. Post your details so we can commiserate/laugh with/at you (no flg though - it'll give away stuff like item identification) and we'll add it to a high score table for all the losers. Eventually everyone will start dying as the game becomes more difficult, until there's a few very skillful or lucky players left struggling through the odds in the further depths of infinity. Once it's down to the last person he or she must then keep going as far as possible to see just how deep they're able to make it before inevitable doom catches up with them.

Some further rule details:
-No going up a set of stairs at any point in the game. Not to make a tactical retreat, not to avoid a river - not ever. You're stuck with whatever's generated, unless you want to go deeper.
-After each play you must post a full description of your activities, especially including any details that can influence other players, such as using a prayer, or finding a dangerous monster on the current level without killing it. An edited slg or vlg before saving is also welcome.
-Do not exceed the turn limit by more than 50 (please be careful with this)
-If you die, give a screenshot and the details from the high score list - no flg. Forward the save file you originally received onto the next person and post to say you did so.
-Post to say you've received the file and play it within 72 hours (3 days). This can be extended to 1 week without removing you from the game if there's a decent reason.
-If you're the last person then you must keep playing, always going at least one level deeper every 2000 turns. This is now a personal challenge to see how far you can get under the rules.
-Remember that being the first to die or the last to survive might mean nothing about your skill level either way - much of this game is about luck, and all of it is about fun.

Technically deliberate competitive play is allowed. You are free to use up useful items, prayers and spell knowledge on your turn, depriving future players of them, as long as you let them know. You may even throw away a useful melee weapon because you feel you can cope without it better than others can. Just remember that the save file will eventually come back to you, so you will still have to deal with all of the consequences of your actions (and if you die your actions affect nothing). I imagine most people here would play more co-operatively, but such chaotic deeds are always an option.

If lots of people are interested in playing this then it may be best to randomly split people into separate leagues, with the top two players from each league then competing together in a final. For instance, if 15 people are playing then it's utterly unfair on the 15th person to have to start off as far down as I15 (or lower). It could instead be split into 3 leagues of 5 players each, and the best two from each would play in a final game of 6 players to see who can do best. Separate high scores would be drawn up tables for each game.

Some simple questions then:
a) Are you interested in playing this?
b) Do you want to play another Rhea-like game too? If so, before, after or alongside this one?
c) Should we use a drakish priest, random selection, or some other suggestion?
d) What's the maximum number of people to have in a league?
e) Any suggestions for rule changes or additions?
Other comments welcome...

Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse."
Darren Grey
Registered user

Last page view:

2847 days, 17 hours, 5 minutes and 59 seconds ago.
Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2008 at 21:51 (GMT -5)

As a side comment on the drakish priest thing, I suggest this r/c combination for many reasons to make the game more enjoyable.

Reasons for a priest:
-Detect Item Status makes ID more bearable
-Healing skill
-Able to spellcast and melee
-Finds decent number of spellbooks
-holy symbol to rebuild piety
-holy water to make... more holy water

Reasons for drakeling:
-Decent St, To and HP regen
-acid spit helps early on
-Food Preservation is very handy
-other skills may be useful

Trolls would be more surviviable, but to the point that the game would fall more heavily on luck rather than tactics, especially since they'd have more trouble with anything other than melee. This would make for a more boring game. Their food consumption can be troublesome too.
Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse."
Portrait
gut
Registered user
Painted this one too.


Last page view:

3505 days, 19 hours, 22 minutes and 55 seconds ago.
Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2008 at 22:48 (GMT -5)

> it's utterly unfair on the 15th person to
> have to start off as far down as I15

Actually, it would be much deeper than that
wouldn't it? The first player would almost
certainly dive ~4 levels, and the second
player would dive a few more. By the time
the fifteenth players turn came around,
they would be at ~ID 22. That is of course,
if all the previous players have lived.

I don't think it would be abnormally unfair
to be the fifteenth player. If there were
fifteen players, that means that the first
player would also be the sixteenth player
as well. Probably the difficulty level would
balance out, as soon as the play made a
rotation.

How would one randomize the play order?
Wouldn't that be difficult? I think a
set playing order should suffice, if it
would be easier. I wouldn't mind going
later in the play order, I don't think
it would be a disadvantage at all. It
might reduce the odds of being the first
one dead : )

If a player doesn't have confidence in
their ability, to survive a turn in a deep
ID level, they could request a lower
position in the playing order. I don't
think that would be a great benefit though,
as surviving even ID 1 is not guaranteed.

I predict most deaths will start occuring
around ~ID 13 or so. Probably, the monster
that kills one player, would likely kill
many to follow. I mean, if you have to go
through a lightning vortex to get to the
down staircase...

