Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

A few minor bugs

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 8:41:18 PM

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

These are just two minor issues that I noticed:

1. Applying a polearm and missing a friendly or tame creature does not
anger the target. To reproduce this, try attacking and missing a
shopkeeper with a polearm.

2. Trying to wipe your face when it's already clean takes a turn.
Since the user would never intentionally wipe his already-clean face,
I consider this a minor bug.

More about : minor bugs

Anonymous
August 21, 2005 7:17:11 AM

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

Squeamizh <blhbalh@.> wrote:
> These are just two minor issues that I noticed:
>
> 1. Applying a polearm and missing a friendly or tame creature does not
> anger the target. To reproduce this, try attacking and missing a
> shopkeeper with a polearm.
>
> 2. Trying to wipe your face when it's already clean takes a turn.
> Since the user would never intentionally wipe his already-clean face,
> I consider this a minor bug.

Nah. Someone would never intentionally rest while being attacked....

Really, it just means you should pay attention to your current condition
and whatnot.

The first point I'll agree with; applying a polearm should annoy the
creature you're applying it against.


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
August 21, 2005 9:48:15 AM

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

On 8/20/05 11:17 PM, Keith Davies wrote:
> Squeamizh <blhbalh@.> wrote:
>
>>2. Trying to wipe your face when it's already clean takes a turn.
>>Since the user would never intentionally wipe his already-clean face,
>>I consider this a minor bug.
>
> Nah. Someone would never intentionally rest while being attacked....
>
> Really, it just means you should pay attention to your current condition
> and whatnot.

It seems then that the message should be along the lines of, "You wipe
your clean face."

--
Kevin Wayne

"Stark raving sane."
--Rosencrantz and Guildenstern
Related resources
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 5:34:31 PM

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

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 03:17:11 GMT, Keith Davies
<keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:

>Squeamizh <blhbalh@.> wrote:
>> These are just two minor issues that I noticed:
>>
>> 1. Applying a polearm and missing a friendly or tame creature does not
>> anger the target. To reproduce this, try attacking and missing a
>> shopkeeper with a polearm.
>>
>> 2. Trying to wipe your face when it's already clean takes a turn.
>> Since the user would never intentionally wipe his already-clean face,
>> I consider this a minor bug.
>
>Nah. Someone would never intentionally rest while being attacked....
>
>Really, it just means you should pay attention to your current condition
>and whatnot.

Well, there is no obvious way for the game to determine if the player
is intentionally resting or not. Wiping, on the other hand, is a very
specialized command that only applies to a single specific situation.
If the character doesn't have anything on his face when the player
performs a wipe command, then the player obviously either:

a) Doesn't know what the wipe command is used for, OR
b) Accidently hit the wrong key.

I see no reason to punish the user for either of these situations. In
fact, I view it as good programming to minimize the negative effects
from both of these cases.

Nethack actually already takes this approach for most commands. If
you accidently hit 'd' (drop), for example, subsequently pressing ESC
produces the message "Never mind.", and it is still your turn. Unless
there is a concrete reason to do otherwise, the most reasonable
approach for software to take, IMO, is to minimize the negative
effects from erroneous input.

btw, I noticed this 'problem' is also present in the following
commands:

* Sit
* Force

Anyway, it's obviously not a big deal at all--really just me being a
dork here.

>
>The first point I'll agree with; applying a polearm should annoy the
>creature you're applying it against.
>
>
>Keith
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 8:20:22 PM

