Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

How do you fix corrosion?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 3:55:57 PM

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

f - a blessed thoroughly corroded +7 Frostbane

While meandering through Gehemmon trying to find that *#@$@^ Book of
the Dead (I'm sure I got it from Vlad, but when I found the Vibrating
Square, it was gone - fortunately, I hadn't woken Rodney yet), I had a
nasty encounter with a black pudding. Er, make that lots and lots of
black puddings. Now, both my Gauntlets of Strength and Frosty are at
the thoroughly corroded status, and my tame Archon (named Sirius IV)'s
Sunsword probably isn't doing too well, either.

What's the best way to repair a corroded object?

More about : fix corrosion

Anonymous
September 6, 2005 4:22:12 PM

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

Electronic Samurai wrote:
> What's the best way to repair a corroded object?

For weapons, read a non-cursed scroll of enchant weapon, while confused
(!oBooze, old spell, etc.). For armor, read a non-cursed scroll of
enchant armor, while confused. This will repair the damage of
rusted/burned/etc. items and foo-proof them so that they don't get
damaged again.

With armor, you can foo-proof the item by reading a cursed scroll of
destroy armor, while confused. This does not repair damage, however. So
you could wind up with something like "rustproof thoroughly rusted
chain mail".

It probably goes without saying, but in the case of armor, the target
is randomly selected from your worn armor. So if you're trying to
target a specific piece, strip off everything but that piece of armor.
Enchant weapon will always target your primary weapon.
September 6, 2005 5:57:54 PM

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

Electronic Samurai wrote:

> While meandering through Gehemmon trying to find that *#@$@^ Book of
> the Dead (I'm sure I got it from Vlad, but when I found the Vibrating
> Square, it was gone - fortunately, I hadn't woken Rodney yet)

(snip)

Why are you going to wake Rodney? Does he have something you want?
Related resources
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 6:50:30 PM

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

Electronic Samurai wrote:
>
> f - a blessed thoroughly corroded +7 Frostbane
> What's the best way to repair a corroded object?

Others have already given the method. It is very
surprising you got below the Castle without knowing
this. So I'll ask a question - What version are
you running? The common ways to get Frost Brand
deliver it to you rustproof in the latest version.

> While meandering through Gehemmon trying to find that *#@$@^ Book of
> the Dead (I'm sure I got it from Vlad, but when I found the Vibrating
> Square, it was gone - fortunately, I hadn't woken Rodney yet), I had a
> nasty encounter with a black pudding. Er, make that lots and lots of
> black puddings. Now, both my Gauntlets of Strength and Frosty are at
> the thoroughly corroded status, and my tame Archon (named Sirius IV)'s
> Sunsword probably isn't doing too well, either.

Armor is also fooproofed a similar way. No need to worry
about Sunsword or your Archon's shield. They come
rustproof.

Vlad does not have the book. Vlad has the candalabrum.
Someone else has the book. You will also need the bell
from the Quest. The order is usually Quest/Bell,
Vlad/Candalabrum, find vibrating square, Rodney/Book.
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 8:22:49 PM

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

How does that make sense at all? Get drunk to confusedly cast enchant weapon
to uncorrode something?

That just seems very random to me.

--
Blog:
Shedletsky's Bits: A Random Walk Through Manifold Space
http://www.stanford.edu/~jjshed/blog
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 9:47:39 PM

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

Ah, that makes perfect sense. I do wish there were a less complicated
way, but I suppose I'll have to make do. Now that I think of it, it
_was_ the Candelebrum I got from Vlad, not the book. Oh well - back
upwards I go.

As for making it to Gehemmon while reasonably ignorant, I suppose I've
been playing exceptionally carefully this playthrough. I've lost far
too many characters already due to dumb mistakes (my best yet - 2 steps
into the dungeon, my knight slipped while #mounting his saddled horse
and died. :^) )

On an unrelated note, why don't I get ice cubes when dipping Frost
Brand into water?
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 11:12:18 PM

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

Stathol wrote:
> Electronic Samurai wrote:
>
>>What's the best way to repair a corroded object?
>
> With armor, you can foo-proof the item by reading a cursed scroll of
> destroy armor, while confused. This does not repair damage, however. So
> you could wind up with something like "rustproof thoroughly rusted
> chain mail".

If the armor is already damaged, the item won't become fooproofed at
all; you just waste the scroll. It only works on good condition armor.
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 1:04:42 AM

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

On 6 Sep 2005 11:55:57 -0700, "Electronic Samurai" <Crash_jet@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>f - a blessed thoroughly corroded +7 Frostbane
>
>While meandering through Gehemmon trying to find that *#@$@^ Book of
>the Dead (I'm sure I got it from Vlad, but when I found the Vibrating
>Square, it was gone - fortunately, I hadn't woken Rodney yet),

I'll bet you anything you care to name you didn't get the Book of
the Dead from Vlad, because ur qbrfa'g unir vg.

Hope that helps.



--
All the best,

Jove
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 1:28:03 AM

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

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 16:22:49 -0400, "Shedletsky"
<mylastname@stanford.edu> wrote:

>How does that make sense at all? Get drunk to confusedly cast enchant weapon
>to uncorrode something?
>
>That just seems very random to me.

Well, a) You can't cast spells when confused,
b) There is no spell of enchant weapon, and
c) You didn't quote any context.

Other than that you're doing fine. ;^D

Alcohol has always endowed drinkers with special powers of
enunciation, perception, cogitation, and fine motor control
rarely appreciated by the alcohol impaired.

White lightnin' reputedly has the power to make people nine
feet tall and bulletproof. (Or at least the drinker feels that
way.)

The powers vested by the state of inebriation are not without
cost: disease, shame, humiliation, pain, etc. The drinker can
feel even worse.

Reading a scroll of enchant weapon in fluent drunkenese to
repair a wielded weapon seems much less random than using a
scroll of detect food or a potion of blindness to do so.

(All damage is repaired, corrosion, rust(?), burnt wooden
weapons, etc.)


--
All the best,

Jove
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 1:28:54 AM

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

Electronic Samurai wrote:

> f - a blessed thoroughly corroded +7 Frostbane

Frost Brand, n'est ce pas? It dispenses frost, it doesn't turn it away.

> Now, both my Gauntlets of Strength and Frosty are at
> the thoroughly corroded status, and my tame Archon (named Sirius IV)'s
> Sunsword probably isn't doing too well, either.
>
> What's the best way to repair a corroded object?

Spoiler space for the easily spoiled.


s

p

o

i

l

e

r



s

p

a

c

e

....


For armor: wear it and only it. Have a non-cursed scroll of enchant armor
and a means of getting confused (and, preferably, a means of getting
unconfused). Get confused. Read the scroll. Your armor will now be
repaired as well as fooproof. If it wasn't damaged to start with, it
still gets fooproofed.

For weapons: wield it, get confused, read a non-cursed scroll of enchant
weapon.

Reading a *cursed* scroll of *destroy* armor while confused will fooproof,
but not repair, a piece of armor. Unfortunately, there aren't any scrolls
of destroy weapon.

If you got the Sunsword as a sacrifice gift, it's already fooproof.

BTW: foo = rust, corrosion, rot, fire.

Raisse, killed by a dagger

--
irina@valdyas.org LegoHack: http://www.valdyas.org/irina/nethack/
Status of Raisse (piously neutral): Level 8 HP 63(67) AC -3, fast.
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 1:36:13 AM

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

Electronic Samurai wrote:

> On an unrelated note, why don't I get ice cubes when dipping Frost
> Brand into water?
>

NINRL: Reverse sublimation -- that's why it's called Frost Brand.
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 5:48:58 AM

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

Electronic Samurai wrote:

> f - a blessed thoroughly corroded +7 Frostbane
>
> While meandering through Gehemmon trying to find that *#@$@^ Book of
> the Dead (I'm sure I got it from Vlad, but when I found the Vibrating
> Square, it was gone - fortunately, I hadn't woken Rodney yet), I had a
> nasty encounter with a black pudding. Er, make that lots and lots of
> black puddings. Now, both my Gauntlets of Strength and Frosty are at
> the thoroughly corroded status, and my tame Archon (named Sirius IV)'s
> Sunsword probably isn't doing too well, either.
>
> What's the best way to repair a corroded object?

