Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

[YAGBU] (possible) Ratling Guardian Corpse

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 6:54:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

I dont know whether this would spoil anything for anyone but Ill pop in some
space.
















I just got Sparky to kill a Ratling Guardian for the exp. Detect Item status
regarded the Ratling Guardian corpse as uncursed. Lvl 10 Gnomish Bard, N+.
When eating, I received the message "You feel responsible". I never noticed
any stat/alignment changes and dont have the resources to check although if
its allowed for testing purposes, I could save scum it.

I didnt noticed it under corpse effects so I dont know whether its covered
anywhere else in the GB. Apologies if it is.
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 9:10:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 14:54:05 +0000, Neil Elcome wrote:

> I dont know whether this would spoil anything for anyone but Ill pop in
> some space.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I just got Sparky to kill a Ratling Guardian for the exp. Detect Item
> status regarded the Ratling Guardian corpse as uncursed. Lvl 10 Gnomish
> Bard, N+. When eating, I received the message "You feel responsible". I
> never noticed any stat/alignment changes and dont have the resources to
> check although if its allowed for testing purposes, I could save scum it.
>
> I didnt noticed it under corpse effects so I dont know whether its covered
> anywhere else in the GB. Apologies if it is.

The guidebook isn't intended to be a definitive source for every aspect of
the game. (Andy can correct that statement if its wrong.)

Your alignment changes +250 when you eat it. Its not anywhere in the
guidebook that I'm aware of.
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 1:04:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

frobnoid wrote:

> Neil Elcome wrote:

> > I dont know whether this would spoil anything for anyone but Ill pop in
> > some space.

> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

> > I just got Sparky to kill a Ratling Guardian for the exp. Detect Item
> > status regarded the Ratling Guardian corpse as uncursed. Lvl 10 Gnomish
> > Bard, N+. When eating, I received the message "You feel responsible". I
> > never noticed any stat/alignment changes and dont have the resources to
> > check although if its allowed for testing purposes, I could save scum it.

> > I didnt noticed it under corpse effects so I dont know whether its covered
> > anywhere else in the GB. Apologies if it is.

It's not. There was some effort made to figure this out years ago.

> The guidebook isn't intended to be a definitive source for every aspect of
> the game. (Andy can correct that statement if its wrong.)

True, although the result you mention below will be incorporated.

> Your alignment changes +250 when you eat it. Its not anywhere in the
> guidebook that I'm aware of.

Interesting. +250 towards lawful? That seems counterintuitive.
--
Andy Williams
ADOM Guidebook: http://www.andywlms.com/adom/
Mirror: http://users.rcn.com/andy.williams/adom/
Related resources
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 1:04:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 21:04:34 -0400, Andy Williams wrote:

> frobnoid wrote:
>
>> Neil Elcome wrote:
>
>> > I dont know whether this would spoil anything for anyone but Ill pop
>> > in some space.
>
>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I just got Sparky to kill a Ratling Guardian for the exp. Detect Item
>> > status regarded the Ratling Guardian corpse as uncursed. Lvl 10
>> > Gnomish Bard, N+. When eating, I received the message "You feel
>> > responsible". I never noticed any stat/alignment changes and dont have
>> > the resources to check although if its allowed for testing purposes, I
>> > could save scum it.
>> The guidebook isn't intended to be a definitive source for every aspect
>> of the game. (Andy can correct that statement if its wrong.)
>
> True, although the result you mention below will be incorporated.

You should be aware the information came from a code diving source
produced before Thomas's "no code diving" edict. (Twinge's "corpse
effects" list)
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 1:31:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

frobnoid wrote:

> Andy Williams wrote:

> > True, although the result you mention below will be incorporated.

> You should be aware the information came from a code diving source
> produced before Thomas's "no code diving" edict. (Twinge's "corpse
> effects" list)

Thanks, the result will then evaporate into Google Groups. ;-)
--
Andy Williams
ADOM Guidebook: http://www.andywlms.com/adom/
Mirror: http://users.rcn.com/andy.williams/adom/
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 4:20:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

I failed miserably to keep a straight face when I read that
on Fri, 19 Aug 2005 21:31:49 -0400, Andy Williams wrote:
> frobnoid wrote:
>
>> You should be aware the information came from a code diving source
>> produced before Thomas's "no code diving" edict. (Twinge's "corpse
>> effects" list)
>
> Thanks, the result will then evaporate into Google Groups. ;-)

Does this mean it will only be incorporated if someone empirically
verifies this? That should take very little effort at all. Or is
looking for a code-diving result on purpose still a no-no? In that
case, does this information have any chance of ever being incorporated
or is everything ever discovered by code-diving automatically and
eternally disqualified?

This edict against code-diving poses some interesting and difficult
questions...

