A few minor bugs

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.
37 answers Last reply
More about minor bugs
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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*
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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.
  13. 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/
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

    In nethack, do you habitually use the wipe command when you have a
    clean face?
  17. 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).
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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
  23. 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.)
  24. 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
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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 :).
  31. 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!
  32. 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.
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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.
  36. 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"
  37. 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.
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Bug Video Games