The Tavern

@Siegurt: Here is an allegory for you. Suppose there is a house on the market. Maybe it has rotted out beams, major structural damage and architectural flaws such that the cost of renovation would be comparable to cost of new construction. This is the scenario you like to suggest to people who advocate for major changes in crawl. Perhaps instead it is structurally sound and physically well-maintained, but it has a messy interior with outdated decor and plastic flamingos in the yard. Maybe the owners just like it that way, maybe they don't have the energy or interest to fix it. It's a problem of will more than simple feasibility. Fixing it takes work, but not the way building a new house would. This scenario is where crawl is now. To me, a lot of arguments around here look like impassioned defenses of pink flamingos.

@bel: Obviously if the player has entered a fatal game state, the game should end as quickly as possible. The natural inclination of players will be to hang on as long as possible even when the game is lost. There is no point in allowing them to linger.

watertreatmentRL wrote:@Siegurt: Here is an allegory for you. Suppose there is a house on the market. Maybe it has rotted out beams, major structural damage and architectural flaws such that the cost of renovation would be comparable to cost of new construction. This is the scenario you like to suggest to people who advocate for major changes in crawl. Perhaps instead it is structurally sound and physically well-maintained, but it has a messy interior with outdated decor and plastic flamingos in the yard. Maybe the owners just like it that way, maybe they don't have the energy or interest to fix it. It's a problem of will more than simple feasibility. Fixing it takes work, but not the way building a new house would. This scenario is where crawl is now. To me, a lot of arguments around here look like impassioned defenses of pink flamingos.

I was questioning whether *you* thought there was anything worth saving. It sounded to me like maybe you wanted to buy a house that happened to have pink flamingos on the lawn, that people were living in, and tear it down and build a condo, when there was a cheaper empty lot literally next door. But this post makes me think that you value the stucture at least.

I get that you see the things you advocate for the removal of as being superfluous, but the current tenants like the pink flamingos, they think they are cute and not outdated at all, and that they add to the charm of the house. Stripping all the decoration from the house and making it look just like every other house on the block, white, utilitarian, and with nothing to set it apart, might be great if you wanted to put it up for auction to maximize the resell value, but it isnt a great place to live.

chequers wrote:You're missing the point. Crawl's philosophy isn't an argument. It's a development principle. It's a principle you dislike, but that doesn't make it "wrong".

I wasn't suggesting that it was wrong. I was suggesting that it was objectively inferior and contradictory in terms of ideals.

add pink flamingos

watertreatmentRL wrote:@bel: Obviously if the player has entered a fatal game state, the game should end as quickly as possible. The natural inclination of players will be to hang on as long as possible even when the game is lost. There is no point in allowing them to linger.

This is assuming the conclusion. Nobody can know that the game has entered a "fatal game state" two hours before the actual fact. As a practical matter, virtually all of these "fatal game states" aren't fatal at all; it depends on what you do in those two hours and the RNG.

With an attrition based mechanism, you take stock of your current consumables and the prospects of battle ahead, and there is a certain probability that you will survive. This chance can go up and down based on how many consumables you have, and how skillful you are. This chance is rarely zero percent. The road ahead may be painful; you might be forced to avoid some monsters, keep your eye out for lucky breaks, and so on. With this mechanism, it is up to the player to decide whether they want to continue or type ctrl-Q.

With the other system (it's not clear what is being proposed), some person who thinks that they know better, decides that the "game has entered a fatal game state" (how?). So the player is killed. Of course, it's for the player's own good: they shouldn't be allowed to waste their time when this knowledgeable person has already determined that it is a "fatal game state".

@bel: You know that the sophisticated version of the pro-food argument uses this idea of a quick, transparent death versus a long drawn out death to resolve the question of why not to just use a straight game timer, right?

@Siegurt: The nice thing about it, though, is that there will always be those charming old versions for flamingo lovers. Many flamingos have been removed in past versions and I feel confident more will in the future. Everywhere you see commentary on crawl, you see people complaining about flamingo removals. It is clarifying to see that what you and a couple of other folks on here argue from thread to thread is explicitly and abstractly pro-flamingo.

watertreatmentRL wrote:@bel: You know that the sophisticated version of the pro-food argument uses this idea of a quick, transparent death versus a long drawn out death to resolve the question of why not to just use a straight game timer, right?

@Siegurt: The nice thing about it, though, is that there will always be those charming old versions for flamingo lovers. Many flamingos have been removed in past versions and I feel confident more will in the future. Everywhere you see commentary on crawl, you see people complaining about flamingo removals. It is clarifying to see that what you and a couple of other folks on here argue from thread to thread is explicitly and abstractly pro-flamingo.

Well, the thing is that we also want replacement flamingos, and maybe a gnome or two, it sounds like you're opposed to all lawn ornamentation on the principle that things should never be ornamented. I'm totally ok with pitching ornaments that suck, are broken, or are just plain outdated, but I still like ornamentation to *exist*. I'm in favor of progress, I don't want things never to change, nor do I think that the game is perfect as-is, but I don't think "All things that are not undilutedly essential and core to the game should be ruthlessly exterminated" makes a good game, I've played games like that, and they suck.

Obviously I favor redecoration. Flamingos, lawn jockeys, and so on are non-negotiable.

As to the virtue of clean, spare mechanics, I can't say I share your experience with them. I'm pretty sure I've seen you oppose changes that would be mathematically identical if you assume the code is correct as written, so if you're not abstractly opposed to change, you could have fooled me.

When did this thread turn into the home and garden channel? Is property brothers on next?

watertreatmentRL wrote:I'm pretty sure I've seen you oppose changes that would be mathematically identical if you assume the code is correct as written

I'm pretty sure you have not

I'm locking this thread, since the idea that it will get back on topic seems remote, there's not much more to be said about the topic in the first place, and if Siegurt and WTRL want to argue about home decorating, I'm sure they can start a CYC thread to that effect. Anybody who wants to continue talking about paralysis should probably start up a new thread, ideally one with a more focused proposal.

e: of course, if any of you wants to continue some part of this thread and need me to split it off so you can do that, shoot me a PM.

The Tavern

This paralysis stuff is getting pretty stupid

Re: This paralysis stuff is getting pretty stupid

Re: This paralysis stuff is getting pretty stupid

Re: This paralysis stuff is getting pretty stupid

Re: This paralysis stuff is getting pretty stupid

Re: This paralysis stuff is getting pretty stupid

Re: This paralysis stuff is getting pretty stupid

Re: This paralysis stuff is getting pretty stupid

Re: This paralysis stuff is getting pretty stupid

Re: This paralysis stuff is getting pretty stupid

Re: This paralysis stuff is getting pretty stupid

Re: This paralysis stuff is getting pretty stupid