Hearse: suggestions for improvement?

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

I intend to overhaul Hearse and the Windows client over the summer.
It's had ~33K bones uploaded to it over the last few years, so it's done
better than I expected, but it is creaking a bit. Any (reasonably
constructive) suggestions for what can be improved?

Looking at the server stats, there's plenty of people who use Hearse
once and then never again, presumably thinking that it is automagically
adding their bones files while they sleep. Similarly, there's a
surprisingly large collection of people who sign up to Hearse but never
upload any bones files. I am not sure what's the best thing to do for
those people - whether they simply don't understand how Hearse should be
used or whether they used it, didn't like it, and slunk off in disgust.

So I don't know whether this is looking for a simple solution such as
including a "Run Hearse then Nethack" batch file with Hearse or whether
this indicates some deeper darker problem that I'm unaware of.

Anyway, things I am currently thinking of/about doing:
* Finally adding an icon to Hearse to keep Kent Paul Dolan happy.
* Changing the email address you registered with from within the client
* Having a configuration file rather than storing stuff in the registry
(to sort out multi-install problems, e.g. uploaders of vanilla and
Slash'em may have problems because currently only one last-uploaded-
bones datestamp is stored)
* Switching the client to, by default, replacing uploaded bones levels
with similar ones from the server (ie using the existing /m mode).
Currently, by default, it uploads the ones the user offers without
deleting them, and downloads random bones from the server. In the past
some people have made comments that this is unbalancing. Thoughts?
* Supporting bones directories rather than assuming the bones are in the
same directory as Hearse
* Internal work to allow for 64-bit Nethack support (!) by changing the
way the versions are differentiated by the client. This will be done in
such a way that older clients will not have to upgrade unless they want
to.
* Adding a nickname as well as an email address
* Having the server generate personalised stats on request (e.g. a top
ten of upload frequency or similar), using people's nicknames
* Identifying who downloaded bones are from, by nickname.

Any gripes, complaints, suggestions or comments on this would be
appreciated, either posted here or emailed to me using the address
below.

Cheers,

-- A.

--
My email address is hearse[AT]hotpop[DOT]com

Hearse Windows/Unix client: http://hearse.krollmark.com
Hearse announcements: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hearseannounce

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

Alexis schreef:
<snip>

Sounds great. I especially like the configuration file. I'll have the
shortcuts that start the game point to a batch file that runs Hearse
when done in the next packages.

Two suggestions:

- Could you distribute a minimum amount of bones files (like, 3), when
the player hasn't any? That makes for a nice bonus.

- Give the user the option to specify the dungeon level he/she is at, so
you can swap an existing bonesfile for one that is a few levels below
that. But put a counter on it, like only once every three days or so, to
prevent misuse.

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

joar@xmission.com wrote:
> Unless the default behavior for Nethack servers is to only keep at most
> one bones file per dungeon level, I wouldn't think this is unbalancing.

On Nethack servers, you may only have one bones file per level.


> By all means make Hearse replace files by default. However, if
> Nethack servers allow multiple bones per level, I'd still allow people
> to keep their own bones as well with either a command line switch or a
> config file option.

Definitely - this change would just be to the default behaviour, people
would be able to enable different behaviour by editing the config file.


> I, for one, like to see bones files left by other dungeon delvers, but I
> also like to occasionally run across my own bones files as well. If you
> do implement the bones swapping by default, please make sure (if you
> don't already) that there is a chance somebody will download their own
> bones, not just other people's.

This is interesting - currently the server goes to some lengths to make
sure that you are never offered bones files that you've uploaded
yourself or downloaded before

-- A.

--
My email address is hearse[AT]hotpop[DOT]com

Hearse Windows/Unix client: http://hearse.krollmark.com
Hearse announcements: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hearseannounce

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

rpresser@NOSPAMgmail.com.invalid wrote:
> For what it's worth, my own batch file runs hearse AFTER nethack, under the
> assumption that I'd want hearse to know about any new bones as soon as I
> generated them, but it might be days before I played nethack again.

You're probably right that, from a user perspective, they're going to be
most willing to accept the few seconds delay while Hearse contacts the
server after their game than before.


[Moving data from the registry to a config file]
> This is an excellent idea, I'd give it #1 priority. Maybe also bundle a
> "touch" facility, or alternatively give a "--resetUploadTime" option, just
> to help out.

There currently is a /r option which does reset the timestamp, but it's
not exactly well documented. Rewriting the documentation is going to be
yet another task on the list

-- A.

--
My email address is hearse[AT]hotpop[DOT]com

Hearse Windows/Unix client: http://hearse.krollmark.com
Hearse announcements: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hearseannounce

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

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, Alexis wrote:

> frank@diguru.com wrote:
>> - Give the user the option to specify the dungeon level he/she is at, so
>> you can swap an existing bonesfile for one that is a few levels below
>> that. But put a counter on it, like only once every three days or so, to
>> prevent misuse.
>
> I'm not so happy about this one - deliberately downloading bones files
> for levels you know you're about to hit seems a bit dodgy to me...
>

I agree. Getting, for example, a bones file from around 19 or so almost
guarantees a LOT of loot. By that time unless you are extraordinarily
unlucky or taking some weird conducts you have accumulated some useful
things. If you could just say "I want a nones from the levels right before
Medusa!" in a game where you already had like a WoW, and you got a
near-full AK from it -- you've just sort of given yourself more wishes.

"Oh yay, this unlucky soul had speed boots, a +5 helm of brilliance, and a
+6 Grayswandir! All right! Whoa! Blessed scrolls of geno and charging,
too, in the BoH!"

I'm not suggesting this is why Frank suggested it. I really like bones
files, and wouldn't mind having tons of them, all the time -- not even for
the loot, really. I understand wanting bones. They're fun and a cool
feature, and seeing another person's bones file is awesome sometimes. But
this would open up a huge area for abuse and it's hard to say why the
person wants it.

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

Adam Lawson schreef:
>
> I agree. Getting, for example, a bones file from around 19 or so almost
> guarantees a LOT of loot. By that time unless you are extraordinarily
> unlucky or taking some weird conducts you have accumulated some useful
> things. If you could just say "I want a nones from the levels right
> before Medusa!" in a game where you already had like a WoW, and you got
> a near-full AK from it -- you've just sort of given yourself more wishes.
>
> "Oh yay, this unlucky soul had speed boots, a +5 helm of brilliance, and
> a +6 Grayswandir! All right! Whoa! Blessed scrolls of geno and charging,
> too, in the BoH!"
>
> I'm not suggesting this is why Frank suggested it. I really like bones
> files, and wouldn't mind having tons of them, all the time -- not even
> for the loot, really. I understand wanting bones. They're fun and a cool
> feature, and seeing another person's bones file is awesome sometimes.
> But this would open up a huge area for abuse and it's hard to say why
> the person wants it.
>

Good point. I agree.

I was mostly thinking about what things could be changed to Hearse to
offer a better service, and what things the user might want. But stated
like that, it is too much like abuse.

How about this: the chance you get a bones file is related to the level
of that file, the level with the lowest number having the largest
chance, unless you upload one from around that level?

That would only leave saving the bones files in a separate directory as
a problem. But that might be tackled by sending a list of all the
current files to the server, and comparing them to downloaded/new files.

If it doesn't fit, the user might be penalized a bit or such.

Then again, it would depend on the benchmark: do you look at multiuser
systems, or single user ones, to determine the allowable number of bones
files?

Frank

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

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 22:50:25 +0100, Alexis <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>> - Give the user the option to specify the dungeon level he/she is at, so
>> you can swap an existing bonesfile for one that is a few levels below
>> that. But put a counter on it, like only once every three days or so, to
>> prevent misuse.
>
>I'm not so happy about this one - deliberately downloading bones files
>for levels you know you're about to hit seems a bit dodgy to me...


How about having the server parse the CONTENT of each bones file
uploaded (particularly what objects are in the bones piles) and place
restrictions on what files can be then downloaded by the user based on
some algorithm.

This would be a (large) extension to merely looking at the level
number to determine appropriateness. A player uploading a file with a
puny character dying on level 10, for example, wouldn't be able to dl
a file with a fully decked out character making their way back up the
dungeon who for some reason happened to die near level 10.

The algorithm could also look at the monsters that exist in the bones,
particularly the nasty which likely killed the character, which would
help prevent abuse by people who like to put overly powerful monsters
on low levels and get them uploaded to the server.

Jim

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

Alexis wrote:

> joar@xmission.com wrote:
>> Maybe include a flag in the server database that allows you to download
>> your own bones files, but only if they are deleted from your system when
>> uploaded.
>
> Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I have run into my own bones - when
> someone else has downloaded them, died, and then re-uploaded them with
> an additional gravestone - but I suppose there's no reason why people
> who are uploading their bones shouldn't have the chance to see them
> occasionally.

Indeed not; I occasionally come across my own bones on a non-hearse public
server.

I definitely think the "don't delete uploaded bones" option should not be
the default, and I don't even see a reason not to take it away completely.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Seeing is deceiving. It's eating that's believing.
-- James Thurber

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

frank@diguru.com wrote:
[Giving users free bones files if they have none]
> Good point. I think it would be nice to give them some freebies, as you
> are managing a large amount of them, but you might not want people to
> have the possibility to collect a bones file for each and every level
> from Hearse. Your call.

It's a good idea. It needs some fiddling though - Hearse relies on the
user uploading a file before they get one, because Hearse has no idea
what version of NH you're using and looks at the file you last uploaded
to check. It also doesn't know whether you're uploading from multiple
versions, i.e. your last upload may have been a Slash'em bones file a
week ago, but now you want to get some bones because you want to play
vanilla instead. One way to get round this is would be to glance around
for a save file and get the version info from that.

I'll have a think about it - it's a nice idea and there should be a more
elegant way to do it.


> I think it would depend for a good part on your point of view. Do you
> see Hearse as a way to bring the benefits of multiplayer systems to
> single user systems, or do you want to limit the amount of bones files
> to something that single user would have in the first place?

I see it as giving you some unexpected variety by giving you bones files
you won't recognise. I'm pretty agnostic with regards to whether a user
should have as many bones as a MP system or not.

Whether or not bones files given without uploading should be 'paid
back' at a later date is more of a practical consideration though. I
can see 'free bones' being abused and the server ending up being drained
of bones - unless those downloads don't count towards the bones being
expired off the server, I suppose. Hmmm...



[Allowing users to explicitly request that the bones they download will
be close to the level they are currently playing]
> If you could make sure, that they don't do any "bonesscumming" ( ), I
> think it wouldn't be that much of a problem. They would exchange one.
> But it would be impossible to enforce that.
>
> In how far do you trust your users, and what do you want to do to keep
> them honest? If we go by the Nethack policy, there isn't much you can do
> against that, so it would come down to the morals of the individual players.

It's more that I can't see *any* legitimate use for seeding the dungeon
ahead of you with bones files -- I see it as very unbalancing.

-- A.

--
My email address is hearse[AT]hotpop[DOT]com

Hearse Windows/Unix client: http://hearse.krollmark.com
Hearse announcements: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hearseannounce

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

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Alexis wrote:

> bonM0.T 1537

I doubt it's possible, but I'd love to know what percentage of these are
people who angered the priest(ess) in attempt to kill them/convert the
altar.

Hm. Is there any way to get a list of the causes of death from Hearse?

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

Alexis wrote:

> frank@diguru.com wrote:
> [Giving users free bones files if they have none]
>
>>Good point. I think it would be nice to give them some freebies, as you
>>are managing a large amount of them, but you might not want people to
>>have the possibility to collect a bones file for each and every level
>>from Hearse. Your call.
>
>
> It's a good idea. It needs some fiddling though - Hearse relies on the
> user uploading a file before they get one, because Hearse has no idea
> what version of NH you're using and looks at the file you last uploaded
> to check. It also doesn't know whether you're uploading from multiple
> versions, i.e. your last upload may have been a Slash'em bones file a
> week ago, but now you want to get some bones because you want to play
> vanilla instead. One way to get round this is would be to glance around
> for a save file and get the version info from that.
>
> I'll have a think about it - it's a nice idea and there should be a more
> elegant way to do it.

If you go with a config file, you can include options to specify
multiple versions and their locations. Hearse could then check
those location(s) for bones files, and if none are found, and none
for that version have been uploaded or downloaded, dish out some
freebies. It would also allow one installation of Hearse to manage
multiple installations (e.g. Nethack and Slash'Em) on the same system.

