List of most important bugs

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

Teemu Kokki wrote:
>
> Personally of course I
> think the biggest problem with 1.1.x is the new feature** that prevents
> you from getting high attribute scores. It doesn't seem many people
> agree with me on that though. 🙂

For the record, I also dislike this feature. It doesn't really prevent
scumming, and it has negative effects on normal game play.

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

Twinge wrote:

s
p
o
i
l
y

o
i
l
y

o
i
l
y

o
i
l
y

o
i
l
y

o
i
l
y

>> Keriax' corpse is just a yucky steak. Shame. It really destroys the
>> balance between the unicorn quests. Either the GBUs reward need a
>> downgrade or at the very least Keriax' corpse should give a
>> guaranteed increase.
>
>
> Uh. It does.
>
> Black Druid: [Cursed:5%:+2d3PP; Uncursed:25%:+2d3PP;
> Blessed:50%:+2d3PP], 16.7%:+1Ma, -4Wi, +3Ma, +2Le, +1To, Corrupts 999,
> Alignment -1000
>
> It always gives you 3 Mana, 2 Learning, and 1 Toughness With a chance
> for another Mana.

You mean Keethrax; Keriax has more wings and scales and suchlike.

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

Twinge wrote:
> maddog@dsr.kvl.dk wrote:
>> Teemu Kokki wrote:
>>> Twinge wrote:
>>>> Malte Helmert wrote:
>>>
>> [SNIP]
>>
>>
>>> ** As an evaluation for the bug report about
>>> bug-scumming Thomas writes "A new balancing feature
>>> has been added that makes it a *lot* more difficult to
>>> increase attributes to high levels by eating corpses."
>>> Unfortunately you can still increase attributes to
>>> high levels by eating those particular corpses, you
>>> just need to eat a lot more of them, but since there's
>>> plenty available, the new feature doesn't really fix
>>> the problem. What it does do though is prevent the PC
>>> from reaching those high attribute values through
>>> eating corpses that normally get generated in the
>>> course of the game. Keriax's corpse for example used
>>> to be one of the coolest things, now it's practically
>>> worthless.
>>>
>> Sorry for snipping down and focussing on this, but you
>> are the first one to mention it and I happen to have a
>> similar sentiment as you. Not that I am against more
>> moderate increases to stats - I just think the current
>> implementation is poor.
>>
>> The only thing that has happened is that you see sick
>> and anorexic adventurers barfing up their recent meal
>> so they can stay starving and gain the precious stat
>> increases. Also you see adventurers armed with their
>> ring of weakness hammering down every possible wall in
>> hope of a stone giant corpse for some strength to
>> exchange to a different stat. Wrong if you ask me.
>
> Indeed, the current implementation really leads you to
> use strange scumming methods instead of just gaining
> them naturally over the course of a game.
>
>> A stat increase should be determined based on your
>> unmodified base score.
>
> Definately.
>
>> There is no harm in leaving this number pretty high.
>> Stats could be raised smoothly to 50 or so with
>> corpses.
>
> That would be 20 more than it is right now, which might
> be a bit much. Maybe bump the 20-30 section up to 30-40
> for the (+Stat) chances.
>
>> Some corpses need a serious downgrade in the amount
>> they can add to a stat. No non-unique should give more
>> than 2 in increase.
>
> This will be important to an extent if stat increases
> are increased; as it is it's not too bad.
>

I will comment all the way down here because the matters
connect as we both agree on. The excessive 50 on stat
limit was based on lowering the possible increase. The
idea is that you need to fight more monsters for increases
and as a result should have better chances to benefit from
that. If corpse stat increases are left as they are 50
will be excessive. 30-40 will be more appropiate. After
all you can withhold stat potions for a significant boost
after corpses seize to benefit your scores any further.
Again (as mentioned below) the GBU can give you are very
great increase to all stats.

>> If a corpse lowers one stat and raise another it must
>> be able to do so. If a given stat cannot be lowered the
>> increase is nullified as well.
>
> I have found that kind of annoying; -6 Willpower from a
> killer bug and I get 0-1 dex in return?
>

Perhaps my point wasn't entirely clear. Say that claw bugs
give -1Wi, greater give -2Wi +1Dx and killer bugs give
-3Wi +2Dx. If you have 2 in Wi you will only get +1Dx,
because your Wi cannot be lowered any further. If you have
1 you get nada in Dx. It should work the other way too I
reckon. It was basically an idea to lower bug scumming.
Unlike the rest perhaps not entirely thought through.

>> Base speed should increase smoothly to 300 and then
>> drop off. There is no reason to penalize classes unable
>> to cast spells further. Again your current speed is no
>> concern.
>
> 300? That seems pretty excessive. a PC at 150 speed
> already has some massive escape power, especially with
> some SLB. Speed seems about fine to me; you can scum it
> up to 300ish if you really want to.
>

It is pretty excessive, but you should also remember that
speed will lower the XP you get. 300 is loosely based on
the current max with Slow Monster, BotSS and <foo> of
sloth. Downgrading the speed gains from corpses is again a
better method of control and reward. You need to kill the
monsters to get there and you need to kill a lot.

>> Keriax' corpse is just a yucky steak. Shame. It really
>> destroys the balance between the unicorn quests. Either
>> the GBUs reward need a downgrade or at the very least
>> Keriax' corpse should give a guaranteed increase.
>
> Uh. It does.
>
> Black Druid: [Cursed:5%:+2d3PP; Uncursed:25%:+2d3PP;
> Blessed:50%:+2d3PP], 16.7%:+1Ma, -4Wi, +3Ma, +2Le, +1To,
> Corrupts 999, Alignment -1000
>
> It always gives you 3 Mana, 2 Learning, and 1 Toughness
> With a chance for another Mana.