Leon (aka Oliphaunt)

--
I really didn't foresee the Internet. But then, neither did
the computer industry. Not that that tells us very much, of
course - the computer industry didn't even foresee that the
century was going to end. -- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 4:52:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

Léon Planken wrote:

> Andy Williams wrote:

> > frobnoid wrote:

> > > You should be aware the information came from a code diving source
> > > produced before Thomas's "no code diving" edict. (Twinge's "corpse
> > > effects" list)

> > Thanks, the result will then evaporate into Google Groups. ;-)

> Does this mean it will only be incorporated if someone empirically
> verifies this? That should take very little effort at all.

s
p
o
i
l
e
r

s
p
a
c
e

e
c
a
p
s

r
e
l
i
o
p
s

Yes, that occurred to me as well after I posted. So I took a WADOMF'd
PC to the HMV and investigated with scrolls of balance. The
discussion was pertaining to eating a ratling guardian corpse:

before killing 0 black 504 white

after killing 0 black 138 white

after eating 0 black 353 white

So killing is a chaotic act, eating is lawful. The exact boost, +215
in my case, does not match the previously posted +250. That may be
version dependent, exp lvl dependent, etc.

> Or is looking for a code-diving result on purpose still a no-no?

I don't think so. The fact that I was too stupid to think of this
when I was investigating it before shouldn't preclude me from trying
it now. In fact, I wouldn't have needed the numerical result from
code diving to make me think of the solution.
--
Andy Williams
ADOM Guidebook: http://www.andywlms.com/adom/
Mirror: http://users.rcn.com/andy.williams/adom/
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 4:56:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 12:52:01 -0400, Andy Williams wrote:

> Léon Planken wrote:
>
>> Andy Williams wrote:
>
>> > frobnoid wrote:
>
>> > > You should be aware the information came from a code diving source
>> > > produced before Thomas's "no code diving" edict. (Twinge's "corpse
>> > > effects" list)
>
>> > Thanks, the result will then evaporate into Google Groups. ;-)
>
>> Does this mean it will only be incorporated if someone empirically
>> verifies this? That should take very little effort at all.
>
> s
> p
> o
> i
> l
> e
> r
>
> s
> p
> a
> c
> e
>
> e
> c
> a
> p
> s
>
> r
> e
> l
> i
> o
> p
> s
>
> Yes, that occurred to me as well after I posted. So I took a WADOMF'd PC
> to the HMV and investigated with scrolls of balance. The discussion was
> pertaining to eating a ratling guardian corpse:

>> Or is looking for a code-diving result on purpose still a no-no?
>
> I don't think so. The fact that I was too stupid to think of this when I
> was investigating it before shouldn't preclude me from trying it now. In
> fact, I wouldn't have needed the numerical result from code diving to make
> me think of the solution.

Based on this post, I presume using (W)ADOMF to gather information is
okay.
What about ADOMBot? I am under the impression that ADOMBotted info
is not okay.

Is that accurate?
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 7:28:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

frobnoid wrote:

> Based on this post, I presume using (W)ADOMF to gather information is
> okay.

I have never made a secret of the fact that WADOMF has been
extensively used as the GB was being written. Much of the
quantitative information would have been practically impossible to
generate without it.

> What about ADOMBot? I am under the impression that ADOMBotted info
> is not okay.

I've never used ADOMBot and never paid much attention to it, but it
was my impression that its very existence was derived from disassembly
of the ADOM executable.
--
Andy Williams
ADOM Guidebook: http://www.andywlms.com/adom/
Mirror: http://users.rcn.com/andy.williams/adom/
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 7:28:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 15:28:36 -0400, Andy Williams wrote:

> frobnoid wrote:
>
>> Based on this post, I presume using (W)ADOMF to gather information is
>> okay.
>
> I have never made a secret of the fact that WADOMF has been extensively
> used as the GB was being written. Much of the quantitative information
> would have been practically impossible to generate without it.
>
>> What about ADOMBot? I am under the impression that ADOMBotted info is
>> not okay.
>
> I've never used ADOMBot and never paid much attention to it, but it was my
> impression that its very existence was derived from disassembly of the
> ADOM executable.

My comments are not meant to judge, only to clarify what sources you'll
take YAGBUs from and which you won't.
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 2:32:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

Andy Williams wrote:

>
>
> s
> p
> o
> i
> l
> e
> r
>
> s
> p
> a
> c
> e
>
> e
> c
> a
> p
> s
>
> r
> e
> l
> i
> o
> p
> s
>
> Yes, that occurred to me as well after I posted. So I took a WADOMF'd
> PC to the HMV and investigated with scrolls of balance.

> The exact boost, +215
> in my case, does not match the previously posted +250. That may be
> version dependent, exp lvl dependent, etc.

I wouldn't be surprised if the level dependancy that Malte found when
investigating amulets of order (App A) would apply to all alignment
changes. The test character wouldn't happen to have been lvl 8?


Teemu
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 2:32:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

Teemu Kokki wrote:

> Andy Williams wrote:

> > s
> > p
> > o
> > i
> > l
> > e
> > r

> > s
> > p
> > a
> > c
> > e

> > e
> > c
> > a
> > p
> > s

> > r
> > e
> > l
> > i
> > o
> > p
> > s

> > The exact boost, +215
> > in my case, does not match the previously posted +250. That may be
> > version dependent, exp lvl dependent, etc.

> I wouldn't be surprised if the level dependancy that Malte found when
> investigating amulets of order (App A) would apply to all alignment
> changes. The test character wouldn't happen to have been lvl 8?

Exactly correct.
--
Andy Williams
ADOM Guidebook: http://www.andywlms.com/adom/
Mirror: http://users.rcn.com/andy.williams/adom/
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 5:57:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

"Andy Williams" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:1q0fg1dov07pgk7n3ultvks52vkjpclhks@4ax.com...
> frobnoid wrote:
>
>> Based on this post, I presume using (W)ADOMF to gather information is
>> okay.
>
> I have never made a secret of the fact that WADOMF has been
> extensively used as the GB was being written. Much of the
> quantitative information would have been practically impossible to
> generate without it.
>
>> What about ADOMBot? I am under the impression that ADOMBotted info
>> is not okay.
>
> I've never used ADOMBot and never paid much attention to it, but it
> was my impression that its very existence was derived from disassembly
> of the ADOM executable.

Hmm, what is the difference between (W)ADOMF and AdomBot? I'm pretty sure
WADOMF cannot exist without dissassembly of ADOM executable, correct me if
wrong.
August 21, 2005 6:05:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

Pavel Mencik, completely geschtonkenflapped, wrote:
> Hmm, what is the difference between (W)ADOMF and AdomBot? I'm pretty
> sure WADOMF cannot exist without dissassembly of ADOM executable,
> correct me if wrong.

there is no difference, except that things that are tested
in (W)ADOMF shouldn't be trusted and applicable to ADOM 1.x.


--
there is a cheer. the gnomes have learned a new way to say hooray. [-shpongle]

address is scrambled - remove the superfluous "x" marks to reply
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 2:18:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 15:28:36 -0400, Andy Williams wrote:

> I've never used ADOMBot and never paid much attention to it, but it was my
> impression that its very existence was derived from disassembly of the
> ADOM executable.

Here's a YAGBU for this thread:
Typo in the wearable items appending: =otHK's un-id-ed name is "platinum
ting".
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 5:49:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

Pavel Mencik wrote:
>
> Hmm, what is the difference between (W)ADOMF and AdomBot? I'm pretty sure
> WADOMF cannot exist without dissassembly of ADOM executable, correct me if
> wrong.

You are hereby corrected. It is pretty easy to implement a cheating
program like WADOMF without disassembly of the executable. All you need
to do is look at the saved games with a hex editor.

Malte
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 5:14:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

"Malte Helmert" <helmert@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote in message
news:D eb3c9$tvn$1@news01.versatel.de...
>>
>> Hmm, what is the difference between (W)ADOMF and AdomBot? I'm pretty sure
>> WADOMF cannot exist without dissassembly of ADOM executable, correct me
>> if
>> wrong.
>
> You are hereby corrected. It is pretty easy to implement a cheating
> program like WADOMF without disassembly of the executable. All you need
> to do is look at the saved games with a hex editor.
>

Let me get straigt. The creator does not even want people using WADOMF, as
he incorporated some weirdo CRC checking mechanism into ADOM 1.x, making
WADOMF impossible (I once come accross some crazy stuff about cracking ADOM
savegame CRC mechanism, yet it didn't come to any conclusion as how to
actually crack that). So using (W)ADOMF breaks the creators wishes the same
way as using AdomBot. "Dissassembly the exexutable" is a weak argument here.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 5:50:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

Pavel Mencik wrote:
>
> Let me get straigt. The creator does not even want people using WADOMF, as
> he incorporated some weirdo CRC checking mechanism into ADOM 1.x, making
> WADOMF impossible (I once come accross some crazy stuff about cracking ADOM
> savegame CRC mechanism, yet it didn't come to any conclusion as how to
> actually crack that).

CRC doesn't make WADOMF "impossible". WADOMF works just as well with
ADOM versions including the CRC mechanism (which, by the way, was
introduced before 1.0.0).

Modifying a saved game without circumventing CRC leads to running out of
luck, but I don't see how this would affect the experiment in question.

> So using (W)ADOMF breaks the creators wishes the same
> way as using AdomBot. "Dissassembly the exexutable" is a weak argument here.

Personally, I don't see much wrong with black-box testing, and this is
where I would draw the line. If Thomas were known to speak out against
this kind of black-box testing, too, I might change my opinion, but he
hasn't, so I haven't.

