Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - LazyCat

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14
Traditional Roguelikes (Turn Based) / Re: Advanced Super Turbo Rogue Plus
« on: December 25, 2016, 12:37:37 PM »
New version online, first post updated with the download link.

- can hurl gold at monsters, like in Shiren
- slimes move at half speed, as in Epyx version
- scoreboard shows only one entry per name
- hints page added to info tab menu

Traditional Roguelikes (Turn Based) / Re: Brogue-AUDIO (1.7.4)
« on: October 09, 2016, 11:19:35 AM »
Then the same message with libespeak.dll

This tells me it's wrong file you downloaded ( That is Brogue-SPEAK with integrated speech synthesis and other changes so blind people can play it. It is also just an update file, that's why it doesn't contain all those libraries.
Anyway, you need "". The link is in the first post of this thread, and here it is again:

Traditional Roguelikes (Turn Based) / Re: Brogue-AUDIO (1.7.4)
« on: September 28, 2016, 07:55:42 AM »
Quote from: Squeeealer
Hey!  I have a new computer and I'm having trouble with DLing Brogue Audio. First, I am warned that it's not a familiar app. Then I run it anyway. Then it gives me a series of errors like what was recently posted on reedit. As if files are missing. Any idea what's going on?

I do not know what was recently posted on reddit. What operating system runs your new computer, and what files it is complaining are missing?

Off-topic (Locked) / Re: SETI and radio waves
« on: August 28, 2016, 10:19:11 PM »
What I was trying to say is that even they did use radio we wouldn't be able to catch the signal.

I think that's right, which would make your question valid. So then, why indeed.

- "Shostak calculates that Nasa's recent broadcast of Beatles music towards Polaris, the North Star, using a 210ft antenna and 20kw of power, would require any potential aliens to have an antenna seven miles across to be aware of it. To actually receive it as music, this would need to be increased to a 500-mile wide antenna."

Off-topic (Locked) / Re: SETI and radio waves
« on: August 28, 2016, 10:13:40 PM »
"Yeah, only OUR planet has conditions to life and only OUR race is intelligent."

You don't seem to be reading what is he saying.

New version is online, first post updated with the download link.

Fixed some long lingering bugs in the original v5 code. Added features from Epyx version, namely instead of snakes there are slime monsters that can split, ice monsters roam around and shoot frost bolts, throwing potions on monsters can affect them. And finally now a feature unique to Rogue+: monsters can trigger traps, and some traps can be picked up and set elsewhere.

Play in a browser:

Classic Roguelikes / Re: Rogue - let's beat it
« on: August 07, 2016, 02:18:37 PM »
So I discovered the NetBSD Rogue link I posted earlier is actually Rogue Clone.

- "The 'Rogue' that many users play is not Toy's and Wichman's original game, nor is it a port of that game, but it is a reimplementation of that game called a Rogue clone... The source code of one such clone found its way its way into the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) at about 1987, and both FreeBSD and NetBSD continue to distribute it today."

- "I wrote this code (Rogue Clone) out of disgust for the inexcusable number of bugs that rogue 5.3 is famous for... "

Elwin, in case you want to host Rogue Clone on your website here is the Linux port:

Classic Roguelikes / Re: Rogue - let's beat it
« on: August 07, 2016, 02:01:49 PM »
I wouldn't blame someone if they didn't consider this a legitimate win, but it's good enough for me.

Congratulations. I'd say it counts, as far as v3 goes, but of course it doesn't compare to Squeeealer's miraculous victory in v5.

Classic Roguelikes / Re: Rogue - let's beat it
« on: August 07, 2016, 07:25:23 AM »
That has nothing to do with my point, but v5 was made by the original authors.  It's the final release of the the original Unix version of Rogue.

Your point seems contradictory. You first say leave the bugs, but then you also say you will not play it.

It is true, Rogue v5 without ISRUN bug isn't Rogue v5 any more. But neither was Rogue v3 anymore when it became Rogue v4.
So how about we fix v5 bugs and call it v6, then this v6 could be the reference point for everyone and the most played version in the next 20 years. Doesn't that make more sense than sticking with bugs or rolling back to some old version?

Don't get me wrong, I do like your port. Just not a fan of the interface.

I appreciate your feedback. I love the interface, and ultimately it is me I'm making this for, but I do very much hope other people would like it as well, so it is unfortunate you don't. 

Especially since the screen does not seem to fit my monitor properly in fullscreen.

I find that really strange. Have you tried "auto-configure" option, most monitors have it I think. What monitor is it(resolution), what OS? Do other console games fit your monitor in fullscreen, original Epyx DOS Rogue for example?

In any case, if you ever going to try it again I highly recommend playing browser version instead:

It hosts the most recent version, for which I have not yet released standard zip download as I am still testing it and playing in a browser myself. Plus, it keeps hi-scores online, so that makes it more interesting if you wish to compete with other people (mostly just me) and try to beat my record.

Classic Roguelikes / Re: Rogue - let's beat it
« on: August 07, 2016, 02:20:44 AM »
It's clearly a bug rather than an intended feature, but it's still part of the game people have been playing for 30 years.  Rogue v5 without the ISRUN bug isn't Rogue v5 anymore.  It might be a better game than Rogue v5 but it's not the same game people have been playing for decades and beating it isn't the same achievement.

As for me, I'm going to chicken out and play v3 instead.

