Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

YANI: Collars, plus types

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 8:14:12 AM

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

This idea is for a new type of equipment that aren't meant to be worn
by the player, but by his pets.

A collar is put onto a pet by applying it, just like a leash or saddle,
but if it's successful (blessed collars will be successfully applied
more often), the item would be transferred into the monster's
inventory, into a collar slot. If the monster isn't a pet then this
would always fail, and only monsters with necks can wear collars.
Examining a pet up close would offer the option of removing the collar,
although if it's cursed it won't be easy. You could get a cursed
collar off a pet by zapping it with a wand of cancellation to remove
the curse, or polymorph it into something that can't wear a collar
(causes it to fall off if the new form is unsubstantial or tiny, or
break apart if it's huge and neckless). Nymphs can also remove it.
If the pet is of an intelligent type, they may also read Scrolls of
Remove Curse. If a pet goes wild while wearing a magical collar,
it'll instantly slip off their neck. Pets cannot wear both a collar
and an amulet.


Collar descriptions:
Leather, Spiked, Jeweled, Rope, Buckled, Studded, Woven, Flea


Development:
If a pet wearing this reaches the max hit point cap available to its
form, then upon killing a monster *that is equal to or within one hit
die of its current form*, it'll advance to a new, stronger form.
Unlike the normal advancement of cats, dogs and horses, it can even
transmute into other monster species, depending on its original form.

The precise details of what developed into what else would be handled
by using a lot of hard coded cases, but in general:
- Monsters won't generally change family. Dogs would advance into
wolves, wolves into winter wolves or hell hounds, but not into
vampires, unicorns or mind flayers.
- Monsters that are part of a social or military hierarchy will advance
along it, as if they had drunk a Potion of Gain Level.
- Pets won't change into something diametrically opposite of their
previous form. Winter wolves won't turn into hell hounds.
- If there are multiple forms of similar strength to advance into,
it'll pick randomly from among them.
- Pets will advance to the weakest form with more hit dice as the base
strength of its current form, but will retain current hit dice minus
one, unless that would put it below the base HD of the form.
- Pets that already have natural promotion hierarchies will follow
those. (So chickatrices won't turn into pyrolisks.)
- Tame unique monsters never promote. Monsters already at the
strongest non-unique form of their family also will not promote.




Constriction:
Usually cursed. Constricts the pet's throat, randomly causing hit
point loss, confusion or stunning. Decreases tameness over time,
eventually making the pet wild and hostile. A pet that dies due to
this has a similar effect upon the player's fortunes as if it had
been displaced into a trap.


Contentiousness:
Usually cursed. The pet will attack monsters stronger than it without
regard for its own safety, but may also attack the player or other pets
as per conflict. (If the collar is blessed, the pet won't attack the
player.)


Protection:
Bestows an AC bonus, carries a plus like armor. Its enchantment can be
increased with scrolls of charging (like rings, but with a chance of
destruction more like that of armor). Usually cursed if generated with
a negative enchantment.


Jumping:
The pet becomes able to leap over one space horizontally, vertically or
diagonally. It will try to leap over known traps, cursed items or
dangerous or impassable ground. It will never leap to a spot it cannot
see, or into dangerous terrain. It may leap over monsters of medium
size or smaller, but it won't jump over shopkeepers while carrying an
object other than a worn collar.


Affinity:
The pet returns to your side much more frequently. Like an enhanced
version of the carrying-a-tripe-ration effect, that works even on
non-eaters.


Loyalty:
The pet will slowly become more tame over time while he's with the
player (1 point every 500 turns), up to a maximum of 20. Further, if
the pet is separated from the player on a different level, his tameness
won't decrease unless he would have starved while the player was
away. Even if he would have starved, he won't be in danger of going
wild (his tameness will never go below 1 due to this). His tameness
won't go up while the player is off the level. It *is* possible for
a pet to go wild while wearing this if mistreated.

If the pet is starving or otherwise confused, he'll never hit the
player as a result. However, a Collar of Loyalty provides no
protection against being hit due to conflict.


Ornamental:
Not magical, and provides no benefits. If the pet is stolen from by a
nymph, the nymph will always steal this first.

More about : yani collars types

Anonymous
August 13, 2005 6:10:06 PM

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

chuck wrote:
> How come pets (cats & dogs) don't advance any more than they do now? What
> was/is the rational for that?

Well the reasoning is that of the DevTeam, and is mysterious to mere
mortals. But if I had to guess:

Nethack already defies credibility a little by allowing kittens and
small dogs to turn into large cats and large dogs, and letting ponies
become warhorses. NHINRL, of course, but the fact is that it is quite
logical in a lot of ways.

Cats and dogs can naturally advance to 72 max HP, or level 9. Horses
can reach 80, or level 10. That's roughly, I'd say, what you'd expect
a monster of the size represented by the name, that is not magical and
has no out-of-the-ordinary special abilities, to have.

A large (domestic) cat is not the same thing as lynx, however, and
while related, a dog is not a wolf. So the idea behind the Collar of
Development is to provide a magical explanation, provided through a
piece of randomly-generated equipment, of getting your pet past their
intrinsic development limit.

(Why is this important? I dunno, I always had a fantasy of carrying my
starter pet through the entire game maybe....)

- John H.
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 8:48:16 PM

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

Andrew Kerr wrote:
> In article <1123931652.607512.263090@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, John
> H. says...
>
> > A collar is put onto a pet by applying it, just like a leash or saddle,
> > but if it's successful (blessed collars will be successfully applied
> > more often), the item would be transferred into the monster's
> > inventory, into a collar slot.
>
> Why not into the existing amulet slot?

Isn't it obvious? No? Okay I'll tell you:

It's because I didn't think about it while writing. D'oh!

- John H.
Related resources
August 13, 2005 10:20:32 PM

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

> Development:
> If a pet wearing this reaches the max hit point cap available to its
> form, then upon killing a monster *that is equal to or within one hit
> die of its current form*, it'll advance to a new, stronger form.
> Unlike the normal advancement of cats, dogs and horses, it can even
> transmute into other monster species, depending on its original form.
>
> The precise details of what developed into what else would be handled
> by using a lot of hard coded cases, but in general:
> - Monsters won't generally change family. Dogs would advance into
> wolves, wolves into winter wolves or hell hounds, but not into
> vampires, unicorns or mind flayers.
> - Monsters that are part of a social or military hierarchy will advance
> along it, as if they had drunk a Potion of Gain Level.
> - Pets won't change into something diametrically opposite of their
> previous form. Winter wolves won't turn into hell hounds.
> - If there are multiple forms of similar strength to advance into,
> it'll pick randomly from among them.
> - Pets will advance to the weakest form with more hit dice as the base
> strength of its current form, but will retain current hit dice minus
> one, unless that would put it below the base HD of the form.
> - Pets that already have natural promotion hierarchies will follow
> those. (So chickatrices won't turn into pyrolisks.)
> - Tame unique monsters never promote. Monsters already at the
> strongest non-unique form of their family also will not promote.


How come pets (cats & dogs) don't advance any more than they do now? What
was/is the rational for that?
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 12:37:45 AM

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

In article <1123931652.607512.263090@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, John
H. says...

> A collar is put onto a pet by applying it, just like a leash or saddle,
> but if it's successful (blessed collars will be successfully applied
> more often), the item would be transferred into the monster's
> inventory, into a collar slot.

Why not into the existing amulet slot?
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 3:17:30 AM

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

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 04:14:12 -0700, John H. wrote:

> This idea is for a new type of equipment that aren't meant to be worn by
> the player, but by his pets.

Not a bad idea! Charms and amulets have been used by horsemen for
centuries to protect their steeds from evil (see traditional Scots gear
for draft horses for a good example.) and knights' horses were protected
by barding (armor for horses) and both of these are missing from nethack,
which bugs me. Knights ought to start with at least a heavy cloth barding
to protect their horses, IMO.
I can't see a cat (mine especially) submitting to wearing an amulet, but
a small collar might be workable. Collars should be a special amulet type
and do a size check on the monster. They should only be applicable to
small domestic creatures, IMO.

--
- Mantar --- Drop YourPantiesSirWilliam to email me.
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 6:50:22 AM

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

John H. wrote:
> chuck wrote:

>> How come pets (cats & dogs) don't advance any more than they do now?
>> What was/is the rational for that?

One of the rationales is that making pets more powerful, or adding
better items to the game, or anything else that makes your game easier
would have to be compensated by something else that makes your game more
difficult, for balance reasons.

At the end, your pet being more powerful would mean that *you* would
have to be made less powerful. If you played without a pet, the end
result would be that you were less powerful.

> A large (domestic) cat is not the same thing as lynx, however, and
> while related, a dog is not a wolf. So the idea behind the Collar of
> Development is to provide a magical explanation, provided through a
> piece of randomly-generated equipment, of getting your pet past their
> intrinsic development limit.

No collar needed. Feed your pet wraith corpses if you want it to be
stronger.

> (Why is this important? I dunno, I always had a fantasy of carrying
> my starter pet through the entire game maybe....)