As Malte (and yourself) have pointed out it is not the
Druid, but the multi-headed bundle of pain you need to go
tete-a-tete with for the crown. It is usually a late kill
and the amount of preparation needed to even consider this
task usually leave it as one of the last things before an
U*E. This also means you are likely to have substantial
chaos clearence and can use the corpse along with the GWUs
reward. I have always felt that this gave a sense of
balance between the two unicorn quests. The GWU give +10
to St, To and Ma (fairly important stats) and the GBU give
+6-9 to all the stats.

Some also use the corpse as "corruption pack" before
moving an UNE/CG/UCG candidate through the gate to meet
the extremely corrupted demand. For this purpose the
corpse is still useful.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

Twinge wrote:
> Malte Helmert wrote:
>
>> The manual gives clear instructions on how to submit reports of new
>> bugs (namely, use the form on the web site) and I would see it as
>> rather inconsiderate to ignore those instructions and start sending
>> bug reports as e-mails instead.
>
> Well, let me quote you, Malte, from the thread linked off the bug report:
> "...if it takes a bug report a year to appear on the website, this is
> quite useless."
>
> A bit out of context (you were refering to using the comments as a forum
> or such), but it sums up my sentiments quite well.

Indeed out of context; reporting a bug is not the same thing as
commenting on it. Once a bug is reported, it stays reported, no matter
how long the delay before it shows up on the website. (Although a long
delay will lead to more dupes; a problem that is only worsened if
everybody submits bugs in private e-mail.) However, for commenting on a
bug, it is obviously important that bug and comments show up in the
database.

> The bug database doesn't seem to be a viable alternative; the most
> recent bug listed is over a year old.
> Seems to me that by the time Thomas will actually read anything
> new submitted there he'll already be done with the next version.

The database is basically Thomas's *sole input* for new versions, so I
don't see how he could prepare a new version without looking into it. He
developed the current system because he was tired of getting a hundred
e-mails a day with ADOM bug reports, almost all of them duplicates. I
don't think he wants to revert to e-mail-based bug tracking.

Maybe he will indeed release a new version before looking into all new
bug reports, given the masses of bugs that are already in the database.
So what? In a limited amount of time, there is only so much you can do.

To me, it somehow seems that you want "your" bugs fixed before "other
people's" bugs, and thus you don't like to stand in the database queue.
If that's the case, go ahead and contact Thomas about issues like typos
in messages in unreachable code that have been previously reported
anyway. I fail to see the benefit.

> I know you at least partially disagree, but I'm sure I'm not the only
> one that thinks the bug database is not an effective means of
> communication at all.

Bugs will not magically get fixed if submitted a second time via another
channel. It does not help at all, only creates extra work. This is
*especially* true if you don't check whether the bug in question has
already been reported, which has been the case for the majority of the
ones you originally mentioned.

If a given bug is considered *important*, ok, that might change things.
But we have had this discussion before, and I've recommended a simple
voting mechanism for that. Let's see what comes out of that.

I won't and can't stop you from sending e-mails to Thomas, and if there
are any bugs you want mentioned in the "group e-mail", you can lobby for
them in the group. If there is enough support, they will be included.

Can we leave it at that? I don't really feel like continuing this
discussion.

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

Malte Helmert wrote:
> Twinge wrote:
>
>> Malte Helmert wrote:
>>
>>> The manual gives clear instructions on how to submit reports of
>>> new bugs (namely, use the form on the web site) and I would see
>>> it as rather inconsiderate to ignore those instructions and start
>>> sending bug reports as e-mails instead.
>>
>>
>> Well, let me quote you, Malte, from the thread linked off the bug
>> report: "...if it takes a bug report a year to appear on the
>> website, this is quite useless."
>>
>> A bit out of context (you were refering to using the comments as a
>> forum or such), but it sums up my sentiments quite well.
>
>
> Indeed out of context; reporting a bug is not the same thing as
> commenting on it. Once a bug is reported, it stays reported, no
> matter how long the delay before it shows up on the website.
> (Although a long delay will lead to more dupes; a problem that is
> only worsened if everybody submits bugs in private e-mail.) However,
> for commenting on a bug, it is obviously important that bug and
> comments show up in the database.
>
>> The bug database doesn't seem to be a viable alternative; the most
>> recent bug listed is over a year old. Seems to me that by the time
>> Thomas will actually read anything new submitted there he'll
>> already be done with the next version.
>
> The database is basically Thomas's *sole input* for new versions, so
> I don't see how he could prepare a new version without looking into
> it. He developed the current system because he was tired of getting a
> hundred e-mails a day with ADOM bug reports, almost all of them
> duplicates. I don't think he wants to revert to e-mail-based bug
> tracking.
>
> Maybe he will indeed release a new version before looking into all
> new bug reports, given the masses of bugs that are already in the
> database. So what? In a limited amount of time, there is only so much
> you can do.
>
> To me, it somehow seems that you want "your" bugs fixed before "other
> people's" bugs, and thus you don't like to stand in the database
> queue. If that's the case, go ahead and contact Thomas about issues
> like typos in messages in unreachable code that have been previously
> reported anyway. I fail to see the benefit.
>
>> I know you at least partially disagree, but I'm sure I'm not the
>> only one that thinks the bug database is not an effective means of
>> communication at all.
>
>
> Bugs will not magically get fixed if submitted a second time via
> another channel. It does not help at all, only creates extra work.
> This is *especially* true if you don't check whether the bug in
> question has already been reported, which has been the case for the
> majority of the ones you originally mentioned.
>
> If a given bug is considered *important*, ok, that might change
> things. But we have had this discussion before, and I've recommended
> a simple voting mechanism for that. Let's see what comes out of that.
>
>
> I won't and can't stop you from sending e-mails to Thomas, and if
> there are any bugs you want mentioned in the "group e-mail", you can
> lobby for them in the group. If there is enough support, they will be
> included.
>
> Can we leave it at that? I don't really feel like continuing this
> discussion.

