Small candelabrum bug

[Guest]

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

I reported the following bug to the dev team, and got what I perceived
to be a cop out answer. Just wanted to see if I was being too harsh, or
if you thought it was a co-out answer. Have attached my email, their
response, and then my response.

>> Marky Mark wrote:
>> Very small bug, I noticed that when candles are attached to a
>> candelabrum which you are holding, they lose their weight. ie I
>> got the following message "You attach 7 candles to the
>> candelabrum. Your movements are now unencumbered.". Surely the >>
weight of the candles should be transfered to the candelabrum?
>> I know its a very minor issue, but as you guys have a reputation
>> of being perfectionists, I thought Id let you know anyway.

> Read that message carefully: "Your movements are now
> unencumbered." When you attach the candles to the candelabrum,
>your encumbrance is reduced because your load is easier to carry >that
way.

Fair enough, but if that was true, then I imagine putting candles in a
sack would also make them easier to carry, but that doesnt seem to be
the case. And I just tested it it Slashem (yes, different game, but a
lot of the same game mechanics), which has a showweight option, and it
seems the inventory does weight less. If you were to answer that yes,
it is a small bug, but not worth fixing, that would be understandable,
but to say it was intended behaviour, that seems a little odd.

 

[Guest]

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

"Marky Mark" <mdmota@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>I reported the following bug to the dev team, and got what I perceived
>to be a cop out answer. Just wanted to see if I was being too harsh, or
>if you thought it was a co-out answer. Have attached my email, their
>response, and then my response.

Did you ask their permission to post private e-mail to a public
newsgroup?
--
Martin Read - my opinions are my own. share them if you wish.
My roguelike games page (including my BSD-licenced roguelike) can be found at:
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~mpread/roguelikes.html
Everyone expected the Bavarian Inquisition.

 

[Guest]

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

Marky Mark wrote:
> I reported the following bug to the dev team, and got what I perceived
> to be a cop out answer. Just wanted to see if I was being too harsh, or
> if you thought it was a co-out answer. Have attached my email, their
> response, and then my response.

>>>Marky Mark wrote:
>>>Very small bug, I noticed that when candles are attached to a
>>>candelabrum which you are holding, they lose their weight. ie I
>>>got the following message "You attach 7 candles to the
>>>candelabrum. Your movements are now unencumbered.". Surely the >>
>>
> weight of the candles should be transfered to the candelabrum?

The same should happen when charging an oil lamp with a !ooil. In
Nethack objects' weights don't depend on their charges, so the candle is
gone and the candelabrum is charged with one candle (and yes, this is a
cop-out but if you want to fix it you will have to do it consistently
for all chargable tools and of course for candles themselves).

And maybe they just got annoyed with the same non-bug popping up in the
records every two months[1].

Lars

[1] http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=candelabrum%20weight

 

[James]

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

In article <1113998798.393211.183260@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Marky Mark <mdmota@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>it is a small bug, but not worth fixing, that would be understandable,
>but to say it was intended behaviour, that seems a little odd.

It's magical! And definitely intended. The same phenomenon that
prevents you from ever removing the candles once attached, is at work
here also.

 

[Guest]

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

Quoting Marky Mark <mdmota@yahoo.com.au>:
[Candles weight nothing when attached to the candelabrum]
>the case. And I just tested it it Slashem (yes, different game, but a
>lot of the same game mechanics), which has a showweight option, and it
>seems the inventory does weight less. If you were to answer that yes,
>it is a small bug, but not worth fixing, that would be understandable,
>but to say it was intended behaviour, that seems a little odd.

Well, it _is_ intended behaviour in the sense that it works as designed
and has no unforseen consequences; it's not a bug, but an infelicity.

Given that this simplification is likely to stay with us, we then are left
coming up with rationalisations of the behaviour we see.

I understand why you reported it; a case could be made for a known
not-bugs list.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is Brieday, April.

 

[Guest]

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

damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
[candelabrum with candles has same weight as candelabrum without
candles]
>I understand why you reported it; a case could be made for a known
>not-bugs list.

The "Bug status key" has a status "Not a bug"; perhaps we should suggest
that the DevTeam list this item with such a status.
--
Martin Read - my opinions are my own. share them if you wish.
My roguelike games page (including my BSD-licenced roguelike) can be found at:
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~mpread/roguelikes.html
Everyone expected the Bavarian Inquisition.

