Interesting Wererat situation

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

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

Talk about odd situations! I was bitten by a wererat, and
eventually became one. Naturally, I had to drop pretty much everything I
was carrying just to be able to move. Well, after having nothing on me
but a few darts, I decided I might as well use the time to go down and
take a look at the next level anyway. After falling down the stairs due
to the few things I'd insisted on carrying, I started wandering around the
room...and was unable to open any of the doors. Guess there weren't any
cracks big enough for a rat to slip through. `-) Thinking maybe getting
a bunch of rats together to gnaw on the door might help, I summoned aid,
which was unsuccessful. So there I was with a bunch of rat comrades, but
still no way to explore more of the level...but wait... just because I was
a wererat didn't mean I couldn't pray, did it? So I tried praying... and
here I aam, human again, but still with a bunch of rats following me
around ... and they haven't attacked me. So now I'm wondering, does this
mean I'm still were, or should I be expecting ambush any minute, or is it
one of things there's no telling what'll happen? Here's the status line
for the character in question:
Brandon the Sightseer St:13 Dx:12 Co:18 In:11 Wi:7 Ch:17 Neutral
Dlvl:3 $:1110 HP:34(34) Pw:9(16) AC:8 Exp:4

Terrence
--
Yahoo: terrencevak; AIM: terrence van e; MSN: ganvira@hotmail.com;
ICC: terrencevane
Moderator: Sonic Theater Discussion
( http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/xm163 )
 
G

Guest

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

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Philipp Lucas wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 terrencev@softhome.net wrote:
>
>> just because I was a wererat didn't mean I couldn't pray, did it? So I
>> tried praying... and here I aam, human again, but still with a bunch of
>> rats following me around ... and they haven't attacked me. So now I'm
>> wondering, does this mean I'm still were, or should I be expecting
>> ambush any minute,
>
> You are cured from lyanctrophy. The rats are still tame.
>
>
That's a good thing. `-) Most of the little guys have scampered
off somewhere else; there's only 2 of them still following me. The tamest
ones I guess.

--
Yahoo: terrencevak; AIM: terrence van e; MSN: ganvira@hotmail.com;
ICC: terrencevane
Moderator: Sonic Theater Discussion
( http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/xm163 )
 
G

Guest

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

*Grins evilly* I smell an abuse...

1. Acquire a wand of polymorph.
2. Deliberately acquire lycanthropy.
3. Summon 2-8 tame monster pets.
4. Use wand of polymorph to ramp up monster pets into archons, liches,
what have you.
5. Cure self of lycanthropy.
6, Continue into dungeon accompanied by your new army.

Respectfully,

Brian P.
 
G

Guest

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

>You do know the eternal classic on this topic?

I don't actually, but I'd like to.

>See ...@home.com

That's an e-mail address?

Respectfully,

Brian P.
 
G

Guest

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

terrencev@softhome.net wrote:
> Philipp Lucas wrote:
>
> > You are cured from lyanctrophy. The rats are still tame.
>
> That's a good thing. `-) Most of the little guys have scampered
> off somewhere else; there's only 2 of them still following me. The tamest
> ones I guess.

If you climb up/down stairs, only the pets adjacent to you
will follow. The rest will stay on the old level and
gradually become less tame (much more a problem with a pet
balrog than with a pet rat).

There are also various actions that reduce the tameness of
a pet as well as actions that increase their tameness. In
addition to the tameness number, pets have a number called
"aport" that tells how much interest they have in picking
up items and bringing them to you. Well fed pets have
hgher aport numbers.
 
G

Guest

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

pendell@hotmail.com wrote:
>> See <3867C7BE.AAF0A7E9@home.com>
>
> That's an e-mail address?

Go to http://groups.google.com and click on the "advanced groups search"
link. Enter that "address" (without the angle-brackets) in the "Message
ID" lookup field near the bottom of the page, and it will pull up the
appropriate message.

--
Everett E. Johnson
"Let the Dragon ride again on the winds of time."
 
G

Guest

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

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 terrencev@softhome.net wrote:

> just because I was a wererat didn't mean I couldn't pray, did it? So I
> tried praying... and here I aam, human again, but still with a bunch of
> rats following me around ... and they haven't attacked me. So now I'm
> wondering, does this mean I'm still were, or should I be expecting
> ambush any minute,

You are cured from lyanctrophy. The rats are still tame.