Fair enough. Difference of opinion, obviously; I DO think that an email
from the group will be more likely to be read than the bug database,
personally.

I don't want "my" bugs fixed before other more important ones, I just
want them to be KNOWN by Thomas at which point he'll be the judge of
wheter or not they're worth fixing (and in what order of importance).
The items which I'm pushing for have NOT been previously reported at
all, for the most part; Always falling in the rift, unicorn birthsign
bug, inconsistency of stat increases, and true berserker problem have
all not shown up in the bug database at all.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

Malte Helmert <helmert@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
> 3. Berferking. I am not referring to monsters killing themselves -- that
> is a more minor issue -- but to monsters doing excessive amounts of
> damage, unexpectedly, in a single turn. Again, this can ruin the game
> and is the other main reason why people downgrade to 1.0.0. Again, the
> important issue is *not* a bug (there are associated bugs, but these are
> less important) but a balance problem. Thus, again, providing feedback
> from the group here is useful to Thomas.

I have an opposite view on this one. I used to complain about excessive
berferking damage, but I'm not anymore. An instakill as any other.
Death ray or banshee's wail. Or a stone block trap. Or a wandering snowball.
One has to be prepared. To back this up: in my highscore file there
are hundreds of deaths recorded. Only about five are due to berserking
monsters, and I remember that in two of them I was just asking for it,
being not powerfull enough and meleeing with low HP for excessively long
time.

However monsters killing themselves and taking away with themselves
experience points and quests rewards annoy me to no end.

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

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:05:02 +0100, Malte Helmert wrote:

> Twinge wrote:
>
>> xhoch3 wrote:
>
> Check your attributions; many of the things you quote were said by
> somebody else.
>
>>> Snail mail isn't that bad after all. It only takes a day if we send
>>> it from Germany and it's better to have some piece of paper anyway,
>>> you can strike through bugs taken care of, you can't lose it because
>>> some virus formatted your hard disk, you don't have to have to use a
>>> pc to read it and you can use it for heating if you haven't paid
>>> your bills. I do think we should snail mail him a copy, just to make
>>> sure he has one. I could do that (once we have the list put together
>>> anyway).
>>
>> Yes; semi-simultaneous snail mail and email probably.
>
> Honestly, that seems like too much pestering to me. Sending an e-mail
> should be enough. If Thomas does not react, it is his choice.
>
>>>> [...] it's the only _easy_ way I can think of that wouldn't actually
>>>> have to add anything new (which Thomas didn't want to do at all
>>>> anymore for ADOM, I've heard), [...]
>>>
>>> I wonder where you've heard that? The official news from www.adom.de
>>> is that Thomas plans to set aside one evening per week for working on
>>> ADOM. I have not seen anything indicating what you're saying.
>>>
>>> Quite a few people on r.g.r.development have spread false rumours that
>>> ADOM is officially dead. This is not good for the community, so I
>>> wouldn't make such a statement unless I could support it with facts.
>>> Sorry if I sound harsh.
> >
>> I think it was Vlad that told me that, actually 😛 (though I'm not
>> certain) I didn't say it was dead entirely, but it's obvious that Thomas
>> isn't nearly as interested in ADOM as with JADE.
>
> There's quite a difference between saying that Thomas is less interested
> in ADOM than in JADE and saying that he "doesn't want to add anything
> new to ADOM at all anymore". Vlad, can you comment?

Well, in my opinion Thomas would have never returned to ADOM again if it
weren't for our pleadings. Coding JADE is fun, coding ADOM is not and
probably gives headaches with that messy code.

Quoting myself:

> Summary of it all (including links):
>
> Good news:
> JADE's doing really good, we'll have a playable version in half a year.
>
> Bad news:
> ADOM is DEAD. >X(

I never said anything about it being official, though.

--
A blessed ElDeR cHaOs GoD figurine of wondrous power (25s) is lying
here.

AdomBot - bot, demos, sounds, cheats, and more
http://www.geocities.com/adombot/
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 20:57:16 -0700, Twinge wrote:

[about the uber-jackal effect]

> Other methods of decreasing the effects of scumming already in place:
> Fewer weapon marks from slaying the same creature repeatedly and less
> experience gained.
>
> Possible fixes:

[snip]

How about the system I saw in the MMORPG Daimonin (though I'm sure it
must be popular in other RPGs too, I'm not much of a gamer):

The more monsters of a type you killed, simply decrease the chance of
item/corpse generation. That way, scumming would be blocked without
affecting gameplay.

--
A blessed ElDeR cHaOs GoD figurine of wondrous power (25s) is lying
here.

AdomBot - bot, demos, sounds, cheats, and more
http://www.geocities.com/adombot/
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 03:55:30 -0500, Andy Williams wrote:

> The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> Twinge wrote:
>
>>> The Wanderer wrote:
>
>>> > xhoch3 wrote:
>
>>>>> s
>>>>> p
>>>>> o
>>>>> i
>>>>> l
>>>>> e
>>>>> r
>
>>>>> s
>>>>> p
>>>>> a
>>>>> c
>>>>> e
>
>>>>> h
>>>>> e
>>>>> r
>>>>> e
>
>>> > IIRC, this is not unrelated to the ingot crash bug. It happens
>>> > sometimes based on what he drops; I think it's a matter of having
>>> > two separate stacks which should be combined into one but for some
>>> > reason weren't.
>
>>> He shouldn't ever be able to drop ignots of course, so this might be
>>> a broader bug than just ingots. This may also relate to the bug I
>>> have a saved game for where it crashes when I walk over stuff dropped
>>> by a werewolf lord.
>
>> He doesn't drop ingots, no - that's why I'm not sure it's related to
>> that. According to the best synthesis of all reports I've seen, however,
>> the bug is in fact related to what he drops, and more specifically to
>> there being present on a given square simultaneously two stacks of the
>> same item where the only difference is that one is not identified; the
>> crash appears to be triggered when this discrepancy is in some way
>> "noticed" by the game, which presumably also happens when you step onto
>> the square.
>
>> I forget whether or not it was ever determined what exactly, of the
>> things he drops, was causing the problem...
>
>> Eh. I'm less than ideally coherent tonight. The problem is not inherent
>> to ingots, no. It appeas to be a matter of conflicting identification
>> states being present in the same square (or in one's inventory, I
>> suppose), and for some reason the conflicting situation is most readily
>> generated in-game by ingots.
>
>> It had been previously noticed that some items would at times fail to
>> auto-identify even though an item of the same type had been previously
>> identified (glass amulets spring to mind, for me), but prior to recent
>> versions these did not crash the game; I'm not sure that that mixup is
>> related to the bug at hand, but it's close enough that I felt it worth
>> mentioning.
>
> This whole phenomenon, in what ever guise it takes, is related to the
> global stacking bug in ADOM that has been present for many years,
> dating back to at least Gamma 8, if not Gamma 6. I thought I had
> concrete examples of this in the guidebook, but I can't find them. In
> any case, it manifests itself in various ways. Older versions would
> refuse to stack identical items. In more recent versions, this
> appears to crash the game under certain circumstances. Ingots are a
> commonly observed example and may have additional problems that
> exacerbate the situation.
>
> But it is, IMO, a fairly low-level problem in the code that may
> require substantial effort to correct.

I object to that. While my initial patch does add/replace a substantial
amount of code, later I found another way to fix the problem, and
reduced it to changing one bit in the executable, or a function
parameter from TRUE to FALSE (or backwards). I notified Thomas about
that (though never got a reply).

--
A blessed ElDeR cHaOs GoD figurine of wondrous power (25s) is lying
here.

AdomBot - bot, demos, sounds, cheats, and more
http://www.geocities.com/adombot/
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

Malte Helmert wrote:

> Twinge wrote:
>> Malte Helmert wrote:
>> How much detail do you want to give in the report? Several of these I
>> can explain in more detail the specifics, causes, related stuff, etc.
>> instead of just leaving it vague. Perhaps give a brief comment on the
>> bug in the email and have a verbose version on the website (linked in
>> the email)?
>
> Yes, that would work well.
>
>> I hope by 'omitting the minor ones' You are only reffering to the ones
>> we have listed as extremely minor, and not the ones above it since some
>> of that stuff is semi-important like the Unicorn birthsign problem. As
>> long as those are included I'm fine with it for the most part. I do have
>> a few more suggested changes though:
>
> Of the ones listed, I'd consider 1., 3., 4., 7., 8. and 9. very minor
> and not worthy of inclusion, for these reasons:
>

Next time, could you please, please name them as 2.1 or 3.2 and so on? I
kind of get mixed up if you just say 1, 2, 4.

>
> 1.: Hardly noticable, as it affects few characters, and falling isn't so
> bad anyway.
>
> 3., 4., 9.: These must have been in ADOM for ten years or so, and noone
> has ever complained about them. Since then, I haven't seen complaints
> except from you. 🙂 Thus, I don't see why these should jump to the top
> of the agenda all of a sudden. By all means they should be in the bug
> database, but they are not urgent action items.
>
> 7.: Not really noticed in a regular game. There are many formulae in the
> game which have odd monotonicity properties; e.g. there are cases where
> lowering your Charisma/Appearance is a good thing for selling items at
> shops (or was it buying?). This is just one of many.
>
> 8.: Hardly noticable unless you intentionally abuse it. If you do, it is
> one of the most labor-intensive and thus most useless abuses.
>
> By comparison, the remaining ones are either notorious bugs which are
> known for a very very long time but were classified as "mysterious" and
> hence unresolved until now (2.) or likely game-killers (5., 6., 10.)
> (I'm listing the cat lord in this category because I suppose that the XP
> value is not the only value about him that can wrap around with weird
> consequences.)
>
>> I'd suggest moving The Holy Water/Herb seed potential bug up to minor
>> instead of extremely minor; it does have an actual effect on the game
>> after all.
>
> Almost all bugs in the database do. 🙂 I agree that it is at least as
> important as some of the "minor" bugs I didn't want to consider,
> although not as important as the ones I want to consider.
>
> OK, if at least three other people request it until Friday, I'll include
> it. The same procedure applies to the other bugs I omitted above.
>
> But don't forget that the longer the e-mail, the more likely the really
> important bits are drowned in the noise. I have had much better
> experience with sending short e-mails to Thomas than longer ones.
>
>> # Stack blessing
>> # Increasing stats
>> # Cat lord exp
>> # Walking problems
>> # Walking problems
>> # True Berserker
>
> x^3, have you got Twinge's more detailed explanations? These would be
> useful additions to the webpage.
>

I didn't include them because I thought that might be too long, quite
boring to read through. But I will include them if you want to. It will
take some time, so maybe tomorrow there will be a new version (sorry but
once in a while I have to go to school :-().
I will leave the navigation box on its place, cause I don't want the text
to go from one side of the website to the other, that's just awful to read.


Could we please stop arguing whether the bug list or the bug data base
make any sense? When I came up with the idea, I thought it were nice if
the newsgroup knew about these bugs, so everyone can avoid them. That's
why I put the Skilled bug on the list. There might have been someone who
didn't know about it and now knows.

Maybe we should ask Thomas whether he wants rgra to take care of bug
reports or whether he wants to go through the bug database all himself.
Not only for the next version of adom, but also for future development of
jade.
So maybe you shouldn't put any bugs in your mail, just tell him we have a
bug list.
I do think with all the bugs and the detailed explanation your mail would
be far too long.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

Twinge wrote:
> Malte Helmert wrote:
>
>> I won't and can't stop you from sending e-mails to Thomas, and if
>> there are any bugs you want mentioned in the "group e-mail", you can
>> lobby for them in the group. If there is enough support, they will be
>> included.
>>
>> Can we leave it at that? I don't really feel like continuing this
>> discussion.
>
> Fair enough. Difference of opinion, obviously; I DO think that an email
> from the group will be more likely to be read than the bug database,
> personally.

Probably; I did not disagree with that. But I also agree that the longer
the e-mail is, the less likely it is that it has the desired effect.

For bugs that the group wants to include in the e-mail, the group must
speak up. Three votes and a bug is in.

> I don't want "my" bugs fixed before other more important ones, I just
> want them to be KNOWN by Thomas at which point he'll be the judge of
> wheter or not they're worth fixing (and in what order of importance).

Again: If *you* want that, send an e-mail. If *the group* wants that, it
will be included.

> The items which I'm pushing for have NOT been previously reported at
> all, for the most part; Always falling in the rift, unicorn birthsign
> bug, inconsistency of stat increases, and true berserker problem have
> all not shown up in the bug database at all.

Have you reported them? Then they will show up. You might not understand
that bugs showing up on www.adom.de is *not* an automatic process. Bugs
submitted to the database show up in Thomas's bug report in-tray, and
are only added to the public database once he has had a look at them.
Yes, this can take more than a year if he has not been working on ADOM.
Group-Google for "bug database updated" or go through the news items on
www.adom.de if you want to understand more about the process.

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

Malte Helmert wrote:

> Twinge wrote:

>> The items which I'm pushing for have NOT been previously reported
>> at all, for the most part; Always falling in the rift, unicorn
>> birthsign bug, inconsistency of stat increases, and true berserker
>> problem have all not shown up in the bug database at all.
>
> Have you reported them? Then they will show up. You might not
> understand that bugs showing up on www.adom.de is *not* an automatic
> process. Bugs submitted to the database show up in Thomas's bug
> report in-tray, and are only added to the public database once he has
> had a look at them.

If this were the case, then I do not think it likely that there would be
so many duplicate and even idiotic reports added to the database. I
think it more likely that they simply wait to be added until he gets
around to "oh well, I might as well clear away part of this backlog,
I'll never have the time to give it proper attention".


Not to mention that for various reasons, the high duplication and
non-negligible degree of writer idiocy among them, going through the bug
database is likely to be a tedious, frustrating and very much
non-enjoyable experience; given that Thomas does this for fun and out of
interest, it wouldn't surprise me if the vast majority of the bug
database never actually gets looked at. I have a hard time forcing
myself to actually look into the thing at all; I find it entirely
plausible that he might be daunted to the point of never beginning by
the sheer dullness of the prospect of reading through every single
report and figuring out what to do about it.

Among the advantages of sending an E-mail - *one* E-mail, or one per
year at most, and certainly not anything like one per person - are that
it clears away duplication (no bug will be listed twice within the same
mail), it avoids the problems of near-illiteracy (the thing is likely to
not only be written by someone with good language skills but actually
*edited* by the group before being sent out), and it can provide much
more and more certain detail on what is and is not involved in the bug.
I think there's at least one more worth noting, but that should suffice.
I'd say that these might be reason enough to include all but the trivial
bugs, and perhaps even some of them if they're easily enough fixed (and
are sorted off into a separate category he's free to skip reading), and
are almost certainly enough to outweigh the disadvantages of including
large numbers of bugs in such an E-mail.

I don't have the time, the energy or the wherewithal to be seriously
involved in this discussion, but if I were, although I can see the
justice in both points of view I'd be inclined to side with Twinge on
this particular issue.

--
The Wanderer

Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.

A government exists to serve its citizens, not to control them.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

xhoch3 wrote:

s
p
o
i
l
e
r

s
p
a
c
e

s
p
o
i
l
e
r

s
p
a
c
e

s
p
o
i
l
e
r

s
p
a
c
e

> I just ran across a master swordsman, equiped a shield and a coin and
> then a shield and a fiddle, guess what? He didn't disarm me. Possibly
> the game checks whether you wield a weapon (by checking weapon
> skills?), so swordsman can't disarm your shield.

I think this has been discussed a while ago. At least I remember reading
that, and experimenting with it myself. What this means for real games
is that you cannot use duelists and the like to wield-test armour for
curses, so maybe it is better that way.

