Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I can't believe my luck.

Tags:
  • Games
  • Video Games
Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 1:14:04 AM

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

Hello r.g.r.n. I've been playing Nethack since about October and just
now delurking. I've already ascended Val, Wiz, Arc, Bar, Pri, Hea, Rog,
and Kni, in that order. I just wanted to share with everyone an
unbelievable string of luck.

Since I had ascended so many character types, I decided to try and do
them all. Rogue was a little tough until I got the amulet from Sokoban
and hit a wizard bones file. Then I tried playing a monk. The first
promising character got all the way to the castle. I had no reflection
or MR, but = of conflict and regeneration, two pet vamp lords, and two
pet minotaurs. I let my pets do the heavy lifting. When I got to the
throne room, I whistled them in, walked back out and closed the door.
After most of the warning numbers were gone, I opened the door, only to
be immediately struck down by a wand of death from an Ogre King, almost
within sight of the castle wand. Very frustrating. My next promising
monk got the sheet beaten out of him by Master Kaen.

So I tried a knight. Made it down to the sokoban branch level, letting
my horse kill everything. Saw a chest, cracked it open, found a wand.
Engrave tested it.

"You may wish for an object"

Holy cow. I had only ever seen I think two wands of wishing outside the
castle wand, and never this early in the game. It ended up being 0:3.
On top of that, I got a throne wish and four magic lamps. I never even
touched the castle wand. Needless to say, I ascended that one, although
an accident with a cockatrice corpse killed me once (thank you AoLS).

Immediately after I finished that game, I started up a wizard to goof
around. Found a chest on Dlvl 1, kicked it open, found a wand. Engrave
tested it.

"You may wish for an object"

What??? How lucky can you get? I wished up SDSM, speed boots, etc. But
having already ascended several wizards, I quickly got bored with it
and quit.

So I decided to give caveman a try. After seeing the starting
inventory, I knew I had my work cut out for me. And now I'm not making
this up. In the second room on Dlvl 1 I found a chest. Kicked it open,
found a wand. You guessed it.

"You may wish for an object"

I sat there stunned, figuring my brain must have malfunctioned. But
nope, it was real.

2 blessed scrolls of charging
+3 SDSM
+0 speed boots
+3 Mjollnir
blessed Eye of the Aethiopica (after leveling up)

Right now I'm at the castle and everything is going well. But what are
the odds of hitting three wands of wishing so early in three
consecutive games?

More about : luck

Anonymous
May 6, 2005 3:57:02 AM

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

lmfback wrote:

> Two on Dlvl 1 makes the calculation fairly easy actually. Not knowing

> the actual Sokoban branch level (and if you dipped into the mines or
> not) makes it impossible to give an exact number though. Ok, maybe it

> would be quite a hefty calculation after all as it would involve
things
> like "chance of chest on level (depends on rooms?)" * "wand in chest"
*
> "wand is wishing" (* not glass :-).
>
> Eskimo

What does glass have to do with it??
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 4:48:45 AM

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

Andy Johnson wrote:
> Marky Mark wrote:
> >
> > What does glass have to do with it??
> >
> If you kick open a chest, glass things inside will break.

Spoily question, so I'll use rot13.

Vf guvf n jnl bs vqragvslvat jbeguyrff trzf? Pna lbh whfg fgvpx gurz
va n purfg naq xvpx vg naq frr vs gurl oernx?

Darth.
Related resources
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 4:53:45 AM

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

"Erokh" <adamskelton@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:1115352844.390323.162020
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> Right now I'm at the castle and everything is going well. But what are
> the odds of hitting three wands of wishing so early in three
> consecutive games?

I reckon the RNG isn't so random.
I had a month of games where I didn't see a single soldier ant but starting
last weekend these started appearing and caused me to beat numerous hasty
retreats. Also there've been plenty of games where I found an early pair of
GoP but speed boots had to be acquired through wishes.
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 6:10:31 AM

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

Marky Mark wrote:
>
> What does glass have to do with it??
>
If you kick open a chest, glass things inside will break.
May 6, 2005 11:33:22 AM

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

Darth. wrote:
> Spoily question, so I'll use rot13.

Could I get a explanation of rot13?

-777
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 12:41:12 PM

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

Andy Johnson wrote:
> Marky Mark wrote:
> >
> > What does glass have to do with it??
> >
> If you kick open a chest, glass things inside will break.

For some reason, I thought it was just potions that broke when you
kicked open a box. I guess that makes it all the more lucky.
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 1:00:37 PM

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

In article <1115365725.947523.41380@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
drdarthvader@hotmail.com says...
>
> Andy Johnson wrote:
> > Marky Mark wrote:
> > >
> > > What does glass have to do with it??
> > >
> > If you kick open a chest, glass things inside will break.
>
> Spoily question, so I'll use rot13.
>
> Vf guvf n jnl bs vqragvslvat jbeguyrff trzf? Pna lbh whfg fgvpx gurz
> va n purfg naq xvpx vg naq frr vs gurl oernx?

Vg hfrq gb or, ohg jnf erzbirq nf na nohfr va na rneyvre irefvba. Gur
grpuavdhr jnf xabja nf 'xvpx-obkvat'.



Ken
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 1:37:31 PM

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

In article <1115352844.390323.162020@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
adamskelton@sbcglobal.net says...

> So I decided to give caveman a try. After seeing the starting
> inventory, I knew I had my work cut out for me. And now I'm not making
> this up. In the second room on Dlvl 1 I found a chest. Kicked it open,
> found a wand. You guessed it.

Ok, by this time it was REALLY incredible that it wasn't a glass wand.
You can get lucky once, even twice but eventually the RNG makes your
luck cruel unluck.


> Right now I'm at the castle and everything is going well. But what are
> the odds of hitting three wands of wishing so early in three
> consecutive games?

Two on Dlvl 1 makes the calculation fairly easy actually. Not knowing
the actual Sokoban branch level (and if you dipped into the mines or
not) makes it impossible to give an exact number though. Ok, maybe it
would be quite a hefty calculation after all as it would involve things
like "chance of chest on level (depends on rooms?)" * "wand in chest" *
"wand is wishing" (* not glass :-).

Eskimo

--
//------------------------------
//Remove tämä all the way to and including soomee to mail directly.
//Ascended:W,V (genopolywish),P(ill ath), T,K,H,S,B,C,P,W
(naked),Ro,Ra,A,W,almost pacifist A
//In progress:p AIN
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 1:48:58 PM

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

Erokh wrote:

> Immediately after I finished that game, I started up a wizard to goof
> around. Found a chest on Dlvl 1, kicked it open, found a wand. Engrave
> tested it.
>
> "You may wish for an object"

> So I decided to give caveman a try. After seeing the starting
> inventory, I knew I had my work cut out for me. And now I'm not making
> this up. In the second room on Dlvl 1 I found a chest. Kicked it open,
> found a wand. You guessed it.
>
> "You may wish for an object"

You have probably been unlucky some times as well.

If you keep on kicking chests open, you'll almost certainly lose out on
wands of wishing a few times, since they can be crystal wands as well.

YANI (yet another nasty idea): why not make wands of wishing *always*
crystal? That will teach people not to kick open boxes...

--
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.
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 1:48:59 PM

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

Boudewijn Waijers <kroisos@REMOVETHISWORD.home.nl> wrote:
> Erokh wrote:
>
>> Immediately after I finished that game, I started up a wizard to goof
>> around. Found a chest on Dlvl 1, kicked it open, found a wand. Engrave
>> tested it.
>>
>> "You may wish for an object"
>
>> So I decided to give caveman a try. After seeing the starting
>> inventory, I knew I had my work cut out for me. And now I'm not making
>> this up. In the second room on Dlvl 1 I found a chest. Kicked it open,
>> found a wand. You guessed it.
>>
>> "You may wish for an object"
>
> You have probably been unlucky some times as well.
>
> If you keep on kicking chests open, you'll almost certainly lose out on
> wands of wishing a few times, since they can be crystal wands as well.
>
> YANI (yet another nasty idea): why not make wands of wishing *always*
> crystal? That will teach people not to kick open boxes...

or #force with a blunt weapon (poor wizard)


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 1:59:04 PM

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

Darth. wrote:

> Spoily question, so I'll use rot13.

I don't like rot13, since I don't think it's necessary, but I'll follow
your lead in this case.

> Vf guvf n jnl bs vqragvslvat jbeguyrff trzf? Pna lbh whfg fgvpx gurz
> va n purfg naq xvpx vg naq frr vs gurl oernx?

Fbeg bs.

Va snpg, abg bayl tynff jvyy oernx jura lbh xvpx n obk juvpx pbagnvaf
vg, ohg nyfb fbsg trzf, yvxr, sbe rknzcyr, qvyvguvhz pelfgnyf (gur zbfg
inyhnoyr trz).

Vg jvyy vqragvsl uneq trzf.

Unccl unpxvat!

--
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.
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 1:59:05 PM

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

Boudewijn Waijers <kroisos@REMOVETHISWORD.home.nl> wrote:
> Darth. wrote:
>
>> Spoily question, so I'll use rot13.
>
> I don't like rot13, since I don't think it's necessary, but I'll follow
> your lead in this case.
>
>> Vf guvf n jnl bs vqragvslvat jbeguyrff trzf? Pna lbh whfg fgvpx gurz
>> va n purfg naq xvpx vg naq frr vs gurl oernx?
>
> Fbeg bs.
>
> Va snpg, abg bayl tynff jvyy oernx jura lbh xvpx n obk juvpx pbagnvaf
> vg, ohg nyfb fbsg trzf, yvxr, sbe rknzcyr, qvyvguvhz pelfgnyf (gur zbfg
> inyhnoyr trz).
>
> Vg jvyy vqragvsl uneq trzf.
>
> Unccl unpxvat!

Ah, so engrave-testing is still a better choice.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 2:43:30 PM

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

Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>Boudewijn Waijers <kroisos@REMOVETHISWORD.home.nl> wrote:
>> YANI (yet another nasty idea): why not make wands of wishing *always*
>> crystal? That will teach people not to kick open boxes...
>
>or #force with a blunt weapon (poor wizard)

Orcish daggers are common.
--
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.ht...
The devil take your stereo and your record collection.
May 6, 2005 3:33:15 PM

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

Sebastian Hungerecker wrote:
[a nice rot13 explanation]


Thanks!
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 4:03:25 PM

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

"Boudewijn Waijers" <kroisos@REMOVETHISWORD.home.nl> writes:
> Darth. wrote:

> > Vf guvf n jnl bs vqragvslvat jbeguyrff trzf? Pna lbh whfg fgvpx gurz
> > va n purfg naq xvpx vg naq frr vs gurl oernx?
> Fbeg bs.
> Va snpg, abg bayl tynff jvyy oernx jura lbh xvpx n obk juvpx pbagnvaf

Err.. which version of the game do you mean?
It was so before, but this behavior was changed for <rot13>trzf</rot13>
some time ago just to make them harder to identify.

--
Jukka Lahtinen
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 4:23:26 PM

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

Quoting Haakon Studebaker <heptapod@gmail.com>:
>"Erokh" <adamskelton@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:1115352844.390323.162020
>>Right now I'm at the castle and everything is going well. But what are
>>the odds of hitting three wands of wishing so early in three
>>consecutive games?
>I reckon the RNG isn't so random.
>I had a month of games where I didn't see a single soldier ant but starting
>last weekend these started appearing and caused me to beat numerous hasty
>retreats.