Sometimes your god will fix any damage done to your wielded weapon when
you pray on her altar.

Topi

P.S. You do know that you can wield anything as your weapon.

Same
--
"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
September 7, 2005 8:04:59 AM

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

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:12:18 -0500, Andy Johnson
<swervy.a@take-this.out.gmail.com> wrote:

>Stathol wrote:
>> Electronic Samurai wrote:
>>
>>>What's the best way to repair a corroded object?
>>
>> With armor, you can foo-proof the item by reading a cursed scroll of
>> destroy armor, while confused. This does not repair damage, however. So
>> you could wind up with something like "rustproof thoroughly rusted
>> chain mail".
>
>If the armor is already damaged, the item won't become fooproofed at
>all; you just waste the scroll. It only works on good condition armor.


Yes, the armor will become fooproofed in those circumstances.
Someone posted just recently about foo-proofing damaged armor
and then using a *very* clever trick to repair it *without* using
a scroll of enchant armor.

I nominated it for Nethack trick of the Year.



--
All the best,

Jove
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 8:47:13 AM

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

On 6 Sep 2005 17:47:39 -0700, "Electronic Samurai"
<Crash_jet@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Ah, that makes perfect sense. I do wish there were a less complicated
>way, but I suppose I'll have to make do. Now that I think of it, it
>_was_ the Candelebrum I got from Vlad, not the book. Oh well - back
>upwards I go.

Hey, it didn't kill your character. And for embarrassment,
check the recent thread on embarrassing deaths.

>
>As for making it to Gehemmon while reasonably ignorant, I suppose I've
>been playing exceptionally carefully this playthrough. I've lost far
>too many characters already due to dumb mistakes (my best yet - 2 steps
>into the dungeon, my knight slipped while #mounting his saddled horse
>and died. :^) )
>

The Dread Lord YASD is the most dangerous foe you face in
Nethack.

And the Even Dreader Lord Marvin shows that every character can
be ascended if you play carefully enough.

>On an unrelated note, why don't I get ice cubes when dipping Frost
>Brand into water?

Heck, why don't you get ice cubes when dipping a wand of cold
into water?

Why don't you get a wand of sleep when you dip a wand of
nothing into a potion of sleeping?

Or a wand of invisibility when I dip a wand of nothing into
a potion of invisibility?

Ditto wand of speed monster when I dip a wand of nothing into
a potion of speed?

Or a potion of enlightenment when I dip a wand of enlightenment
into a potion of water?

Or a potion of speed when I dip a wand of speed monster into
a potion of water?



--
All the best,

Jove
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 8:47:15 AM

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

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 21:36:13 -0500, Gary Olson
<garyolson@pobox.NOSPAM.com> wrote:

>Electronic Samurai wrote:
>
>> On an unrelated note, why don't I get ice cubes when dipping Frost
>> Brand into water?
>>
>
>NINRL: Reverse sublimation -- that's why it's called Frost Brand.


So why doesn't Frost Brand keep getting covered with more and
more frost until it gets too heavy to carry? :-)


--
All the best,

Jove
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 9:44:12 AM

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

On 9/6/05 5:28 PM, Jove wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 16:22:49 -0400, "Shedletsky"
> <mylastname@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>>How does that make sense at all? Get drunk to confusedly cast enchant weapon
>>to uncorrode something?
>>
>>That just seems very random to me.
>
>[Defense of why confused ?oEA makes sense.]

For what it's worth, criticism of Nethack in r.g.r.misc largely revolves
around nonintuitive things like this. Basically, winning at Nethack
involves spoiling yourself enough (or trying enough random actions--a
strategy more likely to get yourself killed than anything else) to learn
the tricks that make it possible to survive until you've become an
unstoppable killing machine. Most of them are nonintuitive and don't
really arise from any particular strategy; you either know the trick or
you don't. So Nethack goes from feeling impossible to feeling reasonably
"doable." At that point, you either 1) challenge yourself with conducts;
2) get frustrated because you still YASD even though you "know better";
3) move on to something you feel is more challenging.

Yes, I expect to get flamed for saying that. And I'm not saying I've
lost the charm of Nethack. But I'd sort of like to see a discussion of
this issue among people who *do* like Nethack. I'd like to hear from
those who are well-acquainted with other roguelikes.

--
Kevin Wayne

"Stark raving sane."
--Rosencrantz and Guildenstern
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 10:41:04 AM

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

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 05:44:12 GMT, Kevin Wayne
<killedbyafoo@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 9/6/05 5:28 PM, Jove wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 16:22:49 -0400, "Shedletsky"
>> <mylastname@stanford.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>How does that make sense at all? Get drunk to confusedly cast enchant weapon
>>>to uncorrode something?
>>>
>>>That just seems very random to me.
>>
>>[Defense of why confused ?oEA makes sense.]

No no no no no No! That's not what I meant! I was defending
confused ?oEW against the poster's impression that it was
"very random." Slightly random? Perhaps. Just plain random?
No. Very random? Definitely not.

(Plus Shedletsky seemed to have other confused notions that
I felt should be cleared up.)


(Much reformatting follows: Paragraphs, Kevin! Paragraphs!)

>
>For what it's worth, criticism of Nethack in r.g.r.misc largely revolves
>around nonintuitive things like this.

>Basically, winning at Nethack involves spoiling yourself enough (or
>trying enough random actions--a strategy more likely to get yourself
>killed than anything else) to learn the tricks that make it possible
>to survive until you've become an unstoppable killing machine.

That is how 99.99% of hackers play Nethack, imho. I've just
started criticising that myself. See:

<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.roguelike.neth...;

>Most of them are nonintuitive and don't really arise from any
>particular strategy; you either know the trick or you don't. So
>Nethack goes from feeling impossible to feeling reasonably "doable."

>At that point, you either
> 1) challenge yourself with conducts;
> 2) get frustrated because you still YASD even though you "know better";
> 3) move on to something you feel is more challenging.


A better criticism of Nethack I cannot imagine. (unless you
said something about the state of its source code. :-)


>
>Yes, I expect to get flamed for saying that. And I'm not saying I've
>lost the charm of Nethack. But I'd sort of like to see a discussion of
>this issue among people who *do* like Nethack. I'd like to hear from
>those who are well-acquainted with other roguelikes.

Think of the confused ?EA capability as an Easter Egg. Players
*love* quirky little things like this. As soon as someone tells
them the first thing they want to do is run out and tell someone
else.

And why any question in rgrn tends to get answered as fully and
spoilily as possible as quickly as possible. Heck, play on NAO
and people will send you e-mail to "correct" your style.

Much more later. I wish I hadn't seen this post just as I was
going to bed. In the meantime, if you haven't read Krysia's
Crusader's posts in rgrn, please do so.



--
All the best,

Jove
September 7, 2005 11:36:17 AM

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

Andy Johnson <swervy.a@take-this.out.gmail.com> wrote in
news:D flb78$8lu$1@joe.rice.edu:

> Stathol wrote:
>> Electronic Samurai wrote:
>>
>>>What's the best way to repair a corroded object?
>>
>> With armor, you can foo-proof the item by reading a cursed scroll
>> of destroy armor, while confused. This does not repair damage,
>> however. So you could wind up with something like "rustproof
>> thoroughly rusted chain mail".
>
> If the armor is already damaged, the item won't become fooproofed at
> all; you just waste the scroll. It only works on good condition
> armor.