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

Twinge wrote:
>
> I like the idea of using a wiki. Vlad mentioned setting up some wiki
> action for the in-depth ADOM info page I've started up and I think it's
> a good idea... they should be fairly easy to set up. I was thinking of
> having a seperate wiki for each topic... I could easily add notes when I
> discover stuff and people could directly write in questions or comments.
> Someone else could also volunteer to format the data into a cleaner and
> more readable format and such.

OK, this is a different thing; a wiki for ADOM information. Something
like that already exists, and splitting the community is a bad idea.
Google for "ADOM wiki" to see if you and Eva cannot join forces.
However, be careful not to violate Thomas's and Andy's copyrights. Go to
the thread containing the message
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.roguelike.adom/msg/d44f6c4d0fe6eb18
and start reading from #25 for some info on that.

> The bug page could be one of these wikis
> if we do decide to go this route. It wouldn't be an ideal solution per
> se, but it would be a nice, organized, and detailed bug list that
> Thomas could read or check if he felt like it.

I guess you mean wiki pages, not separate wikis. I have doubts that
Thomas would prefer this to the current state of affairs.

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

Twinge wrote:
> Malte Helmert wrote:
>> xhoch3 wrote:
>>> So maybe you shouldn't put any bugs in your mail, just tell him we
>>> have a bug list.
>> That was the intention; the web site would serve as the detailed
>> list, the mail would only provide a very brief summary.
>
> And thus, the bug page should have fairly detailed descriptions and
> explanations of the bugs.

Okay you have convinced me, but now don't say that you want pictures of
the bugs and movies of the bugs and save games and ...

So I kind of put a brief explanation at the start and then there are more
details (if needed) in a smaller font size. That should allow you to
quickly read through all the bugs and get the details if you want to.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

Twinge <homelesspete@gmail.com> wrote:
> Malte Helmert wrote:
[ ... ]
>> 3. Berferking. I am not referring to monsters killing themselves --
>> that is a more minor issue -- but to monsters doing excessive amounts
>> of damage, unexpectedly, in a single turn. [ ... ]

> Has anyone ever had Filk kill himself? If so, I doubt they'd say that
> bug is less important 😉

Yes, I had (probably -- I had him locked behind some doors, so he was out
of sight, and planned to acid-ball him. When I opened the door, he was
nowhere to be seen, nor ever to be seen again.), and yes, this was quite
annoying. So this is one of the few occassions where I have to disagree with
Malte.


>> A lot of ideas have been mentioned [in the comments to the bug database];
>> no need to rehash this yet another time.

> Again, putting more faith in the database than I am 😉

But what do you suggest? Where would you draw the line? The bugs that
you've discovered are new indeed, and it doesn't seem too unlikely that TB
won't take much notice of them when you submit them to the database. But
what about any other newly discovered bugs? Should they be sent to him by
email as well? Of course not, because then no-one would bother with the
database at all, and TB would drown in bug report doublets, forcing him to
ignore all of them. There can't be an exception. The point of the email to
him, as I see it, is to suggest which bugs should receive a high priority
for the next version in order to make the next version enjoyable for most
players. Nothing more, but nothing less.

Cheers, Gero

--
Gero Kunter (gero.kunter@epost.de)
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

The Wanderer wrote:
> Malte Helmert wrote:
>
>> Have you reported them? Then they will show up. You might not
>> understand that bugs showing up on www.adom.de is *not* an automatic
>> process. Bugs submitted to the database show up in Thomas's bug
>> report in-tray, and are only added to the public database once he has
>> had a look at them.
>
> If this were the case, then I do not think it likely that there would be
> so many duplicate and even idiotic reports added to the database.

Because he followed a less rigorous approach for the last round of
updates (http://www.adom.de/misc/news.php3?show=59&lastindex=0):

"ADOM bug database update! (07/05/2003, 18:08)

Finally I got around to transfer all the collected reports from the
queue to the public bug database. Almost 2000 entries had to processed -
so I decided to do this automatically. This means that right now you
will find a lot of duplicates and probably quite a bit of stuff that is
not really a bug in the bug database.

The next step for me is to resume work on ADOM 1.2.0 and process the
content of the bug database. This seems to be a more natural approach
given the ~ 2000 reports ;-)

Sorry for taking so long but things get back on track. Some delay was
induced by the new website created for a good friend - if you are
interested in pen & paper RPGs and other stuff, visit the Fantasy
En'Counter - it's a great shop with lots of neat stuff - although you
will need to understand a little bit of German to use it."

> I think it more likely that they simply wait to be added until he gets
> around to "oh well, I might as well clear away part of this backlog,
> I'll never have the time to give it proper attention".

That's what happened last time, certainly. I was explaining the "usual"
process.

The problem with ignoring the database is that it includes many many
more legitimate bug reports than have ever been reported in this
newsgroup. Thus, if one went for an all-email approach, somebody should
go through all that and summarize all the important ones.

Anyway, I'll see if I can get an opinion from Thomas regarding your
suggested procedure.