Malte
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 2:52:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

"Malte Helmert" <helmert@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote in message
news:D ef2hf$q9g$1@news.BelWue.DE...
> Pavel Mencik wrote:
>>
>> Let me get straigt. The creator does not even want people using WADOMF,
>> as he incorporated some weirdo CRC checking mechanism into ADOM 1.x,
>> making WADOMF impossible (I once come accross some crazy stuff about
>> cracking ADOM savegame CRC mechanism, yet it didn't come to any
>> conclusion as how to actually crack that).
>
> CRC doesn't make WADOMF "impossible". WADOMF works just as well with ADOM
> versions including the CRC mechanism (which, by the way, was introduced
> before 1.0.0).
>
> Modifying a saved game without circumventing CRC leads to running out of
> luck, but I don't see how this would affect the experiment in question.
>
> > So using (W)ADOMF breaks the creators wishes the same
>> way as using AdomBot. "Dissassembly the exexutable" is a weak argument
>> here.
>
> Personally, I don't see much wrong with black-box testing, and this is
> where I would draw the line. If Thomas were known to speak out against
> this kind of black-box testing, too, I might change my opinion, but he
> hasn't, so I haven't.
>
> Malte

If I understand it correct, the "black box tests" are being done using an
"out of luck" character, or an old version. How can you be sure, that the
game does not behave completely different, in every aspect, to such a
cheater? Or, that the particular aspect has not been changed since the last
version without CRC checks?

If I understand it wrong, WADOMF does circumvent (or crack) the CRC check,
in which case for cracking the CRC of course analysis of the code would be
neccessary, in addition to analysis of saved games.

Besides, I don't see any great difference between analyzing the game code
and analyzing the savegame structure. How it is not evident the creator does
not want people analyzing savegame structure, when he added such a CRC
mechanism.
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 3:37:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

Pavel Mencik wrote:
> "Malte Helmert" <helmert@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote in message
> news:D ef2hf$q9g$1@news.BelWue.DE...
>
>
>>Personally, I don't see much wrong with black-box testing, and this is
>>where I would draw the line. If Thomas were known to speak out against
>>this kind of black-box testing, too, I might change my opinion, but he
>>hasn't, so I haven't.
>
> If I understand it correct, the "black box tests" are being done using an
> "out of luck" character, or an old version. How can you be sure, that the
> game does not behave completely different, in every aspect, to such a
> cheater? Or, that the particular aspect has not been changed since the last
> version without CRC checks?

Out of luck characters are not involved; see below.
Regarding old versions, I am not aware of any case where the game has
changed since g16pre2 without some mention of it in the change log.
However, it is of course impossible to be certain.

> If I understand it wrong, WADOMF does circumvent (or crack) the CRC check,
> in which case for cracking the CRC of course analysis of the code would be
> neccessary, in addition to analysis of saved games.

Sorry to say this again, but you are jumping to conclusions without
trying to get the facts straight first. I don't mind if people discuss
issues without being completely informed of relevant facts, but then
they should stay clear of language that would suggest otherwise.
Qualifying a factually wrong sentence with "of course" does not increase
your credibility.

First, WADOMF doesn't crack the CRC. However, there is a separate
program that used to be available on the same site that does that.

Second, creating the CRC crack program did *not* involve decompiling the
ADOM binary, although it did require a milder form of analysis of the
binary.

Third, Andy's experiment is perfectly feasible without using WADOMF at
all: Get two blessed scrolls of balance and go the High Mountain
Village. I don't know in which way he used WADOMF; maybe to wish for
scrolls of balance.

> Besides, I don't see any great difference between analyzing the game code
> and analyzing the savegame structure. How it is not evident the creator does
> not want people analyzing savegame structure, when he added such a CRC
> mechanism.

It is indeed evident that Thomas opposes saved game modifications.
However, my impression from speaking to him is that his motivation for
implementing the protection was keeping people from cheating in games,
e.g. by raising their Toughness to 99, not keeping people from
researching the game. This is speculation on my part, although it is
based on Thomas's earlier statements regarding these issues, so it is
not pure speculation. I would be willing to reassess my position if
Thomas spoke out about this, as I indicated in my previous post.

In any case, you asked for differences between reverse engineering and
black box testing. One difference is that while the one is illegal, the
other is not. I would consider black-box testing a compromise between
the wishes of players to gather knowledge and the wishes of Thomas not
to disclose his secrets. If there were a general consensus that it is
immoral, I would adjust my behaviour, but I don't believe this to be the
case.

