[Bug?] Mimic Generated inside a door

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

On the final level of Sokoban I found a mimic pretending to be a boulder
on the same square as a closed door. Is this a bug? Have other people
seen this behavior?

John
59 answers Last reply
More about mimic generated inside door
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

    "John Gibson" <johnSPAM@NOGOODlosgibsons.us> wrote in message
    news:Af-dncMP0KH9Z__fRVn-iA@rcn.net...
    > On the final level of Sokoban I found a mimic pretending to be a boulder
    > on the same square as a closed door. Is this a bug? Have other people
    > seen this behavior?

    I don't think it's a bug... I've seen this several times.
    Danny
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

    John Gibson <johnSPAM@NOGOODlosgibsons.us> wrote in news:Af-dncMP0KH9Z__fRVn-
    iA@rcn.net:

    > On the final level of Sokoban I found a mimic pretending to be a boulder
    > on the same square as a closed door. Is this a bug? Have other people
    > seen this behavior?
    >
    > John
    >


    In a game I played about three days ago, I ran into two different occurances
    of monsters on the same square as a closed door. I used 3.3.1 (haven't had
    the time to go through the install.unix/install.linux of 3.4.2 yet). I'm
    pretty sure one of them was a shrieker but I just can't remember what the
    other was although I'm almost positive it wasn't humanoid or animal.
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

    > I don't think it's a bug... I've seen this several times.
    > Danny
    >
    Why is that not a bug? I sure would call it a bug for a monster
    to appear inside a door...
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

    John Gibson <johnSPAM@NOGOODlosgibsons.us> writes:
    > On the final level of Sokoban I found a mimic pretending to be a boulder
    > on the same square as a closed door. Is this a bug? Have other people
    > seen this behavior?

    It's not a bug. Mimics are amorphous, so surrounding a door wouldn't be
    a problem for it.

    --
    : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ :
    : "Peek-a-boo, I can't see you, everything must be grand; :
    : Boo-ka-pee, you can't see me, as long as I've got me head in t'sand..." :
    : -- Michael Flanders, "The Ostrich" :
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

    In article <Xns963BE5CD6873Fchuckonilcar@207.35.177.135>,
    chuck <chucko@nil.car> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >> I don't think it's a bug... I've seen this several times.
    >> Danny
    >>
    >Why is that not a bug? I sure would call it a bug for a monster
    >to appear inside a door...

    What part of it do you consider a bug? Is it that a door symbol
    appeared where there could be no door? That might be a bug, but,
    if there's reasonably a door on the map, and the mimic appears at
    the doorway and mimics a door, what's the problem?

    Even a pacifist can get around him. Engrave Elbereth, wake it up,
    and it will flee.
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

    james wrote:

    <snip>
    >>>I don't think it's a bug... I've seen this several times.
    >>>Danny
    >>>
    >>
    >>Why is that not a bug? I sure would call it a bug for a monster
    >>to appear inside a door...
    >
    >
    > What part of it do you consider a bug? Is it that a door symbol
    > appeared where there could be no door? That might be a bug, but,
    > if there's reasonably a door on the map, and the mimic appears at
    > the doorway and mimics a door, what's the problem?

    The mimic appeared as a boulder in the doorway when the map already
    indicated that it was a door (because it was Sokoban). It was a dead
    giveaway of the mimic. In addition (probably because I was playing
    noeGNUd) both the boulder and the doorway remained visible. However on
    the minimap (which is in the normal ASCII) the square appeared as a
    boulder. If mimics would pretend to be doors when they are on top of one
    then I wouldn't consider it a bug.

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

    In article <FuWdnauegqCg8_nfRVn-iA@rcn.net>,
    John Gibson <johnSPAM@NOGOODlosgibsons.us> wrote:

    >If mimics would pretend to be doors when they are on top of one
    >then I wouldn't consider it a bug.

    They do, in the dungeon. Guess they are biased toward mimicing boulders
    in soko.
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

    > It's not a bug. Mimics are amorphous, so surrounding a door wouldn't be
    > a problem for it.
    >
    How do you image a boulder surrounding a door? seems to me to be quite a
    topological problem...
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

    > What part of it do you consider a bug? Is it that a door symbol
    > appeared where there could be no door? That might be a bug, but,
    > if there's reasonably a door on the map, and the mimic appears at
    > the doorway and mimics a door, what's the problem?


    The point has been explained clearly enough by others I guess, but just to
    make it absolutely clear: Imagine you are say a Trifid (only non-nethack
    animate plant I could think of) and part of you is on the outside of your
    houses front door part outside in front of the door and the two or so inches
    remaining is inside the door itself occupying the wood thereby changing its
    density to woods plus that of a plant. Isn't that a undesired result which
    should be handled as an exception to wanted behavoir by a game? Or at the
    very least handled so that it makes sense in some (admittedly wierd) way in
    the game? THAT is a bug. Didn't mean to harp on it too much, but there are
    people that don't understand the intracies of what pogramming (of any sort)
    can entail and this is such a case.
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

    chuck wrote:
    >>It's not a bug. Mimics are amorphous, so surrounding a door wouldn't be
    >>a problem for it.
    >>
    >
    > How do you image a boulder surrounding a door? seems to me to be
    quite >a
    > topological problem...

    How about if it stretches itself around the door:
    ___
    |||
    |||
    |||
    |||,the middle one being the door.
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

    > How about if it stretches itself around the door:
    > ___
    >|||
    >|||
    >|||
    >|||,the middle one being the door.
    >
    IF you're not being facicious, you are overthinking it, games are supposed to
    have SOME semblance to reality, and that definately is over the line...
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

    On 04/21/05 9:48 PM, chuck wrote:

    >>How about if it stretches itself around the door:
    >>___
    >>|||
    >>|||
    >>|||
    >>|||,the middle one being the door.
    >
    > IF you're not being facicious, you are overthinking it, games are supposed to
    > have SOME semblance to reality, and that definately is over the line...

    Exactly, I've never seen a mimic stretch itself around a door in real
    life either, so it shouldn't happen in Nethack.

    --
    Chris "Bob" Odorjan - bobnet@canada.com
    BobNET - http://www.execulink.com/~bobnet/
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

    especially a closed door- one generally imagines a closed door with a
    very small space around it, then the doorframe, which connects with the
    wall; this then would appear to be half a boulder protruding and flush
    with a wall.
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

    more like

    ________
    /m | m\
    | m | m |
    | m | m |
    \__|__/____

    the middle part being a door. However, this would NOT appear to be a
    boulder in an Open doorway; if the boulder were smaller than the
    dimensions of the opening, it would reveal a bisection by a closed
    door;
    if the boulder were larger than the dimensions of the opening, it would
    reveal bisection by an intact wall.

    It would be more adventitious to the mimic if it were mimicking the
    surface of an existing closed door, or a closed door in an open
    archway.

    or if the mimic were at least mimicking a boulder in an open doorway,
    or if the mimic were mimicking a boulder in a collapsed section of
    wall,

    Do mimics engulf?-
    On that vein, why not have them mimick open spaces; e.g. the mimic
    conforms itself to the surface of the open arch/doorway, or the surface
    of a narrow corridor space
    (either one is a space between two other walls)

    then strikes (already has grapple attack) as you attempt to walk
    through


    or the mimic could fall/enter a pit and mimic normal floor, until you
    attempt to walk over it.
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

    chuck scrawled:
    >
    >
    >>How about if it stretches itself around the door:
    >>___
    >>|||
    >>|||
    >>|||
    >>|||,the middle one being the door.
    >>
    >
    > IF you're not being facicious, you are overthinking it, games are supposed to
    > have SOME semblance to reality, and that definately is over the line...

    It's not much of a stretch, actually, given that there are
    critters in the game that are explicitly capable of doing it. Closed
    doors in nethack are not hermetically sealed, and amorphous critters -
    which includes, but is not limited to, mimics - can pass through them.
    This is not a bug, but deliberate behaviour, as evidenced by the message
    produced when you see it happen. e.g., "The acid blob oozes under the
    door."

    I know from observation that acid blobs, puddings and green
    slime, fungi, fog clouds, and lights are capable of this. I suspect it's
    all b, P, F, j, v, y, and m, and possibly some others I've forgotten.
    And that's discounting xorns, earth elementals, ghosts, and shades,
    which can pass through closed doors by other means.