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

Dot
Dot
Dot
Dot
Dot
Dot
Dot
Dot
Dot
Dot
Dot
Dot
Dot
Dot
Dot
Dot
Dot
Dot
Dot
Dot
Dot
Dot
Dot
Dot
Dot
Dot

I don't think I mentioend this one yet, my apologies if I did:

Rustproof items can be generated rusty. This includes iron ore, rings
of the fish, helms of water-breathing, and probably more.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

Malte Helmert wrote:

> The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> Malte Helmert wrote:
>>
>>> Have you reported them? Then they will show up. You might not
>>> understand that bugs showing up on www.adom.de is *not* an
>>> automatic process. Bugs submitted to the database show up in
>>> Thomas's bug report in-tray, and are only added to the public
>>> database once he has had a look at them.
>>
>> If this were the case, then I do not think it likely that there
>> would be so many duplicate and even idiotic reports added to the
>> database.
>
> Because he followed a less rigorous approach for the last round of
> updates (http://www.adom.de/misc/news.php3?show=59&lastindex=0):

<snip>

>> I think it more likely that they simply wait to be added until he
>> gets around to "oh well, I might as well clear away part of this
>> backlog, I'll never have the time to give it proper attention".
>
> That's what happened last time, certainly. I was explaining the
> "usual" process.

Okay. I wasn't aware that that had been something other than the usual
practice; this puts somewhat of a different face on the matter. It
doesn't resolve problems such as poor writing, insufficient detail, and
so forth, but it is a step in the right direction.

> The problem with ignoring the database is that it includes many many
> more legitimate bug reports than have ever been reported in this
> newsgroup. Thus, if one went for an all-email approach, somebody
> should go through all that and summarize all the important ones.

Yes, this occurred to me after posting; it would be worthwhile to do,
and has IIRC been suggested before in a different guise although the
details escape me. I don't know how much time I really have available,
or how competent I am, but I would potentially be willing to contribute
to such an effort.

> Anyway, I'll see if I can get an opinion from Thomas regarding your
> suggested procedure.

That's more than I expected; thanks.

--
The Wanderer

Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.

A government exists to serve its citizens, not to control them.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

The Wanderer wrote:
> Malte Helmert wrote:
>
>> The Wanderer wrote:
>>
>>> Malte Helmert wrote:
>>>
>>>> Have you reported them? Then they will show up. You might not
>>>> understand that bugs showing up on www.adom.de is *not* an
>>>> automatic process. Bugs submitted to the database show up in
>>>> Thomas's bug report in-tray, and are only added to the public
>>>> database once he has had a look at them.
>>>
>>>
>>> If this were the case, then I do not think it likely that there
>>> would be so many duplicate and even idiotic reports added to the
>>> database.
>>
>>
>> Because he followed a less rigorous approach for the last round of
>> updates (http://www.adom.de/misc/news.php3?show=59&lastindex=0):
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>> I think it more likely that they simply wait to be added until he
>>> gets around to "oh well, I might as well clear away part of this
>>> backlog, I'll never have the time to give it proper attention".
>>
>>
>> That's what happened last time, certainly. I was explaining the
>> "usual" process.
>
>
> Okay. I wasn't aware that that had been something other than the usual
> practice; this puts somewhat of a different face on the matter. It
> doesn't resolve problems such as poor writing, insufficient detail, and
> so forth, but it is a step in the right direction.
>
>> The problem with ignoring the database is that it includes many many
>> more legitimate bug reports than have ever been reported in this
>> newsgroup. Thus, if one went for an all-email approach, somebody
>> should go through all that and summarize all the important ones.
>
>
> Yes, this occurred to me after posting; it would be worthwhile to do,
> and has IIRC been suggested before in a different guise although the
> details escape me. I don't know how much time I really have available,
> or how competent I am, but I would potentially be willing to contribute
> to such an effort.
>
>> Anyway, I'll see if I can get an opinion from Thomas regarding your
>> suggested procedure.
>
>
> That's more than I expected; thanks.

Hmm!

Yeah, I'd be willing to help scour the bug database and extract
everything important if I knew Thomas would actually read the fruits of
our labor. This could be the best approach; Thomas doesn't have to
modify the bug database in any way (as he didn't want to) and he could
still get a nice complete list of all the stuff wrong with 1.1.1 so he
can really get a nice jump into making a polished final version. (Final
could be a bit harsh, but it's my expectation that after he releases a
fixed version he won't look at ADOM again, at least for a few years 😉

If we can indeed convince him that this will work, we'd probably want to
either ask him to send us the data in the database, or, if that's not
possible/plausible, someone could program a bot to extra all the bug
database info and put it all together in one file (Shouldn't be too
hard). From there we could go a few routes so that everyone that wanted
to help sort out the mess could. We could put it on some kind of wiki,
or we could divy out ranges (for example, bugs #50-100) to each person
and give more when they want more. We'd probably want to sort the list
alphabetically or something first so we could at least remove, for
example, about everything that begins with "Skilled..." 😉 I assume
we'd also want to exclude the bug reports for older versions as well.

This could be an ideal solution, where Thomas can look through 50 odd
bugs that encompass practically everything wrong with version 1.1.1
instead of trying to extract relevant information from a list of 5000.
We just need to get word from Thomas that he's cool with this (and will
actually read it if we took the effort) which, hopefully, he will be =)
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:50:51 +0100, Malte Helmert wrote:

> Twinge wrote:
>>
>> I like the idea of using a wiki. Vlad mentioned setting up some wiki
>> action for the in-depth ADOM info page I've started up and I think it's
>> a good idea... they should be fairly easy to set up. I was thinking of
>> having a seperate wiki for each topic... I could easily add notes when I
>> discover stuff and people could directly write in questions or comments.
>> Someone else could also volunteer to format the data into a cleaner and
>> more readable format and such.
>
> OK, this is a different thing; a wiki for ADOM information. Something
> like that already exists, and splitting the community is a bad idea.
> Google for "ADOM wiki" to see if you and Eva cannot join forces.
> However, be careful not to violate Thomas's and Andy's copyrights. Go to
> the thread containing the message
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.roguelike.adom/msg/d44f6c4d0fe6eb18
> and start reading from #25 for some info on that.