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

Squeamizh wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 03:17:11 GMT, Keith Davies
><keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Squeamizh <blhbalh@.> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>These are just two minor issues that I noticed:
>>>
>>>1. Applying a polearm and missing a friendly or tame creature does not
>>>anger the target. To reproduce this, try attacking and missing a
>>>shopkeeper with a polearm.
>>>
>>>2. Trying to wipe your face when it's already clean takes a turn.
>>>Since the user would never intentionally wipe his already-clean face,
>>>I consider this a minor bug.
>>>
>>>
>>Nah. Someone would never intentionally rest while being attacked....
>>
>>Really, it just means you should pay attention to your current condition
>>and whatnot.
>>
>>
>
>Well, there is no obvious way for the game to determine if the player
>is intentionally resting or not. Wiping, on the other hand, is a very
>specialized command that only applies to a single specific situation.
>If the character doesn't have anything on his face when the player
>performs a wipe command, then the player obviously either:
>
> a) Doesn't know what the wipe command is used for, OR
> b) Accidently hit the wrong key.
>
>I see no reason to punish the user for either of these situations. In
>fact, I view it as good programming to minimize the negative effects
>from both of these cases.
>
>Nethack actually already takes this approach for most commands. If
>you accidently hit 'd' (drop), for example, subsequently pressing ESC
>produces the message "Never mind.", and it is still your turn. Unless
>there is a concrete reason to do otherwise, the most reasonable
>approach for software to take, IMO, is to minimize the negative
>effects from erroneous input.
>
>btw, I noticed this 'problem' is also present in the following
>commands:
>
>* Sit
>* Force
>
>Anyway, it's obviously not a big deal at all--really just me being a
>dork here.
>
>
No, please, dork on. This is actually one of the more on point "dork"
discussions I have seen in a while....
*cough*Boudewijn*cough*
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 4:30:45 AM

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

Squeamizh wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 03:17:11 GMT, Keith Davies
> <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Squeamizh <blhbalh@.> wrote:
>>
>>>These are just two minor issues that I noticed:
>>>
>>>1. Applying a polearm and missing a friendly or tame creature does not
>>>anger the target. To reproduce this, try attacking and missing a
>>>shopkeeper with a polearm.
>>>
>>>2. Trying to wipe your face when it's already clean takes a turn.
>>>Since the user would never intentionally wipe his already-clean face,
>>>I consider this a minor bug.
>>
>>Nah. Someone would never intentionally rest while being attacked....
>>
>>Really, it just means you should pay attention to your current condition
>>and whatnot.
>
>
> Well, there is no obvious way for the game to determine if the player
> is intentionally resting or not. Wiping, on the other hand, is a very
> specialized command that only applies to a single specific situation.
> If the character doesn't have anything on his face when the player
> performs a wipe command, then the player obviously either:
>
> a) Doesn't know what the wipe command is used for, OR
> b) Accidently hit the wrong key.

Or
c) Tests that the towel is not cursed before wearing it.

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
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 4:30:46 AM

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

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 00:30:45 +0300, Topi Linkala <nes@iki.fi> wrote:

>> Well, there is no obvious way for the game to determine if the player
>> is intentionally resting or not. Wiping, on the other hand, is a very
>> specialized command that only applies to a single specific situation.
>> If the character doesn't have anything on his face when the player
>> performs a wipe command, then the player obviously either:
>>
>> a) Doesn't know what the wipe command is used for, OR
>> b) Accidently hit the wrong key.
>
>Or
> c) Tests that the towel is not cursed before wearing it.

I'm talking about wiping, not putting on. Wiping doesn't test the BUC
status of a towel.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 6:08:03 AM

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

Squeamizh wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 00:30:45 +0300, Topi Linkala <nes@iki.fi> wrote:
>
>
>>>Well, there is no obvious way for the game to determine if the player
>>>is intentionally resting or not. Wiping, on the other hand, is a very
>>>specialized command that only applies to a single specific situation.
>>>If the character doesn't have anything on his face when the player
>>>performs a wipe command, then the player obviously either:
>>>
>>> a) Doesn't know what the wipe command is used for, OR
>>> b) Accidently hit the wrong key.
>>
>>Or
>> c) Tests that the towel is not cursed before wearing it.
>
> I'm talking about wiping, not putting on. Wiping doesn't test the BUC
> status of a towel.

Wrong! Wiping can be used to check if the towel is cursed.

Wiping with cursed towel has 1 in 3 chance to make your hands greasy, 1
in 3 chance to make you blinded with gunk and 1 in 3 chance to do
nothing (like blessed or uncursed does). So repeatedly wiping your clean
face and hands can be used to check if the towel is cursed so that you
_won't_ put it on.

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
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 6:08:04 AM

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

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 02:08:03 +0300, Topi Linkala <nes@iki.fi> wrote:

>Wrong! Wiping can be used to check if the towel is cursed.
>
>Wiping with cursed towel has 1 in 3 chance to make your hands greasy, 1
>in 3 chance to make you blinded with gunk and 1 in 3 chance to do
>nothing (like blessed or uncursed does). So repeatedly wiping your clean
>face and hands can be used to check if the towel is cursed so that you
>_won't_ put it on.
>
>Topi

I just wiped my face about 80 times with a cursed towel in wizard mode
and never experienced any of those effects.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 3:22:46 PM

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

Squeamizh wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 02:08:03 +0300, Topi Linkala <nes@iki.fi> wrote:
>
>>Wrong! Wiping can be used to check if the towel is cursed.
>>
>>Wiping with cursed towel has 1 in 3 chance to make your hands greasy, 1
>>in 3 chance to make you blinded with gunk and 1 in 3 chance to do
>>nothing (like blessed or uncursed does). So repeatedly wiping your clean
>>face and hands can be used to check if the towel is cursed so that you
>>_won't_ put it on.
>
> I just wiped my face about 80 times with a cursed towel in wizard mode
> and never experienced any of those effects.

Don't know about your binary but mine gave the following message in
second wipe:

'Your hands get slimy! Your sword slips from your hands."

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
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 3:25:26 PM

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

Squeamizh wrote:

> These are just two minor issues that I noticed:
>
> 1. Applying a polearm and missing a friendly or tame creature does not
> anger the target. To reproduce this, try attacking and missing a
> shopkeeper with a polearm.
>
> 2. Trying to wipe your face when it's already clean takes a turn.
> Since the user would never intentionally wipe his already-clean face,
> I consider this a minor bug.

As we've already discussed on this tread wiping clean face and hands can
be used for testing if the towel is cursed, so it taking time is no bug.

But for the other here is a small patch that adds a confirmation
question if you apply a polearm towards friendly monster and if you do
makes that monster angry even if you miss.

--- CUT HERE!!! ---
diff -bruNX ignore.txt ..\official/src/apply.c ./src/apply.c
--- ..\official/src/apply.c Mon Dec 8 01:39:14 2003
+++ ./src/apply.c Mon Aug 22 11:04:08 2005
@@ -2415,6 +2415,16 @@
if ((mtmp = m_at(cc.x, cc.y)) != (struct monst *)0) {
int oldhp = mtmp->mhp;

+ if (flags.confirm && mtmp->mpeaceful
+ && !Confusion && !Hallucination && !Stunned
+ && canspotmon(mtmp)) {
+ char qbuf[QBUFSZ];
+
+ Sprintf(qbuf, "Really attack %s?", mon_nam(mtmp));
+ if (yn(qbuf) != 'y')
+ return(0);
+ }
+
bhitpos = cc;
check_caitiff(mtmp);
(void) thitmonst(mtmp, uwep);
@@ -2424,6 +2434,8 @@
*/
if (mtmp->mhp < oldhp)
u.uconduct.weaphit++;
+ else if(mtmp->mpeaceful)
+ setmangry(mtmp);
} else
/* Now you know that nothing is there... */
pline(nothing_happens);
--- CUT HERE!!! ---

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
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 3:47:01 PM

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

Topi Linkala wrote:

> Squeamizh wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 02:08:03 +0300, Topi Linkala <nes@iki.fi> wrote:
>>
>>> Wrong! Wiping can be used to check if the towel is cursed.
>>>
>>> Wiping with cursed towel has 1 in 3 chance to make your hands greasy,
>>> 1 in 3 chance to make you blinded with gunk and 1 in 3 chance to do
>>> nothing (like blessed or uncursed does). So repeatedly wiping your
>>> clean face and hands can be used to check if the towel is cursed so
>>> that you _won't_ put it on.
>>
>>
>> I just wiped my face about 80 times with a cursed towel in wizard mode
>> and never experienced any of those effects.
>
>
> Don't know about your binary but mine gave the following message in
> second wipe:
>
> 'Your hands get slimy! Your sword slips from your hands."

Noticed that I made the test in wizard mode of my own patched binary. So
even though my binary contains only game inteface affecting patches I
repeated the test in vanilla 3.4.3 binary wizard mode. Just the same
result: on second wipe:

'Your hands get slimy! Your sword slips from your hands.'