--
Philipp Lucas
phlucas@online-club.de
 
G

Guest

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

On 2005-09-14, pendell@hotmail.com wrote:
> *Grins evilly* I smell an abuse...
>
> 1. Acquire a wand of polymorph.
> 2. Deliberately acquire lycanthropy.
> 3. Summon 2-8 tame monster pets.
> 4. Use wand of polymorph to ramp up monster pets into archons, liches,
> what have you.
> 5. Cure self of lycanthropy.
> 6, Continue into dungeon accompanied by your new army.

Nice idea.

You do know the eternal classic on this topic?

See <3867C7BE.AAF0A7E9@home.com>


Ohle
--
Jann Ohle Claussen | GPG-Key-ID E7149169
http://www.stud.uni-goettingen.de/~s251251
BOFH Excuse #384:
it's an ID-10-T error
 
G

Guest

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

Quoting Everett E. Johnson <joar@xmission.com>:
>pendell@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>See <3867C7BE.AAF0A7E9@home.com>
>>That's an e-mail address?
>Go to http://groups.google.com and click on the "advanced groups search"
>link. Enter that "address" (without the angle-brackets) in the "Message
>ID" lookup field near the bottom of the page, and it will pull up the
>appropriate message.

Only it won't. Google "helpfully" obscure anything that might concievably
be an email address, so he can't actually see it, including the link in
the sister article to yours.

The three dots that appear in Google's presentation link to one of those
stupid bendy-text images; presumably that lets you actually see the
content.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is Oneiros, September.
 
G

Guest

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

On 2005-09-15, David Damerell wrote:
>
> Only it won't. Google "helpfully" obscure anything that might concievably
> be an email address, so he can't actually see it, including the link in
> the sister article to yours.
>
> The three dots that appear in Google's presentation link to one of those
> stupid bendy-text images; presumably that lets you actually see the
> content.

Damn. That's got to be the most braindamaged "feature" of google groups
I've ever seen. Try

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.roguelike.nethack/msg/43c2571fcfb5f6b2

then.

Ohle
--
Jann Ohle Claussen | GPG-Key-ID E7149169
http://www.stud.uni-goettingen.de/~s251251
BOFH Excuse #36:
dynamic software linking table corrupted
 
G

Guest

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

Ohle Claussen <claussen@dpi.physik.uni-goettingen.de> wrote:

> On 2005-09-15, David Damerell wrote:
> >
> > Only it won't. Google "helpfully" obscure anything that might concievably
> > be an email address, so he can't actually see it, including the link in
> > the sister article to yours.
>
> Damn. That's got to be the most braindamaged "feature" of google groups
> I've ever seen.

Are you sure? It's pretty bad, true, but IYAM Google's discouragement of
proper quoting is quite its worst feature, because it hinders not only
its own users but by default makes them an irritant to the rest of us,
too.

Richard
 
G

Guest

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

On 15 Sep 2005 13:38:14 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
<damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>Quoting Everett E. Johnson <joar@xmission.com>:
>>pendell@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>See <3867C7BE.AAF0A7E9@home.com>
>>>That's an e-mail address?
>>Go to http://groups.google.com and click on the "advanced groups search"
>>link. Enter that "address" (without the angle-brackets) in the "Message
>>ID" lookup field near the bottom of the page, and it will pull up the
>>appropriate message.
>
>Only it won't. Google "helpfully" obscure anything that might concievably
>be an email address, so he can't actually see it, including the link in
>the sister article to yours.

I believe you. I've posted direct links to posts on Google.
Those links usually include the message id.

Does Google tamper with those as well when displayed?

And if so,do they work anyway?


--
All the best,

Jove
 
G

Guest

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

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:57:40 +0000 (UTC), Ohle Claussen
<claussen@dpi.physik.uni-goettingen.de> wrote:

>On 2005-09-15, David Damerell wrote:
>>
>> Only it won't. Google "helpfully" obscure anything that might concievably
>> be an email address, so he can't actually see it, including the link in
>> the sister article to yours.
>>
>> The three dots that appear in Google's presentation link to one of those
>> stupid bendy-text images; presumably that lets you actually see the
>> content.
>
>Damn. That's got to be the most braindamaged "feature" of google groups
>I've ever seen.

The classic "wrong solution to the wrong problem, and too late
as well."



--
All the best,

Jove
 
G

Guest

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

On 15 Sep 2005 10:45:29 -0700, pendell@hotmail.com wrote:

>Thanks. That is GREAT! Lol.
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Brian P.


