ToME: the Tales of Maj'Eyal

Everything about ToME
It is currently Sat Mar 25, 2017 11:42 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2016 5:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:07 pm
Posts: 2
I've stumbled across a couple of different answers:
- 2.3.5 is the obvious baseline; I've got a copy of this, and I've managed to get it to compile on Linux. This is pretty much where I've had all my fun. :D
- I've seen 2.3.8 tossed about as a good version, but I have no clue if this is the one in the https://github.com/tome2/tome2/ repo or a different one.
- 2.3.11-ah seems to be the most recent "stable" (i.e. released) version (from the same repo,) but it segfaults when I try to start it up (running on CentOS 6, mind you.) User error, or Not Really Stable(TM)?
- I gave compiling the main repo on GitHub a shot (as 2.4.0,) but I don't really feel like wading through dependency hell to get it running if it's not worth it - it seems to be using a fair bit of new stuff that just isn't available in the CentOS yum repos.
- Other versions that are laying around, hidden from searches that also bring up old Diablo patches and businesses in the UAE? (no, really, searching for ToME 2.4.0 brings up a -ton- of unrelated junk)

So my question to y'all is: Which version should I be focusing on?

Side note: I just wanted to say thanks to all of you who are keeping this version of the game alive. I actually grabbed ToME4 and played it a bit, but I find I greatly prefer the good old roguelike version. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 4:10 am 
Offline
Spiderkin

Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 12:48 pm
Posts: 478
Epsilon wrote:
I've stumbled across a couple of different answers:
- 2.3.11-ah seems to be the most recent "stable" (i.e. released) version (from the same repo,) but it segfaults when I try to start it up (running on CentOS 6, mind you.) User error, or Not Really Stable(TM)?

I try to at least play a little bit before tagging any version, so it definitely shouldn't crash. Any chance you could compile with debugging info and get a backtrace?

Epsilon wrote:
- I gave compiling the main repo on GitHub a shot (as 2.4.0,) but I don't really feel like wading through dependency hell to get it running if it's not worth it - it seems to be using a fair bit of new stuff that just isn't available in the CentOS yum repos.


Unless you're prepared to update the (manually?) compiler to something a lot more recent, I think CentOS 6 is probably far too old at this point.

Which deps are the problematic ones for you? Jansson? Or Boost? Both? (Those are the only external ones so far. I've been considering replacing Jansson with the header-only RapidJSON so I can get rid of that dependency, but it's a fair amount of work...)

Epsilon wrote:
- Other versions that are laying around, hidden from searches that also bring up old Diablo patches and businesses in the UAE? (no, really, searching for ToME 2.4.0 brings up a -ton- of unrelated junk)

Heh, that's pretty weird. (Though 2.4.0 was apparently the version number of a Diablo 3 patch, so I guess that kind of makes sense.)

Epsilon wrote:
So my question to y'all is: Which version should I be focusing on?


Unless you're prepared to upgrade your disto, you're (unfortunately) probably going to have a rough time compiling newer versions. I'd say 2.3.11-ah is probably your best bet... if you can help me debug where it goes wrong :)

Epsilon wrote:
Side note: I just wanted to say thanks to all of you who are keeping this version of the game alive. I actually grabbed ToME4 and played it a bit, but I find I greatly prefer the good old roguelike version. :)


Out of curiousity: Have you tried Vanilla Angband recently? If so, what you think about some of the newer changes? I've been thinking about taking T2 more in this direction of removing junk and streamlining game play hugely (e.g. removing/streamlining the ID game, perhaps outright removing traps), so I'd love any input from actual players other than myself. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 8:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:07 pm
Posts: 2
AnonymousHero wrote:
Epsilon wrote:
I've stumbled across a couple of different answers:
- 2.3.11-ah seems to be the most recent "stable" (i.e. released) version (from the same repo,) but it segfaults when I try to start it up (running on CentOS 6, mind you.) User error, or Not Really Stable(TM)?

I try to at least play a little bit before tagging any version, so it definitely shouldn't crash. Any chance you could compile with debugging info and get a backtrace?


I must've screwed up something - I actually got 2.3.11-ah to compile, after switching up the distro on the machine to Mint.
AnonymousHero wrote:
Epsilon wrote:
- I gave compiling the main repo on GitHub a shot (as 2.4.0,) but I don't really feel like wading through dependency hell to get it running if it's not worth it - it seems to be using a fair bit of new stuff that just isn't available in the CentOS yum repos.

Unless you're prepared to update the (manually?) compiler to something a lot more recent, I think CentOS 6 is probably far too old at this point.

Which deps are the problematic ones for you? Jansson? Or Boost? Both? (Those are the only external ones so far. I've been considering replacing Jansson with the header-only RapidJSON so I can get rid of that dependency, but it's a fair amount of work...)