Are you sure, I was pretty sure that the armor would be fooproofed, but
it wouldn't be repaired.
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 11:48:07 AM

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

Jove wrote:
>
> Someone posted just recently about foo-proofing damaged armor
> and then using a *very* clever trick to repair it *without* using
> a scroll of enchant armor.
>
> I nominated it for Nethack trick of the Year.

I wondered about this claim because I've tried it and
it didn't work. So I did a bit of source diving in
pray.c and confirmed this will only work with a
wielded weapon or weapon-tool. Check the pat_on_head
section of the code. I looked in the source code
for 3.4.3 and if I'm mistaken in my read please let me
know.
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 12:12:27 PM

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

David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting Kevin Wayne <killedbyafoo@yahoo.com>:
> >Jove wrote:
> >><mylastname@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> >>>How does that make sense at all? Get drunk to confusedly cast enchant weapon
> >>>to uncorrode something?
> >>>That just seems very random to me.
>
> >>[Defense of why confused ?oEA makes sense.]
>
> >For what it's worth, criticism of Nethack in r.g.r.misc largely revolves
> >around nonintuitive things like this.
>
> I don't think it's that nonintuitive given the general principle - which
> is not hard to discover - that confused scrolls do something odd, but
> related to the original purpose.

Use of scrolls while confused goes as far back as
corrosion damage. I don't remember if it was in Hack,
but it's been in Nethack for a very long time.

The existance of the spoilers and use of source diving
obscures a very valuable source of information that is
within the game - the Oracle. The Oracle gives minor
consultations for one price that are from the true
rumors file like a blessed fortune cookie. The Oracle
also gives minor consultations for a higher price and
all of them give extremely good advice that is oddly
worded. One of the major consultations tells of using
confused scrolls to make items rustproof.

Once it is known from the Oracle that confused scrolls
do something different that reading them not confused,
it becomes worth experimenting. Knowing a couple of
scrolls do good stuff while confused makes it worth
figuring out other ways to become confused without
using the two types of potions. And that path leads
to discovering a wide assortment of uses.

So it doesn't matter that it is nonintuitive. Playing
the game should lead you to figure it out. The Oracle
is mentioned in the Guidebook so anyone who pays
attention should eventually figure it out:

The extended command ``#chat'' can be used to interact
with
an adjacent monster. There is no actual dialog (in other
words,
you don't get to choose what you'll say), but chatting with
some
monsters such as a shopkeeper or the Oracle of Delphi can
produce
useful results.

Heck, the first thing I learned from the Oracle was to
apply a mirror to myself while blind to tell how far
away Medusa was. I haven't tried that in a very long
time as I've long since switched to using telepathy
whenever I ever a level and "/" to identify any interesting
monsters. I learn I'm on the Medusa level that way now,
and I've been doing that longer than the current Medusa
level layouts have existed.

To an unspoiled player, Oracle consultations are worth all
the money several generations of character can collect
between the top and the Castle. Major consultations from
the Oracle are an unspoiled source of excellent spoilers.
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 1:25:35 PM

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

Kevin Wayne <killedbyafoo@yahoo.com> writes:

> you don't. So Nethack goes from feeling impossible to feeling reasonably
> "doable." At that point, you either 1) challenge yourself with conducts;
> 2) get frustrated because you still YASD even though you "know better"; 3)
> move on to something you feel is more challenging.

Yup.. and most of the time I've been playing has been number 2.

> Yes, I expect to get flamed for saying that. And I'm not saying I've lost
> the charm of Nethack. But I'd sort of like to see a discussion of this

Flamed or not, what you said is still all true. And no, I haven't lost the
charm either. I like the game because it STILL REMAINS challenging when
even after many ascensions YASD is always near. Even when you know all the
tricks and occasionally manage to ascend.

--
Jukka Lahtinen
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 1:32:25 PM

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

"Stathol" <stathol@comcast.net> writes:
> Electronic Samurai wrote:
> > What's the best way to repair a corroded object?

> For weapons, read a non-cursed scroll of enchant weapon, while confused
> (!oBooze, old spell, etc.). For armor, read a non-cursed scroll of
> enchant armor, while confused. This will repair the damage of

To put it shorter:
Enchant the damaged thing while you're confused.

--
Jukka Lahtinen
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 1:48:44 PM

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

Andy Johnson wrote:

> If the armor is already damaged, the item won't become fooproofed at
> all; you just waste the scroll. It only works on good condition armor.

Please don't spread misinformation. Result of trying in explore mode (it
took some work; I was apparently too lucky to get the scroll of destroy
armor cursed in the first place):

m - a blessed corroded rustproof +0 chain mail (being worn)

Raisse, killed by burning scrolls

--
irina@valdyas.org LegoHack: http://www.valdyas.org/irina/nethack/
Status of Raisse (piously neutral): Level 8 HP 63(67) AC -3, fast.
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 2:44:38 PM

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

Topi Linkala wrote:
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
> > Jove wrote:
>
> >>Someone posted just recently about foo-proofing damaged armor
> >>and then using a *very* clever trick to repair it *without* using
> >>a scroll of enchant armor.
>
> >>I nominated it for Nethack trick of the Year.
>
> > I wondered about this claim because I've tried it and
> > it didn't work. So I did a bit of source diving in
> > pray.c and confirmed this will only work with a
> > wielded weapon or weapon-tool. Check the pat_on_head
> > section of the code. I looked in the source code
> > for 3.4.3 and if I'm mistaken in my read please let me
> > know.
>
> I checked both the official source and my patched source and there was a
> difference. The official source tests that you wield something and if
> it's welded or is a weapon(tool) then do things where as my patched
> version tests only for wielding.
>
> I have to check which patch that I've applied to my binary has changed
> this but I changed it back manually and re-compiled.

I downloaded the standard source and no patches. Starting
line 849:

if(pat_on_head)
switch(rn2((Luck + 6)>>1)) {
case 0: break;
case 1:
if (uwep && (welded(uwep) || uwep->oclass == WEAPON_CLASS
||
is_weptool(uwep))) {
char repair_buf[BUFSZ];

*repair_buf = '\0';
if (uwep->oeroded || uwep->oeroded2)
Sprintf(repair_buf, " and %s now as good as new",
otense(uwep, "are"));
....

Farther down I had to carefully count the {} pairs
to tell if the end of the clause is included within
the big "if" above. It is:

/* fix any rust/burn/rot damage, but don't protect
against future damage */
if (uwep->oeroded || uwep->oeroded2) {
uwep->oeroded = uwep->oeroded2 = 0;
/* only give this message if we didn't just bless
or uncurse (which has already given a message)
*/
if (*repair_buf)
Your("%s as good as new!",
aobjnam(uwep, Blind ? "feel" : "look"));
}
update_inventory();
}
break;

The update_inventory() is outside of the big if, the bracket
before the break is from the switch statement with the luck
roll.
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 4:20:14 PM

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

Stathol wrote:
> Electronic Samurai wrote:
>
>>What's the best way to repair a corroded object?
>
>
> For weapons, read a non-cursed scroll of enchant weapon, while confused
> (!oBooze, old spell, etc.). For armor, read a non-cursed scroll of
> enchant armor, while confused. This will repair the damage of
> rusted/burned/etc. items and foo-proof them so that they don't get
> damaged again.

That's great ! I got my Cleaver back in shape!