Possible, but *very* hard to do, even if you'd polymorph it into
something much stronger. The least you should have is a magic whistle.

Boudewijn.

--
"I have hundreds of other quotes, just waiting to replace this one
as my signature..." - Me
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 6:45:02 PM

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

"John H." <JohnWH@gmail.com> writes:
> (Why is this important? I dunno, I always had a fantasy of carrying my
> starter pet through the entire game maybe....)

Not that it really counts as "carrying through the entire game", but
the only time I've ascended with my initial pet, I levelled him up as
much as I could safely in the shallow levels, led him back to dlvl1,
abandoned him, then re-tamed him on my way back up.

Note that this pretty much precludes =oConflict for the planes, and
also requires a magic whistle. Even then, there's a lot of luck
involved.

Another strategy requires a literal mind, extreme ruthlessness and an
ice box. (Optional: /oUndeadTurning.)
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 7:39:18 PM

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

Douglas Henke wrote:
> Note that this pretty much precludes =oConflict for the planes, and
> also requires a magic whistle. Even then, there's a lot of luck
> involved.

A leash could be useful on the planes I'd think, especially Air.

- John H.
August 15, 2005 3:04:12 AM

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

> (Why is this important? I dunno, I always had a fantasy of carrying my
> starter pet through the entire game maybe....)
>
> - John H.
>
>

precisely for that reason. It is hard to do when you have 200+ h.p. and -20+
a.c. and you pet only has single digit a.c. and sub 100 h.p.
August 15, 2005 3:07:55 AM

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

"John H." <JohnWH@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1124059158.755752.135140@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Douglas Henke wrote:
>> Note that this pretty much precludes =oConflict for the planes, and
>> also requires a magic whistle. Even then, there's a lot of luck
>> involved.
>
> A leash could be useful on the planes I'd think, especially Air.
>
> - John H.
>
>

I get this image: (haven't been to the planes yet so have some discretion)
you apply the leash to the pet, -more- a gust of wind hurls you into the air
-more- the pet is strangled by the leash. - more - you feel guilty about
losing you pet in this way.
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 6:42:18 PM

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

chuck <chucko@nil.car> wrote:
> How come pets (cats & dogs) don't advance any more than they do now? What
> was/is the rational for that?

Because they are governed by the behavior of their monster types. Cats and
dogs have a maximum level of 9(?).
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 7:42:25 PM

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

Up here in Canada theirs a small group of Foxes (I can't remeber what
type) that have bred with Timber Wolves and now run in packs....All the
canines are pretty similar in makup.
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 1:02:21 AM

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

Douglas Henke <henke@kharendaen.dyndns.org> wrote:
> Another strategy requires a literal mind, extreme ruthlessness and an
> ice box. (Optional: /oUndeadTurning.)

Or a slightly less literal mind, extreme ruthlessness, and a tinning
kit. /oUT not required.

--
Oh to have a lodge in some vast wilderness. Where rumors of oppression
and deceit, of unsuccessful and successful wars may never reach me
anymore.
-- William Cowper
August 17, 2005 2:10:35 AM

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

> A large (domestic) cat is not the same thing as lynx, however, and
> while related, a dog is not a wolf. So the idea behind the Collar of
> Development is to provide a magical explanation, provided through a
> piece of randomly-generated equipment, of getting your pet past their
> intrinsic development limit.
no to belabor the point, but I say that when any animal that can produce
fertile offspring with another both of those creatures are the same speces. A
wolf can reproduce successfully with a dog (size constraints of course).
August 17, 2005 7:04:31 AM

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

"Canageek" <Canageek@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1124232145.913258.21360@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Up here in Canada theirs a small group of Foxes (I can't remeber what
> type) that have bred with Timber Wolves and now run in packs....All the
> canines are pretty similar in makup.
>
>

yeah, we HAVE such animals up here, unlike other places...
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 12:32:33 PM

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

In article <Xns96B4B98CC269Dchuckonilcar@207.35.177.135>, chuck says...
when any animal that can produce
> fertile offspring with another both of those creatures are the same speces.

This is the scientific definition IIRC. E.g. although donkeys and ponies can
mate to produce mules, mules are infertile so donkeys are not the same species
as ponies.
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 5:03:28 AM

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

chuck wrote:
> Andrew Kerr <andykerr@SPAMGUARD.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
> news:MPG.1d6d06858cf5daa598969f@news.blueyonder.co.uk:
>
> > In article <Xns96B4B98CC269Dchuckonilcar@207.35.177.135>, chuck says...
> > when any animal that can produce
> >> fertile offspring with another both of those creatures are the same
> speces.
> >
> > This is the scientific definition IIRC. E.g. although donkeys and ponies
> can
> > mate to produce mules, mules are infertile so donkeys are not the same
> species
> > as ponies.
>
> I did say FERTILE offspring...

There have been fertile hybrids, for example I believe some tigons have
successfully bred.

Not nitpicking, I'm just interested in this stuff. It does seem like
nature goes out of her way to come up with an exception to every rule/
classification we humans try to apply to her...
August 18, 2005 6:44:03 AM

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

Andrew Kerr <andykerr@SPAMGUARD.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
news:MPG.1d6d06858cf5daa598969f@news.blueyonder.co.uk:

> In article <Xns96B4B98CC269Dchuckonilcar@207.35.177.135>, chuck says...
> when any animal that can produce
>> fertile offspring with another both of those creatures are the same
speces.
>
> This is the scientific definition IIRC. E.g. although donkeys and ponies
can
> mate to produce mules, mules are infertile so donkeys are not the same
species
> as ponies.

I did say FERTILE offspring...
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 11:10:28 AM

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

dogscoff@eudoramail.com wrote:
> chuck wrote:
> > Andrew Kerr wrote:
> > > chuck wrote:
>
> > > > when any animal that can produce fertile offspring
> > > > with another both of those creatures are the same
> > > > speces.
>
> > > This is the scientific definition IIRC. E.g. although donkeys and ponies
> > > can mate to produce mules, mules are infertile so donkeys
> > > are not the same species as ponies.

That definition is obsolete.

> > I did say FERTILE offspring...
>
> There have been fertile hybrids, for example I believe some tigons have
> successfully bred.

This is why that definition is obsolete. Another example is
the "beefalo" where a rancher kept cross-breeding domesticated
cattle with bisons (American buffalo not Asian water buffalo)
until he produced some fertile offspring. They weren't even
supposed to be in the same genus.

> Not nitpicking, I'm just interested in this stuff. It does seem like
> nature goes out of her way to come up with an exception to every rule/
> classification we humans try to apply to her...

For evolution as the origin of species, the weak link in the
theory is the definition of species not the fact of genetic
drift across generations. Small genetic changes across
generations is a fact, but how these small changes accumulate
into large differences and when those differences become not
interfertile is still unknown.
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 4:11:36 PM

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

In article <Xns96B5E7EA0BCD8chuckonilcar@207.35.177.135>, chuck says...
> Andrew Kerr <andykerr@SPAMGUARD.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
> news:MPG.1d6d06858cf5daa598969f@news.blueyonder.co.uk:
>
> > In article <Xns96B4B98CC269Dchuckonilcar@207.35.177.135>, chuck says...
> > when any animal that can produce
> >> fertile offspring with another both of those creatures are the same
> speces.
> >
> > This is the scientific definition IIRC. E.g. although donkeys and ponies
> can
> > mate to produce mules, mules are infertile so donkeys are not the same
> species
> > as ponies.
>
> I did say FERTILE offspring...
>
Yes, and I agreed with you :) 
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 8:02:18 PM

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

Doug Freyburger wrote:
> dogscoff@eudoramail.com wrote:
>
>>chuck wrote:
>>
>>>Andrew Kerr wrote:
>>>
>>>>chuck wrote:
>>
>>>>>when any animal that can produce fertile offspring
>>>>>with another both of those creatures are the same
>>>>>speces.
>>
>>>>This is the scientific definition IIRC. E.g. although donkeys and ponies
>>>>can mate to produce mules, mules are infertile so donkeys
>>>>are not the same species as ponies.
>
>
> That definition is obsolete.
>
>
>>>I did say FERTILE offspring...
>>
>>There have been fertile hybrids, for example I believe some tigons have
>>successfully bred.
>
>
> This is why that definition is obsolete. Another example is
> the "beefalo" where a rancher kept cross-breeding domesticated
> cattle with bisons (American buffalo not Asian water buffalo)
> until he produced some fertile offspring. They weren't even
> supposed to be in the same genus.

I gather that there are also species where the ability to
interbreed isn't transitive... you have, say, type A, B, and C spread
across a continent, and A and B can interbreed, and B and C can
interbreed, but A and C can't.