Actually, that's "a collaborative gameplay guide". To make it an
information and bug-list wiki, we'd have to move most of the text on the
main page away to separate pages, and change the wiki's scope to a
generic ADOM wiki.

Sounds close to vandalization to me :|

--
A blessed ElDeR cHaOs GoD figurine of wondrous power (25s) is lying
here.

AdomBot - bot, demos, sounds, cheats, and more
http://www.geocities.com/adombot/
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:50:51 +0100, Malte Helmert wrote:
>
>
>>Twinge wrote:
>>
>>> I like the idea of using a wiki. Vlad mentioned setting up some
>>> wiki action for the in-depth ADOM info page I've started up and I
>>> think it's a good idea... they should be fairly easy to set up. I
>>> was thinking of having a seperate wiki for each topic... I could
>>> easily add notes when I discover stuff and people could directly
>>> write in questions or comments. Someone else could also volunteer
>>> to format the data into a cleaner and more readable format and
>>> such.
>>
>> OK, this is a different thing; a wiki for ADOM information.
>> Something like that already exists, and splitting the community is
>> a bad idea. Google for "ADOM wiki" to see if you and Eva cannot
>> join forces. However, be careful not to violate Thomas's and Andy's
>> copyrights. Go to the thread containing the message
>> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.roguelike.adom/msg/d44f6c4d0fe6eb18
>> and start reading from #25 for some info on that.
>
>
> Actually, that's "a collaborative gameplay guide". To make it an
> information and bug-list wiki, we'd have to move most of the text on
> the main page away to separate pages, and change the wiki's scope to
> a generic ADOM wiki.
>
> Sounds close to vandalization to me :|
>

Hehe yeah... For one that wiki hasn't really bee looked at or updated
much, but more importantly it's looking at the game in general (like the
guidebook) moreso than specific facts and pieces of information.

Still not sure if I'm going to have any kind of wiki at all; seemed like
a better idea yesterday than it does today. Maybe it's sound like a
great idea again tommorow? 😉 We'll see.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 01:13:34 -0700, Twinge wrote:

[snip]

> Hmm!
>
> Yeah, I'd be willing to help scour the bug database and extract
> everything important if I knew Thomas would actually read the fruits of
> our labor. This could be the best approach; Thomas doesn't have to
> modify the bug database in any way (as he didn't want to) and he could
> still get a nice complete list of all the stuff wrong with 1.1.1 so he
> can really get a nice jump into making a polished final version. (Final
> could be a bit harsh, but it's my expectation that after he releases a
> fixed version he won't look at ADOM again, at least for a few years 😉
>
> If we can indeed convince him that this will work, we'd probably want to
> either ask him to send us the data in the database, or, if that's not
> possible/plausible, someone could program a bot to extra all the bug
> database info and put it all together in one file (Shouldn't be too
> hard). From there we could go a few routes so that everyone that wanted
> to help sort out the mess could. We could put it on some kind of wiki,
> or we could divy out ranges (for example, bugs #50-100) to each person
> and give more when they want more. We'd probably want to sort the list
> alphabetically or something first so we could at least remove, for
> example, about everything that begins with "Skilled..." 😉 I assume
> we'd also want to exclude the bug reports for older versions as well.

I started working on such a program about an year ago - search for a
similar thread where we wanted to ask Thomas to help with the bug
database, and ended up discussing the superiority of archivers. (IIRC,
Thomas never replied to the e-mail).

--
A blessed ElDeR cHaOs GoD figurine of wondrous power (25s) is lying
here.

AdomBot - bot, demos, sounds, cheats, and more
http://www.geocities.com/adombot/
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

I failed miserably to keep a straight face when I read that
on Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:21:46 -0700, Twinge wrote:
> Malte Helmert wrote:

[including bugs in the e-mail]

>> Again: If *you* want that, send an e-mail. If *the group* wants that,
>> it will be included.
>
> Indeed; I'm pushing for it here since I assume something sent by you
> (German + previous corespondence) and as 'the will of the group' instead
> of 'some guy Thomas has never heard of' will have a lot higher chance of
> actually being read =) I personally think that these bugs are important
> enough to be looked at and mentioned to Thomas and I don't _think_ I'm
> the only one (but maybe I am?)... anyone else want to speak up?

Okay, I will, since, as you write, you're pushing for it so hard. But
alas for you, I agree with Malte. A pointer to the page should suffice,
and the short mentioning of the most important ones (as Malte proposes)
can't hurt, as long as it's kept short. The e-mail should be
to-the-point, IMO, and the existence of our bug list, its motivation and
its address are all that need be mentioned.

Léon (aka Oliphaunt)
--
"Linux is very fast.
It can do an infinite loop in about 5 seconds."
-- Linus Torvalds
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

I failed miserably to keep a straight face when I read that
on Wed, 19 Jan 2005 01:49:36 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> Malte Helmert wrote:
>
>> The problem with ignoring the database is that it includes many many
>> more legitimate bug reports than have ever been reported in this
>> newsgroup. Thus, if one went for an all-email approach, somebody
>> should go through all that and summarize all the important ones.
>
> Yes, this occurred to me after posting; it would be worthwhile to do,
> and has IIRC been suggested before in a different guise although the
> details escape me.

it was at least discussed here:
http://tinyurl.com/4r4g6
the start of the thread doesn't discuss it, but if you search for my
name the topic has switched to it.

Léon (aka Oliphaunt)
--
"Linux is very fast.
It can do an infinite loop in about 5 seconds."
-- Linus Torvalds