Malte
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 3:37:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 23:37:05 +0200, Malte Helmert wrote:

> In any case, you asked for differences between reverse engineering and
> black box testing. One difference is that while the one is illegal, the
> other is not. I would consider black-box testing a compromise between the

Reverse engineering can be done in a black box way, there *ARE* legal
forms of reverse engineering (Samba is the first example which comes to
mind). Substitute "decompilation" for "reverse engineering" and your
statement is consistent.
August 24, 2005 4:31:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

Malte Helmert, completely geschtonkenflapped, wrote:
> Second, creating the CRC crack program did *not* involve decompiling
> the ADOM binary, although it did require a milder form of analysis of
> the binary.

how? to crack anything, you have to disassemble it. that's
decompiling. then you have to go through the code, and finally
you have to make something that will alter the binary.

since WADOMF is tightly connected to the crack program (meaning,
it's almost of no use without it, and it was probably created
by the same person), where do you draw the line? why is WADOMF
acceptable and ADOMbot is not, especially because with WADOMF
you're using a cracked binary (which i find illegal) and
ADOMbot allows direct memory manipulation (which i don't find
illegal because it IS your memory, but it's NOT your binary).

if you're testing with an out-of-luck character, then you
have to rule out every find. it's an unstable, uncommon state
with unknown behaviour and side-effects. you can't trust it.

not using ADOMbot because it was derived from code-diving
is plain stupid because WADOMF is *also* a product of ADOM
disassembly. without it, it wouldn't exist.

also, any testing with g16 should be considered irrelevant for
the 1.x versions because things might have changed considerably
between them, change log or no change log.


--
there is a cheer. the gnomes have learned a new way to say hooray. [-shpongle]

address is scrambled - remove the superfluous "x" marks to reply
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 5:51:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

matija wrote:
> the game was disassembled, analyzed and cracked. he can
> write whatever he wants to, but that doesn't make his
> words true. anyone with a bit of knowledge can only
> laugh when reading "i have never disassembled adom.exe".
>
> YOU CAN'T CRACK BINARIES WITHOUT DISASSEMBLING THEM
> FIRST. period.

Quote:
"In computer programming, the disassembly is the result
when machine code is translated back into assembly
language."

Cracking Adom CRC by Jumping Spider:
http://www.geocities.com/adomf/dbrady/adomcrc.htm

Jumping Spider found the CRC table by a simple binary
search. I don't consider it to be any more illegal than
viewing the contents of the executable file in Notepad.

Using a version of the executable with a patched CRC table
is another matter.

AdomBot, on the contrary, IS based on heavy
reverse-engineering through many methods, including
disassembly and partial decompilation.

If you'd like a way to modify ADOM memory values without
using illegal programs, I'd recommend generic searcher
cheat programs, like ArtMoney / TSearch / GenTrain etc.

--
http://www.geocities.com/adombot/rewrap.html
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 8:00:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

matija wrote:
> Malte Helmert, completely geschtonkenflapped, wrote:
>
>>Second, creating the CRC crack program did *not* involve decompiling
>>the ADOM binary, although it did require a milder form of analysis of
>>the binary.
>
>
> how? to crack anything, you have to disassemble it. that's
> decompiling. then you have to go through the code, and finally
> you have to make something that will alter the binary.

Then "crack" is not the best word. Read the description of how the CRC
is circumvented to see how it was done without disassembly.

> not using ADOMbot because it was derived from code-diving
> is plain stupid because WADOMF is *also* a product of ADOM
> disassembly. without it, it wouldn't exist.

Why do people insist on saying this without checking their facts, after
I've said -- numerous times -- that this is not the case? I provided a
reference. For your benefit, here is an easy way to find it. Straight
from the horse's mouth:

=> Google
=> adom crc
=> I'm feeling lucky

Search for the phrase "I have never disassembled Adom.exe".
(I don't agree with his political stuff, but please let's not have this
discussion again and stick to facts.)

> also, any testing with g16 should be considered irrelevant for
> the 1.x versions because things might have changed considerably
> between them, change log or no change log.

Go ahead and ask Andy to remove the stuff about ratling guardians
then... I couldn't care less.

Malte
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 8:00:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

Malte Helmert wrote:

> matija wrote:

> > also, any testing with g16 should be considered irrelevant for
> > the 1.x versions because things might have changed considerably
> > between them, change log or no change log.

The available evidence does not support this claim for the topic being
discussed.

> Go ahead and ask Andy to remove the stuff about ratling guardians
> then... I couldn't care less.

If someone proves that it is erroneus, I will of course remove or
revise it.
--
Andy Williams
ADOM Guidebook: http://www.andywlms.com/adom/
Mirror: http://users.rcn.com/andy.williams/adom/
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 8:01:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

frobnoid wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 23:37:05 +0200, Malte Helmert wrote:
>
>
>>In any case, you asked for differences between reverse engineering and
>>black box testing. One difference is that while the one is illegal, the
>>other is not. I would consider black-box testing a compromise between the
>
> Reverse engineering can be done in a black box way, there *ARE* legal
> forms of reverse engineering (Samba is the first example which comes to
> mind). Substitute "decompilation" for "reverse engineering" and your
> statement is consistent.

You are of course right; sorry for the sloppy wording.

Malte
August 24, 2005 11:58:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

Malte Helmert, completely geschtonkenflapped, wrote:
>> not using ADOMbot because it was derived from code-diving
>> is plain stupid because WADOMF is *also* a product of ADOM
>> disassembly. without it, it wouldn't exist.
>
> Why do people insist on saying this without checking their facts, after
> I've said -- numerous times -- that this is not the case? I provided a
> reference. For your benefit, here is an easy way to find it. [snip]

you can't believe that stuff, can you?

yeah, sure, he never disassembled adom.exe. right. he had
a strange dream in which a booming voice said to him
"thou shalt find the lookup table at offset 0x12345678".
then he kept having those dreams for each ADOM version,
occasionally interrupted by nightmares of having his
computer equipment cursed.

bollocks.

the game was disassembled, analyzed and cracked. he can
write whatever he wants to, but that doesn't make his
words true. anyone with a bit of knowledge can only laugh
when reading "i have never disassembled adom.exe".

YOU CAN'T CRACK BINARIES WITHOUT DISASSEMBLING THEM FIRST.
period.


--
there is a cheer. the gnomes have learned a new way to say hooray. [-shpongle]

address is scrambled - remove the superfluous "x" marks to reply
August 24, 2005 4:45:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

Vladimir Panteleev, completely geschtonkenflapped, wrote:
> "In computer programming, the disassembly is the result
> when machine code is translated back into assembly
> language."

hm, this is what caused the confusion and my sleep-deprived
responses :)  i considered disassembly in the broader term,
translating unrecognizable bytes to characters understandable
by humans.


> Jumping Spider found the CRC table by a simple binary
> search. I don't consider it to be any more illegal than
> viewing the contents of the executable file in Notepad.

the lookup table, probably generated with the 04c11db7
polynomial, is a part of ADOM's data block. it's in
the contents of the executable, impossible to recognize
unless explicitly searched for. at that moment, if you
have a known set of lookup table values, it becomes
understandable to you and you have just "disassembled"
the executable to some degree, exposing hidden parts
that you weren't meant to see.

so OK, i see the point, and i have badly expressed myself.
i'm sorry for that.

still, i find using a cracked/patched binary and
opposing to using an uncracked binary very strange.


--
there is a cheer. the gnomes have learned a new way to say hooray. [-shpongle]

address is scrambled - remove the superfluous "x" marks to reply
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 5:04:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

> It is indeed evident that Thomas opposes saved game modifications.
> However, my impression from speaking to him is that his motivation for
> implementing the protection was keeping people from cheating in games,
> e.g. by raising their Toughness to 99, not keeping people from researching
> the game. This is speculation on my part, although it is based on Thomas's
> earlier statements regarding these issues, so it is not pure speculation.
> I would be willing to reassess my position if Thomas spoke out about this,
> as I indicated in my previous post.
>
> In any case, you asked for differences between reverse engineering and
> black box testing. One difference is that while the one is illegal, the
> other is not. I would consider black-box testing a compromise between the
> wishes of players to gather knowledge and the wishes of Thomas not to
> disclose his secrets. If there were a general consensus that it is
> immoral, I would adjust my behaviour, but I don't believe this to be the
> case.
>

Lets sum up facts:

* WADOMF modifies Adom.exe to circumvent the CRC check when saving games,
then modifies the saved games
* AdomBot modifies memory when Adom is running, it does not modify the
executable

I don't see how WADOMF is legal and AdomBot is not. Yes, AdomBot was created
using dissassemblimg of the binary, while WADOMF does not dissassembly the
code. How is it so important?? Both programs allow cheating, for the user of
both there is virtually no difference. Did Thomas state somewhere that
modifying the Adom.exe AND modifying the saved games is OK for testing
purposes, while dissassemling the code is not? I doubt that.
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 5:21:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

> Cracking Adom CRC by Jumping Spider:
> http://www.geocities.com/adomf/dbrady/adomcrc.htm

From the article: "That's it, really. Find that table, and overwrite it with
zeroes". He forgot to mention HOW to actually find that table, and how many
bytes long it is. This is actually the most important part involving at
least partial dissassembly - looking at adom.exe with hex editor I cant find
any part saying "Hey, the crc32 lookup table begins here and it is 256 bytes
long!" Could someone help me with this please?
August 24, 2005 8:44:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

Pavel Mencik, completely geschtonkenflapped, wrote:
> looking at adom.exe with hex editor I cant find any part saying "Hey,
> the crc32 lookup table begins here and it is 256 bytes long!" Could
> someone help me with this please?

i can.

to speed up CRC calculations, you need lookup tables that are
256*(bytes per value) long. in case of 32-bit CRC, that's
1024 bytes total.

look tables are easy to make, and you can probably find them
pre-made somewhere online if a standard polynomial (04c11db7)
is chosen. with another polynomial, you can easily generate
a lookup table yourself, it shouldn't take more than 10 lines
of code for the calculation.

now we get to the question of "if" - if thomas indeed chose
the standard polynomial, the lookup table can be found in
the executable when explicitly searching for it. if another
polynomial is used, it's completely impossible to find
the lookup table without real disassembly and code diving.

i don't know the case here, but even if there wasn't classic
disassembly and code diving, the executable was still
explicitly scanned for recognizable patterns, and for
a cause malicious by nature, which eventually ended in
violating thomas' intelectual property.


--
there is a cheer. the gnomes have learned a new way to say hooray. [-shpongle]

address is scrambled - remove the superfluous "x" marks to reply
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 9:26:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

matija <xmatijax.xkrnicx@xzgx.xt-comx.hr> wrote:
> Malte Helmert, completely geschtonkenflapped, wrote:
> >> not using ADOMbot because it was derived from code-diving
> >> is plain stupid because WADOMF is *also* a product of ADOM
> >> disassembly. without it, it wouldn't exist.
> >
> > Why do people insist on saying this without checking their facts, after
> > I've said -- numerous times -- that this is not the case? I provided a
> > reference. For your benefit, here is an easy way to find it. [snip]

> you can't believe that stuff, can you?
>
> yeah, sure, he never disassembled adom.exe. right. he had
> a strange dream in which a booming voice said to him
> "thou shalt find the lookup table at offset 0x12345678".
> then he kept having those dreams for each ADOM version,
> occasionally interrupted by nightmares of having his
> computer equipment cursed.

Matija, go get a few good math lessons, then return.


brojek.
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 11:03:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

Pavel Mencik wrote:
> Lets sum up facts:
>
> * WADOMF modifies Adom.exe to circumvent the CRC check when saving games,
> then modifies the saved games

It does no such thing. CRCPatch is a separate program by a different author.

Malte
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 4:39:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

"Malte Helmert" <helmert@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote in message
news:D ei8m0$jee$1@news01.versatel.de...
> Pavel Mencik wrote:
>> Lets sum up facts:
>>
>> * WADOMF modifies Adom.exe to circumvent the CRC check when saving games,
>> then modifies the saved games
>
> It does no such thing. CRCPatch is a separate program by a different
> author.
>

Ok, you need to use patched adom.exe with WADOMF to not run out of luck. How
is that imporant in the context?
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 4:43:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

"matija" <xmatijax.xkrnicx@xzgx.xt-comx.hr> wrote in message
news:rjq4cy3hw0ki$.dlg@shpongle.604...
> look tables are easy to make, and you can probably find them
> pre-made somewhere online if a standard polynomial (04c11db7)
> is chosen. with another polynomial, you can easily generate
> a lookup table yourself, it shouldn't take more than 10 lines
> of code for the calculation.
>
> now we get to the question of "if" - if thomas indeed chose
> the standard polynomial, the lookup table can be found in
> the executable when explicitly searching for it. if another
> polynomial is used, it's completely impossible to find
> the lookup table without real disassembly and code diving.
>

No, i can't find hex string reading "04c11db7" in adom.exe, if that is what
you mean. If I were to find it, does that mean the table begins with that
string? Or just after it?
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 4:43:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 00:43:38 +0200, Pavel Mencik wrote:

> "matija" <xmatijax.xkrnicx@xzgx.xt-comx.hr> wrote in message
> news:rjq4cy3hw0ki$.dlg@shpongle.604...
>> look tables are easy to make, and you can probably find them
>> pre-made somewhere online if a standard polynomial (04c11db7) is
>> chosen. with another polynomial, you can easily generate a lookup
>> table yourself, it shouldn't take more than 10 lines of code for the
>> calculation.
>>
>> now we get to the question of "if" - if thomas indeed chose the
>> standard polynomial, the lookup table can be found in the executable
>> when explicitly searching for it. if another polynomial is used,
>> it's completely impossible to find the lookup table without real
>> disassembly and code diving.
>>
>>
> No, i can't find hex string reading "04c11db7" in adom.exe, if that is
> what you mean. If I were to find it, does that mean the table begins with
> that string? Or just after it?

Apologizes if this is too technical or not technical enough for you.

Take a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRC-32 (This is the algorithm
Thomas chose.)

Basically, the hex string above is the polynomial used in the CRC
algorithm which is used to ensure the data's integrity. You can find
details as to how it works at the wikipedia link above, although feel free
to ask if you have questions there are at least a handful of people in
rgra who I believe are able to answer any questions you have about the
algorithm or related material.

The way CRC is typically applied (for performance reasons) is to build a
table of the results, in order to do a memory lookup each time the
function is applied (rather than applying it on each value independently).
Such a table starts with the following four values: 0x00000000,
0x77073096, 0xEE0E612C, 0x990951BA. This data IS found in the executable.
(Assuming you're using ADOM for x86, you may need to search for
"30967707" instead, depending on how you're viewing the data, since x86 is
Little Endian byte ordering [Wikipedia it if you're unfamiliar with the
term]).
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 9:43:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

>>>
>> No, i can't find hex string reading "04c11db7" in adom.exe, if that is
>> what you mean. If I were to find it, does that mean the table begins with
>> that string? Or just after it?
>
> Apologizes if this is too technical or not technical enough for you.
>
> Take a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRC-32 (This is the algorithm
> Thomas chose.)
>
> Basically, the hex string above is the polynomial used in the CRC
> algorithm which is used to ensure the data's integrity. You can find
> details as to how it works at the wikipedia link above, although feel free
> to ask if you have questions there are at least a handful of people in
> rgra who I believe are able to answer any questions you have about the
> algorithm or related material.
>
> The way CRC is typically applied (for performance reasons) is to build a
> table of the results, in order to do a memory lookup each time the
> function is applied (rather than applying it on each value independently).
> Such a table starts with the following four values: 0x00000000,
> 0x77073096, 0xEE0E612C, 0x990951BA. This data IS found in the executable.
> (Assuming you're using ADOM for x86, you may need to search for
> "30967707" instead, depending on how you're viewing the data, since x86 is
> Little Endian byte ordering [Wikipedia it if you're unfamiliar with the
> term]).
>

I have to actually search for "96300777". Thanks for your explanation, it's
just appropriately technical.
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 12:38:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

>Your revised statement is correct: You need to use a patched adom.exe
>with WADOMF not to run out of luck, provided you use WADOMF to actually
>modify the data and not just luck at it. (In the case of the experiment
>we were actually discussing, looking at the data would have been
>sufficient.)

True, but as Andy said he used WADOMFed character (meaning savegame
modified, patched exe used). Probably a regular Archmage character
would be sufficient in this case, without need of WADOMF. BTW AdomBot
could too be used just to look at various data.
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 2:43:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

>> True, but as Andy said he used WADOMFed character (meaning savegame
> >modified, patched exe used).

>That's true, but your claim was about WADOMF in general, not Andy's
>usage of it. That and only that was what I commented on.

My claim about WADOMF in general is that there is no important
difference between WADOMF and AdomBot. It still holds.
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 3:55:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

Pavel Mencik wrote:
> "Malte Helmert" <helmert@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote in message
> news:D ei8m0$jee$1@news01.versatel.de...
>
>>Pavel Mencik wrote:
>>
>>>Lets sum up facts:
>>>
>>>* WADOMF modifies Adom.exe to circumvent the CRC check when saving games,
>>>then modifies the saved games
>>
>>It does no such thing. CRCPatch is a separate program by a different
>>author.
>>
> Ok, you need to use patched adom.exe with WADOMF to not run out of luck. How
> is that imporant in the context?

Context: "Let's sum up facts".

Given such a statement, I would expect a list of true statements
("facts") to follow.

Next sentence: "WADOMF modifies Adom.exe [...]"

An untrue statement. WADOMF doesn't modify Adom.exe. There is a
different program, by a different author, downloaded separately, that
does this.

Your revised statement is correct: You need to use a patched adom.exe
with WADOMF not to run out of luck, provided you use WADOMF to actually
modify the data and not just luck at it. (In the case of the experiment
we were actually discussing, looking at the data would have been
sufficient.)

Malte
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 10:15:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

Pavel Mencik wrote:
>>Your revised statement is correct: You need to use a patched adom.exe
>>with WADOMF not to run out of luck, provided you use WADOMF to actually
>>modify the data and not just luck at it. (In the case of the experiment
>>we were actually discussing, looking at the data would have been
>>sufficient.)
>
>
> True, but as Andy said he used WADOMFed character (meaning savegame
> modified, patched exe used).

That's true, but your claim was about WADOMF in general, not Andy's
usage of it. That and only that was what I commented on.

Malte
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 3:41:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005, Andy Williams wrote:

>
> s
> p
> o
> i
> l
> e
> r
>
> s
> p
> a
> c
> e
>
> e
> c
> a
> p
> s
>
> r
> e
> l
> i
> o
> p
> s
>
> Yes, that occurred to me as well after I posted. So I took a WADOMF'd
> PC to the HMV and investigated with scrolls of balance. The
> discussion was pertaining to eating a ratling guardian corpse:
>
> before killing 0 black 504 white
>
> after killing 0 black 138 white
>
> after eating 0 black 353 white
>
> So killing is a chaotic act, eating is lawful. The exact boost, +215
> in my case, does not match the previously posted +250. That may be
> version dependent, exp lvl dependent, etc.
>

I checked this with level 50 High Elf Priest and got following results
with blessed corpse:

Before killing: 217 black stones
After killing: 246 black stones
After eating: 241 black stones

One other kill dropped my alignment by 20 stones so the alignment drop is
at least somewhat random.
!