> With armor, you can foo-proof the item by reading a cursed scroll of
> destroy armor, while confused. This does not repair damage, however. So
> you could wind up with something like "rustproof thoroughly rusted
> chain mail".

thoroughly rusted thoroughly corroded rustproof +3 dwarvish helm

Still the best I've found so far!!!!
Thanks !
Amities,
Olivier
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 5:11:49 PM

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

Quoting Kevin Wayne <killedbyafoo@yahoo.com>:
>On 9/6/05 5:28 PM, Jove wrote:
>><mylastname@stanford.edu> wrote:
>>>How does that make sense at all? Get drunk to confusedly cast enchant weapon
>>>to uncorrode something?
>>>That just seems very random to me.
>>[Defense of why confused ?oEA makes sense.]
>For what it's worth, criticism of Nethack in r.g.r.misc largely revolves
>around nonintuitive things like this.

I don't think it's that nonintuitive given the general principle - which
is not hard to discover - that confused scrolls do something odd, but
related to the original purpose.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is Leicesterday, August.
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 6:45:01 PM

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

Kevin Wayne <killedbyafoo@yahoo.com> writes:
> > [ reading ?oEA while confused to repair/fooproof armor ]
> For what it's worth, criticism of Nethack in r.g.r.misc largely
> revolves around nonintuitive things like this. [...] Most of them
> [...] don't really arise from any particular strategy; you either
> know the trick or you don't.

I <flame mode="on">respectfully disagree</flame>.

Much of the sneaky stuff in nethack can be learned, without recourse
to source-diving or spoilers, by simply being observant and having the
ability to reason from the specific to the general and vice-versa.

It has been said that commercial games want you to win, where nethack
doesn't care one way or another. I'd assert that commercial games hand
you everything you need to know in a neatly-wrapped package, where
nethack leaves just about everything for you to go out and discover if
you're clever enough.

Let's say I read a scroll and it does something quite different from
what that same type of scroll has done in the past. It may require
some investigation, but it is no great feat to determine that being
confused is the cause of the novel behavior.

From there, I should be led to experiment (possibly in explore mode)
with confusedly reading all the various scrolls, until I've gotten at
least some handle on which ones are useful and why. The "enchant
armor" fooproofing is hard to miss, though the fact that it repairs
damaged items is a bit more subtle.

Most of the _really_ obscure stuff is at least hinted at in oracularities,
fortunes or graffiti. When you get down to things like "you want to
enchant Magicbane to exactly +2" then your complaint has considerable
merit.

Still, I appreciate the fact that nethack has many things to learn,
across the whole spectrum from "bleedin' obvious" to "veteran source-
divers only" (and that the latter category are not a requirement for
ascension).

I consider myself a moderately experienced player (multiple ascensions,
and some of the easier conducts) but I still learn something new every
few days on this 'froup. About nethack, I mean.
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 7:54:45 PM

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

On 7 Sep 2005 07:48:07 -0700, "Doug Freyburger"
<dfreybur@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Jove wrote:
>>
>> Someone posted just recently about foo-proofing damaged armor
>> and then using a *very* clever trick to repair it *without* using
>> a scroll of enchant armor.
>>
>> I nominated it for Nethack trick of the Year.
>
>I wondered about this claim because I've tried it and
>it didn't work. So I did a bit of source diving in
>pray.c and confirmed this will only work with a
>wielded weapon or weapon-tool. Check the pat_on_head
>section of the code. I looked in the source code
>for 3.4.3 and if I'm mistaken in my read please let me
>know.



It was actually Topi Linkala who made the claim, to wit:

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 12:13:48 +0300, Topi Linkala <n...@iki.fi>
wrote:

>In one game my wizard had had some problems with brown puddings and her
>cloak was very rotten or something like that. I hadn't found any enchant
>armor scrolls but I had one destroy armor in my starting inventory. When
>I found an unholy water I made a beeline back to my stash that was next
>to an altar of Anhur. Made couple of unholy waters, cursed the scroll of
>DA and read it while confused. Now my cloak was fooproofed but still had
>the damage. I offered couple of wondering mosters caracasses and got
>shamrocks so I wielded the cloak and prayed on the altar. That blessed
>the cloak and fixed it.
>
>Topi


Note the version of Nethack played is unspecified. It's
entirely possible that this behavior was considered a bug
and removed from some earlier version.



--
All the best,

Jove
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 8:21:10 PM

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

In article <nbi*bz7Xq@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, David Damerell
<damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> says...
> Quoting Kevin Wayne <killedbyafoo@yahoo.com>:
> >On 9/6/05 5:28 PM, Jove wrote:
> >><mylastname@stanford.edu> wrote:
> >>>How does that make sense at all? Get drunk to confusedly cast enchant
weapon
> >>>to uncorrode something?
> >>>That just seems very random to me.
> >>[Defense of why confused ?oEA makes sense.]
> >For what it's worth, criticism of Nethack in r.g.r.misc largely revolves
> >around nonintuitive things like this.
>
> I don't think it's that nonintuitive given the general principle - which
> is not hard to discover - that confused scrolls do something odd, but
> related to the original purpose.
>
I agree. A ?oEA/W will improve your A/W, and improve it in a different way
if confused. AFAICS there are only 3 ways to improve A/W - enchantment,
blessing, fooproofing. The first and last are accounted for by obvious
means, so one can guess what conf ?oEA/W will do by a cunning process of
elimination.

That said, I don't think I found it out by myself ;) . Too many years ago to
remember.

A c?oDA whil conf to fooproof OTOH makes rather less sense...
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 8:27:28 PM

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

Douglas Henke <henke@kharendaen.dyndns.org> wrote:
>Let's say I read a scroll and it does something quite different from
>what that same type of scroll has done in the past. It may require
>some investigation, but it is no great feat to determine that being
>confused is the cause of the novel behavior.

In particular, the game says "Being confused, you mispronounce the magic
words."
--
Martin Read - my opinions are my own. share them if you wish.
\_\/_/ in the metal and blood in the scent and mascara on a backcloth of
\ / lashes and scars in a flood of your tears in sackcloth and ashes
\/ -- Sisters of Mercy, "Flood I"
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 9:11:59 PM

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

On 9/7/05 2:41 AM, Jove wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 05:44:12 GMT, Kevin Wayne
> <killedbyafoo@yahoo.com> wrote:

> (Much reformatting follows: Paragraphs, Kevin! Paragraphs!)

:-)

I know how to use paragraphs, and I use them.

But I have a different view of paragraphing than the typical modern
reader. I am a devotee of William Faulkner.

Hemingway, not so much.

A paragraph is supposed to encapsulate the thoughts of a sequence of
sentences. That can't happen when a new paragraph is started every
couple of sentences.

The effect of many short paragraphs, instead of a few long ones, is a
restriction in the development of thought.

It doesn't lend itself to complex ideas.

And to my mind, it gives the impression of many unwarranted dramatic pauses.

(This recalls to my mind a discussion in a literature seminar I once
took, in which I argued that Solzhenitsyn's _A Day in the Life of Ivan
Denisovich_ suffered, at least in the English translation we read, from
too many short paragraphs. It seemed to me that the narrative was
compelling enough simply by its content, without the false drama of
setting off individual sentences into their own separate paragraph.

Orwell, after all, didn't set off, "He loved Big Brother," as a separate
paragraph at the end of _1984_. It was quite powerful enough without
doing that.

In the seminar, I lost the argument.

Oh, well.)

--
Kevin Wayne

"My mother is a fish."
--Vardaman Bundren
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 9:19:14 PM

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

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:21:10 GMT, Andrew Kerr
<andykerr@SPAMGUARD.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>A c?oDA whil conf to fooproof OTOH makes rather less sense...


It's so bad, it's good.

YANI: Reading a cursed scroll of destroy armor while naked,
Fainting, Confused, Stunned, Hallucinating, FoodPois, Ill causes
Titanium Dragon Scale Mail to coalesce around your body.

TDSM special characteristics -
- Magic Resistance
- Reflection
- MC###
- Enhances spellcasting just like a robe.
- Can't be wished for.
- Can't be left in a bones file.