This challenge does seem a bit more 'light'
than the RRC game. I think that we could
probably juggle both at the same time. I
would favor a random PC, at least for the
first run through. If we all wash out too
quickly with our inevitable gnome thief,
then we could make the switch to a more
powerful race/class combo.

In any case, sign me up. I will volunteer
for a later position in the play order,
if we use a set order.


Put me in the 'fool filter', where I belong!
Darren Grey
Registered user

Last page view:

2847 days, 17 hours, 5 minutes and 59 seconds ago.
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 at 04:28 (GMT -5)

One thing I like the idea of is 3 people dying to a lightning vortex and then a fourth finding some ingenious way around it...
Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse."
Timpen
Registered user
za za zaa za zaa


Last page view:

4379 days, 18 hours, 44 minutes and 50 seconds ago.
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 at 05:44 (GMT -5)

I'd definately sign up for this (wanted to sign up for Rhea also but didn't wan't to join in the middle).

The problem with random char generation is:

*If we have a league both leagues should play the same kind of chars.
*Chars without literacy/detect item status will have a really hard time with items. I think this challenge is hard enough already.

Drakeling priest sounds fine to me. I don't think you should be able to destroy the char hoping that the next one won't succeed. This way you can easily win later on by throwing all eq away taking down your hp and just waiting out your 2000 turns and gl hf to the next ones in line.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Portrait
gut
Registered user
Painted this one too.


Last page view:

3505 days, 19 hours, 22 minutes and 55 seconds ago.
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 at 06:29 (GMT -5)

Throw all your inventory away... except that
potion of poison. Quaff it, and send the file : )

I second the 'no screwing the next guy' idea. If
you need an item, or prayer, or whatever, use it.
If not, send it on.



Put me in the 'fool filter', where I belong!
Silfir
Registered user
Writer of Overly Long Guides


Last page view:

2676 days, 17 hours, 48 minutes and 9 seconds ago.
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 at 07:54 (GMT -5)

Liking the idea - a lot!

I don't think a "play fair" rule would work in a competitive environment. That's just not how it works. If I play to win, I play to win. Besides, who would be the judge for that kind of thing? Will we form a committee? "That wasn't competitive strategy, it was unfair screwing! You're gone!" It's better to create a hard rule with the goal of making the "bad" screwing undesirable:

If the player right after you loses within the first 500 turns of his game, you're out with him!

The player after THAT would receive the savegame that YOU started with before you created the unsolvable situation. This will also hold true if it wasn't your fault. If the next guy has bad luck within the first 500 turns, then you have bad luck too. Bye bye! (Doesn't seem like such a good idea to throw away the lifesaving stuff anymore, does it?)

If your successor survives the first 500 turns but dies afterwards, you're lucky. Even if he dies within the other 2000 turns and the next guy takes over your save and dies within 500 turns himself, it was at least proven that you CAN survive for 500 turns with your save, which is enough to say that it was "fair" screwing.

That way screwing with the next guy too much will backfire, and while surviving yourself is top priority, it's in your best interest to make sure the next guy survives - for a while. :) Less blatant "screwing", like throwing away melee weapons or otherwise ditching equipment, is less risky - as long as you trust your successor will be able to cope with it for 500 turns, it's indeed a good strategy to take out competitors!

Also, if you turn out to be too much of an ass, one of the other participators will gladly make you go down with him instead of trying to win the game...



Now that my rule changing proposal is out of the way, I was going to say "WE ARE NO PUSSIES RANDOMLY GENERATED ALL THE WAY", but your reasoning behind the choice of a priest is actually sound. Only, no specific race of priest. Random race, but priest. Or we could choose a special class mask for random generation, because a wizard would be acceptable too in my eyes (Healing, Literacy and spellcasting).
You drop the golden ball.
You kick the golden ball. It slides to the west.
Suddenly Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, appears! "That's not how you play Quidditch! are you even listening?"
Which direction? (123456789) 4
Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, is hit by a bolt of acid! Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, is annihilated.
You hear the ecstatic cries of a large crowd!

[Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/7/2008 at 08:03 (GMT -5) by Silfir]
Sulangatori
Registered user
Tourist


Last page view:

49 days, 22 hours, 30 minutes and 47 seconds ago.
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 at 08:02 (GMT -5)

Hmrf, so no crossing of big rivers without swimming skill and prayers when you have only three turns left then. That sucks.
Silfir
Registered user
Writer of Overly Long Guides


Last page view:

2676 days, 17 hours, 48 minutes and 9 seconds ago.
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 at 08:17 (GMT -5)

About detailed reports - In my eyes, it should be your choice how detailed your reports are. Don't ask your player to do things that go against the spirit of the game - taking the others OUT. You don't WANT to be helpful. It's in your best interest NOT to be helpful. And again, who is the judge for how detailed the report has to be?