Presumably you're referring to the wererat/wolf story? It's
helpful to readers to know what you're talking about. ;^)

And with the Google archive, not quoting context can make you
look like a pratt forever. (*I* don't need to not quote context
to look like a pratt. I have other skillz in that area. ;^)

And archive divers yet unborn who respect your opinion will
have to work to find the post you're referring to.

So don't *talk* respect, *show* respect! :-D


--
All the best,

Jove
 
G

Guest

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

On 2005-09-15, Richard Bos wrote:
> Ohle Claussen <claussen@dpi.physik.uni-goettingen.de> wrote:
>>
>> Damn. That's got to be the most braindamaged "feature" of google groups
>> I've ever seen.
>
> Are you sure? It's pretty bad, true, but IYAM Google's discouragement of
> proper quoting is quite its worst feature, because it hinders not only
> its own users but by default makes them an irritant to the rest of us,
> too.

Well, since all I use Google groups for is reading old posts (which
sometimes contain references in the form of MIDs), it's the one that has
the potential of annoying me most. I actually don't read many groups
with a lot of GG posters; most of them I find here, and they're always
promptly lectured on good quoting style and GG usage by some regular,
and almost always willing to learn (or else filling up my scorefile).

Ohle
--
Jann Ohle Claussen | GPG-Key-ID E7149169
http://www.stud.uni-goettingen.de/~s251251
"If affirmative action means what I just described, what I'm for, then I'm for
it." --dubya
 
G

Guest

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

David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting Everett E. Johnson <joar@xmission.com>:
> > pendell@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >>>See <3867C7BE.AAF0A7E9@home.com>
>
> >>That's an e-mail address?

It's a message-ID. Used to check e-mail messages
within archives and or to check UseNet postings
within archives.

> >Go to http://groups.google.com and click on the "advanced groups search"
> >link. Enter that "address" (without the angle-brackets) in the "Message
> >ID" lookup field near the bottom of the page, and it will pull up the
> >appropriate message.
>
> Only it won't. Google "helpfully" obscure anything that might concievably
> be an email address, so he can't actually see it, including the link in
> the sister article to yours.
>
> The three dots that appear in Google's presentation link to one of those
> stupid bendy-text images; presumably that lets you actually see the
> content.

I think it's a bot defense. It is something that a human
user can get around that takes extra effort to program
around. Google wants to make it hard to reap its archives
for valid e-mail addresses, but not so hard that paying
folks an't do it.
 
G

Guest

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

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 08:06:35 +0000 (UTC), Ohle Claussen
<claussen@dpi.physik.uni-goettingen.de> wrote:

>On 2005-09-15, Richard Bos wrote:
>> Ohle Claussen <claussen@dpi.physik.uni-goettingen.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> Damn. That's got to be the most braindamaged "feature" of google groups
>>> I've ever seen.
>>
>> Are you sure? It's pretty bad, true, but IYAM Google's discouragement of
>> proper quoting is quite its worst feature, because it hinders not only
>> its own users but by default makes them an irritant to the rest of us,
>> too.
>
>Well, since all I use Google groups for is reading old posts (which
>sometimes contain references in the form of MIDs), it's the one that has
>the potential of annoying me most. I actually don't read many groups
>with a lot of GG posters; most of them I find here, and they're always
>promptly lectured on good quoting style and GG usage by some regular,
>and almost always willing to learn (or else filling up my scorefile).
>

Follow the "Show Original" link. It does what it says.
I find following it remarkably effective in helping to research
posts on Google.


--
All the best,

Jove
 
G

Guest

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

In article <gMg*nRLYq@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, David Damerell
<damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> says...
> Only it won't. Google "helpfully" obscure anything that might concievably
> be an email address, so he can't actually see it, including the link in
> the sister article to yours.

While searching Google Groups, I found some unobscured message IDs of the
form news:foo@bar. Perhaps including the news: bit would prevent Google
obscuring IDs.

>
> The three dots that appear in Google's presentation link to one of those
> stupid bendy-text images; presumably that lets you actually see the
> content.
>

That is called a captcha, "completely automated public Turing test to tell
computers and humans apart". It is supposed to be easy for a human to read,
but near impossible for a program, thus in this case preventing automated
email farming. However, many commonly used captcha systems have been
thoroughly defeated.

http://www.captcha.net/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captcha
http://sam.zoy.org/pwntcha/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom