YAAD or YASD once again as I didn't know

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

The sad story started when Lyra found a wand that while engraving made
the previous engraving vanish. I remembered the following words from
David Damarell's NetHack object identification spoiler about
differentiating between the three vanishers:

"Lining up a monster and a junk object does for this; if both vanish,
it's teleportation; if the monster vanishes, it's make invisible.
Alternatively, you can use a slow-moving monster, since you can just nip
across to its space and try to smack it if it disappears - Raisse
suggests a floating eye, because if it doesn't disappear you had
cancellation and you can kill it with impunity."

So when Lyra confronted the first floating eye she zapped the wand at it
and the floating eye didn't disapper. So she named the wand cancellation
and whacked the now 'cancelled' eye. She was promptly frozen and a while
later a kobold arrived and killed her. The disclosure told her that she
was right: the wand was cancellation with 6 charges remaining.

Now looking through the source file I found in the resits() function the
following line:

resisted = rn2(100 + alev - dlev) < mtmp->data->mr;

Pluck in here some relevant numbers and you get:

resisted = rn2(100 + 12 - 2) < 10;

as alev = 12 for wands, dlev = 2 for a floating eye and mr is 10 for
floating eye. So if random number in the range 0..109 is less than 10
then the floating eye resists. And guess what: wand of cancellation
doesn't get the shield effects so you don't even know.

So I would suggest to David that he should take away that bit by Raisse
or put a warning that there is a 1 in 11 chance that the floating eye
resists the cancellation.

Topi
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are
always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
"How come he didn't put 'I think' at the end of it?" - Anonymous

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

Topi Linkala wrote:
> The sad story started when Lyra found a wand that while engraving made
> the previous engraving vanish. I remembered the following words from
> David Damarell's NetHack object identification spoiler about
> differentiating between the three vanishers:
>
> "Lining up a monster and a junk object does for this; if both vanish,
> it's teleportation; if the monster vanishes, it's make invisible.
> Alternatively, you can use a slow-moving monster, since you can just nip
> across to its space and try to smack it if it disappears - Raisse
> suggests a floating eye, because if it doesn't disappear you had
> cancellation and you can kill it with impunity."

I suggest using the following dagger test. Daggers are light weight
and easily obtainable, so I always carry one around for vanish wand
identification.

Engrave "Elbereth" with a dagger. The dagger will now give a "too dull
for engraving" message if you try to engrave with it again.

Zap the dagger with the vanish wand. If the dagger disappears, the
wand is teleportation.

If the dagger doesn't disappear, try to engrave "Elbereth" with the
dagger. If the dagger is still too dull for engraving, the wand is
make invisible. If you can engrave with the dagger, the wand is
cancellation.

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

"Link" <chillynois@yahoo.com> writes:

> I suggest using the following dagger test. Daggers are light weight
> and easily obtainable, so I always carry one around for vanish wand
> identification.

I normally try out the difference of those wands by zapping a
non-dangerous immobile or very slow monster. The F creatures are good
candidates for this. You won't see the difference between cancel and make
invisible before zapping a living monster anyway.

--
Jukka Lahtinen

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

Raisse the Thaumaturge wrote:

> Topi Linkala wrote:
>
>>as alev = 12 for wands, dlev = 2 for a floating eye and mr is 10 for
>>floating eye. So if random number in the range 0..109 is less than 10
>>then the floating eye resists. And guess what: wand of cancellation
>>doesn't get the shield effects so you don't even know.
>>
>>So I would suggest to David that he should take away that bit by Raisse
>>or put a warning that there is a 1 in 11 chance that the floating eye
>>resists the cancellation.
>
> Which I didn't know when I wrote that (I've been cancelling floating eyes
> forever) or *I* would have put in the warning.

I didn't know either. I've used the same trick to identify cancellation
several times and every time before when the wand turned up to be
cancellation I've had no problem on killing the cnacelled floating eye.
So I was as surprised as you seem to be when the paralyzation happened.

What I didn't know is that floating eyes have 10 magic resistance. Could
it be that this is a recent change? I haven't checked the previous
sources and I don't have the link for the archive and last but not least
I'm just now too lazy to try to find the site.

Topi
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are
always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
"How come he didn't put 'I think' at the end of it?" - Anonymous

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

Panu Lahtinen <pnuu@iki.fi> writes:
> In article <yrjfytb8yl2.fsf@despammed.com>, Jukka Lahtinen wrote:

> > You won't see the difference between cancel and make invisible before
> > zapping a living monster anyway.

> Unless you have a cursed object at hand.

Hmm.. yeah, but even in that case you will also need to be able to notice
the difference of the object getting uncursed.

--
Jukka Lahtinen

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

Panu Lahtinen wrote:
> In article <yrjfytb8yl2.fsf@despammed.com>, Jukka Lahtinen wrote:
>
> > You won't see the difference between cancel and make invisible before
> > zapping a living monster anyway.
>
> Unless you have a cursed object at hand.


You don't need a cursed object to notice the difference between
cancellation and make invisible. Cancellation makes all weapons +0.
If a weapon is too dull for engraving, then it's some negative number.
Cancellation would change the weapon back to +0, which would allow
further engraving.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I rewrote the test to make it less confusing. Here's version #2...

Engrave with a dagger until you get the "too dull for engraving"
message.

Zap the dagger with the vanish wand. If the dagger disappears, the
wand is teleportation.

Try Engraving with the dagger again. If the dagger is still too dull
for engraving, the wand is make invisible. If you can engrave with the
dagger, the wand is cancellation.

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

Quoting Topi Linkala <nes@iki.fi>:
>The sad story started when Lyra found a wand that while engraving made
>the previous engraving vanish. I remembered the following words from
>David Damarell's NetHack object identification spoiler about
>differentiating between the three vanishers:
>across to its space and try to smack it if it disappears - Raisse
>suggests a floating eye, because if it doesn't disappear you had
>cancellation and you can kill it with impunity."
[But it can resist]

Indeed. Noted. I'll update this accordingly.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is Potmos, August.

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

Ken Cuvelier <kvcflameNO@SPAMyahoo.com> writes:
> Along similar lines, although the outcome so far has not been YASD
> (knock wood!), it might be helpful in pot2-343.txt to expand on what
> the player will see when dipping an item into a potion of polymorph
> and the item resists ("Abguvat unccraf." ).

Or "Abguvat _frrzf_ gb unccra", should the item happen to polymorph
into the same thing.

--
: Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ :
: "Go not to Usenet for counsel, for they will say both :
: 'No' and 'Yes' and 'Try another newsgroup'." :
: -- Usenet Rule 17. :

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

"Boudewijn Waijers" <kroisos@REMOVETHISWORD.home.nl> writes:
> Dylan O'Donnell wrote:

[Potions of polymorph]

> > Or "Abguvat _frrzf_ gb unccra", should the item happen to polymorph
> > into the same thing.
>
> In the latter case, do you think the potion should still autoidentify
> (guess it shouldn't)?

a) no, I don't; b) no, it doesn't; and indeed, c) it was my suggestion
to the DevTeam that it shouldn't :-)

--
: Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ :
: "Go not to Usenet for counsel, for they will say both :
: 'No' and 'Yes' and 'Try another newsgroup'." :
: -- Usenet Rule 17. :