I have a glorious title for the whole thing.

"The ADOM Champions League".

EDIT: Make the reports optional. Everyone wants to survive, and you can choose to give as much hints to next as you want so he survives 500 turns. But you can just as well say nothing at all.

EDIT2: One problem of my rule proposal is the case when there are only two players left, one passes on the game, and the other dies within 500 turns. In that case, the round would be left without a winner. If that happens, we'd have to resurrect both players and let the first one of those replay the save he got originally. You could call that "Heads Up Mode".

That is, IF we were going for my rule. Again - it would remove the need for some kind of committee that judges what constitues "unfair screwing" and what "competitive playing", which is a major plus in my eyes.
You drop the golden ball.
You kick the golden ball. It slides to the west.
Suddenly Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, appears! "That's not how you play Quidditch! are you even listening?"
Which direction? (123456789) 4
Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, is hit by a bolt of acid! Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, is annihilated.
You hear the ecstatic cries of a large crowd!

[Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/7/2008 at 08:46 (GMT -5) by Silfir]
Subconscious
Registered user
Adventurer of the Human Mind


Last page view:

3999 days, 16 hours, 19 minutes and 45 seconds ago.
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 at 08:34 (GMT -5)

Whatever is to come... Im in!
"The white baby dragon equips the small shield." WTF :D
Darren Grey
Registered user

Last page view:

2847 days, 17 hours, 5 minutes and 59 seconds ago.
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 at 09:08 (GMT -5)

Silfir:
>If the player right after you loses within the first 500
>turns of his game, you're out with him!

Sorry, but I really don't like that idea. It's way too easy to die in 500 turns from a sudden lightning vortex spawning or many other things - the previous guy shouldn't get the blame. If people aren't keen with overtly competitive play then it should simply be a rule - "No deliberately screwing the next guy over." People will just be trusted to follow that rule then (just as they're trusted to adhere to the other rules).

The idea of letting you screw up future players though it that it can add extra tactics to the challenge. It could be especially fun when down to 2 people. However it won't necessarily help you achieve a higher ranking than anyone else because if everyone after you dies then the save loops back to you, and you have to deal with whatever dreadul situation you created. Thus it would mean people wouldn't do anything absolutely fatal, but some might decide to restrict the character in certain ways that would hinder others more than themselves. It's all about giving your own tactics an edge above anyone else's. And like I said, I don't expect most people to actually do this until it gets down to very few players.

The best thing about this is that new players can screw up things for veterans especially - ignoring weapons, items and utility spells that are well exploited by experienced players but that newer players are less certain about using. If they know others will benefit more from these items they can leave them on the previous level and keep things more even for themselves.

Silfir:
>About detailed reports - In my eyes, it should be your choice
>how detailed your reports are. Don't ask your player to
>do things that go against the spirit of the game - taking
>the others OUT. You don't WANT to be helpful. It's in
>your best interest NOT to be helpful. And again, who is the
>judge for how detailed the report has to be?

Lack of detailed reports will make the game less fun for observation. And it's simply not fair to benefit from greater information than anyone else - all benefit should be from tactical skills or luck, not outside factors. Also mixed in with the ability to screw up the character a bit it means that everyone will be reading each others reports more carefully (something not everyone did last time!)
Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse."
Silfir
Registered user
Writer of Overly Long Guides


Last page view:

2676 days, 17 hours, 48 minutes and 9 seconds ago.
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 at 10:39 (GMT -5)

Sorry, but I really don't like that idea. It's way too easy to die in 500 turns from a sudden lightning vortex spawning or many other things - the previous guy shouldn't get the blame.

But the guy whose turn it actually is should? I mean, we don't let people restart if *they* die to freak accidents, right? It wouldn't be that unfair to extend that fate to the previous guy in line as well, especially since really unsurvivable bad luck is rarer than one might think.

We could lower the threshold to 200 turns if you think one shouldn't be bound to the fate of the next guy as long. But just saying "He shouldn't be blamed for bad luck" isn't enough. As I said, the other guy IS blamed for bad luck.