 

[Guest]

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

Lars Kecke wrote:
> Marky Mark wrote:
>
>> Surely the weight of the candles should be transfered to the candelabrum?
>
> The same should happen when charging an oil lamp with a !ooil. In
> Nethack objects' weights don't depend on their charges, so the candle is
> gone and the candelabrum is charged with one candle (and yes, this is a
> cop-out but if you want to fix it you will have to do it consistently
> for all chargable tools and of course for candles themselves).

Not for all chargable tools, I'd say; magically charged wands from reading
scrolls should not increase the weight of the wand.

And, yes, it's too minor an issue to dispute it.

Apropos weight; the potion of acid should be heavier than water. A bug!
Ah, no, that was a bit exaggerative, I suppose. ;-)

Janis

 

[Guest]

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

Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> Lars Kecke wrote:
>
>> The same should happen when charging an oil lamp with a !ooil. In
>> Nethack objects' weights don't depend on their charges, so the candle
>> is gone and the candelabrum is charged with one candle (and yes, this
>> is a cop-out but if you want to fix it you will have to do it
>> consistently for all chargable tools and of course for candles
>> themselves).
>
>
> Not for all chargable tools, I'd say; magically charged wands from reading
> scrolls should not increase the weight of the wand.

Wands aren't tools, so "chargable tools" doesn't apply to them.

But crystal balls and the various magical instruments would fit
this objection just fine.

--
John Campbell
jcampbel@lynn.ci-n.com

 

[Guest]

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

John Campbell wrote:
> Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>
>> Lars Kecke wrote:
>>
>>> The same should happen when charging an oil lamp with a !ooil. In
>>> Nethack objects' weights don't depend on their charges, so the candle
>>> is gone and the candelabrum is charged with one candle (and yes, this
>>> is a cop-out but if you want to fix it you will have to do it
>>> consistently for all chargable tools and of course for candles
>>> themselves).
>>
>> Not for all chargable tools, I'd say; magically charged wands from
>> reading
>> scrolls should not increase the weight of the wand.
>
> Wands aren't tools, so "chargable tools" doesn't apply to them.

Ah, right you are. I had taken the word "tool" with its generic
(non-nethackish) meaning.

> But crystal balls and the various magical instruments would fit
> this objection just fine.

Janis

 

[Guest]

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

Justin Hiltscher wrote:

>
> "Dylan O'Donnell" <psmithnews@spod-central.org> wrote in message
> news:86d5se9a07.fsf@strackenz.spod-central.org...
>> Lars Kecke <kecke@physik.uni-freiburg.de> writes:
>>>
>>> [weight should depend on charges]
>>> [[...]] brass lanterns; IIRC the only non-magical tools with
>>> insubstantial charges.
>>
>> While the film in an expensive camera isn't going to be
>> _insubstantial_, its weight also isn't going to change with how much
>> of it is used.
>>
> IRL it *would* change, slightly. Just not noticibly unless you hooked it
> up to sensitive equipment. Entropy says that any reaction loses some
> energy to heat, and General Relativity says that energy is just mass, and
> mass combined with gravity is weight: ergo, exposed film has lost some of
> it's mass to heat. Just not alot! ;-) </nitpick>

I don't know if this is correct or not, but you seem to be ignoring the
energy coming into the system in the form of light.

Either way, any change in mass would be much less than 1 zorkmid.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.

 

[Guest]

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

Seraphim wrote:

> "Justin Hiltscher" <jdhilts@ubsi.com> wrote in
> news:nFace.986$2f2.346@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com:
>>
>> IRL it *would* change, slightly. Just not noticibly unless you hooked
>> it up to sensitive equipment. Entropy says that any reaction loses some
>> energy to heat, and General Relativity says that energy is just mass,
>> and mass combined with gravity is weight: ergo, exposed film has lost
>> some of it's mass to heat. Just not alot! ;-) </nitpick>
>
> But isn't heat just a measure of the kinetic energy of particles? So if
> General Relativity says that energy is just mass, then isn't that 'lost'
> mass is still there because it is making the various particles that make
> up the film move slightly faster?

I think the point is that if you heat up something above the temperature of
the environment, it will subsequently lose that heat until it is again at
equilibrium.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.