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
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 6:37:21 PM

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

Edwin Thomson wrote:
> Squeamizh wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 02:08:03 +0300, Topi Linkala <nes@iki.fi> wrote:
> >
> >>Wiping with cursed towel has 1 in 3 chance to make your hands greasy, 1
> >>in 3 chance to make you blinded with gunk and 1 in 3 chance to do
> >>nothing (like blessed or uncursed does).
> >
> > I just wiped my face about 80 times with a cursed towel in wizard mode
> > and never experienced any of those effects.
>
> When I tested it, wiping with the #wipe command always cleaned my face,
> even when I wasn't holding a towel, whereas (a)pplying a cursed towel
> had the effects Topi descibes.
>
> Edwin

Ah, then that explains it--I was using the #wipe command.

Then the bug is either:

* #wipe and applying a towel have inconsistent effects, or

* #wipe shouldn't take a turn if the character's face is clean.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 10:05:50 PM

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

Squeamizh wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 02:08:03 +0300, Topi Linkala <nes@iki.fi> wrote:
>
>>Wiping with cursed towel has 1 in 3 chance to make your hands greasy, 1
>>in 3 chance to make you blinded with gunk and 1 in 3 chance to do
>>nothing (like blessed or uncursed does).
>
> I just wiped my face about 80 times with a cursed towel in wizard mode
> and never experienced any of those effects.

When I tested it, wiping with the #wipe command always cleaned my face,
even when I wasn't holding a towel, whereas (a)pplying a cursed towel
had the effects Topi descibes.

Edwin

--
s/ntlworld.com/gmail.com/
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 3:13:09 AM

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

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 11:25:26 +0300, Topi Linkala <nes@iki.fi> wrote:

>Squeamizh wrote:
>
>> These are just two minor issues that I noticed:
>>
>> 1. Applying a polearm and missing a friendly or tame creature does not
>> anger the target. To reproduce this, try attacking and missing a
>> shopkeeper with a polearm.
>>
>> 2. Trying to wipe your face when it's already clean takes a turn.
>> Since the user would never intentionally wipe his already-clean face,
>> I consider this a minor bug.
>
>As we've already discussed on this tread wiping clean face and hands can
>be used for testing if the towel is cursed, so it taking time is no bug.
>
>But for the other here is a small patch that adds a confirmation
>question if you apply a polearm towards friendly monster and if you do
>makes that monster angry even if you miss.

Cool, I'll try it out. Thanks.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 10:59:42 AM

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

In article <skffg1lapm2b0l5tfr30b6jln5knjgqn1o@4ax.com>,
Squeamizh <blhbalh@.balh> wrote:

> 2. Trying to wipe your face when it's already clean takes a turn.
> Since the user would never intentionally wipe his already-clean face,
> I consider this a minor bug.

This assertion confuses me. I frequently see people in real life give
their face a quick scrub with their hands. It could be a fatigue
reaction, a belief that there may be something on their face, or some
other cause. But people certainly do wipe their face despite it actually
being clean.

--
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 3:39:37 PM

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

In nethack, do you habitually use the wipe command when you have a
clean face?
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 5:34:12 PM

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

Squeamizh wrote:

> Well, there is no obvious way for the game to determine if the player
> is intentionally resting or not. Wiping, on the other hand, is a very
> specialized command that only applies to a single specific situation.
> If the character doesn't have anything on his face when the player
> performs a wipe command, then the player obviously either:
>
> a) Doesn't know what the wipe command is used for, OR
> b) Accidently hit the wrong key.
>
> I see no reason to punish the user for either of these situations. In
> fact, I view it as good programming to minimize the negative effects
> from both of these cases.
>

A few things:

There are plenty of other times the user gets punished for not knowing
something. In fact, lots of them result in (almost) immediate death.

Also, there are many more command that are easier to typo (I can't
recall any time I've accidently used #wipe when I wanted to use another
command) that result in a 'wasted' move.

Finally, as you probably noticed from some of the other replies,
several people here did intentionally use #wipe while their face was
clean. YANI: add a chance, modified by Luck, to accidently poke
yourself in the eye while using #wipe while your face is clean,
blinding you for a few turns (Somewhat like kicking an empty space).
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 5:57:06 PM

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

briktal wrote:
> A few things:
>
> There are plenty of other times the user gets punished for not knowing
> something. In fact, lots of them result in (almost) immediate death.

There's obviously a huge difference between the things you're talking
about and this. I'll expand on this later when I have time if you
really want a response, but I think it's quite obvious.

> Also, there are many more command that are easier to typo (I can't
> recall any time I've accidently used #wipe when I wanted to use another
> command) that result in a 'wasted' move.

Well, I did. That's why I brought it up. I was trying to enhance
(alt+e) and accidently wiped (alt+w). I was in a situation where death
was very likely--I couldn't run away from a monster for some reason,
and I had nothing useful in my inventory. My last hope was to use a
skill slot to enhance the skill of my currently wielded weapon and hope
I'd be able to kill my opponent with one hit. I hit the wrong key and
died.

> Finally, as you probably noticed from some of the other replies,
> several people here did intentionally use #wipe while their face was
> clean. YANI: add a chance, modified by Luck, to accidently poke
> yourself in the eye while using #wipe while your face is clean,
> blinding you for a few turns (Somewhat like kicking an empty space).

No, "several people" did not intentionally use #wipe when their faces
were clean. One guy pointed out that he's seen people wipe their faces
without being hit by a cream pie first IN REAL LIFE. I don't
understand; can't you just rest one turn and *pretend* that your
character is wiping his clean face? Is the message "Your face is
already clean." absolutely essential in completing the illusion that
the '@' on the screen is mindlessly wiping his face?

And what's with making the character poke himself in the eye? Why are
we punishing the user even more when he accidently hits the wrong key?
How does that make the game more fun? The user's keyboard is not a
part of nethack; it's the interface to the system that the game runs
on. Punishing the user for accidently using the interface incorrectly
is just a dumb idea, no offense.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 9:51:49 PM

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

In article <1124822377.714745.263360@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Squeamizh" <squeamz@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In nethack, do you habitually use the wipe command when you have a
> clean face?

No, but I didn't understand that to be what you were describing. I
thought you meant "the user" wouldn't do that (as a person) rather than
the user wouldn't generally make their character do it without obvious
reason.

--
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 9:57:56 PM

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

In article <1124830626.732226.300500@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Squeamizh" <squeamz@hotmail.com> wrote:

> And what's with making the character poke himself in the eye? Why are
> we punishing the user even more when he accidently hits the wrong key?
> How does that make the game more fun? The user's keyboard is not a
> part of nethack; it's the interface to the system that the game runs
> on. Punishing the user for accidently using the interface incorrectly
> is just a dumb idea, no offense.

I think it depends on how you approach the game. I think of fair number
of people see Nethack as a game that's fundamentally about not doing
stupid things as a player that get your character killed. The interface
_is_ part of the game in that perspective, much like film grain is an
understood and leveraged part of the presentation in many older movies.

--
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 11:30:46 PM

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

Squeamizh wrote:
>
> Well, I did. That's why I brought it up. I was trying to enhance
> (alt+e) and accidently wiped (alt+w). I was in a situation where death
> was very likely--I couldn't run away from a monster for some reason,
> and I had nothing useful in my inventory. My last hope was to use a
> skill slot to enhance the skill of my currently wielded weapon and hope
> I'd be able to kill my opponent with one hit. I hit the wrong key and
> died.

Oh, I've never used the alt+foo commands for that, I always type those
out. I can see how you could hit the wrong one there accidently.

>
> > Finally, as you probably noticed from some of the other replies,
> > several people here did intentionally use #wipe while their face was
> > clean. YANI: add a chance, modified by Luck, to accidently poke
> > yourself in the eye while using #wipe while your face is clean,
> > blinding you for a few turns (Somewhat like kicking an empty space).
>
> No, "several people" did not intentionally use #wipe when their faces
> were clean.


I was referring to the people testing #wipe and towels and whatnot, you
included.

> And what's with making the character poke himself in the eye? Why are
> we punishing the user even more when he accidently hits the wrong key?
> How does that make the game more fun? The user's keyboard is not a
> part of nethack; it's the interface to the system that the game runs
> on. Punishing the user for accidently using the interface incorrectly
> is just a dumb idea, no offense.

Well, there are other commands that, when used incorrectly, can damage
your character for no important reason. Kicking comes to mind, perhaps
undead turning too.