Of course people are expected to adhere to the rules in general - but we should have HARD rules in that case, which are easy to follow, and against which it isn't hard to determine a violation. The "don't screw over the others too much rule" is HORRIBLY unprecise. It'd be hard enough to enforce that correctly with some sort of referee observing everyone, but if I have to follow that rule, how the hell do I know what is "unfair screwing over" and what is not? We can say "That is unfair screwing over" and "These are allowed tactics" and list some stuff, but we won't be able to make an exhaustive lists - there's always going to be borderline cases, and people won't want to have several page forum discussions about these before they perform these borderline actions.

That's the reasoning behind my rule - it removes borderline cases. The only thing that matters is the turn counter when the other guy dies. It has its disadvantages - like having two players bound to the bad luck of one for a time - but I think it would remove a lot of burden for the players, and give them more freedom in thinking of devious ways to improve the odds in their favour WITHOUT going for cheap, quick-taking-out methods.

You're right about the reports, though - it would be boring for observers without them. Let's not forget to make this entertaining!
You drop the golden ball.
You kick the golden ball. It slides to the west.
Suddenly Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, appears! "That's not how you play Quidditch! are you even listening?"
Which direction? (123456789) 4
Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, is hit by a bolt of acid! Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, is annihilated.
You hear the ecstatic cries of a large crowd!
Darren Grey
Registered user

Last page view:

2847 days, 17 hours, 5 minutes and 59 seconds ago.
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 at 15:00 (GMT -5)

If it were any amount of turns it should be a low number like 20 - that's the only way you can say the second player's death might be somehow related to the first person's actions. However the first player might still have had a way around whatever happened - it might not have been a fatal circumstance for everyone.

I still don't like it - I don't like hard rules, and I don't see any benefit to it. This is a game - it should be about having fun, not enforcing and disciplining. There should be no element of refereeing or anything else. We have no way to make sure people aren't save-scumming for instance - we just have to take people's words for it. It's easier to not take it too seriously and let everyone do what they want, and be able to have a laugh about things if they end horribly.
Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse."
Portrait
gut
Registered user
Painted this one too.


Last page view:

3505 days, 19 hours, 22 minutes and 55 seconds ago.
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 at 15:25 (GMT -5)

Silfir:
>If the player right after you loses within the first 500
>turns of his game, you're out with him!

My initial reaction to that is negative. I
think it would keep less experienced players
from joining in. They might like the idea
of playing along, but not if THEIR blunder
might eliminate the player before them.

Also look at that from the other perspective.
Would you prefer to have Darren or Soirana
following your turn, or a guy with a sig like:
"I'v never wonn an adim gane"

We should try to structure things, so that
the game (and skill) determines who gets
eliminated, not an unfortunate play order.

We wouldn't need such strict rules, just a
clear statement like: "Don't create a fatal
situation." It would be rather easy to judge
if the situation is indeed fatal, everyone
would die from it! I suppose it isn't as big
of a problem as what I was thinking.

How shall we handle rivers? If the game
throws us a situation that no one can handle,
do we then go up the stairs to regenerate
the level? Should we pass the game through
all players, to judge if a river is indeed
to deadly to cross? Maybe we should say that
you can regenerate any level with a river,
as long as you still descend one level in
your turns.

EDIT:
If we are allowed to hinder the other
players intentionally, I will curse
and doom the PC at the end of my turn.
I have a lot of experience, playing
as a curse/doomed PC, and I think I
could survive quite easily that way.
At least for a while.


Put me in the 'fool filter', where I belong!


[Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/7/2008 at 15:39 (GMT -5) by gut]
FantomFang
Registered user

Last page view:

4407 days, 3 hours, 36 minutes and 14 seconds ago.
Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 at 16:15 (GMT -5)

I like the idea of this game, sounds like a lot of fun and I'm all for it. Random or set turn order doesn't bother me. It all sounds like fun. My suggestions though:

1) I believe that we should refrain from the screwing of others until later in the game, when we will inevitably get down to the truly skilled and the truly lucky players. Still dive as many levels as you want, just don't attempt to screw over your competition so that those less skilled at playing will have a chance to try and play more than one turn without dying. Maybe a set number of player deaths, or a set level of ID reached before deliberate screwing of others comes into play, and then only more indirect methods (aka what's been mentioned before, making a player's ability to handle situations harder through less options, rather than throwing them into a river and then passing it on). Of course, we should have to trust that others won't abuse these "soft" rules, but i don't think that will be a problem anyways, considering all of the "soft" rules we have on other games anyways. (Soft as in unenforceable).

2) I am in favor of making it random but setting up a class mask. I'm of the opinion that for this game, all races should be left in except trolls (b/c, imo, they deserve their own challenge game), and i think we should expand the possible classes list for this game, beyond maybe Prist/Wizard. I'll leave the thinking on that to other more experienced minds though.