--
All the best,

Jove
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 11:37:06 PM

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

I was hanging out with the cool kids in rec.games.roguelike.nethack when
Jove got out a spraycan and scrawled the following:
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:21:10 GMT, Andrew Kerr
> <andykerr@SPAMGUARD.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >A c?oDA whil conf to fooproof OTOH makes rather less sense...
>
> It's so bad, it's good.
>
> YANI: Reading a cursed scroll of destroy armor while naked,
> Fainting, Confused, Stunned, Hallucinating, FoodPois, Ill [...]

You missed out "petrifying, turning to slime". ;-)

--
Glyn Kennington - remove caps from email address to reply
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 12:21:18 AM

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

Electronic Samurai wrote:
> f - a blessed thoroughly corroded +7 Frostbane
>
> While meandering through Gehemmon trying to find that *#@$@^ Book of
> the Dead (I'm sure I got it from Vlad, but when I found the Vibrating
> Square, it was gone - fortunately, I hadn't woken Rodney yet), I had a
> nasty encounter with a black pudding. Er, make that lots and lots of
> black puddings. Now, both my Gauntlets of Strength and Frosty are at
> the thoroughly corroded status, and my tame Archon (named Sirius IV)'s
> Sunsword probably isn't doing too well, either.
>
> What's the best way to repair a corroded object?
>
Vote it out of elected office!
Huh?! OH, I thought you said "corrupted"....my bad.
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 12:24:51 AM

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

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 19:37:06 +0100, Ugly Newt
<gkennington@claIrVOYaNT.coLD.DuCk> wrote:

>I was hanging out with the cool kids in rec.games.roguelike.nethack when
>Jove got out a spraycan and scrawled the following:
>> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:21:10 GMT, Andrew Kerr
>> <andykerr@SPAMGUARD.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >A c?oDA whil conf to fooproof OTOH makes rather less sense...
>>
>> It's so bad, it's good.
>>
>> YANI: Reading a cursed scroll of destroy armor while naked,
>> Fainting, Confused, Stunned, Hallucinating, FoodPois, Ill [...]
>
>You missed out "petrifying, turning to slime". ;-)

Thanks! With those additions this could really work. No one
could possibly fix *all* those problems after getting the TDSM.

So TDSM would only show up If You Want Your Possessions
Identified. The stupid Non-Ascension trick would be to get
TDSM on the co-aligned altar on the Astral Plane.


TDSM was originally part of a Nethack story: Tall Tales from
the Deep Dungeons. It would be about impossible things happening
in a game of Nethack, e.g. created TDSM from thin air by getting
seriously messed up and reading a cursed scroll of destroy armor.

Another would be foocubi never getting headaches, much less
severe headaches, when danced with on the Vibrating Square with
Dex greater than 22 or so and the staff of misspelling. Plus
they'd never remove GoD in that situation.

That's based on a true incident in Orcus Town where I danced
with two nurses and a foocubus in one of the rooms. (I was
young and foolish.) Just stood my character in a corner and
bongoed the '.' key and the space bar.

In the story a stack of dimes would have been left on the '.'
key overnight. By morning the foocubus would have perished
from over exertion and Hp/Pw would be in the hundreds of
thousands. Natural Con would have increased above racial max.

Subsequent foocubi of the appropriate gender would have a 50/50
chance of turning to flee or immediately trying to beguile my
character.

The back door of the Castle would have been reached by riding
a kraken, etc.

--
All the best,

Jove
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 12:29:17 AM

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

Doug Freyburger wrote:

> Jove wrote:
>
>>Someone posted just recently about foo-proofing damaged armor
>>and then using a *very* clever trick to repair it *without* using
>>a scroll of enchant armor.
>>
>>I nominated it for Nethack trick of the Year.
>
> I wondered about this claim because I've tried it and
> it didn't work. So I did a bit of source diving in
> pray.c and confirmed this will only work with a
> wielded weapon or weapon-tool. Check the pat_on_head
> section of the code. I looked in the source code
> for 3.4.3 and if I'm mistaken in my read please let me
> know.

I checked both the official source and my patched source and there was a
difference. The official source tests that you wield something and if
it's welded or is a weapon(tool) then do things where as my patched
version tests only for wielding.

I have to check which patch that I've applied to my binary has changed
this but I changed it back manually and re-compiled.

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
September 8, 2005 12:32:29 AM

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

Jove wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 21:36:13 -0500, Gary Olson
> <garyolson@pobox.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Electronic Samurai wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On an unrelated note, why don't I get ice cubes when dipping Frost
>>>Brand into water?
>>>
>>
>>NINRL: Reverse sublimation -- that's why it's called Frost Brand.
>
>
>
> So why doesn't Frost Brand keep getting covered with more and
> more frost until it gets too heavy to carry? :-)
>
>
<sarcasm>
Caverns are well know for their controlled humidity conditions which
would limit the amount of frost accumulated.
</sarcasm>
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 12:33:32 AM

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

Electronic Samurai wrote:
>
> On an unrelated note, why don't I get ice cubes when dipping Frost
> Brand into water?

It's unimplemented because you don't need ice cubes in NH; the existing
potion of booze is neither whiskey nor any long-drink, just cheap booze.

There is just one occasion where ice cubes are observable ("A few ice
cubes drop from the wand.") though still unavailable as objects.

Janis
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 12:33:33 AM

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

Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> Electronic Samurai wrote:
>> On an unrelated note, why don't I get ice cubes when dipping Frost
>> Brand into water?
>
> It's unimplemented because you don't need ice cubes in NH; the existing
> potion of booze is neither whiskey nor any long-drink, just cheap booze.
>
> There is just one occasion where ice cubes are observable ("A few ice
> cubes drop from the wand.") though still unavailable as objects.
>
Iceboxes presumably contain some. If ice cubes were available,
you might be able to turn a regular box into an icebox.

--
John Campbell
jcampbel@lynn.ci-n.com
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 11:34:16 AM

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

I was hanging out with the cool kids in rec.games.roguelike.nethack when
Jove got out a spraycan and scrawled the following:
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 19:37:06 +0100, Ugly Newt
> <gkennington@claIrVOYaNT.coLD.DuCk> wrote:
>
> >I was hanging out with the cool kids in rec.games.roguelike.nethack when
> >Jove got out a spraycan and scrawled the following:
> >> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:21:10 GMT, Andrew Kerr
> >> <andykerr@SPAMGUARD.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >A c?oDA whil conf to fooproof OTOH makes rather less sense...
> >>
> >> It's so bad, it's good.
> >>
> >> YANI: Reading a cursed scroll of destroy armor while naked,
> >> Fainting, Confused, Stunned, Hallucinating, FoodPois, Ill [...]
> >
> >You missed out "petrifying, turning to slime". ;-)
>
> Thanks! With those additions this could really work. No one
> could possibly fix *all* those problems after getting the TDSM.

If you time it right you could still manage it. If you're fast and
unburdened, you may get two turns to eat the lizard corpse. After that,
eat the eucalyptus leaf, then burn away the slime. Then you're home and
dry (and the lizard and leaf probably helped "Fainting" too).

I'd also consider burning a "oLS a reasonable price to pay for such an
item, if I'd got a (non-Monk) character to the Valley and was still
lacking either reflection or MR.

> So TDSM would only show up If You Want Your Possessions
> Identified. The stupid Non-Ascension trick would be to get
> TDSM on the co-aligned altar on the Astral Plane.

I once tried something like this in WizMode - I was quite surprised to
find it possible to ascend while being turned to both stone and slime.

--
Glyn Kennington - remove caps from email address to reply
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 12:46:28 PM

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

Jove wrote:
> Gary Olson wrote:
> >Electronic Samurai wrote:
>
> >> On an unrelated note, why don't I get ice cubes when dipping Frost
> >> Brand into water?
>
> >NINRL: Reverse sublimation -- that's why it's called Frost Brand.
>
> So why doesn't Frost Brand keep getting covered with more and
> more frost until it gets too heavy to carry? :-)

Rustproof stuff is covered with a shimmering shield.
The frost just falls off by magic. Maybe the dandruff
should effect your charisma?
September 8, 2005 3:12:20 PM

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

Doug Freyburger wrote:

> Once it is known from the Oracle that confused scrolls
> do something different that reading them not confused,
> it becomes worth experimenting. Knowing a couple of
> scrolls do good stuff while confused makes it worth
> figuring out other ways to become confused without
> using the two types of potions. And that path leads
> to discovering a wide assortment of uses.

I originally discovered that confused scrolls do something
different by reading a scroll of genocide while confused.
So for a long time afterward I wouldn't read any scrolls
confused. The possibility of some positive effects didn't
occur to me.
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 10:29:31 PM

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

"Doug Freyburger" <dfreybur@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> Heck, the first thing I learned from the Oracle was to
> apply a mirror to myself while blind to tell how far
> away Medusa was. I haven't tried that in a very long
> time as I've long since switched to using telepathy
> whenever I ever a level and "/" to identify any interesting
> monsters.

Probably a good thing, as that trick was removed in 3.1.0 (replaced
with using a crystal ball to search for a non-(trap|object|monster)
symbol).

--
: Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ :
: "Go not to Usenet for counsel, for they will say both :
: 'No' and 'Yes' and 'Try another newsgroup'." :
: -- Usenet Rule 17. :
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 11:50:08 PM

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

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 07:34:16 +0100, Ugly Newt
<gkennington@claIrVOYaNT.coLD.DuCk> wrote:

>I was hanging out with the cool kids in rec.games.roguelike.nethack when
>Jove got out a spraycan and scrawled the following:
>> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 19:37:06 +0100, Ugly Newt
>> <gkennington@claIrVOYaNT.coLD.DuCk> wrote:
>>
>> >I was hanging out with the cool kids in rec.games.roguelike.nethack when
>> >Jove got out a spraycan and scrawled the following:
>> >> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:21:10 GMT, Andrew Kerr
>> >> <andykerr@SPAMGUARD.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >A c?oDA whil conf to fooproof OTOH makes rather less sense...
>> >>
>> >> It's so bad, it's good.
>> >>
>> >> YANI: Reading a cursed scroll of destroy armor while naked,
>> >> Fainting, Confused, Stunned, Hallucinating, FoodPois, Ill [...]
>> >
>> >You missed out "petrifying, turning to slime". ;-)
>>
>> Thanks! With those additions this could really work. No one
>> could possibly fix *all* those problems after getting the TDSM.
>
>If you time it right you could still manage it. If you're fast and
>unburdened, you may get two turns to eat the lizard corpse. After that,
>eat the eucalyptus leaf, then burn away the slime. Then you're home and
>dry (and the lizard and leaf probably helped "Fainting" too).
>
>I'd also consider burning a "oLS a reasonable price to pay for such an
>item, if I'd got a (non-Monk) character to the Valley and was still
>lacking either reflection or MR.

Good point. More likely you'd burn several in multiple
attempts. Anyone capable of doing it could probably ascend
easily without it.


Fainting - No real problem getting this.

Confused - Ditto

Stunned - Only by casting expired spell? Chancy duration.
Can't cast spells while confused, or is spell
expiration checked first?

Hallucinating - Potion, Violet(?) fungi

FoodPois - Old corpse (only?) reliable way

Ill - This is a little tougher. Juiblex & Pestilence.
Any other way?

Petrifying - Hmm, petrifying instadeath is easy to do,
slowly petrifying is something else again.

Turning to slime - eat a green slime corpse. Maybe an old green
slime will give FoodPois as well?


>
>> So TDSM would only show up If You Want Your Possessions
>> Identified. The stupid Non-Ascension trick would be to get
>> TDSM on the co-aligned altar on the Astral Plane.
>
>I once tried something like this in WizMode - I was quite surprised to
>find it possible to ascend while being turned to both stone and slime.

Nice research. :-)

--
All the best,

Jove
Anonymous
September 9, 2005 1:27:12 AM

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

I was hanging out with the cool kids in rec.games.roguelike.nethack when
Jove got out a spraycan and scrawled the following:
> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 07:34:16 +0100, Ugly Newt
> <gkennington@claIrVOYaNT.coLD.DuCk> wrote:
[ reading c?oDA while Fainting, Confused, Stunned, Hallucinating,
FoodPois, Ill, petrifying, turning to slime ]
> >
> >If you time it right you could still manage it. If you're fast and
> >unburdened, you may get two turns to eat the lizard corpse. After that,
> >eat the eucalyptus leaf, then burn away the slime. Then you're home and
> >dry (and the lizard and leaf probably helped "Fainting" too).
> >
> >I'd also consider burning a "oLS a reasonable price to pay for such an
> >item, if I'd got a (non-Monk) character to the Valley and was still
> >lacking either reflection or MR.
>
> Good point. More likely you'd burn several in multiple
> attempts. Anyone capable of doing it could probably ascend
> easily without it.
>
>
> Fainting - No real problem getting this.

Advisable to be wearing the "oSD so that you don't actually faint at the
critical moment, though.

> Confused - Ditto
>
> Stunned - Only by casting expired spell? Chancy duration.
> Can't cast spells while confused, or is spell
> expiration checked first?
>
> Hallucinating - Potion, Violet(?) fungi

....or yellow.

> FoodPois - Old corpse (only?) reliable way
>
> Ill - This is a little tougher. Juiblex & Pestilence.
> Any other way?

Well, you missed out another one, but he's not guaranteed to turn up,
and doing all this while he's around would be insane ;-)

There's the cursed unihorn, of course. I'd probably use that to get
stunned, too.

> Petrifying - Hmm, petrifying instadeath is easy to do,
> slowly petrifying is something else again.

Cockatrice eggs are ideal for this.

> Turning to slime - eat a green slime corpse. Maybe an old green
> slime will give FoodPois as well?

Either that corpse, or the fungus used for hallucination.

--
Glyn Kennington - remove caps from email address to reply
Anonymous
September 9, 2005 3:48:52 AM

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

Ugly Newt wrote:
> I was hanging out with the cool kids in rec.games.roguelike.nethack when
> Jove got out a spraycan and scrawled the following:
>
>> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 07:34:16 +0100, Ugly Newt
>> <gkennington@claIrVOYaNT.coLD.DuCk> wrote:
>
> [ reading c?oDA while Fainting, Confused, Stunned, Hallucinating,
> FoodPois, Ill, petrifying, turning to slime ]

What about wounded legs?

> [...]
> There's the cursed unihorn, of course. I'd probably use that to get
> stunned, too.

It's good for Conf, Ill, Blind, Stun, Hallu, and may drain stats so that
you can also become weak, stupid, foolish, clumsy, fragile, repulsive.

Janis
Anonymous
September 9, 2005 4:28:23 PM

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

Jove wrote:
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
> Divine gifts always arrive fooproofed (Just don't let a rust
> monster chew the rustproofing off of your metal divine gifts. :-)

Rust monsters can do that? Yikes, thanks for the warning.

> A minor point: With two similar types of armor, both of which
> give the same total AC boost, pick the one with the lower base
> armor class. e.g. a +1 orcish helm over a +0 dwarven helm.
> The enchantment is mostly vulnerable to disenchanters.
> While the 2 base ac of the dwarven helm can bot be rusted away.

The 1 base AC of the orcish helm can be rusted away as easily
as the 2 base AC of the dwarvish iron helm, so I disagree on
this point. Disenchanters are rare easily on and dealt with
by missiles later on. I only partially disagree because of:

> Plus the higher base AC piece of armor tends to be heavier.

Check. Weight to base AC ratio is important. Either type of
mithril beats all three types of plate mail most of the time
because it is so much lighter. With a spell caster class I
will even go with studded leather armor over crystal plate
mail most of the time because of the weight difference.

> Swords/shields from angelic beings are always (?) fooproofed,
> and can by polymorphed.

Including the two artifacts that can come from them. Neutral
and chaotic artifact collectors can end up with these two
lawfull artifacts in their treasure trove that way. Angelic
corpses taste great, are less filling, to a metalovore ;^)

> >"Don't do that next time then"
> >is one of the best mantras of the group:
>
> DDTT is usually reserved for attempting dangerous short-cuts
> and then not being able to deal with the results: quaffing from
> early fountains, quaffing completely un-ided potions, drying up
> a minetown fountain, etc. i.e. Things the pathetic whiner^W^W
> poster should have known better than to try.

I think DDTT is a frequent fallback to an untenable
situation where the character is nearly certain to die.
It's advice to take the death as a learning experience.
If Rodney can "find death an educational experience"
according to a fortune cookie, the *player* should even
more so. In fact this is one of the best educational
metaphors contained within the game. There is a monster
who learns from how he died and who comes back stronger
each time. An example my brethren worthy of all
immitation.

> The explore/wizard mode approach is frequently offered as
> an alternative to save-scumming. i.e. For things like green
> slime that you couldn't be expected to know what would happen,
> or how to deal with it. (Having to have a special test mode
> for really *exploring* the possibilities of the game....)

An opinion question about the boundaries of save scumming:

If I want to do an experiment, so I save the game, make a copy,
go into explore mode in the game, try the experiment, quit,
restore the save file to before the experiment, that's
save-scumming, right? What I'm supposed to do is launch a
separate wizard mode game for the experiment, right?

> The alternative is to creep through the mid/end-game, never
> trying anything new, quailing in terror at every step...
> which is pretty much my approach, come to think of it. ;-)

If that were my approach I'd ascend more!

> >In the case of green slime, mention you
> >made it that deep so you already know about a significant
> >laundry list and that you don't care how spoiled you want
> >to be about green slimes. Or be like Jove and Doug and
> >not care how deep the spoilers get ...
>
> (Somebody didn't check the poster they were replying to. ;-)

I switched from hypothetical to direct response inside the
same paragraph. Thanx for catching my context guff.

> And not being able to try out the various possibilities in a
> real game gives the late game only one goal: ascending, and one
> way to to it, getting spoiled.

Ah. I'm happy to try stuff that's in current discussion in
a real game. At a time when spellcasting and robes was current
my Valk switched to a rode, noticed what it did to her success
rate casting cone of cold and never looked back. Recently
polearms were in discussion so I now have a late game wizard
who used a polearm to clear both doors of Ludios and the Castle
drawbridge with a polearm and now has a blessed rustproof +5
spetum in the bag for occasional use. Again, my tendency to
try stuff like this is probably correlated with my low
ascension rate.

> Method of confusion - expired spell is best, but takes 20k
> turns, or more. Wizards' starting spells expire at turn 20k,
> but frequently they're so much more useful than a method
> of confusion at that point that they get refreshed almost
> automatically.

20k turns doesn't seem like much in my play style. My current
wizard is starting to get enough blank spellbooks that I am
rethinking what spells to keep current and what spells I will
only refresh once I find the vibrating square. The character
is already well past the point of considering which spells
are worth keeping in the cache and which ones are polypile
fodder.

> Fire resistance is necessary for magic trap dancing, which
> is usually necessary for foocubi dancing, which also benefits
> from =oAdorn, =oGainCon, enchanted HoB, etc.

I have yet to try magic trap dancing. It generates lots of
monsters in addition to charisma so if only one would appear
on an altar level.

> Not to mention the scrabbling necessary to get decent
> spellcasting armor.

That's usually available to anyone willing to toast the
entire watch in minetown and then repair the alignment
and/or intrinsic damage. Speaking of which, never enter
the light shop with Stormy out in the open. Far too
tempting to use it to kill mimics and then forget to put
it back away when going back out the door. Argh.

> >It's how I play the game. I play for the exploration.
> >Should I ascend again for the first time since version
> >3.0 or so, I'll just start up new characters. I play
> >for the fun of playing, not for the goal of ascension.
> >Life has stuff we do because we must, because we should,
> >because it's fun (this view of Nethack) and because we
> >have a goal (ascension view of Nethack).
>
> Good for you.

Sometimes parts of life are about the journey; sometimes
parts of life are about the destination. I don't go to
my Mason lodge for the cool looking ring, not even before
I had the ring. I don't go to religious ceremonies with
a goal in mind (or for the cookies and drink, or for the
artifacts but somehow magical weapons never seem to drop
from the sky expect in ancient tales and in Nethack).
I like my job enough that I don't work with the paycheck as
the goal but with the paycheck as a side effect of the
journey. Same principle in Nethack in my opinion.

> >You have described how the spoilers did evolve, and it
> >was a lot of fun. I wrote a spoiler for prayer that has
> >now been obsolete for a long time, and I had a blast
> >source diving and doing game play to corfirm what I
> >wrote. There have been a few generations of spoilers
> >at this point. Since I had fun doing it early on I
> >can't imagine the folks doing it since failed to have
> >fun.
>
> What spoilers remain left to write?

Excellent question. There are topics missing from the
spoilers though I can't pull them out of the air at the
moment. I often go to Kate N's spoiler site. I
occasionally follow the "Categorized list of all Nethack
spoilers" link. Every so often that does not work and
I move on to some source diving and a post about the
topic on RGRN. When such a topic does come up that I
think a spoiler might be worthwhile, should I offer my
results somewhere? Topics on RGRN sometimes would be
worth turning into spoilers. Most of the ones in the
assorted category came from such discussions.

> >> With no spoilers there'd be less obsession with the absolute
> >> best artifact weapon, armor, tools, damage, etc. (Speed
> >> ascensions have shown
>
> >Well educated players can ascend with equipment not
> >nearly as good as the "ultimate kit".
>
> Exactly, but there's little indication of even the concept
> of this in rgrn, much less encouraging it.

I don't know about that. Coaching folks to their first few
ascensions, agreed. But there is plenty of discussion of
various conduct challenges among folks who've done a bunch
of ascensions. Stuff like ascending without using artifacts
would certainly count as not using the "ultimate kit".
Anonymous
September 9, 2005 6:52:33 PM

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

In article <oh51i11eejfpq62l8sfht7q74k0catbpoj@4ax.com>, Jove
<invalid@invalid.invalid> says...
> It's the quirky things that *kill* you that are the problem
> in this area. Especially the late game ones.
>
> Green slimes are a great example of this. I ate the first one
> I ever killed, and had no idea of how to fix the result. It was
> heartbreaking.
>
> According to rgrn dogma, when I saw the corpse of a new
> monster what I should have done was started a different game
> in wizard mode, wished for a green slime corpse and eaten it,
> and seen what happened.
>
> Then I never would have eaten the green slime in the real game.
> But I never would have learned how to fix the problem without
> spoilers. Going the wizard mode, or even explore mode, route
> to find out would have required trying one absurd thing after
> another, with no confidence that there even *was* a cure for
> sliming, other than praying when not in Gehennom.
>
>
A quick check of the in-game "/" info reveals no clues about fire. Shame.

IMHO Fire isn't entirely non intuitive though. OTOH I discovered the
existence of slime from the spoilers, along with the solution, so I can't
speak from experience.
Anonymous
September 9, 2005 9:45:22 PM

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

On 9/8/05 5:46 PM, Jove wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 06:10:01 GMT, Kevin Wayne
> <killedbyafoo@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Basically, most of the stuff in Nethack is discoverable either
>> through observation and experimentation or through oracularities.
>
> And this is pretty much what the oft neglected, if not
> *completely* neglected, explore mode is for.
>
> Explore mode makes up for the fact that you're not
> supposed to learn by trying things, then restoring
> from an earlier save file.

Fair enough, but that's still not the issue in my mind. As I wrote earlier:

>> I don't disagree with anything you've written. The discussion I'm
>> interested in having, though, is a bit different than the perennial
>> "Can Nethack be won without spoilers?" debate.

> The point you may be missing is that things like damageproof
> armor and weapons are not requirements for ascending. They
> do make the ascending easier.

Well, very few things are actually *requirements* for ascending, as the
people who ascend with incredible conduct combinations show. But even
they are usually trading one trick for another.

> It's the quirky things that *kill* you that are the problem
> in this area. Especially the late game ones.
>
> Green slimes are a great example of this. I ate the first one
> I ever killed, and had no idea of how to fix the result. It was
> heartbreaking.
>
> According to rgrn dogma, when I saw the corpse of a new
> monster what I should have done was started a different game
> in wizard mode, wished for a green slime corpse and eaten it,
> and seen what happened.

Well, for what it's worth, I'd consider that type of strategy cheating.
Not least because on any decent system, wizmode would be inaccessible to
a typical player. Okay, okay, we all play on single-player systems
now, or we *are* the game maintainer. Nonetheless, wizmode isn't for
normal players to "try things out"; it's for debugging the program.

Now explore mode could be used for the scenario you described. But
finding a way to avoid having to deal with the unknown in a real
game--well, you may as well read spoilers, which is what we all end up
doing anyway.

> Then I never would have eaten the green slime in the real game.
> But I never would have learned how to fix the problem without
> spoilers. Going the wizard mode, or even explore mode, route
> to find out would have required trying one absurd thing after
> another, with no confidence that there even *was* a cure for
> sliming, other than praying when not in Gehennom.

Which is why, despite the protests of how the contents of spoilers can
theoretically be discovered by trial and error and observation, in
practice they almost never are.[1]

> On the other hand, once the effects of eating green slime
> are known, they can be treated just as well as cockatrice
> corpses are in that respect: Don't Eat Them.
>
> After all, eating a cockatrice corpse is an insta-death,
> with no reprieve short of an amulet of life saving.

Right, but you can get slimed without eating the green slime, and
petrified without eating the rubber chicken. For some unknown reason,
fire stops the sliming process, and carrying around a lizard corpse
(which magically won't rot) will keep you from being petrified. These
are the types of things that are nonintuitive, you either know the trick
or you don't, and once you do, it's simply a matter of rote to prepare
for them.

> Most of Nethack's problems/situations are best solved by
> knowing them and their solutions perfectly before you start,
> and preparing long in advance.

Another way of putting the same point.

> Some problems/goals and their solution requirements interact
> with others.
>
> Gaining stats and experience levels are like that. Higher Con
> and Wis will give you bigger Hp/Pw gains when you gain an
> experience level.
>
> Higher Cha gives you a better chance of gaining an experience
> level when interacting with foocubi.
>
> And you can keep benefitting from more "experience" even if
> your XP doesn't increase.
>
> I still find this whole interdependent process interesting
> even while totally spoiled about it. Which is good because
> almost the only way of doing it at all efficiently requires
> being totally spoiled.

Which is what people who don't like Nethack call the "artificial
difficulty" of it. You don't know the trick, you die. You do know the
trick, you live.

> I think the focus of Nethack should be more on exploring and
> learning than grinding determination get the perfect AK to Ascend
> or nothing.

I agree very much on this point. I doubt that I would play like Marvin
even if I could. In my own games, I don't price-ID much beyond scrolls
of identify; I don't credit-clone; I try to minimize wishes and
genocides (pulled off wishless-genoless-polyless recently); I don't kill
peacefuls (unless I'm chaotic, which I rarely play). I've ascended in
Orange Dragon Scale Mail before, and without reflection (don't recall if
that was one game or two), because that was the best equipment I found.
I prefer "use what you find" to "use tricks to kit yourself out to the
max."

These are personal preferences. I still see ascension as a goal; I
really don't comprehend players who like screwing around in the dungeon
with no particular end. But once you know how to do it, it's not a goal
at all costs.

> Another part of the problem is that once you know about
> Ascending in Nethack, *that's what you want to do*. Exploring
> the neat stuff all through the game is brutally shunted
> aside in favor of strip-mining every last spoiler to make
> ascension easier. (Like I did to maximize gains from experience.
> ;^)

True until you've done it once or twice. But by then, you're already
spoiled, which I guess is what you were talking about.

> With no spoilers there'd be less obsession with the absolute
> best artifact weapon, armor, tools, damage, etc. (Speed
> ascensions have shown
>
> Getting Grayswandir might be a once in a lifetime achievement.
> There's no problem with that. Played unspoiled, Nethack could
> easily be enjoyed for a lifetime without learning all its
> secrets.

Well, once again, we've veered off into the "Can Nethack be won without
spoilers?" debate. My focus is more on what the content of being spoiled
tells you, and how much that affects the game. Learn a few arcane tips
and tricks, and all of a sudden you're getting past the Castle and
poised to become a regular ascender.

> Another problem is that, perhaps as a result of the public
> player focus on Ascension and score, the difficulty level of
> the game seems adjusted for the Marvins of the world. Which
> leads to more demand for spoiling the game.

Plenty of people, myself included, have argued that the game is actually
too easy, especially in its later stages. That's kind of the point I'm
making; learn the tips and tricks that get you past the early game, and
all of a sudden, you're winning and deciding to challenge yourself with
conducts.

A good counterexample is Crawl. People who like Crawl seem to like it
for two reasons: challenging gameplay throughout the game, and much more
straightforward techniques of gameplay. The difficulty comes from the
monsters, not from not knowing to keep a lizard in your main inventory
when there's a new moon.

Now, for me, Crawl is prohibitively difficult. I can't get more than a
few levels down in it. And I don't like entirely text-based shops and
the absence of some of the playful anachronisms and cultural references
that you find in Nethack. But I do understand the irritation that people
have with the type of challenge that Nethack presents.

> Don't get me wrong. I like Nethack the way it is. (I play
> it enough. ;^) But I'd like to find a way to make its rich
> environment more accessible and satisfying, and less frustrating,
> to people who *aren't* top players.
>
> Some kind of limited goals that permit starting and finishing
> an hour, a few hours, and a day of play. There's definitely
> enough substance in Nethack to make that possible.

Well, the various subordinate goals in Nethack--Sokoban, getting to
Minetown, getting the Luckstone, doing the Quest, raiding the Castle,
etc., tend to provide that for me.

Anyway, interesting discussion!

Kevin


[1]You and others have mentioned Krysius Krusader as a counterexample.
It's often forgotten that he had a strong knowledge of D&D, and so
functioned as a somewhat spoiled player. For the same reason, he missed
some elementary spoily stuff, like the existence of resistances, which
he attributed to somehow always making his "saving throw."

--
Kevin Wayne

"You rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles."
--Miracle Max
Anonymous
September 9, 2005 10:08:44 PM

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

In article <SSjUe.708$wR4.112980@monger.newsread.com>, Kevin Wayne
<killedbyafoo@yahoo.com> says...
> Right, but you can get slimed without eating the green slime, and
> petrified without eating the rubber chicken. For some unknown reason,
> fire stops the sliming process, and carrying around a lizard corpse
> (which magically won't rot) will keep you from being petrified. These
> are the types of things that are nonintuitive, you either know the trick
> or you don't, and once you do, it's simply a matter of rote to prepare
> for them.
>
The "/" description for pyrolisk drops a very big hint for lizard corpses
and cockatrices.

The cockatrice entry doesn't. It does, however, refer to killing them with
there own reflection. Something I've never actually done...
!