But what I was trying to get at is what Gregory Weston mentioned:
Nethack doesn't put much effort into preventing users from accidently
doing bad things to their characters.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 11:52:51 PM

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

Gary Olson wrote:

> No, please, dork on. This is actually one of the more on point "dork"
> discussions I have seen in a while....
> *cough*Boudewijn*cough*

It appears I have once again inverted the solution and the problem after
a long tiring day....this is an occupational hazard. Please retract my
previous exhortation. I will refrain from stating whom I was originally
going to berate.

Removing ring of aggravate Usenet
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 2:23:37 AM

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

On 23 Aug 2005 13:57:06 -0700
"Squeamizh" <squeamz@hotmail.com> wrote:

>(alt+e) and accidently wiped (alt+w)

Really? because w and e are 5 apart and one down on my keyboard,
unless you have really long (or really big) fingers, it would be really hard to accidentally hit w instead of e. (on my keyboard. yours might have some weird non-standard layout.)
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 6:31:24 AM

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

noah bedford <noahbedford@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 Aug 2005 13:57:06 -0700
> "Squeamizh" <squeamz@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>(alt+e) and accidently wiped (alt+w)
>
> Really? because w and e are 5 apart and one down on my keyboard,
> unless you have really long (or really big) fingers, it would be
> really hard to accidentally hit w instead of e. (on my keyboard. yours
> might have some weird non-standard layout.)

Presumably you're using a dvorak or other? The most common keyboard in
most places is the QWERTY keyboard... which (as may be evident) has 'W'
and 'E' next to each other.


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
August 24, 2005 6:45:03 AM

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

"Squeamizh" <squeamz@hotmail.com> writes:
> No, "several people" did not intentionally use #wipe when their faces
> were clean. One guy pointed out that he's seen people wipe their faces
> without being hit by a cream pie first IN REAL LIFE.

By using #wipe when your face is already clean, you can (relatively)
safely distinguish a cursed towel from one which is blessed or
uncursed. IN THE GAME, not IN REAL LIFE. This is a feature.

> Punishing the user for accidently using the interface incorrectly is
> just a dumb idea, no offense.

Punishing highly spoiled, curious/experimental and source-diving players
by removing a nifty, subtle trick on the basis that you can save people
who are simultaneously careless and unlucky may or may not be a dumb
idea, but it is certainly an un-nethackish idea.

Nethack, to be blunt, is not a game about catering to people who let
their typing get ahead of their thinking.
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 6:45:04 AM

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

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:45:03 GMT, Douglas Henke
<henke@kharendaen.dyndns.org> wrote:

>"Squeamizh" <squeamz@hotmail.com> writes:
>> No, "several people" did not intentionally use #wipe when their faces
>> were clean. One guy pointed out that he's seen people wipe their faces
>> without being hit by a cream pie first IN REAL LIFE.
>
>By using #wipe when your face is already clean, you can (relatively)
>safely distinguish a cursed towel from one which is blessed or
>uncursed. IN THE GAME, not IN REAL LIFE. This is a feature.

No. If you had bothered to pay attention to the rest of this thread
(or actually tested this yourself), you would know that #wipe cannot
be used to determine the BUC status of a towel. Now promise me you'll
try this IN THE GAME before replying.

>> Punishing the user for accidently using the interface incorrectly is
>> just a dumb idea, no offense.
>
>Punishing highly spoiled, curious/experimental and source-diving players
>by removing a nifty, subtle trick on the basis that you can save people
>who are simultaneously careless and unlucky may or may not be a dumb
>idea, but it is certainly an un-nethackish idea.
>
>Nethack, to be blunt, is not a game about catering to people who let
>their typing get ahead of their thinking.

No need to respnd to this. Your point is negated by my response
above.
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 8:14:19 AM

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

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 13:57:06 -0700, Squeamizh wrote:

> And what's with making the character poke himself in the eye? Why are we
> punishing the user even more when he accidently hits the wrong key? How
> does that make the game more fun? The user's keyboard is not a part of
> nethack; it's the interface to the system that the game runs on.
> Punishing the user for accidently using the interface incorrectly is just
> a dumb idea, no offense.