3) Handicaps for the players who wish them (i'll refrain tho, fyi), like a 3 strike system or something for if they die. Just throwing it out there, for the less skilled (which is the group i probably fall into anyways, lol)

4) One last thing, i do not favor any rule that would discourage people from wanting to join in. On the idea of leagues, we could always set up leagues with the idea of setting them up so that the players can rank themselves on their skills, and we can set them up so that those of similar skills play each other

Well, those are all my idea and suggestions, and I am looking forward to doing this regardless of the shape and form it takes at its onset.
Going for 2nd win
Darren Grey
Registered user

Last page view:

2847 days, 17 hours, 5 minutes and 59 seconds ago.
Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2008 at 02:58 (GMT -5)

gut:
>How shall we handle rivers? If the game
>throws us a situation that no one can handle,
>do we then go up the stairs to regenerate
>the level?

One reason I suggested drakeling priest was swimming and unlimited piety (through the holy symbol). Few other r/c combos will be able to cross rivers easily. I guess we could allow this as the one exception to the "no up stairs" rule. If a river is generated that you don't think you can cross you are allowed to go immediately up and down the stairs.

gut:
>If we are allowed to hinder the other
>players intentionally, I will curse
>and doom the PC at the end of my turn.

Heh, now that's the sort of fun I'd like to see. It will remove the darkness fighting tactic though, which is extremely handy for ID survival.

FantomFang:
>I believe that we should refrain from the screwing of
>others until later in the game, when we will inevitably
>get down to the truly skilled and the truly lucky players.

The problem will be if someone's normal actions disadvantage others in some way. Perhaps there should be a general idea that for the first round or two you shouldn't do anything too crippling for others (such as dooming the char or throwing away decent armour), so that we don't have a massive wave of deaths straight away (which would ruin the fun).

FantomFang:
>Handicaps for the players who wish them (i'll refrain tho,
>fyi), like a 3 strike system or something for if they die.

What do you mean? 3 deaths allowed before you're out of the game? Or something else? I'm not too keen on this, because anyone who dies will get important hidden information about the character from the death screen (statuses we have and equipment identification in particular.)

FantomFang:
>On the idea of leagues, we could always set up leagues with
>the idea of setting them up so that the players can rank
>themselves on their skills, and we can set them up so that
>those of similar skills play each other

I was considering that, but it could be hard to set up with everyone ranking themselves. We'd have to invent some independant ranking system (like number of wins for the top guys and highest score for those who haven't beat the game). And some people might still get an advantage from that - for instance I have few wins overall, but a lot of experience with the ID through IronMan attempts.

Also it would lead to an unbalanced final - instead of a gruel between the best of the best, it would be pretty weighted in favour of whoever won from the top league. It would be nice though, having a newbie player from the lowest league guaranteed to enter the finals - everyone would support them as the underdog :)
Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse."
Silfir
Registered user
Writer of Overly Long Guides


Last page view:

2676 days, 17 hours, 48 minutes and 9 seconds ago.
Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2008 at 06:05 (GMT -5)

Okay, you've convinced me. gut (I always go through excrutiating pains if I start a sentence in lowercase. Damn you, gut, damn you!!) is right, if a situation is fatal, everyone would die from it. That would be the best way to know.

I think we should set up the first tournament leagues randomly. We should have a deadline for application, then the moderator decides the number and size of the groups. It would be excellent to have something like 12 participators, to make 2 leagues, and let the best three of each league enter the finals.

The first players in the order would have an easier time surviving because they would be still on ID:1, so that kind of makes up for the fact that they have to go first and are therefore the first to die.

Though it would be sort of anticlimactic if the first three players die on the first attempt, only to leave the next three already qualified. That's why I think a reduction to 1000 turns should be considered. 1000 turns already is a lot if you have to struggle to survive them.

My thoughts on the procedure: The best way to set it up would be if Darren generates a drakeling priest (or, you know, whatever, I just don't like drakelings much), prepares him with some large rations bought for the gold if he feels benevolent, lets him travel to the ID without fighting anything, reduce the turn counter to -2 with the turn reduction bug, step on the entrance (-1), and save. The first player would then enter the ID, generating its first level, and starting on turn 0.
You drop the golden ball.
You kick the golden ball. It slides to the west.
Suddenly Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, appears! "That's not how you play Quidditch! are you even listening?"
Which direction? (123456789) 4
Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, is hit by a bolt of acid! Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, is annihilated.
You hear the ecstatic cries of a large crowd!
Darren Grey
Registered user

Last page view:

2847 days, 17 hours, 5 minutes and 59 seconds ago.
Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2008 at 10:31 (GMT -5)

Good plan there Silfir - never considered the turn reduction bug to get an even start like that. What version should we use? I think we all used the Winbeta4 version last time?