 

[Guest]

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

John Campbell wrote:
> Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>
>> Lars Kecke wrote:

[weight should depend on charges]
>> Not for all chargable tools, I'd say; magically charged wands from
>> reading
>> scrolls should not increase the weight of the wand.
>
> Wands aren't tools, so "chargable tools" doesn't apply to them.
>
> But crystal balls and the various magical instruments would fit
> this objection just fine.

So would brass lanterns; IIRC the only non-magical tools with
insubstantial charges.

Lars

 

[Guest]

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

Lars Kecke <kecke@physik.uni-freiburg.de> writes:
>
> [weight should depend on charges]
> [[...]] brass lanterns; IIRC the only non-magical tools with
> insubstantial charges.

While the film in an expensive camera isn't going to be
_insubstantial_, its weight also isn't going to change with how much
of it is used.

--
: Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ :
: "Peek-a-boo, I can't see you, everything must be grand; :
: Boo-ka-pee, you can't see me, as long as I've got me head in t'sand..." :
: -- Michael Flanders, "The Ostrich" :

 

[Guest]

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

"Dylan O'Donnell" <psmithnews@spod-central.org> wrote in message
news:86d5se9a07.fsf@strackenz.spod-central.org...
> Lars Kecke <kecke@physik.uni-freiburg.de> writes:
>>
>> [weight should depend on charges]
>> [[...]] brass lanterns; IIRC the only non-magical tools with
>> insubstantial charges.
>
> While the film in an expensive camera isn't going to be
> _insubstantial_, its weight also isn't going to change with how much
> of it is used.
>
IRL it *would* change, slightly. Just not noticibly unless you hooked it
up to sensitive equipment. Entropy says that any reaction loses some energy
to heat, and General Relativity says that energy is just mass, and mass
combined with gravity is weight: ergo, exposed film has lost some of it's
mass to heat. Just not alot! ;-)
</nitpick>

Justin Hiltscher

 

[seraphim]

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

"Justin Hiltscher" <jdhilts@ubsi.com> wrote in
news:nFace.986$2f2.346@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com:

>
> "Dylan O'Donnell" <psmithnews@spod-central.org> wrote in message
> news:86d5se9a07.fsf@strackenz.spod-central.org...
>> Lars Kecke <kecke@physik.uni-freiburg.de> writes:
>>>
>>> [weight should depend on charges]
>>> [[...]] brass lanterns; IIRC the only non-magical tools with
>>> insubstantial charges.
>>
>> While the film in an expensive camera isn't going to be
>> _insubstantial_, its weight also isn't going to change with how
>> much of it is used.
>
> IRL it *would* change, slightly. Just not noticibly unless you
> hooked it
> up to sensitive equipment. Entropy says that any reaction loses
> some energy to heat, and General Relativity says that energy is just
> mass, and mass combined with gravity is weight: ergo, exposed film
> has lost some of it's mass to heat. Just not alot! ;-)
> </nitpick>

But isn't heat just a measure of the kinetic energy of particles? So if
General Relativity says that energy is just mass, then isn't that 'lost'
mass is still there because it is making the various particles that make
up the film move slightly faster?

 

[Guest]

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

Dylan O'Donnell wrote:

> While the film in an expensive camera isn't going to be
> _insubstantial_, its weight also isn't going to change with how much
> of it is used.

Unless it's a polaroid camera, which will immediately produce an instant
picture, losing the paper's weight.



Of course, no paper is produced, so we must assume a camera of the old
fashioned type.

--
Boudewijn Waijers (kroisos at home.nl).

The garden of happiness is surrounded by a wall so low only children
can look over it. - "the Orphanage of Hits", former Dutch radio show.

 

[Guest]

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

On 4/28/05 10:12 PM, Boudewijn Waijers wrote:
> Dylan O'Donnell wrote:
>
>>While the film in an expensive camera isn't going to be
>>_insubstantial_, its weight also isn't going to change with how much
>>of it is used.
>
> Unless it's a polaroid camera, which will immediately produce an instant
> picture, losing the paper's weight.
>
>
>
> Of course, no paper is produced, so we must assume a camera of the old
> fashioned type.
>
Unless, of course, the photography patch is being used.

--
Kevin Wayne

"I came to Casablanca for the waters."
"Waters? What waters? We're in the desert?"
"I was misinformed."