It was both Jansson and Boost - both versions that were in EPEL were just a hair too old for whatever you built them against. And I think I put the files in the wrong place when I built (or "built" for boost) them locally. And I don't think it's that CentOS 6 is old - it's in long-term support for a few years yet - but it is an enterprise OS. All the packages tend to be older, but definitely stable (for certain values of stable.) It's not an OS to run if you want the new hotness for everything. ;)
AnonymousHero wrote:
Epsilon wrote:
- Other versions that are laying around, hidden from searches that also bring up old Diablo patches and businesses in the UAE? (no, really, searching for ToME 2.4.0 brings up a -ton- of unrelated junk)

Heh, that's pretty weird. (Though 2.4.0 was apparently the version number of a Diablo 3 patch, so I guess that kind of makes sense.)
Epsilon wrote:
So my question to y'all is: Which version should I be focusing on?

Unless you're prepared to upgrade your disto, you're (unfortunately) probably going to have a rough time compiling newer versions. I'd say 2.3.11-ah is probably your best bet... if you can help me debug where it goes wrong :)

I ended up going this route. I've been wanting to try out linux Mint as a desktop OS on a side computer for a while, so I took this as an excuse to do so. I'm definitely seeing why so many people hate systemd though. :P
AnonymousHero wrote:
Epsilon wrote:
Side note: I just wanted to say thanks to all of you who are keeping this version of the game alive. I actually grabbed ToME4 and played it a bit, but I find I greatly prefer the good old roguelike version. :)

Out of curiousity: Have you tried Vanilla Angband recently? If so, what you think about some of the newer changes? I've been thinking about taking T2 more in this direction of removing junk and streamlining game play hugely (e.g. removing/streamlining the ID game, perhaps outright removing traps), so I'd love any input from actual players other than myself. :)

I haven't played vanilla Angband in a loooong time. For the most part though, I -do- like complexity.

I haven't played much with the new changes yet, but stuff like removing alchemy makes me a bit sad just on general principle - even if I don't play them much. ;)

I read about removing traps, and I'm kind of torn. On one hand, it's weird to play a roguelike -without- traps. On the other hand, I can definitely get behind dumping some of the real "screw you" traps - stuff like the item scattering or (essentially) instant death ones. A trap should be a hindrance, not a game-ender (IMHO.)

I'll reserve judgment on whatever was done to Thaumaturgy until I get a chance to play around with it. I actually played a bit with rebalancing the spells myself a few years back (although I didn't realize the area spells actually shot out <#spell level> bolts, so they got -way- too boosted <_<,) but I'll be damned if I actually know where those changes are anymore.

I'll give it some playtime tomorrow morning (and see if I can compile straight from the github repo.) It's entirely too late to be starting a game right now. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 8:42 am 
Offline
Spiderkin

Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 12:48 pm
Posts: 478
Epsilon wrote:
I read about removing traps, and I'm kind of torn. On one hand, it's weird to play a roguelike -without- traps. On the other hand, I can definitely get behind dumping some of the real "screw you" traps - stuff like the item scattering or (essentially) instant death ones. A trap should be a hindrance, not a game-ender (IMHO.)


It was partly that[1], but also the fact that traps that weren't lethal were almost completely inconsequential except in the very early game. They're just... annoying for no good reason. At worst they'd usually just delay you for a turn or two depending on whether you had 0% fail escapes.

All my play-testing games have been playing without traps for quite a while now and I haven't missed them one bit. If you want to try it out yourself you can apply the following changes to try it out:
Code:
@@ -1941,6 +1941,11 @@ void place_trap(int y, int x)
    cave_type *c_ptr = &cave[y][x];
    dungeon_info_type *d_ptr = &d_info[dungeon_type];
 
+   // FIXME: Just for playtesting...
+   if (1) {
+      return;
+   }
+
    /* No traps in town or on first level */
    if (dun_level <= 1) return;
 
@@ -2017,6 +2022,11 @@ void place_trap_object(object_type *o_ptr)
    trap_type *t_ptr;
    int cnt;
 
+   // FIXME: Just for playtesting...
+   if (1) {
+      return;
+   }
+
    /* No traps in town or on first level */
    if (dun_level <= 1)
    {

(not sure if patch will apply directly with 'patch', but if you find the corresponding functions in src/traps.cc and add the "if (1) { return; }" bit in there it should work. Obviously this won't remove all the items/skills (etc.) related to traps.

Vanilla Angband has done something which sounds more interesting here in the latest version, IMO, but I haven't actually playtested that yet. I'm still leaning towards outright removal. (Per: https://github.com/tome2/tome2/pull/6 )

[1] "Press Detect Traps once every X turns or die" is not a fun mechanic.

Epsilon wrote:
I'll reserve judgment on whatever was done to Thaumaturgy until I get a chance to play around with it. I actually played a bit with rebalancing the spells myself a few years back (although I didn't realize the area spells actually shot out <#spell level> bolts, so they got -way- too boosted <_<,) but I'll be damned if I actually know where those changes are anymore.


IIRC it was just minor tweaking to avoid some of the more absurdly overpowered stuff, but I'd be happy to hear feedback. (There weren't actually my changes.)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group