A few minor bugs

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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*

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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/

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

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

 

[Guest]

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).

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.)

 

[Guest]

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