True randomness produces patterns in its output.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is First Friday, May.
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 4:28:22 PM

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

HallowsEve wrote:
> "David Damerell" <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:5Zf*pPUNq@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> > Quoting Nick Hounsome <nh002@blueyonder.co.uk>:
> >>"David Damerell" <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
> >>>True randomness produces patterns in its output.
> >>True randomness MAY produce patterns in its output.
> >
> > Um. The chance (assuming we are all playing with good RNGs ho ho)
that any
> > given person won't observe some sort of pattern in the behaviour of
> > NetHack that is just produced from randomness is essentially zero.
>
> Not to remove precious semantics from the debate, but the only
objectively
> true point to be made here is that true randomness never produces any

> patterns which can be used to predict future outcomes of that
randomness.
> This is true no matter how one decides to precisely define the word
> "patterns".

Well I didn't mean to start a debate on the philosophy of PRNG's. I
just thought it was pretty incredible, having logged many hours of
nethack play. But I guess over the years there have probably been many
similar posts.
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 4:36:52 PM

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

Quoting Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org>:
>Boudewijn Waijers <kroisos@REMOVETHISWORD.home.nl> wrote:
[No need for rot13 on something that's wrong]
>>In fact, not only glass will break when you kick a box whick contains
>>it, but also soft gems, like, for example, dilithium crystals (the most
>>valuable gem).
>Ah, so engrave-testing is still a better choice.

Particularly since this is completely wrong. In 3.1.3 glass would shatter
and no gems would; this made the game harder since you were encouraged to
collect gems and waste weight capacity. Since then, no gem-type object
will shatter;

if (objects[otmp->otyp].oc_material == GLASS &&
otmp->oclass != GEM_CLASS && !obj_resists(otmp, 33, 100)) {
result = "shatter";

The soft/hard distinction is when engraving.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is First Friday, May.
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 4:37:53 PM

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

HallowsEve wrote:

>
> "David Damerell" <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:5Zf*pPUNq@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>> Quoting Nick Hounsome <nh002@blueyonder.co.uk>:
>>> "David Damerell" <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
>>>> True randomness produces patterns in its output.
>>> True randomness MAY produce patterns in its output.
>>
>> Um. The chance (assuming we are all playing with good RNGs ho ho) that
>> any given person won't observe some sort of pattern in the behaviour of
>> NetHack that is just produced from randomness is essentially zero.
>
> Not to remove precious semantics from the debate, but the only
> objectively true point to be made here is that true randomness never
> produces any patterns which can be used to predict future outcomes of
> that randomness. This is true no matter how one decides to precisely
> define the word "patterns".

Another objectively true point: as the length of the random sequence
approaches infinity, the probability that any given finite subsequence will
appear approaches 1.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 5:07:09 PM

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

Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> writes:

> > YANI (yet another nasty idea): why not make wands of wishing *always*
> > crystal? That will teach people not to kick open boxes...
>
> or #force with a blunt weapon (poor wizard)

There's little need to do this -- unless you're
a petless, slightly paranoid unlucky atheist maybe.

Best,
Jakob
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 6:13:35 PM

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

Boudewijn Waijers wrote (Fri, 6 May 2005 09:48:58 +0200):
> YANI (yet another nasty idea): why not make wands of wishing *always*
> crystal? That will teach people not to kick open boxes...

That will decrease the fun of "DYWYPI? f - a wand of wishing (0:3)"
;p

--
Jilles Tjoelker
jilles AT stack DOT nl
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 6:14:37 PM

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

David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org>:
>
> [identifying gems]
>
>>Ah, so engrave-testing is still a better choice.
>
> In 3.1.3 glass would shatter
> and no gems would; this made the game harder since you were encouraged to
> collect gems and waste weight capacity.

OTOH, gems are not very heavy, and once you collected a significant
number you may identify the glass by the amount of stacking gem items.
Or stash the gems and collect the stashes later to have a sound number
of gems for the statistical rating. Or you may feed them to a unicorn
to at least identify the glass, no need to know the exact type of gems.

You can also completely ignore the gems. That's the strategy I go for,
recently.

Janis
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 6:33:45 PM

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

Quoting Janis Papanagnou <Janis_Papanagnou@hotmail.com>:
>David Damerell wrote:
>>In 3.1.3 glass would shatter
>>and no gems would; this made the game harder since you were encouraged to
>>collect gems and waste weight capacity.
>OTOH, gems are not very heavy,

They are if you collect every single valuable one, as a naive packrat
might do in 3.1.3. I did...

>You can also completely ignore the gems. That's the strategy I go for,
>recently.

I hardness-ID them when I find them, then drop them. That way, when I get
bulk identify, I can quickly chase up a few hard ones for cleaning out
shopkeepers; and I can make use of unicorns for luck.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is First Friday, May.
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 7:47:09 PM

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

"David Damerell" <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:sNy*RtTNq@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> Quoting Haakon Studebaker <heptapod@gmail.com>:
>>"Erokh" <adamskelton@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:1115352844.390323.162020
>>>Right now I'm at the castle and everything is going well. But what are
>>>the odds of hitting three wands of wishing so early in three
>>>consecutive games?
>>I reckon the RNG isn't so random.
>>I had a month of games where I didn't see a single soldier ant but
>>starting
>>last weekend these started appearing and caused me to beat numerous hasty
>>retreats.
>
> True randomness produces patterns in its output.

True randomness MAY produce patterns in its output.
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 7:47:10 PM

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

Nick Hounsome wrote:
> "David Damerell" <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:sNy*RtTNq@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>
>>Quoting Haakon Studebaker <heptapod@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>"Erokh" <adamskelton@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:1115352844.390323.162020
>>>
>>>>Right now I'm at the castle and everything is going well. But what are
>>>>the odds of hitting three wands of wishing so early in three
>>>>consecutive games?
>>>
>>>I reckon the RNG isn't so random.
>>>I had a month of games where I didn't see a single soldier ant but
>>>starting
>>>last weekend these started appearing and caused me to beat numerous hasty
>>>retreats.
>>
>>True randomness produces patterns in its output.
>
>
> True randomness MAY produce patterns in its output.
>
>
I tend to think this way: true randomness *invites us to believe* that
patterns occur in output.
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 9:13:43 PM

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

777 wrote:
> Could I get a explanation of rot13?

Rotate all letters by 13. a->n, b->o, ..., n->a, o->b etc.
There are rot13 en-/decoders embedded in most newsreader and freely
available on the internet.

--
If geiger counter does not click,
the coffee, she is just not thick
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 9:33:33 PM

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

"Nick Hounsome" <nh002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>"David Damerell" <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
>news:sNy*RtTNq@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>> True randomness produces patterns in its output.
>
>True randomness MAY produce patterns in its output.

A true random sequence of sufficient length *will* produce things that
appear to be ordered patterns somewhere in its output.
--
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.ht...
bounce. bounce. bounce. bounce bounce bounce bounce.
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 10:28:29 PM

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

Quoting Nick Hounsome <nh002@blueyonder.co.uk>:
>"David Damerell" <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
>>True randomness produces patterns in its output.
>True randomness MAY produce patterns in its output.

Um. The chance (assuming we are all playing with good RNGs ho ho) that any
given person won't observe some sort of pattern in the behaviour of
NetHack that is just produced from randomness is essentially zero.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is First Friday, May.
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 10:28:30 PM

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

"David Damerell" <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:5Zf*pPUNq@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> Quoting Nick Hounsome <nh002@blueyonder.co.uk>:
>>"David Damerell" <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
>>>True randomness produces patterns in its output.
>>True randomness MAY produce patterns in its output.
>
> Um. The chance (assuming we are all playing with good RNGs ho ho) that any
> given person won't observe some sort of pattern in the behaviour of
> NetHack that is just produced from randomness is essentially zero.

Not to remove precious semantics from the debate, but the only objectively
true point to be made here is that true randomness never produces any
patterns which can be used to predict future outcomes of that randomness.
This is true no matter how one decides to precisely define the word
"patterns".
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 11:52:05 PM

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

Sebastian Hungerecker wrote:
> 777 wrote:
>
>>Could I get a explanation of rot13?
>
>
> Rotate all letters by 13. a->n, b->o, ..., n->a, o->b etc.
> There are rot13 en-/decoders embedded in most newsreader and freely
> available on the internet.
>
Is there one for Thunderbird?
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 11:52:06 PM

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

BManx2000 wrote:
> Sebastian Hungerecker wrote:
>
>> 777 wrote:
>>
>>> Could I get a explanation of rot13?
>>
>>
>>
>> Rotate all letters by 13. a->n, b->o, ..., n->a, o->b etc.
>> There are rot13 en-/decoders embedded in most newsreader and freely
>> available on the internet.
>>
> Is there one for Thunderbird?

There probably is now, but there wasn't one the last time I tried
looking for one (having to switch to FF and load rot13.com gets annoying
after a while)...

Searching mozilla.org for "rot13" returned 1 result (an extension for
FireFox), but clicking on it gave a "no longer available" error.

Searching google.com for "thunderbird rot13" gave me the result we needed:

http://www.pinkroom.biz/owl/minirot13/

So, yes, there is one for Thunderbird.

--
____ (__)
/ \ (oo) -Shadow
|Moo. > \/
\____/
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 12:17:50 AM

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

Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> Erokh wrote:
> >
> > Well I didn't mean to start a debate on the philosophy of PRNG's.
>
> Not that I want to distract that debate further, or frighten you by
> any means. But calling the Random Nethack God (RNG) "pseudo" (PRNG)
> provokes ten years of bad luck in your Nethack games.
> ;-)
>
> Janis

So is that the equivalent of blasphemy in the nethack universe? Oh
well, I figured I'd be due for a dry spell anyway. :) 
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 1:38:28 AM

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

Erokh wrote:
>
> Well I didn't mean to start a debate on the philosophy of PRNG's.

Not that I want to distract that debate further, or frighten you by
any means. But calling the Random Nethack God (RNG) "pseudo" (PRNG)
provokes ten years of bad luck in your Nethack games.
;-)

Janis
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 2:08:38 AM

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

BManx2000 wrote:
> Sebastian Hungerecker wrote:
>>There are rot13 en-/decoders embedded in most newsreader
>
> Is there one for Thunderbird?

Yes, it's included in the Mnenhy extension.

--
If geiger counter does not click,
the coffee, she is just not thick
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 2:08:39 AM

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

Sebastian Hungerecker wrote:
> BManx2000 wrote:
>
>>Sebastian Hungerecker wrote:
>>
>>>There are rot13 en-/decoders embedded in most newsreader
>>
>>Is there one for Thunderbird?
>
>
> Yes, it's included in the Mnenhy extension.
>
Thanks for the pointer! Worked like a charm in my installation of
Thunderbird. Now if I could just fix the refusal to invoke Firefox for
URLs... *sigh*.

For anyone reading this far, you'll find more info on Mnenhy at:
http://mnheny.mozdev.org

-Ken
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 2:08:39 AM

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

Sebastian Hungerecker wrote:
> BManx2000 wrote:
>
>>Sebastian Hungerecker wrote:
>>
>>>There are rot13 en-/decoders embedded in most newsreader
>>
>>Is there one for Thunderbird?
>
>
> Yes, it's included in the Mnenhy extension.
>
Argh, no one bother replying to my earlier reply to tell me I got the
URL wrong... here's the correct link:

http://mnenhy.mozdev.org

-Ken
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 2:12:39 AM

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

Shadow wrote:
> BManx2000 wrote:
>
>> Sebastian Hungerecker wrote:
>>
>>> 777 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Could I get a explanation of rot13?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Rotate all letters by 13. a->n, b->o, ..., n->a, o->b etc.
>>> There are rot13 en-/decoders embedded in most newsreader and freely
>>> available on the internet.
>>>
>> Is there one for Thunderbird?
>
>
> There probably is now, but there wasn't one the last time I tried
> looking for one (having to switch to FF and load rot13.com gets annoying
> after a while)...
>
> Searching mozilla.org for "rot13" returned 1 result (an extension for
> FireFox), but clicking on it gave a "no longer available" error.
>
> Searching google.com for "thunderbird rot13" gave me the result we needed:
>
> http://www.pinkroom.biz/owl/minirot13/
>
> So, yes, there is one for Thunderbird.
>
Well, it works for decoding messages, but the "Rot13 Selection" isn't
working :( 
May 7, 2005 7:33:20 AM

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

Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in
news:slrnd7maf7.844.keith.davies@kjdavies.org:

> Boudewijn Waijers <kroisos@REMOVETHISWORD.home.nl> wrote:
>
>> YANI (yet another nasty idea): why not make wands of wishing
>> *always* crystal? That will teach people not to kick open boxes...
>
> or #force with a blunt weapon (poor wizard)

But doesn't #force with a blunt weapon have a chance of destroying things
regardless of what they are made of?
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 10:09:05 AM

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

Seraphim <gme6@cornell.edu> wrote:
> Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in
> news:slrnd7maf7.844.keith.davies@kjdavies.org:
>
>> Boudewijn Waijers <kroisos@REMOVETHISWORD.home.nl> wrote:
>>
>>> YANI (yet another nasty idea): why not make wands of wishing
>>> *always* crystal? That will teach people not to kick open boxes...
>>
>> or #force with a blunt weapon (poor wizard)
>
> But doesn't #force with a blunt weapon have a chance of destroying
> things regardless of what they are made of?

I'm not sure. Quite possibly ("in fact, you've destroyed the $foo",
IIRC, plus assorted object breakage).

I don't #force with a staff any more, so I don't remember exactly. I do
remember that doing so will break *some* things inside (same as kicking)
but I don't know if it breaks stuff that isn't broken by kicking.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 2:15:48 PM

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

Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>I don't #force with a staff any more, so I don't remember exactly. I do
>remember that doing so will break *some* things inside (same as kicking)
>but I don't know if it breaks stuff that isn't broken by kicking.

It does; I've destroyed spellbooks that way before now :( 
--
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.ht...
bounce. bounce. bounce. bounce bounce bounce bounce.
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 10:03:29 PM

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

Martin Read <mpread@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>>I don't #force with a staff any more, so I don't remember exactly. I do
>>remember that doing so will break *some* things inside (same as kicking)
>>but I don't know if it breaks stuff that isn't broken by kicking.
>
> It does; I've destroyed spellbooks that way before now :( 

Oh, right. I've been *told that*. "You see a spellbook get torn", or
the like.

That was a big part of the reason I stopped doing it.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 10:21:26 PM

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

On 5/6/05 9:47 PM, Ken Cuvelier wrote:
> Thanks for the pointer! Worked like a charm in my installation of
> Thunderbird. Now if I could just fix the refusal to invoke Firefox for
> URLs... *sigh*.

Is Firefox your default browser? Thunderbird always invokes Firefox for me.

--
Kevin Wayne

"I came to Casablanca for the waters."
"Waters? What waters? We're in the desert?"
"I was misinformed."
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 10:21:28 PM

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

On 5/6/05 11:41 AM, Erokh wrote:
> For some reason, I thought it was just potions that broke when you
> kicked open a box. I guess that makes it all the more lucky.

You'll never know how lucky you were or weren't. If you broke a WoW that
way, you'd never know it.

It's a reasonable strategy to go ahead and kick open containers, if you
don't have a way to unlock them or force them, on the theory that what
you gain will help you survive in the early game and what you lose is
unlikely to have been crucially important.

--
Kevin Wayne

"I came to Casablanca for the waters."
"Waters? What waters? We're in the desert?"
"I was misinformed."
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 10:21:31 PM

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

On 5/6/05 1:28 PM, David Damerell wrote:
> Um. The chance (assuming we are all playing with good RNGs ho ho) that any
> given person won't observe some sort of pattern in the behaviour of
> NetHack that is just produced from randomness is essentially zero.

Good, Grasshopper, good.

Now tell me: is the pattern in the output of the RNG, or in the mind of
the observer seeking to make sense of it?

:-)

--
Kevin Wayne

"I came to Casablanca for the waters."
"Waters? What waters? We're in the desert?"
"I was misinformed."
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 2:31:48 AM

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

Kevin Wayne <killedbyafoo@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 5/6/05 1:28 PM, David Damerell wrote:
> > Um. The chance (assuming we are all playing with good RNGs ho ho) that any
> > given person won't observe some sort of pattern in the behaviour of
> > NetHack that is just produced from randomness is essentially zero.
>
> Good, Grasshopper, good.
>
> Now tell me: is the pattern in the output of the RNG, or in the mind of
> the observer seeking to make sense of it?

No.

Richard
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 2:31:49 AM

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

Kevin Wayne <killedbyafoo@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 5/6/05 11:41 AM, Erokh wrote:
> > For some reason, I thought it was just potions that broke when you
> > kicked open a box. I guess that makes it all the more lucky.
>
> You'll never know how lucky you were or weren't. If you broke a WoW that
> way, you'd never know it.

Yes, you would. For one specific WoW, you certainly would know.

Richard
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 11:56:41 AM

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

"Martin Read" <mpread@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:D Tg*xCUNq@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> "Nick Hounsome" <nh002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>"David Damerell" <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
>>news:sNy*RtTNq@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>>> True randomness produces patterns in its output.
>>
>>True randomness MAY produce patterns in its output.
>
> A true random sequence of sufficient length *will* produce things that
> appear to be ordered patterns somewhere in its output.

No - this is not true except in a trivial sense that makes the whole
discussion meningless.

Consider:

The RNG is constrained to a small number of possible output values for a
given event (such as wand type). These are the 'digits' of our random
sequence.

The patterns that we are discussing are ones that a human can reasonably
recognize (that's why we say that there APPEAR to be patterns) which means
that they must be of length less than some finite value L.(they could APPEAR
to be infinite but that is irrelevant)

Either you believe that all sequences of length <= L are "patterns" in which
case the whole discussion is meaningless OR there is at least one sequence
of length L which has no pattern. An RNG CAN generate an infinite repetition
of this sequence which, although "a pattern" does not APPEAR to be one by
our definition of L. Therefore the RNG can create an infinite sequence with
no APPARENT pattern.
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 3:19:44 PM

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

On 5/7/05 6:31 PM, Richard Bos wrote:

[In response to the suggestion that a player wouldn't know if he broke a
WoW by kicking a locked chest open.]

> Yes, you would. For one specific WoW, you certainly would know.

You'd only know if you were spoiled enough to know not to take *any*
chances with that particular chest.

But then, how likely are you to get down to that chest without a means
of unlocking it? (Multiply that with the probability of WoWs being
crystal in the first place.)

--
Kevin Wayne

"I came to Casablanca for the waters."
"Waters? What waters? We're in the desert?"
"I was misinformed."
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 1:51:17 PM

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

In article <d5f7hf$ouu$1@news4.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>,
kroisos@REMOVETHISWORD.home.nl says...

> If you keep on kicking chests open, you'll almost certainly lose out on
> wands of wishing a few times, since they can be crystal wands as well.
>
> YANI (yet another nasty idea): why not make wands of wishing *always*
> crystal? That will teach people not to kick open boxes...

Except unless you don't know what shattered you learn little? Add "The
open box reveals a shattered xxx, yyy, zzz" ;-). Or worse still, always
makes the message say "...shattered wand of wishing" regardless of what
shattered :D 

Eskimo

--
//------------------------------
//Remove tämä all the way to and including soomee to mail directly.
//Ascended:W,V (genopolywish),P(ill ath), T,K,H,S,B,C,P,W
(naked),Ro,Ra,A,W,almost pacifist A
//In progress:p AIN
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!