Blinding is hardly "punishing" a player. It comes in handy in many
instances, like killing a floating eye. A troublesome, unreliable way to
blind yourself in the absence of a blindfold or towel would be useful.

Other CRPGS want you to win, and go out of their way to protect you from
losing. Nethack does not care if you win or lose, which is why winning is
an accomplishment, while winning other CRPGS just shows you had some time
on your hands. This is why I love nethack. The interface can be callous,
yes, but a player who's not careful would still die quickly even if the
interface were to have some sort of training wheels installed to prevent
you ever doing anything dangerous.
This is all moot, though, since the difficulty in having nethack figure
out whether or not an an action is dangerous or a key is a typo rules out
any possibility of ever doing something like that. #wipe taking a turn
didn't kill your character -- plenty of other typos would have killed
your character too. The only way to prevent this is to slow down when
you're in trouble, and take care with what you do. I'm still working at
doing that myself. I've killed loads of my characters by tapping away at
the keys too quickly in perilous situations. I think I'm slowly getting
the hang of that problem and may be able to write a YAFAP soon -- but
every time I start thinking that, tappity-tappity-tappity-YASD comes along.
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 8:35:18 AM

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

noah bedford wrote:
> On 23 Aug 2005 13:57:06 -0700
> "Squeamizh" <squeamz@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> (alt+e) and accidently wiped (alt+w)

> Really? because w and e are 5 apart and one down on my keyboard,
> unless you have really long (or really big) fingers, it would be
> really hard to accidentally hit w instead of e. (on my keyboard.
> yours might have some weird non-standard layout.)

On a standard US keyboard (also used widely in the rest of the world),
the w and e are located as the second and third letter on the top row,
respectively.

The Netherlands has its own keyboard, where the letters are positioned
identically as the US keyboard, but the other characters are placed in
different locations. It is almost never used anymore.

My US keyboard layout is:

` 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 - = BS
TAB q w e r t y u i o p [ ] \
CAPS a s d f g h j k l ; ' CR
SHIFT z x c v b n m , . / SHIFT
CTR WDW ALT SPACE ALT WDW RCL CTR

Or, shifted:

~ ! @ # $ % ^ & * ( ) _ + BS
TAB Q W E R T Y U I O P { } |
CAPS A S D F G H J K L : " CR
SHIFT Z X C V B N M < > ? SHIFT
CTR WDW ALT SPACE ALT WDW RCL CTR

--
Boudewijn.

--
"I have hundreds of other quotes, just waiting to replace this one
as my signature..." - Me
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 10:13:41 AM

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

Squeamizh <blhbalh@.> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:45:03 GMT, Douglas Henke
><henke@kharendaen.dyndns.org> wrote:
>
>>"Squeamizh" <squeamz@hotmail.com> writes:
>>> No, "several people" did not intentionally use #wipe when their faces
>>> were clean. One guy pointed out that he's seen people wipe their faces
>>> without being hit by a cream pie first IN REAL LIFE.
>>
>>By using #wipe when your face is already clean, you can (relatively)
>>safely distinguish a cursed towel from one which is blessed or
>>uncursed. IN THE GAME, not IN REAL LIFE. This is a feature.
>
> No. If you had bothered to pay attention to the rest of this thread
> (or actually tested this yourself), you would know that #wipe cannot
> be used to determine the BUC status of a towel. Now promise me you'll
> try this IN THE GAME before replying.

Several people have and gotten the described result. Apparently it
doesn't work that way in wizard mode, though... which I would mark as a
bug in *wizard mode*, rather than in the main game.


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
August 24, 2005 10:13:42 AM

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

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 06:13:41 GMT, Keith Davies
<keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:

>Several people have and gotten the described result. Apparently it
>doesn't work that way in wizard mode, though... which I would mark as a
>bug in *wizard mode*, rather than in the main game.

That's because they (a)pplied the towel, rather than used the #wipe
command.

Anyway, this is no forum for arguing. Even if eveyone agreed with me,
this wouldn't be considered anything close to a game-breaking bug. I
think it's time to just let it go :) .
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 10:59:00 AM

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

Mantar, Feyelno nek dusa wrote:

> Other CRPGS want you to win, and go out of their way to protect you from
>losing. Nethack does not care if you win or lose, which is why winning is
>an accomplishment, while winning other CRPGS just shows you had some time
>on your hands. This is why I love nethack. The interface can be callous,
>yes, but a player who's not careful would still die quickly even if the
>interface were to have some sort of training wheels installed to prevent
>you ever doing anything dangerous.
>
Exactly, Nethack prepares you for life. Or, helps you to remember what
life really is after a day in the corporate/educational/institutional
hand-holding kindergarten-like atmosphere created by greater fools and
their minions.

!oBooze for you Mantar!
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 1:57:33 PM

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

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:31:24 GMT
Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:

>The most common keyboard in
>most places is the QWERTY keyboard...

Oh, right. :-p sorry about that... I just live in a delusional world where everyone uses some
distribution of linux and dvorak keyboards.
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 3:08:05 PM

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

Mantar, Feyelno nek dusa wrote:

> A troublesome, unreliable way to blind yourself in the absence of a
> blindfold or towel would be useful.

Potion of blindness.

Troublesome and unreliable as to when it wears off.

Boudewijn.

--
"I have hundreds of other quotes, just waiting to replace this one
as my signature..." - Me
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 4:36:35 PM

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

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Boudewijn Waijers wrote:

> Mantar, Feyelno nek dusa wrote:
> > A troublesome, unreliable way to blind yourself in the absence of a
> > blindfold or towel would be useful.
>
> Potion of blindness.
>
> Troublesome and unreliable as to when it wears off.

Cream pies could potentially be more troublesome. As it stands, when you
are on Medusa's level without blindfold or towel, just crush your face
into a cream pie and bravely face the foe, with goop all over your face.
You can then clean your face even without towel. I think the hands should
get slippery, just as after eating deep fried food.

--
Philipp Lucas
phlucas@online-club.de
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 6:15:01 PM

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

Squeamizh <blhbalh@.balh> writes:
> No. If you had bothered to pay attention to the rest of this thread
> (or actually tested this yourself), you would know that #wipe cannot
> be used to determine the BUC status of a towel. Now promise me you'll
> try this IN THE GAME before replying.

Mea culpa. You are absolutely right (about #wipe, and about telling me to
try it in the damn game first). s/#wipe/(A)pply/g

> >Nethack, to be blunt, is not a game about catering to people who let
> >their typing get ahead of their thinking.
>
> No need to respnd to this. Your point is negated by my response
> above.

Hardly. If you type without thinking, nethack will sometimes kill
you. If you know you are in a dangerous situation and _still_ type
without thinking, it will frequently kill you. These are not bugs. The
interface already goes _much_ too far in the direction of trying to
protect players from blunders.

If you want applications that ask you "do you really want to?" before
every action, they are thick on the ground without making nethack one
of them.
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 8:18:03 PM

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

Douglas Henke <henke@kharendaen.dyndns.org> wrote:
>If you want applications that ask you "do you really want to?" before
>every action, they are thick on the ground without making nethack one
>of them.

Quite.

Furthermore: Asking for confirmation for every action is just as bad as
never asking confirmation; it may even be worse.
--
Martin Read - my opinions are my own. share them if you wish.
\_\/_/ meteorites are outta sight but this one's place is in outer space
\ / if you wanna know i'll tell you why it's cause radiation makes you die
\/ -- Zombina and the Skeletones, "Meteorite"
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 8:18:04 PM

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

Martin Read <mpread@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Furthermore: Asking for confirmation for every action is just as bad as
> never asking confirmation; it may even be worse.

I've had a similar argument before with people who (on UNIX boxen)
think it is a good idea to "alias rm='rm -i'". No, that isn't safer --
all you're doing is teaching people that the command to delete a file
is "rm filename<enter>y<enter>" or "rm -f filename".

After a day on a system misconfigured that way, you just confirm
reflexively, and now you've learned a bad habit that will bite you
when you encounter one of the exceedingly rare things that
legitimately asks for confirmation (e.g., mkfs).

One such discussion ended in acrimony after my interlocutor followed
my suggestion to "touch ./-f" and then try out his "safe" rm * command
he just knew would prompt him before deleting anything. Plus 10 points
for having the courage of his convictions, minus several million for
clear thinking.
!