I'll make a post on the other forums inviting people over to participate - the more the merrier if we're using leagues.
Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse."
Portrait
gut
Registered user
Painted this one too.


Last page view:

3505 days, 19 hours, 22 minutes and 55 seconds ago.
Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2008 at 11:53 (GMT -5)

> One reason I suggested drakeling priest was
> swimming and unlimited piety (through the holy
> symbol).

Whosoever is in my group, better enjoy that thing
while it's there. I've been playing with the 'no
prayer' restriction, for a looooooooooong time
now : )

> It will remove the darkness fighting tactic
> though,

Dooming wouldn't automatically remove darkness as
an option. Being gobbled up by a grue has a pretty
low probability of occuring. It should be
(relatively) safe to use darkness, just long enough
to handle something like a vortex.

> Perhaps there should be a general idea that for
> the first round or two you shouldn't do anything
> too crippling

Like increasing the difficulty level per round
rotation? That sounds pretty good. Perhaps 'PC
crippling' could be difined as 'taking an action
to increase the difficulty for the next players,
while providing no benefit for your own turn'.

That still leaves open the option of hindering
future players, by abusing the acid spit power
though. I could spit my way to 'hungry' status
near the end of my turn. If the next player
starves, that doesn't really mean it's a fatal
situation, it just means they got screwed out of
random food/corpse drops. The next player could
get some food, and be right back in the mix. Shall
we allow that as strategy?

> I think we should set up the first tournament
> leagues randomly.

I think there would be certain advantages to this,
over seperating groups by experience, but also
certain disadvantages.

Advantages:

People wouldn't have to declare themselves as
being 'great' or 'poor' players. That could make
some feel awkward.

Every player in a group would probably cheer along
their own group winner, regardless of skill level.

Random order generation would keep things lively,
if we decide to do the challenge repeatedly.

Disadvantages:

Would probably not be as encouraging for less
experienced players to join in. They might prefer
to compete against equally experienced players.

Well, I can't think of any more disadvantages.
In any case, having two leagues would reduce the
amounts of inactive time, for all players. So
for that reason alone, I'm all for it.


Put me in the 'fool filter', where I belong!
Darren Grey
Registered user

Last page view:

2847 days, 17 hours, 5 minutes and 59 seconds ago.
Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2008 at 12:23 (GMT -5)

gut:
>Whosoever is in my group, better enjoy that thing
>while it's there. I've been playing with the 'no
>prayer' restriction, for a looooooooooong time
>now : )

I pity whatever poor sods end up with you :P

>I could spit my way to 'hungry' status
>near the end of my turn.

Possible, but a dumb move really. If the file comes back to you because everyone died you'd have the same problem. The best competitive tactics to employ are ones that give you an edge somehow, not a random chance.
Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse."
Silfir
Registered user
Writer of Overly Long Guides


Last page view:

2676 days, 17 hours, 48 minutes and 9 seconds ago.
Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2008 at 13:51 (GMT -5)

Letting people be stuck with the "Hungry" status without any food or a prayer deliberately is definitely unfair screwing in my book. If you're just lucky (or smart) enough to survive to turn 2000 of your round at this point, okay.

Even a less skilled player has decent chances to make it far, since the more skilled players can always manage to die early.

Using the holy symbol to earn piety is a surefire way to ACHIEVE starvation in my book. (Dammit, how can one make these atrocious mistakes?!)

We have two choices in my eyes: We can take the drakeling priest, but force people to cross rivers without allowing them to regenerate levels. Or we go random race, and then allow river leeway.
You drop the golden ball.
You kick the golden ball. It slides to the west.
Suddenly Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, appears! "That's not how you play Quidditch! are you even listening?"
Which direction? (123456789) 4
Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, is hit by a bolt of acid! Harry Potter, the apprentice wizard, is annihilated.
You hear the ecstatic cries of a large crowd!

[Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/8/2008 at 13:59 (GMT -5) by Silfir]
Portrait
Maul
Registered user
[banned user]


Last page view:

3536 days, 17 hours, 31 minutes and 43 seconds ago.
Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2008 at 15:32 (GMT -5)

a) Are you interested in playing this?

Of course.

b) Do you want to play another Rhea-like game too? If so, before, after or alongside this one?

Yes. And I don't care when, it's not like I have issues with free time.

c) Should we use a drakish priest, random selection, or some other suggestion?

Again, I don't really care. I probably won't die in the first one or two turns anyway with anything better than a hurthling merchant, and then that deep everyone will have difficulties. While we're here, we might want to toss away a ridiculously difficult combo if we let fate decide because it isn't fun to see everyone dying.

d) What's the maximum number of people to have in a league?

As many as they apply. Leaving out someone would be unfair.

e) Any suggestions for rule changes or additions?

None, really, except maybe one thing to make it easier: you may reroll a level if you didn't stay in the level for more than 10 turns (the turns spent going back count as well). This should be strictly self-enforced - of course, the whole thing is about honesty anyways, so...

Anyway, about the whole thing, I'm not going to go to the extremes just to hinder the other players - the mobs will do that, and if the competition is full of bastards I wouldn't enter another league either way. So I leave it to the more skilled people to figure the rules out. I'll just voice my opinion about a few things: getting out if the next guy died in the first 500, or even 50 or 10 turns is a stupid idea - and I don't know what a turn reduction bug is.
1l= Y0(_) [4l\l R34[) 7l-l15, Y0(_) l\/l(_)57 83 PR377Y G00[).
Portrait
Maul
Registered user
[banned user]


Last page view:

3536 days, 17 hours, 31 minutes and 43 seconds ago.
Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2008 at 15:39 (GMT -5)

a) Are you interested in playing this?

Of course.

b) Do you want to play another Rhea-like game too? If so, before, after or alongside this one?

Yes. And I don't care when, it's not like I have issues with free time.

c) Should we use a drakish priest, random selection, or some other suggestion?

Again, I don't really care. I probably won't die in the first one or two turns anyway with anything better than a hurthling merchant, and then that deep everyone will have difficulties. While we're here, we might want to toss away a ridiculously difficult combo if we let fate decide because it isn't fun to see everyone dying.

d) What's the maximum number of people to have in a league?

As many as they apply. Leaving out someone would be unfair.

e) Any suggestions for rule changes or additions?

None, really, except maybe one thing to make it easier: you may reroll a level if you didn't stay in the level for more than 10 turns (the turns spent going back count as well). This should be strictly self-enforced - of course, the whole thing is about honesty anyways, so...

Anyway, about the whole thing, I'm not going to go to the extremes just to hinder the other players - the mobs will do that, and if the competition is full of bastards I wouldn't enter another league either way. So I leave it to the more skilled people to figure the rules out. I'll just voice my opinion about a few things: getting out if the next guy died in the first 500, or even 50 or 10 turns is a stupid idea - and I don't know what a turn reduction bug is.
1l= Y0(_) [4l\l R34[) 7l-l15, Y0(_) l\/l(_)57 83 PR377Y G00[).
Ars
Registered user

Last page view:

4436 days, 12 hours, 45 minutes and 51 seconds ago.
Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2008 at 16:28 (GMT -5)

Count me in.

First I thought that no direct rules would be necessary to avoid people screwing other players, as it would come back to them (what's the point of passing on a drowning character, to see who can get the most points during the next two turns spent drowning?). But then I thought things like the aforementioned deliberate hungering, which depend on luck mostly, could be easily exploited - if there's enough players left and I provide a situation which can be survived only with luck, then it'll probably drop a player or two, but someone still makes it through sheer luck and the hunger in the past doesn't make my next turn harder. And if you're left with a player clearly better than yourself, you might want to make it a game of luck instead of a game of skill.

And I'm against drakeling priest because I don't like playing a drakeling priest. :) Random, but no trolls.
Portrait
gut
Registered user
Painted this one too.


Last page view:

3505 days, 19 hours, 22 minutes and 55 seconds ago.
Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2008 at 17:56 (GMT -5)

Silfir:
> Letting people be stuck with the "Hungry"
> status without any food or a prayer
> deliberately is definitely unfair screwing
> in my book.

I agree. What dis-incentive to use though?
Perhaps a simple rule like: 'If you pass on
the PC in any state of hunger, and no means
of satiation, you are out'. Seems a bit harsh
I know, and could tempt some into illegal
stairhopping. On the other hand, drakelings
have food preservation, so it's not really
likely that accidental (extreme) hunger would
occur.

Silfir:
> Even a less skilled player has decent chances
> to make it far, since the more skilled players
> can always manage to die early

Christmas challenge proved that big time : )

Maul:
> you may reroll a level if you didn't stay
> in the level for more than 10 turns

That would allow stairhopping. I don't think
we should go that route.

Maul:
> I'm not going to go to the extremes just to
> hinder the other players

Well, I don't know that we have already decided
about when (or if) to allow extreme hindering
tactics. It's just a good idea to throw out
some possible scenarios, to get feedback on them,
before finalizing the rules.

Maul:
> if the competition is full of bastards I
> wouldn't enter another league either way

Well, if the final rules allow for extreme
tactics, in the 5th round rotation, then one
could hardly be called 'bastard' for employing
them.

------------------------------
Maul:
> getting out if the next guy died in the first
> 500, or even 50 or 10 turns is a stupid idea

I think that depends on what your definition
of the word 'stupid' is : ) I don't think it fits
my definition of 'stupid' at all.

Maul:
> getting out if the next guy died in the first
> 500, or even 50 or 10 turns is a stupid idea

I think that depends on what your definition
of the word 'stupid' is : ) I don't think it fits
my definition of 'stupid' at all.

: D
------------------------------

Maul:
> and I don't know what a turn reduction bug is.

It's a bug in the game, that allows you to reduce
the number of elapsed game turns.

Ars:
> And I'm against drakeling priest because I don't
> like playing a drakeling priest. :)

I wonder if it's time to create a poll about some
of these options. If there were one right now, I
would probably vote for:

Random race generation.
Random player order.
Allow extreme hindering tactics after 2 rounds.

Put me in the 'fool filter', where I belong!


[Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/8/2008 at 17:59 (GMT -5) by gut]
Darren Grey
Registered user

Last page view:

2847 days, 17 hours, 5 minutes and 59 seconds ago.
Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2008 at 18:36 (GMT -5)

I think it's fairly clear that overly competitive tactics would put of less experienced players more and should be disallowed. I think one simple rule should fix this a little: don't do anything near the end of your turn deliberately intended to harm the next player. Thus competitive tactics are allowed, but as long as you have to suffer properly from them too during your round. Nothing within the last 500 or so turns cuts out any chance of putting the character in an extreme situation like starvation or drowning.
Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse."
Portrait
gut
Registered user
Painted this one too.


Last page view:

3505 days, 19 hours, 22 minutes and 55 seconds ago.
Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2008 at 19:03 (GMT -5)

It wouldn't keep me from killing piety or the
holy symbol though. I'm used to playing with no
prayers, so it doesn't bother me. Same thing with
cursing (maybe dooming), I'm pretty confident I
can deal with that for 2000 turns. If the rules
allow it, I will most likely do it.


Put me in the 'fool filter', where I belong!
riktikticheck
Registered user

Last page view:

4438 days, 19 hours, 1 minute and 23 seconds ago.
Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2008 at 21:01 (GMT -5)

this sounds like heaps of fun.

one question tho, as i haven't dived as far myself i do not know, but does the level 35 with the sceptre have a down staricase, and if not what are you gonna do about that (hey can't one be optimistic ;))
= go iron man challenege as a group action !!!

as far as the spesific rules go i don't really care as everyone will be subjected to the same rules anyway

so a big thumbs up for such a splendid idea
Darren Grey
Registered user

Last page view:

2847 days, 17 hours, 5 minutes and 59 seconds ago.
Posted on Friday, May 09, 2008 at 04:14 (GMT -5)

It's not exactly Iron Man since you don't have to head straight for the stairs each level. The Sceptre is on ID 67 I think, and the stairs down from that lead further into the depths of the infinite dungeon. If we happen to get that far (no chance) then it's best to just run through the level for the stairs, since it's very corrupting and so is the artifact there.
Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse."
vogonpoet
Registered user

Last page view:

3565 days, 36 minutes and 43 seconds ago.
Posted on Friday, May 09, 2008 at 07:24 (GMT -5)

Sounds good, count me in.

My preferences: random R/C combo - whatever happens happens.

Rivers generated if we can't swim: < > level regen allowed, net minimum level decrease by 1 must still apply.

Leaving PC without food, whilst starving!, with 1 HP, no PP, no spells, doomed and cursed standing in a dark room at end of your go rule:
1/ If all other players left in die, game comes back to you, you survive another 2000 turns: well played, we have a winner.
2/ If all other players left in die, game comes back to you, you FAIL to survive another 2000 turns: you are weakest link, you die, all other players which were still in game continue from the point before your first 2000 turns.

Surely that makes sense? If player X makes such a mess no one, not even player X, can get out of the position, player X loses, game moves on.

Sounds like its gonna be fun, oh, and when does Rhea II begin?
Go to page 1 2 3

Color mixer:
Red: Green: Blue: HTML color code: result:      
Your Name: Check to login:

Your Message:


Read the
formating help
Are you a spambot? Yes No Maybe Huh?
Create poll? Yes No   What is this?
Poll question: