I challenge you ...

[Guest]

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

.... to have this much bad luck this quickly.

On Dlvl 2 I find a potion shop. My helpful little kitten brings me
all the goodies, which I promptly sell back to the shopkeeper. Twice.
Nice fat pile of gold for planned protection racket.

2000 turns consumed, but worth it.

Find a nice quiet spot and drink some potions.

Wow! Everything looks so cosmic!

No problemo, I have 5 potions of extra healing to cope with just these
emergencies. What do you want to drink?

In a puff of smoke, a [hallucinated substitute for djinni] appears. "I
am eternally in your debt! I will grant one wish."

Now we're cooking with gas, I thought. I wish for, and receive, a +3
gray dragon scale mail. This is it, I thought, this game will go a
long way. But I still need to deal with the hallucination, so I'll
quaff another potion of extra healing.

"You disturbed me, fool!" Pow! Pow! Pow! Yes, I did eventually
find a !oEH which worked properly, but this djinni meant business.

darcy19joh-Tou-Hum-Mal-Neu died in The Dungeons of
Doom on level 2 [max 3]. Killed by a djinni.

I could cry, if I wasn't afraid that water elementals would emerge
from my tears and kick my arse around the room for the rest of the
night.

--

JPD


SGFN

 

[Guest]

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

In article <423ff7b3.11754325@news.bigpond.com>,
JPD <john_p_darcy@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>... to have this much bad luck this quickly.

Are you sure it's bad luck?

>On Dlvl 2 I find a potion shop. My helpful little kitten brings me
>all the goodies, which I promptly sell back to the shopkeeper. Twice.
>Nice fat pile of gold for planned protection racket.

A good start.

>2000 turns consumed, but worth it.

It's faster if you have the kitty bring you the money instead of the
potions.

>Find a nice quiet spot and drink some potions.

Ultra bad idea. Potions are too precious a resource to be randomly
quaffing. I always price ID them, then do a real ID on them when I
get a chance. Anything that sells for less than $100 is marked for
dilution as I can live without booze until much later in the game.

Many potions are useless. Water however is precious.

So I never ever quaff a unknown potion.

>Wow! Everything looks so cosmic!

Hallucination. Perfect example. A perfectly wasted potion that could have
been turned to water later.

>No problemo, I have 5 potions of extra healing to cope with just these
>emergencies. What do you want to drink?

You did know that Xhealing was smoky right?

>In a puff of smoke, a [hallucinated substitute for djinni] appears. "I
>am eternally in your debt! I will grant one wish."

You didn't. But you got lucky. See?

Did you know the BUC status of the Xhealings? If you are not sure that they
are blessed (which a Dlvl2 they are probably not) you should have been happy
with your good fortune.

>Now we're cooking with gas, I thought. I wish for, and receive, a +3
>gray dragon scale mail. This is it, I thought, this game will go a
>long way. But I still need to deal with the hallucination,

No you don't. It's harmless and will go away on its own in a few turns.
You should have walked back to the shop, close the door and wait.

But...

> so I'll quaff another potion of extra healing.

Ultra bad idea #2. You now know that it's smoky. You know that you can get
a djinni. And since your Xhealings are not blessed it's very likely that
djninni won't be happy with you. So...

>"You disturbed me, fool!" Pow! Pow! Pow! Yes, I did eventually
>find a !oEH which worked properly, but this djinni meant business.

And you were low level (Dlvl2 and protection racket). You were not going
to survive this.

>darcy19joh-Tou-Hum-Mal-Neu died in The Dungeons of
> Doom on level 2 [max 3]. Killed by a djinni.
>
>I could cry, if I wasn't afraid that water elementals would emerge
>from my tears and kick my arse around the room for the rest of the
>night.

Well you can think about the mistakes that you made. You had luck going
with you with the 1st djinni and the GDSM (magic resistance + low AC).

Then you got greedy trying to get rid of the hallucination that you
should of had in the 1st place.

Live and learn. Or more accurately learn and live.

BAJ

 

[Guest]

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

Quoting JPD <john_p_darcy@yahoo.com.au>:
>... to have this much bad luck this quickly.
>On Dlvl 2 I find a potion shop. My helpful little kitten brings me
>all the goodies, which I promptly sell back to the shopkeeper. Twice.
>Nice fat pile of gold for planned protection racket.
>2000 turns consumed, but worth it.
>Find a nice quiet spot and drink some potions.

So you engaged in unIDed potion testing with very low HP. This is not bad
luck at all.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is Second Leicesterday, March.

 

[Guest]

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

john_p_darcy@yahoo.com.au (JPD) writes:

> ... to have this much bad luck this quickly.

I have to regretfully tell you that it wasn't just bad luck that got
you killed but ...

> Find a nice quiet spot and drink some potions.

.... also this.

 

[Guest]

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

byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) writes:

> It's faster if you have the kitty bring you the money instead of the
> potions.

No, it isn't. The objective is not just to get the potions out, but to
get the money from the shopkeeper to pay for protection.

 

[Guest]

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

Tommi Syrjanen <tommi.syrjanen@enough.spam.hut.fi> writes:

> byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) writes:
>
> > It's faster if you have the kitty bring you the money instead of the
> > potions.
>
> No, it isn't. The objective is not just to get the potions out, but to
> get the money from the shopkeeper to pay for protection.

Credit cloning makes money grow at exponential rate.
Hence, it is superior to the linear growth possible
by stel-and-resell.

Best,
Jakob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack,misc.misc (More info?)

"Jakob Creutzig" <creutzig@mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote:
> Tommi Syrjanen <tommi.syrjanen@enough.spam.hut.fi> writes:
>> byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) writes:

>>> It's faster if you have the kitty bring you the
>>> money instead of the potions.

Yeah, dropping the cash two steps inside the door is
an ideal way to promote high value thievery by Puss
in Speed Boots.

>> No, it isn't. The objective is not just to get
>> the potions out, but to get the money from the
>> shopkeeper to pay for protection.

You need to read one of the detailed descriptions of
credit cloning, you apparently misperceive it.

Credit cloning lets you walk out with the shelf
stock AND the money at the end of the affair.

> Credit cloning makes money grow at exponential
> rate.

Yeah!

Crumby exponent, though.

If your CH is low, you get 1/3 + 1/9 + 1/27 + ...
zorkmid count gain in one full set of "drop money,
pickup goods, pay for what you can, drop goods, sell
goods, receive money, repeat" iterations. If your CH
is better, that's 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... instead, but
still slow enough to make an impatient person go
quietly morosely bonkers.

> Hence, it is superior to the linear growth possible
> by steal-and-resell.

Oh, much so, probably a factor of ten faster overall.

It is safer, too.

When credit cloning you spend MOST of your time
_in_ the shop, with the shopkeeper frequently
fending monsters away by standing in the door-most
square of the shop interior, and with your pet
freely roaming outside to chase down and kill
monsters (and thus gain HD) outside the shop (except
when needed to play Pony Express Delivers the Gold
while you wait outside).

With the more usual shoplifting style, instead you
are standing MOST of the time out in the hall being
blindsided by monsters while your mind is on your
pet fetching yet another carafe of boring baneful
bletch-water, and your pet thus misses most chances
to gain HD/HP because the wrong half of the
partnership is doing most of the melee work, the
pet limited for the most part to monsters appearing
inside the shop and out of sight of the PC.

Credit cloning really lends itself to a lot of ways
the skilled NetHack player wants to be behaving
anyway: minimize risk, minimize melee, maximize
return of cash and goodies for time invested.

xanthian, breeding pets for kleptomaniac tendencies
since, oh, say, 1987, just to pick a date.

[Again, beware crosspostingness of this article.]


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

 

[Guest]

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

"JPD" <john_p_darcy@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:423ff7b3.11754325@news.bigpond.com...
> ... to have this much bad luck this quickly.
>
> On Dlvl 2 I find a potion shop. My helpful little kitten brings me
> all the goodies, which I promptly sell back to the shopkeeper. Twice.
> Nice fat pile of gold for planned protection racket.
>
> 2000 turns consumed, but worth it.
>
> Find a nice quiet spot and drink some potions.
>
> Wow! Everything looks so cosmic!
>
> No problemo, I have 5 potions of extra healing to cope with just these
> emergencies. What do you want to drink?
>
> In a puff of smoke, a [hallucinated substitute for djinni] appears. "I
> am eternally in your debt! I will grant one wish."
>
> Now we're cooking with gas, I thought. I wish for, and receive, a +3
> gray dragon scale mail. This is it, I thought, this game will go a
> long way. But I still need to deal with the hallucination, so I'll
> quaff another potion of extra healing.
>
> "You disturbed me, fool!" Pow! Pow! Pow! Yes, I did eventually
> find a !oEH which worked properly, but this djinni meant business.
>
> darcy19joh-Tou-Hum-Mal-Neu died in The Dungeons of
> Doom on level 2 [max 3]. Killed by a djinni.
>
> I could cry, if I wasn't afraid that water elementals would emerge
> from my tears and kick my arse around the room for the rest of the
> night.
>
> --
>
> JPD
>
>
> SGFN

If you played this game on nethack.alt.org, get that replay from the
archive, it's a nice example of RNG badness.

 

[Guest]

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

byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) was moved to say:

>>Find a nice quiet spot and drink some potions.
>
>Ultra bad idea. Potions are too precious a resource to be randomly
>quaffing. I always price ID them, then do a real ID on them when I
>get a chance. Anything that sells for less than $100 is marked for
>dilution as I can live without booze until much later in the game.
>
>Many potions are useless. Water however is precious.

Given the sheer number of potions which I had acquired, I felt that
quaff-IDing was a reasonable use of my time, particularly since I had
(or thought I had) FIVE extra healings.

>You did know that Xhealing was smoky right?

Probably my major mistake. I was a tourist, so I started with two
!oXHs and never took the trouble of checking what its appearance was.

>>In a puff of smoke, a [hallucinated substitute for djinni] appears. "I
>>am eternally in your debt! I will grant one wish."
>
>You didn't. But you got lucky. See?
>
>Did you know the BUC status of the Xhealings?

The kitty brought them out of the shop so they were not cursed. They
stacked together in my inventory, so they were all of the same BUC and
therefore, highly likely, uncursed.

>> But I still need to deal with the hallucination,
>
>No you don't. It's harmless and will go away on its own in a few turns.

Possibly 600 turns - I'm not so patient, and although I had food I did
not have a good idea where my kitty was at this point and I did *not*
want to walk into her by mistake (which I did do anyway trying to run
from the bad djinni).

>You should have walked back to the shop, close the door and wait.

Yes, if I could safely navigate my way past my pet and the shopkeeper.

>> so I'll quaff another potion of extra healing.
>
>Ultra bad idea #2. You now know that it's smoky. You know that you can get
>a djinni

The first djinni beat the 12-to-1 odds against his creation. The
second djinni beat 14-to-1 odds against, and this was ONE TURN LATER
(perhaps two turns). That's at the very low end of probability, and
additionally there was only a 20% chance of that second djinni being
hostile. This is why I curse my bad luck, because the total
probability of quaffing smoky potions and getting djinn twice in a row
with the second one being nasty is pretty small.

>Well you can think about the mistakes that you made.

Of course I made mistakes. But the RNG chose quick revenge, and that
is the bad luck that I am citing.

--

JPD


SGFN

 

[Guest]

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

In article <4240ae80.58558758@news.bigpond.com>, john_p_darcy@yahoo.com.au (JPD) writes:
> byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) was moved to say:
>
>>>Find a nice quiet spot and drink some potions.
>>
>>Ultra bad idea. Potions are too precious a resource to be randomly
>>quaffing. I always price ID them, then do a real ID on them when I
>>get a chance. Anything that sells for less than $100 is marked for
>>dilution as I can live without booze until much later in the game.
>>
>>Many potions are useless. Water however is precious.
>
> Given the sheer number of potions which I had acquired, I felt that
> quaff-IDing was a reasonable use of my time, particularly since I had
> (or thought I had) FIVE extra healings.
>
>>You did know that Xhealing was smoky right?
>
> Probably my major mistake. I was a tourist, so I started with two
> !oXHs and never took the trouble of checking what its appearance was.
>
>>>In a puff of smoke, a [hallucinated substitute for djinni] appears. "I
>>>am eternally in your debt! I will grant one wish."
>>
>>You didn't. But you got lucky. See?
>>
>>Did you know the BUC status of the Xhealings?
>
> The kitty brought them out of the shop so they were not cursed. They
> stacked together in my inventory, so they were all of the same BUC and
> therefore, highly likely, uncursed.
>
>>> But I still need to deal with the hallucination,
>>
>>No you don't. It's harmless and will go away on its own in a few turns.
>
> Possibly 600 turns - I'm not so patient, and although I had food I did
> not have a good idea where my kitty was at this point and I did *not*
> want to walk into her by mistake (which I did do anyway trying to run
> from the bad djinni).
>
>>You should have walked back to the shop, close the door and wait.
>
> Yes, if I could safely navigate my way past my pet and the shopkeeper.

You're not blind. And they're both not hostile. No sweat.
>
>>> so I'll quaff another potion of extra healing.
>>
>>Ultra bad idea #2. You now know that it's smoky. You know that you can get
>>a djinni
>
> The first djinni beat the 12-to-1 odds against his creation. The
> second djinni beat 14-to-1 odds against, and this was ONE TURN LATER
> (perhaps two turns). That's at the very low end of probability, and
> additionally there was only a 20% chance of that second djinni being
> hostile. This is why I curse my bad luck, because the total
> probability of quaffing smoky potions and getting djinn twice in a row
> with the second one being nasty is pretty small.

When you quaffed the second potion, you weren't facing 839 to 1 odds
in your favor. You were looking at 70 to 1 odds (more or less).
The first potion had already failed. The question at hand was how
to deal with that situation, not how unlikely your ultimate demise
had been a couple of turns ago.

When you quaffed the first potion, you weren't facing 839 to 1 odds
in your favor. You were looking at 60 to 1 odds (more or less).

>>Well you can think about the mistakes that you made.
>
> Of course I made mistakes. But the RNG chose quick revenge, and that
> is the bad luck that I am citing.

If you make 100 mistakes with a pk rate of 1% each, it's not bad luck
when you die in a freak 1 in 100 accident. It's carelessness.

John Briggs

 

[Guest]

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

"Kent Paul Dolan" <xanthian@well.com> wrote in message news:<dda36d0a8644fc2ef3df0daf8776572c.48257@mygate.mailgate.org>...
> Yeah!
>
> Crumby exponent, though.
>
> If your CH is low, you get 1/3 + 1/9 + 1/27 + ...
> zorkmid count gain in one full set of "drop money,
> pickup goods, pay for what you can, drop goods, sell
> goods, receive money, repeat" iterations. If your CH
> is better, that's 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... instead, but
> still slow enough to make an impatient person go
> quietly morosely bonkers.
>
1/3 + 1/9 + 1/27 and
1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8
both look constant rather than exponential to me ...
maybe you meant 4/3 * 4/3 * 4/3 ... ?

you are a programmer, right?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack,misc.misc (More info?)

Michal Brzozowski wrote:
> "Kent Paul Dolan" <xanthian@well.com> wrote;

>> Yeah!

>> Crumby exponent, though.

>> If your CH is low, you get 1/3 + 1/9 + 1/27 + ...
>> zorkmid count gain in one full set of "drop money,
>> pickup goods, pay for what you can, drop goods, sell
>> goods, receive money, repeat" iterations. If your CH
>> is better, that's 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... instead, but
>> still slow enough to make an impatient person go
>> quietly morosely bonkers.

> 1/3 + 1/9 + 1/27 and
> 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8

> both look constant rather than exponential to me ...

Oh, they are, you just misinterpret that constant. It is
the amount by which one pet-fetch of money can be
*multiplied* before you have to have the pet carry the
gold out again.

So, in the happier case, your initial money is doubled,
quadrupled, octupled, ... with each repeat of "pet steals
money from shop floor, PC takes money back in, drops it,
and does the multiplier trick again". It's just that
there's this other, draggy cycle as described previously,
between exponential cycles.

> maybe you meant 4/3 * 4/3 * 4/3 ... ?

Nope.

> you are a programmer, right?

Mathematician, actually, but my living and my hobby
are both done by writing software, living "recently"
by writing scientific, telecommunications, and even
(horrors) business software, hobby is exploring
the genetic/memetic algorithms niche of artificial
intelligence.

xanthian.

 

[Guest]

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

Kent Paul Dolan wrote:

> Michal Brzozowski wrote:
>> "Kent Paul Dolan" <xanthian@well.com> wrote;
>
>>> Yeah!
>
>>> Crumby exponent, though.
>
>>> If your CH is low, you get 1/3 + 1/9 + 1/27 + ... zorkmid count gain
>>> in one full set of "drop money, pickup goods, pay for what you can,
>>> drop goods, sell goods, receive money, repeat" iterations. If your CH
>>> is better, that's 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... instead, but still slow enough
>>> to make an impatient person go quietly morosely bonkers.
>
>> 1/3 + 1/9 + 1/27 and
>> 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8
>
>> both look constant rather than exponential to me ...
>
> Oh, they are, you just misinterpret that constant. It is the amount by
> which one pet-fetch of money can be *multiplied* before you have to have
> the pet carry the gold out again.
>
> So, in the happier case, your initial money is doubled, quadrupled,
> octupled,

I guess I'm misinterpreting those constants as well. The second one looks
like it converges to 1 to me...

Are you interpreting 1/2 as doubling somehow? Does '+' not refer to
addition? I don't get it.

--
Benjamin Lewis

A small, but vocal, contingent even argues that tin is superior, but they
are held by most to be the lunatic fringe of Foil Deflector Beanie science.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack,misc.misc (More info?)

Benjamin Lewis wrote:
> Kent Paul Dolan wrote:

>> 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ...

> I guess I'm misinterpreting those constants as
> well. The second one looks like it converges to 1
> to me...

> Are you interpreting 1/2 as doubling somehow?
> Does '+' not refer to addition? I don't get it.

Wow. Math is really hard for you, isn't it?

Yes, that series 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... adds up to
one.

However, since the sum, "1" is the proportion of
money _added_ each time you take the money your pet
stole back into the shop and do the _whole_

drop money,

pickup the biggest stack of shop items you
can lift,

buy everything in the stack your credit will
afford (use the item by item payment scheme,
so you can buy cheaper items after the first
item you can't afford, to help this go
faster),

drop everything you just bought, and
everything you couldn't afford, too,

receive money from the shopkeeper in payment
for dropped items

loop, whose individual loop steps give you less
and less credit, let you buy fewer and fewer
items, and so score less and less cash, until
you have to end the loop, move the money to the
square two steps inside the door, and wait for
your pet to cart it out again, thus adding 1/2
your original credit amount, then 1/4th your
original credit amount, then 1/8th your original
credit amount with each turn of the loop;

then at the end of the loop, you have _added_ 1 *
your original credit, but that means you have
_multiplied_ your original credit by two.

And at the next loop you multiply that higher credit
by two again, and at the next loop again, so in the
end, the series of _loops_ becomes 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 ...
of your original credit, and is thus indeed
exponential growth, but this is done by _adding_
fractions of your start of loop credit to gain an
_addition_ of merely 1 * that original credit.

Less, really, there's some overhead because you
can't necessarily invest all of your credit at
every pickup/drop cycle, and because for some
cases the shopkeeper rounds down from odd price
values to get the used buyback price.

The "2" multiplier is the "crumby" exponential
behavior value to which I originally referred; if
the proportions added were instead 7/8 + 49/64 +
343/512 + ... because the shopkeeper gave better
deals on used merchandise, it would be a bigger
number. This is what makes high charisma such a win,
the buy and sell prices _are_ closer together
proportionally, so the eventual multiplier _is_
higher.

And for the low charisma case, the addends sum to
something like 0.5 (I refuse to work it out), and
so the loop to loop multiplier is only 1.5 (added
sum plus original), and so the stages grow as
1.5 * 1.5 * 1.5 * ... of your initial cash to drop
for credit; this gets really draggy.

If that explanation won't suffice, I probably can't
help you, or even be convinced that the
communication problem is in the way I'm explaining
things.

FWIW

xanthian.

 

[Guest]

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

Kent Paul Dolan wrote:

> Benjamin Lewis wrote:
>> Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
>
>>> 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ...
>
>> I guess I'm misinterpreting those constants as well. The second one
>> looks like it converges to 1 to me...
>
>> Are you interpreting 1/2 as doubling somehow? Does '+' not refer to
>> addition? I don't get it.
>
> Wow. Math is really hard for you, isn't it?

Uh, no. Why the insult?

When you explain the interpretation of this constant, it makes perfect
sense. When you call it a "zorkmid count gain", it's misleading at best
without further explanation.

--
A small, but vocal, contingent even argues that tin is superior, but they
are held by most to be the lunatic fringe of Foil Deflector Beanie science.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack,misc.misc,talk.bizarre (More info?)

Benjamin Lewis wrote:
> Kent Paul Dolan wrote:

>> Wow. Math is really hard for you, isn't it?

> Uh, no. Why the insult?

Not an insult, just an observation. When I saw
the comment about growth being "exponential",
the numbers that prove it so just fell into my
head uninvited. I expect others to have equal
facility turning experience into abstraction
and back again.

That expectation is rarely fulfilled, but most
rarely do I have to explain something like that
_twice_. This comment about my explanations
from a mailing list I follow that arrived a few
hours ago makes me a bit full of myself today:

WOW! Thank you...
That was completely understandable!
Thank you Andreas for telling me what to do.....
Thank you xanthian. For telling me why to do it...
You all are a bunch of nice people!
-- "Nelda Percival" <nelda_percival@hotmail.com>

This self evaluation, though, is a little closer to
the usual mark:

I hope that clarifies the issues a bit rather
than muddying them still further. My technical
writing tends to set saints into frothing fits.
-- Kent Paul Dolan, kdolan@ebay.com,
internal email, 2000/11/15

Peace.

xanthian.

Totally OT, but added for the curious or disbelieving,
the explanation that won the praise above, which was
addressed to someone completely naive to image
processing and image file formats, went like so:

=====

When you are working with an image that goes from
one solid color to a different solid color, what
smooths the edge is a blend from one color to
another; pixels along the border between the two
colors get appropriate mixes of some percent of one
color, and 100% minus that percent, of the other
color. This fools the eye into seeing that single
pixel as part of both sides of the border,
"smoothing" that border to the eye.

That's called "anti-aliasing", just FYI, and the
slang for what you have when you don't have
anti-aliasing is "the jaggies".

However, when you are working with an image that goes
from a solid color, like black, to transparent, what
"smooths" the edge is a a mix of the solid color
with _transparency_, having a pixel partially
colored, partially transparent.

GIF, however, doesn't support "partially
transparent", so when you go to GIF format, where a
pixel is either all colored or all transparent, to
fit in that format, all of those "in-between" pixels
have to go one way or the other; some go fully to
the color of the colored side of the border, some go
fully to transparent, like the transparent side of
the border.

Each pixel is now, to the eye, very definitely
attached only to the colored side of the border, or
only to the transparent side of the border, and the
nice smoothly blended pixels halfway in between that
make the border smooth to the eye get lost; you end
up with a "chunky", "jaggie" look instead.

Use the advice Andreas gave. PNG format is capable
of storing the blended mix of color and transparent,
so the edge between a colored and a transparent area
in PNG stays smooth just like the edge between two
colored areas already does in GIF.

Besides, GIF has lousy color resolution too, only
255 colors beside transparent, so there are usually
other losses going to GIF, unless your image is very
"cartoony", using only a very few colors anyway;
among those losses are an impoverishment of colors
to use in blending borders between colored areas.


=====

Note the I am perfectly capable of giving an explanation
of the same phenomenon starting with Nyquist sampling
theory, ordered dither theory, and using convolution
matrices to accomplish anti-aliasing. A big part of how
successful an explanation will be is how successful the
lector is at guessing the recipient's already available
understanding level. Obviously, I overestimated yours in
one try, did better in a second try when that first
guess didn't work well.

 

[Guest]

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

In article <7jll8fvk11.fsf@cronotopology.tcs.hut.fi>,
Tommi Syrjanen <tommi.syrjanen@enough.spam.hut.fi> wrote:
>byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) writes:
>> It's faster if you have the kitty bring you the money instead of the
>> potions.
>No, it isn't. The objective is not just to get the potions out, but to
>get the money from the shopkeeper to pay for protection.

Yes it is. It's the whole point of credit cloning.

1. Drop the money for credit.
2. Have the pet bring you the money out.
3. Repeat until you have enough credit to buy potions.
4. Buy/sell potions to get more money.
5. Back to step 1. until you own all the money and all the potions.

It's faster to have the pet bring you the money to clone instead of the
potions to resell. I only do the latter when I'm really broke coming into
the shop.

BAJ

 

[Guest]

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

Kent Paul Dolan wrote:

> Benjamin Lewis wrote:
>> Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
>
>>> Wow. Math is really hard for you, isn't it?
>
>> Uh, no. Why the insult?
>
> Not an insult, just an observation. When I saw the comment about growth
> being "exponential", the numbers that prove it so just fell into my head
> uninvited.

Sure, mine too. But then it looked to me like you were confused when you
called the more favourable case a "zorkmid count gain of 1". Especially
after you call this a "really crumby exponent" -- it seems not bad to me
when you consider that ten iterations of this will multiply your starting
amount by about 1000.

It's not surprising to me that you get involved in so many flame threads
when you consider "Wow, math is really hard for you" not to be insulting...

--
Benjamin Lewis

A small, but vocal, contingent even argues that tin is superior, but they
are held by most to be the lunatic fringe of Foil Deflector Beanie science.