    --
    John Campbell
    jcampbel@lynn.ci-n.com
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

    "jasonnorthrup@yahoo.com" <jasonnorthrup@yahoo.com> writes:
    > especially a closed door- one generally imagines a closed door with a
    > very small space around it, then the doorframe, which connects with the
    > wall; this then would appear to be half a boulder protruding and flush
    > with a wall.

    I've always imagined NetHack mimicry to involve a certain amount of
    illusion-projection, rather than necessarily actual shapeshifting:
    otherwise it'd be tricky for, say, a giant mimic to pretend to be a
    tiny key, or a small mimic to be a boulder (which blocks LOS when
    undetected, but can be seen past when you find out what it is). So, we
    have a mimic plastering itself over the doorpanels that just makes
    itself _look_ like a boulder sitting in a doorway.

    --
    : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ :
    : "Peek-a-boo, I can't see you, everything must be grand; :
    : Boo-ka-pee, you can't see me, as long as I've got me head in t'sand..." :
    : -- Michael Flanders, "The Ostrich" :
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

    > It's not much of a stretch, actually, given that there are
    > critters in the game that are explicitly capable of doing it. Closed
    > doors in nethack are not hermetically sealed, and amorphous critters -
    > which includes, but is not limited to, mimics - can pass through them.
    > This is not a bug, but deliberate behaviour, as evidenced by the message
    > produced when you see it happen. e.g., "The acid blob oozes under the
    > door."
    >
    > I know from observation that acid blobs, puddings and green
    > slime, fungi, fog clouds, and lights are capable of this. I suspect it's
    > all b, P, F, j, v, y, and m, and possibly some others I've forgotten.
    > And that's discounting xorns, earth elementals, ghosts, and shades,
    > which can pass through closed doors by other means.
    >

    yes, but I've yet to see a boulder slither under a door...
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

    chuck scrawled:
    >
    > yes, but I've yet to see a boulder slither under a door...

    Which part of "MIMICS CAN CHANGE SHAPE" are you not
    understanding?

    --
    John Campbell
    jcampbel@lynn.ci-n.com
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

    chuck wrote:

    > On the off topic matter, I KNOW I have a "spoiler"
    > (quotes because I catagorize most of them them silimiar to D&D's
    > player's guide) about exercising intelligence,

    If you indeed do have such a spoiler, it's wrong.

    > but all I can find is Boudjin's (sp? sorry if so) old one saying
    > that you can't.

    Which is, of course, correct. :-)

    It's "Boudewijn", by the way. See my home page,
    http://members.home.nl/bwaijers/index.html
    for an explanation, or
    http://members.home.nl/bwaijers/boudewijn_waijers.wav
    for the pronunciation.

    > If you could name me a file name I would be much obliged.

    No need to. The spoiler you have by me is correct. Intelligence cannot
    be exercised.

    --
    Boudewijn Waijers (kroisos at home.nl).

    The garden of happiness is surrounded by a wall so low only children
    can look over it. - "the Orphanage of Hits", former Dutch radio show.
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

    Dylan O'Donnell wrote:
    > "jasonnorthrup@yahoo.com" <jasonnorthrup@yahoo.com> writes:
    > > especially a closed door- one generally imagines a closed door
    with a
    > > very small space around it, then the doorframe, which connects with
    the
    > > wall; this then would appear to be half a boulder protruding and
    flush
    > > with a wall.
    >
    > I've always imagined NetHack mimicry to involve a certain amount of
    > illusion-projection, rather than necessarily actual shapeshifting:
    > otherwise it'd be tricky for, say, a giant mimic to pretend to be a
    > tiny key, or a small mimic to be a boulder (which blocks LOS when
    > undetected, but can be seen past when you find out what it is). So,
    we
    > have a mimic plastering itself over the doorpanels that just makes
    > itself _look_ like a boulder sitting in a doorway.

    Or perhaps, that it still looks like a mimic and nothing like a
    boulder, but it makes you delude yourself into thinking that it looks
    like a boulder! And into thinking that such a thing could possibly
    happen.