--
Everett E. Johnson
"Let the Dragon ride again on the winds of time."

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

kroisos@REMOVETHISWORD.home.nl wrote:
> Alexis wrote:
>
> > Are you suggesting that Hearse gives the user enough bones so that
> > they always have a certain amount?
>
> Please not. It would open up all kinds of possible abuse. One could, for
> example, move all bones except the latest one from one's playground to
> another directory, then run Hearse. Hearse would upload, say, six new
> bones to your system. Then you would just put back all old bones you
> temporarily moved away, and *presto* you've got six more bones files.

To play devil's advocate, it'd be obvious from the server point of view
what was happening, and it harms absolutely no one but the abusers if
people choose to abuse it (except that currently, how many times bones
files are downloaded is a factor in when they are removed from the
server). If I implemented the "free bones when you have none" request,
that would be subject to the same kind of abuse.

I'm happy to entertain any ideas at the moment - there's a good wodge of
people who sign up for Hearse and either don't use it, or use it only
once, which makes me wonder whether something about the program or the
model it uses is turning them off.

Still, I take it that moving from 'You upload bones, you get bones'
model to a 'Hearse maintains a pool of bones for you and takes any new
ones you have to offer' model isn't a popular idea?

-- A.

--
My email address is hearse[AT]hotpop[DOT]com

Hearse Windows/Unix client: http://hearse.krollmark.com
Hearse announcements: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hearseannounce

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

joar@xmission.com wrote:
> If you go with a config file, you can include options to specify
> multiple versions and their locations. Hearse could then check
> those location(s) for bones files, and if none are found, and none
> for that version have been uploaded or downloaded, dish out some
> freebies. It would also allow one installation of Hearse to manage
> multiple installations (e.g. Nethack and Slash'Em) on the same system.

Another good idea. I had been thinking of having one config file per
install, but a single config file makes more sense - how often do people
want to only upload bones from a single install anyway?

I don't like the idea of asking the user to specify what version they
are using - users make mistakes and then email me complaining that the
bones files they downloaded aren't working . If I cache off the bones
version for each directory after they upload, the only times it'll be a
problem will be:

- the first time they want to download bones into that directory
(without having first uploaded any)

- if they upgrade Nethack and put a newer version into the same
directory

The second isn't likely to be a problem (since most newer versions will
be backward compatible and incorrectly-versioned bones will be just be
ignored by NH). The first might be slightly clunkier.

-- A.

--
My email address is hearse[AT]hotpop[DOT]com

Hearse Windows/Unix client: http://hearse.krollmark.com
Hearse announcements: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hearseannounce

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

Alexis wrote:

> I'm happy to entertain any ideas at the moment - there's a good wodge
> of people who sign up for Hearse and either don't use it, or use it
> only once, which makes me wonder whether something about the program
> or the model it uses is turning them off.

Actually, speaking for myself, hearse runs every time I close NetHack.

However, my games tend not to finish: I rarely die, but I also almost
never win. Most of my games get started, and get saved when I've
completely mapped Gehennom but not taken on Rodney yet. Then I get bored
and start up a new game.

Hence, even though I run Hearse all the time, I don't actually use it,
since I don't leave bones myself, and hence do not get bones in return.

--
Boudewijn.

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.

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

Alexis wrote:
> kroisos@REMOVETHISWORD.home.nl wrote:
>> Alexis wrote:

>>> Are you suggesting that Hearse gives the user enough bones so that
>>> they always have a certain amount?

>> Please not. It would open up all kinds of possible abuse. [...]

> To play devil's advocate, it'd be obvious from the server point of
> view what was happening, and it harms absolutely no one but the
> abusers if people choose to abuse it (except that currently, how many
> times bones files are downloaded is a factor in when they are removed
> from the server). If I implemented the "free bones when you have
> none" request, that would be subject to the same kind of abuse.

Well, let me be the Devil's prosecutor, then. :-)

If you start giving people (significantly) more bones in return than the
number they contribute, you might just as well send everyone *all* bones
files you have for their specific build. That way, people only have to
connect *once* to get all bones you hold in store...

--
Boudewijn.

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.

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

kroisos@REMOVETHISWORD.home.nl wrote:
[Of ensuring users always have a certain number of bones files]
> Well, let me be the Devil's prosecutor, then. :-)
> If you start giving people (significantly) more bones in return than the
> number they contribute, you might just as well send everyone *all* bones
> files you have for their specific build. That way, people only have to
> connect *once* to get all bones you hold in store...



I take it your objection is that it's unbalancing then? I thought it
was an interesting idea, since it mimics what you might see if you
connect to a random public server.

I can think of a fair few ways it could be abused though, even
unwittingly. e.g. It would give you an advantage to save your game and
have the dungeon re-seeded with bones files over someone who plays for
longer periods.

Ah well, the idea's out there for discussion.

-- A.

--
My email address is hearse[AT]hotpop[DOT]com

Hearse Windows/Unix client: http://hearse.krollmark.com
Hearse announcements: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hearseannounce

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

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, Boudewijn Waijers wrote:
>
> If you start giving people (significantly) more bones in return than the
> number they contribute, you might just as well send everyone *all* bones
> files you have for their specific build. That way, people only have to
> connect *once* to get all bones you hold in store...
>

I just had this image of every single eligible level being a bones file
for a game. It wouldn't be pretty. Ghosts everywhere, twenty cursed bags
of holding, eight or nine sets of DSM in various flavors, bunches of +1
long swords that *used* to be artifacts, a ton of angry pets, angry
shopkeepers, angry kops, and angry priests. Maybe even named demons.

That would be one interesting game, if you survived.

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

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, Alexis wrote:

> Adam Lawson wrote:
>> I was just curious how many of us went and made the minetown priest(ess)
>> angry and regretted it.
>
> To satisfy your curiosity - for Win 3.4.x only for bonM0.T
>
> Total bones: 1087
> Deaths by priest: 47 (not including "killed by a marilith of Susanowo" )
> Death by shopkeeper: 50
> Death by watch captain / watchman: 83
> Death by soldier ant: 89 (biggest death count of any monster I could see
> when skimming)

I guess that shouldn't be surprising. Somehow I saw the priest being more
of a liability, in attempt to convert. I guess ants could be caused by
that (summoning of insects)... but I come across ants a lot around then.
The watch stat is surprising.

>
> Most embarassing death: "killed by a nurse"

Wow, I've never seen one in minetown.

>
> So, at a quick glance, it looks more like people hang around on Minetown
> (sacfests?) and get taken out by spawned creatures.
>
> I like the death stats - will definitely put some way to access them
> into the next client, or maybe on a webpage on the server.
>


Awesome.

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

Alexis <me@privacy.net> writes:
> adam.lawson@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Hm. Is there any way to get a list of the causes of death from Hearse?
>
> Hmmm is right. Engravings are stored in the bones file - it should be
> possible to crudely extract those to get a set of "causes of death" for
> most bones files. Obviously, not all deaths leave a gravestone, and for
> those there will be no data.

And for double-bones and further, there might be too much data :-)

--
: Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ :
: "Its habit of getting up late you'll agree / That it carries too far, :
: when I say / That it frequently breakfasts at five-o'clock tea / And :
: dines on the following day." -- Lewis Carroll, The Hunting of the Snark :

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

In news:<86zmtieelo.fsf@strackenz.spod-central.org>, Dylan O'Donnell
<psmithnews@spod-central.org> says...
> Kristoffer Björkman <kristoffer.bjorkman@frontnet.org> writes:
> > I can't find it explicitly stated in Dylan's bones spoiler
> > (<http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/nh/bone-343.txt> ) that normally
> > bones files aren't saved when one 'matching' is already present. Rather
> > it is implicated in one paragraph that this is not a hindrance, but IMHO
> > this is untintentional.
> This should now be clarified; I've changed the opening of the relevant
> paragraph to "If you die on a level that is eligible to leave bones
> and for which there is not currently a bones file on the system, the
> chance of one being created is dependent on..."

Sorry about the nitpicking , thanks for taking your time to always
make the spoiler files better! They're an enormously helpful and often
interesting resource IMO.

/Kristoffer

--
This cookie has a scrap of paper inside. It reads:
Rire yvsgrq n qentba pbecfr?

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

Alexis <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> frank@diguru.com wrote:
>
>> I think it would depend for a good part on your point of view. Do you
>> see Hearse as a way to bring the benefits of multiplayer systems to
>> single user systems, or do you want to limit the amount of bones files
>> to something that single user would have in the first place?
>
> I see it as giving you some unexpected variety by giving you bones files
> you won't recognise. I'm pretty agnostic with regards to whether a user
> should have as many bones as a MP system or not.

Servers with lots of traffic, such as nethack.alt.org, have surprisingly
few bones files; there's always people who get far enough to "collect"
the bones left by the more inexperienced players.

Currently NAO has 7 bones files; 6 of them created today, one was created
on the 15th, and that's a Quest level.

--
Pasi Kallinen
paxed@alt.org

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

Alexis wrote:
> kroisos@REMOVETHISWORD.home.nl wrote:

> [Of ensuring users always have a certain number of bones files]

>> If you start giving people (significantly) more bones in return than
>> the number they contribute, you might just as well send everyone
>> *all* bones files you have for their specific build. That way,
>> people only have to connect *once* to get all bones you hold in
>> store...

> I take it your objection is that it's unbalancing then? I thought it
> was an interesting idea, since it mimics what you might see if you
> connect to a random public server.

I'd say it is unbalancing, indeed.

I wonder what the number of bones files on public servers may be.

I guess there would one for about one in three levels, on average, on
the lower levels. After all, they would be used up about just as soon as
when they were made, but they would be made with 1/3 chance.

On the deeper levels, I guess there would be about even less, since the
chance of using them up becomes larger when you descend deeper. The fact
that fewer people reach those levels makes no difference: it would mean
less generation and less usage. It would just mean that the bones stay
in the graveyard longer, but the number of bones there is not affected,
I guess.

--
Boudewijn.

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.

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

In news:<d9cmd6$qd9$2@news5.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>, Boudewijn Waijers
<kroisos@REMOVETHISWORD.home.nl> says...
> Kristoffer Björkman wrote:
> > If I am correct in my assumption, perhaps the spoiler would benefit
> > from stating it in a clearer way instead of assuming(?) that it is
> > obvious to the reader that there is no overwriting? (There is no hint
> > to this in the Guidebook either.)
> Of course there isn't a hint in the Guidebook.

It was not my implication that there should be a hint in the guidebook.

When I could not find any clear statement about [the stuff I was writing
about] in the related spoiler, I checked through the guidebook an extra
time, just to make sure that this wasn't covered there and I had missed
it. If it had been covered there, there wouldn't have been any need to
mention it in the spoiler. I added that paranthesis to avoid that an
interested reader of my post would do the same work again.

I still think that it was pretty clearly written, when read in relation
with the rest of the paragraph. If I would have *wanted* there to be
something about this in the guidebook I would have said *that*. And if
you think that it was silly of me to assume that there was even a chance
of something about this appearing in the guidebook, well... I was solely
driven by a wish not to post nitpicking stuff without checking my facts
thoroughly first. However slight the chance might be, the absence of
information in the spoiler could have been an indication that the
information was already present somewhere that is part of common nethack
knowledge, and what would be more probable than the guidebook then.

> After all, it is completely unnecessary for a player to know about how
> NetHack acts behind the screens, and the Guidebook contains information
> about how to play the game, not about its workings (IIRC).

Certainly, and that is how it should be, agreed.

/Kristoffer

--
This cookie has a scrap of paper inside. It reads:
Gurl fnl gung n jvmneq vf rira zber cbjreshy gur frpbaq gvzr nebhaq.

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

dogscoff@eudoramail.com writes:
> Couldn't hearse look at the timestamp of the bonesfile, then find the
> corresponding timestamped entry in the logfile, and take the
> information from there?

The logfile timestamp only has a precision of one day; this isn't
sufficient to reliably determine which entry corresponds to which
bones.

--
: Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ :
: "Its habit of getting up late you'll agree / That it carries too far, :
: when I say / That it frequently breakfasts at five-o'clock tea / And :
: dines on the following day." -- Lewis Carroll, The Hunting of the Snark :

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

BManx2000 wrote:

> In that case, have Hearse maintain a 1:3 ratio of bones levels to
> non-bones levels.

Wouldn't work. I would still be able to more the bones away before
connecting to Hearse, and move them back afterwards, when I'd got my,
say, 15 new bones levels.

--
Boudewijn.

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.