You seem to think v5 is the most spread out version and thus played by the most people throughout the years. Do you actually know this to be true? I do not know, but my impression was that it is a version produced by some random people only after any of the original, actual authors were involved, and I think it's questionable how much widespread it really is. But again, I don't really know, and I would like to know.

Classic Roguelikes / Re: Rogue - let's beat it
« on: August 07, 2016, 02:04:52 AM »
I would not say that trying to preserve Unix Rogue as it was distributed with BSD is an inherently flawed goal.  It is a real historical game, as much as PC Rogue, Mac Rogue, or Atari Rogue, though it differs from them.  Transforming it into one of them is an ambitious project, and probably a valuable one, but it's a different project.

This BSD distribution looks quite different than v3/v4/v5 branch. Do you know how v3/v4/v5 came about and how come it differs from that BSD version? Was any of the original, actual authors still involved at the time v3/v4/v5 was released? Or was it that at the time any of them were still involved it was with the branch from that NetBSD link above?

Do you know which of these two versions was distributed more and played by more people throughout the years, or could it actually be Rogue Clone that was distributed and played the most?

Classic Roguelikes / Re: Rogue - let's beat it
« on: August 06, 2016, 01:41:00 PM »
There are two possible issues here.

1. Monsters always get a to-hit bonus when attacking the player.

If you work through the numbers in the Vade-Mecum's sections on fighting and armor, you'll see that it describes the +4 bonus.  See in particular the part about how much AC is needed to block all hits from Hobgoblins.  If the mechanics have always been that way, to the point where they're described in the Vade-Mecum, I'm not going to call it a bug.

While the authors may not always have understood why their code did what it did, a 20% increase in monster accuracy has a significant effect, one that they and their lab of playtesters would have noticed.  It may have been introduced by accident, but it remained deliberately, and became part of the balance of the game.

I get what you're saying but it should be clear if the original intention was for monsters to get the bonus all the time there wouldn't be any test against ISRUN flag.

Regarding historicity of it, it seems to me you give too much credit to some random people I think we don't know who they actually are, and I don't see a reason why should their version of the game be taken as the reference.

Why not Epyx DOS version be the reference? Even better, Mac or Atari ST versions as they came later and likely were more refined and more bug-fixed, plus they were made by the actual original authors of the game.

2. The player never gets the bonus, even when attacking a sleeping monster.

If this is happening, it is definitely a bug.

It is happening. Simple solution is to move the call to runto() function from the beginning of the fight() function to its end.

This makes it obvious the whole addition of "to-hit bonus" feature in v4 was half-assed. Instead of giving the player slightly better chance of fighting monsters, it made already hard game not just harder but also unfair.

I also think this shows your reasoning regarding historical preservation is flawed. You could just as well say you want to preserve this bug for the same reasons you want to preserve the first bug. The flaw is not in your desire to keep it historically accurate, the problem is in choosing which version to take as a proper historical reference.

Classic Roguelikes / Re: Rogue - let's beat it
« on: August 06, 2016, 08:52:23 AM »
Looks like someone else noticed the same thing in another thread a few years ago.

Interesting. I have to comment on what Elwin said there...

Quote from: elwin
Monsters getting a bonus is probably not a bug.

Code: [Select]
     * If the creature being attacked is not running (alseep or held)
     * then the attacker gets a plus four bonus to hit.
    if (!on(*thdef, ISRUN))
hplus += 4;

If you look at the comment, it talks about: "creature", "asleep", "held". All those point that the bonus was meant to help the player against monsters primarily, and possibly not the other way around at all. The test against ISRUN flag is used a lot in the code handling monsters, but only a few times concerning the player, so I would not be surprised if whoever wrote that didn't know ISRUN flag would actually apply to the player and thus give monsters the bonus as well.

In conclusion, monsters getting the bonus when character is frozen could very well not actually be intended, but the fact monsters get this bonus all the time is almost certainly a bug, and definitively not justified as monsters were already deadly more than enough.

Quote from: elwin
The Rogue devs extensively tested the game, and I doubt they accidentally made it substantially harder than they intended.

If it was only about monsters getting the bonus, and getting it all the time, but it's even worse than that, it's about player never getting the bonus at all. Clearly that was not intention, so it seems whoever wrote that didn't really have a clue what they were doing, and however extensive the testing, it was obviously not proper.

It's not kind of thing you would normally notice through play-testing having the game employ a very wide RNG range for most outcomes. It ought to had been tested within the code itself. I tested it by simply putting a print string command that would print on the screen "bonus" if the test passed and "no bonus" if it didn't. When monsters attack it always says "bonus", and when player attacks it always says "no bonus" even when when attacking sleeping ones. As I pointed out earlier, when looking in the code it is clear why is that so.

Classic Roguelikes / Re: Rogue - let's beat it
« on: August 06, 2016, 07:57:48 AM »
Alright I just did some testing that seems to confirm that the bug is present in v4 but not v3 on Elwin's site.

I let level 1 enemies attack a fresh character 150 times in v3 and 52 of them hit, so that's 34.667%.  Next I took 156 attacks from level 1 enemies as fresh character in v4 and 84 of them hit, which is 53.846%.  A +4 bonus to hit is 20%, so that's exactly what I'd expect to see.

v3 doesn't have that bonus damage code at all, so yes, that fits your observation. The bug came with v4 as soon as the bonus to-hit feature was implemented. In other words, it was not implemented properly from the start and obviously it was not tested properly, which is disappointing.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14