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

    John Campbell <jcampbel@lynn.ci-n.com> wrote in
    news:Xplae.450$Nc.328@trnddc08:
    > Which part of "MIMICS CAN CHANGE SHAPE" are you not
    > understanding?
    None, but when it goes under a door does it then change to a acid blob and
    then back to a boulder? VERY unlikely for random events...
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

    John Gibson <johnSPAM@NOGOODlosgibsons.us> wrote in news:FuWdnauegqCg8_nfRVn-
    iA@rcn.net:

    > james wrote:

    > The mimic appeared as a boulder in the doorway when the map already
    > indicated that it was a door (because it was Sokoban). It was a dead
    > giveaway of the mimic. In addition (probably because I was playing
    > noeGNUd) both the boulder and the doorway remained visible. However on
    > the minimap (which is in the normal ASCII) the square appeared as a
    > boulder. If mimics would pretend to be doors when they are on top of one
    > then I wouldn't consider it a bug.

    or if the door was open I guess...
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

    > Which is, of course, correct. :-)
    >
    > It's "Boudewijn", by the way. See my home page,
    > http://members.home.nl/bwaijers/index.html
    > for an explanation, or
    > http://members.home.nl/bwaijers/boudewijn_waijers.wav
    > for the pronunciation.
    I actually did find the file I mentioned which was Nethack Instadeath Spoiler
    by Trevor Powell which it says you can't exercise, gives a couple ways to
    raise it (which is probably what I remembered and the says
    SPOILER BELOW BEWARE!!! SPOILER BELOW BEWARE!!! SPOILER BELOW BEWARE!!!


    applying a unicorn horn repeatedly will increase intelligence. Since it is
    something done more than once I would classify that as "exercise" despite the
    non-standard method (i.e. not reading scrolls, spellbooks etc.)
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)



    chuck wrote:
    >>Which is, of course, correct. :-)
    >>
    >>It's "Boudewijn", by the way. See my home page,
    >> http://members.home.nl/bwaijers/index.html
    >>for an explanation, or
    >> http://members.home.nl/bwaijers/boudewijn_waijers.wav
    >>for the pronunciation.
    >
    > I actually did find the file I mentioned which was Nethack Instadeath Spoiler
    > by Trevor Powell which it says you can't exercise, gives a couple ways to
    > raise it (which is probably what I remembered and the says
    > SPOILER BELOW BEWARE!!! SPOILER BELOW BEWARE!!! SPOILER BELOW BEWARE!!!
    >
    > applying a unicorn horn repeatedly will increase intelligence. Since it is
    > something done more than once I would classify that as "exercise" despite the
    > non-standard method (i.e. not reading scrolls, spellbooks etc.)

    Applying a unicorn horn will just _restore_ lost intelligence (eg. due to
    mind flayer attacks); otherwise it will not increase your intelligence.

    You may occasionally increase your intelligence by eating mind flayer meat
    or drinking potions of gain ability.

    The code has two comments about increasing intelligence (and charisma):
    attrib.c (270):
    if (i == A_INT || i == A_CHA) return; /* can't exercise these */
    attrib.c (394):
    if(i == A_INT || i == A_CHA) continue;/* can't exercise these */


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

    Janis Papanagnou <Janis_Papanagnou@hotmail.com> writes:
    > You may occasionally increase your intelligence by eating mind flayer meat
    > or drinking potions of gain ability.

    Also blessed potions of enlightenment.

    (Magic fountains can have a gain ability effect as well, but they're
    harder to spot. Thrones are a chancier business, but you may get
    lucky.)

    > The code has two comments about increasing intelligence (and charisma):
    > attrib.c (270):
    > if (i == A_INT || i == A_CHA) return; /* can't exercise these */
    > attrib.c (394):
    > if(i == A_INT || i == A_CHA) continue;/* can't exercise these */

    And indeed, nor does any place try to; these lines are just backstops.

    --
    : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ :
    : "Peek-a-boo, I can't see you, everything must be grand; :
    : Boo-ka-pee, you can't see me, as long as I've got me head in t'sand..." :
    : -- Michael Flanders, "The Ostrich" :
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

    psmith@spod-central.org wrote:
    [gaining intelligence]
    >(Magic fountains can have a gain ability effect as well, but they're
    >harder to spot. Thrones are a chancier business, but you may get
    >lucky.)

    Disappointingly, eating a helm of brilliance while metallivorous does
    not increase intelligence.
    --
    Martin Read - my opinions are my own. share them if you wish.
    My roguelike games page (including my BSD-licenced roguelike) can be found at:
    http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~mpread/roguelikes.html
    Everyone expected the Bavarian Inquisition.
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

    Martin Read <mpread@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
    > psmith@spod-central.org wrote:
    > [gaining intelligence]
    > >(Magic fountains can have a gain ability effect as well, but they're
    > >harder to spot. Thrones are a chancier business, but you may get
    > >lucky.)
    >
    > Disappointingly, eating a helm of brilliance while metallivorous does
    > not increase intelligence.

    It wouldn't persist when you polyed back anyway, so it's not that much
    of a loss.

    --
    : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ :
    : "Peek-a-boo, I can't see you, everything must be grand; :
    : Boo-ka-pee, you can't see me, as long as I've got me head in t'sand..." :
    : -- Michael Flanders, "The Ostrich" :
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

    Dylan O'Donnell wrote on 25 Apr 2005 11:17:57 +0100:
    > Martin Read <mpread@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

    > > Disappointingly, eating a helm of brilliance while metallivorous does
    > > not increase intelligence.
    >
    > It wouldn't persist when you polyed back anyway, so it's not that much
    > of a loss.

    I thought the mental stats were unchanged by polymorphing.


    --
    "Sometimes I stand by the door and look into the darkness. Then I
    am reminded how dearly I cherish my boredom, and what a precious
    commodity is so much misery." -- Jack Vance
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

    psmithnews@spod-central.org (Dylan O'Donnell) wrote in
    news:8664yb9q7z.fsf@strackenz.spod-central.org:

    > Janis Papanagnou <Janis_Papanagnou@hotmail.com> writes:
    >> You may occasionally increase your intelligence by eating mind flayer meat
    >> or drinking potions of gain ability.
    >
    > Also blessed potions of enlightenment.
    >
    > (Magic fountains can have a gain ability effect as well, but they're
    > harder to spot. Thrones are a chancier business, but you may get
    > lucky.)
    PLEASE read the spoiler mentioned as what you are saying is mentioned in
    there as well...
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

    Janis Papanagnou <Janis_Papanagnou@hotmail.com> wrote in
    news:d4hl1v$svf$1@online.de:

    >
    >
    > chuck wrote:
    >>>Which is, of course, correct. :-)
    >>>
    >>>It's "Boudewijn", by the way. See my home page,
    >>> http://members.home.nl/bwaijers/index.html
    >>>for an explanation, or
    >>> http://members.home.nl/bwaijers/boudewijn_waijers.wav
    >>>for the pronunciation.
    >>
    >> I actually did find the file I mentioned which was Nethack Instadeath
    Spoiler
    >> by Trevor Powell which it says you can't exercise, gives a couple ways to
    >> raise it (which is probably what I remembered and the says
    >> SPOILER BELOW BEWARE!!! SPOILER BELOW BEWARE!!! SPOILER BELOW BEWARE!!!
    >>
    >> applying a unicorn horn repeatedly will increase intelligence. Since it is
    >> something done more than once I would classify that as "exercise" despite
    the
    >> non-standard method (i.e. not reading scrolls, spellbooks etc.)
    >
    > Applying a unicorn horn will just _restore_ lost intelligence (eg. due to
    > mind flayer attacks); otherwise it will not increase your intelligence.


    PLEASE read the spoiler mentioned as what you are saying is mentioned in
    there as well...

    --
    lisp LIVES!!!
  31. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

    Rast <rast2@hotmail.com> writes:
    > Dylan O'Donnell wrote on 25 Apr 2005 11:17:57 +0100:
    > > Martin Read <mpread@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
    >
    > > > Disappointingly, eating a helm of brilliance while metallivorous does
    > > > not increase intelligence.
    > >
    > > It wouldn't persist when you polyed back anyway, so it's not that much
    > > of a loss.
    >
    > I thought the mental stats were unchanged by polymorphing.

    No, all six attributes are saved when you polymorph, and reset to
    those values when you polymorph again; see the u.macurr stuff in
    polymon() and polyman().

    --
    : Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ :
    : "Peek-a-boo, I can't see you, everything must be grand; :
    : Boo-ka-pee, you can't see me, as long as I've got me head in t'sand..." :
    : -- Michael Flanders, "The Ostrich" :
  32. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

    Dylan O'Donnell wrote on 26 Apr 2005 00:39:35 +0100:
    > Rast <rast2@hotmail.com> writes:
    > > Dylan O'Donnell wrote on 25 Apr 2005 11:17:57 +0100:
    > > > Martin Read <mpread@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
    > >
    > > > > Disappointingly, eating a helm of brilliance while metallivorous does
    > > > > not increase intelligence.
    > > >
    > > > It wouldn't persist when you polyed back anyway, so it's not that much
    > > > of a loss.
    > >
    > > I thought the mental stats were unchanged by polymorphing.
    >
    > No, all six attributes are saved when you polymorph, and reset to
    > those values when you polymorph again; see the u.macurr stuff in
    > polymon() and polyman().

    Thanks.

    Odd. In most games, including TGTNIN, mental stats are not changed by
    polymorphing.


    --
    "Sometimes I stand by the door and look into the darkness. Then I
    am reminded how dearly I cherish my boredom, and what a precious
    commodity is so much misery." -- Jack Vance
  33. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

    chuck wrote:
    > Janis Papanagnou <Janis_Papanagnou@hotmail.com> wrote in
    > news:d4hl1v$svf$1@online.de:
    >>chuck wrote:
    >>
    >>>by Trevor Powell which it says you can't exercise, gives a couple ways to
    >>>raise it (which is probably what I remembered and the says
    >>>SPOILER BELOW BEWARE!!! SPOILER BELOW BEWARE!!! SPOILER BELOW BEWARE!!!
    >>>
    >>>applying a unicorn horn repeatedly will increase intelligence. Since it is
    >>>something done more than once I would classify that as "exercise" despite
    >
    > the
    >
    >>>non-standard method (i.e. not reading scrolls, spellbooks etc.)
    >>
    >>Applying a unicorn horn will just _restore_ lost intelligence (eg. due to
    >>mind flayer attacks); otherwise it will not increase your intelligence.
    >
    >
    >
    > PLEASE read the spoiler mentioned as what you are saying is mentioned in
    > there as well...

    I'm uncertain what you intend to tell us here. I read your statement
    >>>
    >>>"applying a unicorn horn repeatedly will increase intelligence."
    >>>
    as if you mean to say you can exercise 'Int', which is not the case,
    whether it is written in any spoiler or not. (Personally I don't read
    spoiler, whether wrong or accurate, since I have the code available.)
    I assume that the mentioned spoiler also contains correct information.
    But I was responding to a - quoted or not - wrong statement.

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

    >> PLEASE read the spoiler mentioned as what you are saying is mentioned in
    >> there as well...


    (Personally I don't read
    > spoiler, whether wrong or accurate, since I have the code available.)
    Then I'll have no alternative than to ignore your response (not personal,
    just makes your response an uninformed one)
  35. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

    chuck wrote:
    >> (Personally I don't read
    >>spoiler, whether wrong or accurate, since I have the code available.)
    >
    > Then I'll have no alternative than to ignore your response (not personal,
    > just makes your response an uninformed one)

    Yes, it is annoying when you get what seems like reliable information
    from the source code, only to discover that particular function has been
    overridden by a spoiler file ...


    Atillo, died while helpless from laughter
  36. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

    Rast <rast2@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >Odd. In most games, including TGTNIN, mental stats are not changed by
    >polymorphing.

    Er. In at least some editions of the canonical GTNIN, some forms of
    polymorph have a chance of affecting the mind, and if they do, the
    transformation becomes permanent.
    --
    Martin Read - my opinions are my own. share them if you wish.
    My roguelike games page (including my BSD-licenced roguelike) can be found at:
    http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~mpread/roguelikes.html
    Everyone expected the Bavarian Inquisition.
  37. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

    chuck wrote:
    >>>PLEASE read the spoiler mentioned as what you are saying is mentioned in
    >>>there as well...
    >
    > (Personally I don't read
    >
    >>spoiler, whether wrong or accurate, since I have the code available.)
    >
    > Then I'll have no alternative than to ignore your response (not personal,
    > just makes your response an uninformed one)

    (You would have alternatives, if you were aware of these.)

    There are inaccurate and even wrong spoilers out there; apparently you
    haven't heard about it. And you also lack to verify information by the
    code.

    There ARE accurate and up-to-date spoilers out there, but you ought to
    know which ones are reliable and which are not.

    You may keep on ignoring expertise and go on believe what *anyone* has
    written.

    But don't post mis-information, chuck!

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

    > Yes, it is annoying when you get what seems like reliable information
    > from the source code, only to discover that particular function has been
    > overridden by a spoiler file ...
    look jerk, is spite of the fact that I wasn't addressing you I will answer
    your message honestly: party b (janis) had not read the spoiler, therefore
    didn't know what it said AT ALL, therefore couldn't comment on it in any way.
  39. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

    > (You would have alternatives, if you were aware of these.)
    >
    > There are inaccurate and even wrong spoilers out there; apparently you
    > haven't heard about it. And you also lack to verify information by the
    > code.
    >
    > There ARE accurate and up-to-date spoilers out there, but you ought to
    > know which ones are reliable and which are not.
    >
    > You may keep on ignoring expertise and go on believe what *anyone* has
    > written.
    >
    > But don't post mis-information, chuck!
    none of the above, I merely asked for the opinion of someone who has/had read
    such spoiler period. I believe I have implied this in my previous messages...
  40. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

    chuck <chucko@nil.car> wrote:

    > look jerk, is spite of the fact that I wasn't addressing you

    Plonk.

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

    a closed doorway, no less
  42. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

    chuck wrote:
    >>(You would have alternatives, if you were aware of these.)
    >>
    >>There are inaccurate and even wrong spoilers out there; apparently you
    >>haven't heard about it. And you also lack to verify information by the
    >>code.
    >>
    >>There ARE accurate and up-to-date spoilers out there, but you ought to
    >>know which ones are reliable and which are not.
    >>
    >>You may keep on ignoring expertise and go on believe what *anyone* has
    >>written.
    >>
    >>But don't post mis-information, chuck!
    >
    > none of the above, I merely asked for the opinion of someone who has/had read
    > such spoiler period. I believe I have implied this in my previous messages...

    You're being a bit blind here, chuck. The insta-death spoiler you're
    reading phrases the section on intelligence rather poorly. You cannot
    *exercise* intelligence by repeated application of a unicorn horn;
    rather, you can *regain intelligence lost due to mindflayer attacks* by
    doing same. It's easy to see how the source document can be read to
    construe a different result, but that does not mean that interpretation
    is what will actually happen in the game.

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

    chuck <chucko@nil.car> wrote:

    [ Learn to quote. Use attributions. ]

    > > Yes, it is annoying when you get what seems like reliable information
    > > from the source code, only to discover that particular function has been
    > > overridden by a spoiler file ...
    > look jerk, is spite of the fact that I wasn't addressing you

    Get some clue, will you? This is a newsgroup, not an email conversation.
    _Everybody_ addresses everybody else.

    >I will answer
    > your message honestly: party b (janis) had not read the spoiler, therefore
    > didn't know what it said AT ALL, therefore couldn't comment on it in any way.

    Nevertheless, he was correct, and you were wrong. Now isn't that just
    _awful_?

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

    > You're being a bit blind here, chuck. The insta-death spoiler you're
    > reading phrases the section on intelligence rather poorly. You cannot
    No, you are the only person here besides myself that even IMPLIES that they
    have read the spoiler.

    > *exercise* intelligence by repeated application of a unicorn horn;
    > rather, you can *regain intelligence lost due to mindflayer attacks* by
    > doing same. It's easy to see how the source document can be read to
    > construe a different result, but that does not mean that interpretation
    > is what will actually happen in the game.
    fair enough I will take that as fact. You HAVE read that spoiler right?
  45. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

    chuck wrote:
    >>You're being a bit blind here, chuck. The insta-death spoiler you're
    >>reading phrases the section on intelligence rather poorly. You cannot
    >
    > No, you are the only person here besides myself that even IMPLIES that they
    > have read the spoiler.

    It's really beside the point whether someone has read the spoiler, if
    they are indeed knowledgeable about how the game actually works.
    Spoilers are not the source code for the game, so someone whose answer
    to your question is based on knowledge of the actual source code for the
    game should be considered more authoritative on the subject! But read on
    below...

    >
    >
    >>*exercise* intelligence by repeated application of a unicorn horn;
    >>rather, you can *regain intelligence lost due to mindflayer attacks* by
    >>doing same. It's easy to see how the source document can be read to
    >>construe a different result, but that does not mean that interpretation
    >>is what will actually happen in the game.
    >
    > fair enough I will take that as fact. You HAVE read that spoiler right?

    Yes, I have read the spoiler, and I think it gives correct information
    when read in proper context. Unfortunately, it's easy to get the
    context wrong when reading the line about unicorn horns.

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

    Ken Cuvelier <kvcflameNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
    news:1173ddc3f0d3u45@corp.supernews.com:

    > It's really beside the point whether someone has read the spoiler, if
    > they are indeed knowledgeable about how the game actually works.
    > Spoilers are not the source code for the game, so someone whose answer
    > to your question is based on knowledge of the actual source code for the
    > game should be considered more authoritative on the subject! But read on
    > below...
    my point was really two fold 1) if there is a bug in the code that allows a
    method of increasing intelligence and 2) if that spoiler had found such bug.
    Nobody but me seemed to see that possibilty though...
  47. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

    chuck wrote:
    > Ken Cuvelier <kvcflameNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
    > news:1173ddc3f0d3u45@corp.supernews.com:
    >
    >
    >>It's really beside the point whether someone has read the spoiler, if
    >>they are indeed knowledgeable about how the game actually works.
    >>Spoilers are not the source code for the game, so someone whose answer
    >>to your question is based on knowledge of the actual source code for the
    >>game should be considered more authoritative on the subject! But read on
    >>below...
    >
    > my point was really two fold 1) if there is a bug in the code that allows a
    > method of increasing intelligence and 2) if that spoiler had found such bug.
    > Nobody but me seemed to see that possibilty though...

    Using your logic, quaffing potions of restore ability should cause
    intelligence to go up. It is clear to me that the author of the
    instadeath spoiler felt that anyone reading that section would
    understand from reading it that there is hope for regaining lost
    intelligence due to mindflayer attacks, but no hope for exercising
    intelligence when intelligence has not been lost.

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

    On 4/28/05 4:54 PM, Richard Bos wrote:
    > chuck <chucko@nil.car> wrote:

    >>I will answer
    >>your message honestly: party b (janis) had not read the spoiler, therefore
    >>didn't know what it said AT ALL, therefore couldn't comment on it in any way.
    >
    > Nevertheless, he was correct, and you were wrong. Now isn't that just
    > _awful_?

    No, Richard, you just don't get it. Chuck is *never wrong.* It is
    impossible. It can't happen. You have to say it like a mantra:

    Chuck is never wrong.
    Chuck is never wrong.
    Chuck is never wrong.

    Keep saying it until you believe it. You have to BELIEVE!

    --
    Kevin Wayne

    "For the judges of the lowest grade, to whom my acquaintences belong,
    haven't the power to grant a final aquittal, that power is reserved for
    the highest court of all, which is quite inaccessable to you, to me, and
    to all of us. What the prospects are up there we do not know and, I may
    say in passing, do not even want to know." --Franz Kafka, *The Trial*
  49. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

    chuck wrote:
    > Ken Cuvelier <kvcflameNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
    > news:1173ddc3f0d3u45@corp.supernews.com:
    >
    > > It's really beside the point whether someone has read the spoiler,
    if
    > > they are indeed knowledgeable about how the game actually works.
    > > Spoilers are not the source code for the game, so someone whose
    answer
    > > to your question is based on knowledge of the actual source code
    for the
    > > game should be considered more authoritative on the subject! But
    read on
    > > below...
    > my point was really two fold 1) if there is a bug in the code that
    allows a
    > method of increasing intelligence and 2) if that spoiler had found
    such bug.
    > Nobody but me seemed to see that possibilty though...

    And yet, when certain people, who KNOW how the game works (from having
    played it and/or the source code), told you that there was not such a
    bug, you discounted them (in a somewhat antagonistic fashion) merely
    because they admitted to not having read the particular spoiler in
    question.

    Interesting way of going about seeking information, there.
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Bug Video Games