--
John Campbell
jcampbel@lynn.ci-n.com
August 19, 2005 5:24:25 AM

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

dogscoff@eudoramail.com wrote in
news:1124352208.372693.195140@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>
> chuck wrote:
>> Andrew Kerr <andykerr@SPAMGUARD.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:MPG.1d6d06858cf5daa598969f@news.blueyonder.co.uk:
>>
>> > In article <Xns96B4B98CC269Dchuckonilcar@207.35.177.135>, chuck says...
>> > when any animal that can produce
>> >> fertile offspring with another both of those creatures are the same
>> speces.
>> >
>> > This is the scientific definition IIRC. E.g. although donkeys and ponies
>> can
>> > mate to produce mules, mules are infertile so donkeys are not the same
>> species
>> > as ponies.
>>
>> I did say FERTILE offspring...
>
> There have been fertile hybrids, for example I believe some tigons have
> successfully bred.
>
> Not nitpicking, I'm just interested in this stuff. It does seem like
> nature goes out of her way to come up with an exception to every rule/
> classification we humans try to apply to her...
>
>
no, just not sure if you picked up on that. I've also heard that the
genus/species naming that scientists use now completely ignores the breeding
matter. Something that puzzles me. I guess it might only be tested by
application. The tigon (there is a zebra/horse one too I believe) may be by
genetic engineering and not technically the same thing.
August 19, 2005 5:26:45 AM

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

Andrew Kerr <andykerr@SPAMGUARD.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
news:MPG.1d6e8b598cc2a3dc9896a5@news.blueyonder.co.uk:

> In article <Xns96B5E7EA0BCD8chuckonilcar@207.35.177.135>, chuck says...
>> Andrew Kerr <andykerr@SPAMGUARD.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:MPG.1d6d06858cf5daa598969f@news.blueyonder.co.uk:
>>
>> > In article <Xns96B4B98CC269Dchuckonilcar@207.35.177.135>, chuck says...
>> > when any animal that can produce
>> >> fertile offspring with another both of those creatures are the same
>> speces.
>> >
>> > This is the scientific definition IIRC. E.g. although donkeys and ponies
>> can
>> > mate to produce mules, mules are infertile so donkeys are not the same
>> species
>> > as ponies.
>>
>> I did say FERTILE offspring...
>>
> Yes, and I agreed with you :) 
>

I didn't check the author before my last post. Just not sure if you caught my
gist, that's all.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 1:43:47 PM

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

nyra wrote:

> Removing the level limits on the starting pets would probably be
> counterproductive - the pet would keep its AC and attacks, which are
> only _barely_ adequate for fighting lvl 9/10 monsters. A lvl 21 large
> cat with 168 hp, AC:4 and one bite attack for 2d4 damage is not a very
> good match for a lvl 22 dragon with 176 hp, AC:-1, and an attack
> sequence for 3d8 + 1d4 + 1d4. Remember that such a cat can already be
> trained up by feeding a lv9 large cat one dozen wraith corpses, not
> that it were worth the trouble.

Yes, this is why the Collar in question would actually polymorph pets
into new forms. Of course, once they're no longer "domestic" class,
they won't be so easy to re-tame should they go wild.

- John H.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 9:30:39 PM

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

Nan Wang schrieb:
>
> chuck <chucko@nil.car> wrote:
> > How come pets (cats & dogs) don't advance any more than they do now? What
> > was/is the rational for that?
>
> Because they are governed by the behavior of their monster types. Cats and
> dogs have a maximum level of 9(?).

As i understand it, _all_ monsters have a limit of 1.5x their 'base'
level[1]; that's how high they can get by gaining experience from
killing things. Large cats and dogs have a base level of 6 and thus a
max level of nine. War horses have a base level of 7 and can reach lvl
10.
A bit of experimentation suggested that monsters can also always reach
their base level +15 through eating wraith corpses, and lvl49 by
quaffing potions of gain level. Obviously, the first only works for
creatures which devour corpses and the second only for those capable
of using potions.

Monsters without a way to cause damage (floating eye, shrieker...)
will never grow up, as will monsters that only do damage upon their
demise (gas spore, the various spheres).

Removing the level limits on the starting pets would probably be
counterproductive - the pet would keep its AC and attacks, which are
only _barely_ adequate for fighting lvl 9/10 monsters. A lvl 21 large
cat with 168 hp, AC:4 and one bite attack for 2d4 damage is not a very
good match for a lvl 22 dragon with 176 hp, AC:-1, and an attack
sequence for 3d8 + 1d4 + 1d4. Remember that such a cat can already be
trained up by feeding a lv9 large cat one dozen wraith corpses, not
that it were worth the trouble.

[1] that's the minimum level at which such species are normally
generated; a monster can still have a lower level than that if
level-drained or if created 'out of depth', e.g. a kitten created at
Dlvl:1 (pet) or a shopkeeper or aligned priest/ess on a shallow level.
If a monster 'grows up' into a different monster type (e.g. kitten ->
housecat) it acquires the base and maximum level of the new form.

--
Jos ei sika syö, niin kyllähän piika syö.
!