Why are some of the artifacts clearly superior to others?

[Guest]

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

David Damerell wrote:

> Quoting Benjamin Lewis <bclewis@cs.sfu.ca>:
>> Where are you finding the raw article body?
>
> "telnet chiark nntp". Well, actually, there's a trivial shellscript on
> chiark that does that when supplied with a message-ID, but...
>
> I'm just trying to knock the "it must be the reader's newsreader"
> speculation on the head, by confirming what many of us already know; it's
> mangled even with no newsreader reading it.

Ah, for some reason I inverted your statement in my head. Yes, it was
definitely mangled on the sending end.

All the newsreaders I've used have a function to display the article in raw
form.

--
Benjamin Lewis

A small, but vocal, contingent even argues that tin is superior, but they
are held by most to be the lunatic fringe of Foil Deflector Beanie science.

 

[Guest]

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

Quoting Benjamin Lewis <bclewis@cs.sfu.ca>:
>David Damerell wrote:
>>Quoting Dan Sommers <me@privacy.net>:
>>>"Boudewijn Waijers" <kroisos@REMOVETHISWORD.home.nl> wrote:
>>>>Caledonian wrote:
>>>>From a design perspective, why was this done?
>>>>[ Removed incorrect quotation level ]
>>>That's the second comment about that in this thread.
>>As a brief interjection, a look at the raw article body confirms it
>>arrived pre-mangled.
>>We may have found _another_ bug in DejaGoogle.
>Where are you finding the raw article body?

"telnet chiark nntp". Well, actually, there's a trivial shellscript on
chiark that does that when supplied with a message-ID, but...

I'm just trying to knock the "it must be the reader's newsreader"
speculation on the head, by confirming what many of us already know; it's
mangled even with no newsreader reading it.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is First Aponoia, April.

 

[Guest]

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

Janis Papanagnou <Janis_Papanagnou@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Caledonian wrote:
> >
> > Although I don't think it would be desirable to make all of the
> > artifacts "balanced", I don't think the current difference in their
> > utility leads to diversity. Quite the opposite. As things currently
> > stand, everyone uses only a few of the most powerful artifact weapons.
>
> And what do those "everyone's" use if they haven't got any of the
> "most powerful artifact weapons"?

_Get_ a powerful artifact weapon. Or, in the case of wizards, use MM.

Richard

 

[Guest]

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

Raisse the Thaumaturge <raisse@valdyas.org> wrote:

> Richard Bos wrote:
>
> > The Brands do grant the appropriate resistance; it's Mjollnir that does
> > shock damage but doesn't grant shock resistance (which is one of the
> > reasons why only gamblers
>
> and people who are shock resistant from a ring or eating the right food

No, gamblers. Shock danger is only one of the reasons - do you really
want to gamble on a dangerous weapon like that not returning, and being
picked up by a weapon-using monster? Sure, the chance is only 1% - but
it's 1% of serious trouble.

Richard

 

[Guest]

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

Richard Bos wrote:
> Raisse the Thaumaturge <raisse@valdyas.org> wrote:
>
>
>> Richard Bos wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The Brands do grant the appropriate resistance; it's Mjollnir
>>> that does shock damage but doesn't grant shock resistance (which
>>> is one of the reasons why only gamblers
>>
>> ...and people who are shock resistant from a ring or eating the right
>> food
>
>
> No, gamblers. Shock danger is only one of the reasons - do you really
> want to gamble on a dangerous weapon like that not returning, and
> being picked up by a weapon-using monster? Sure, the chance is only
> 1% - but it's 1% of serious trouble.
>
> Richard

Being picked up by a weapon-using monster? If the weapon-using monster
already has a weapon other than a dagger, it won't change to using
Mjollnir, since Mjollnir is a war hammer, and monsters don't know
whether or not it's an artifact or how high it's enchanted. Even if the
weapon-using monster only has daggers or no weapon at all, if you have
shock resistance, it does as much damage as a normal war hammer (less
than a rubber hose of equal enchantment), so you probably won't even
notice much difference in damage.

--
____ (__)
/ \ (oo) -Shadow
|Moo. > \/
\____/

 

[Guest]

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

Dan Sommers <me@privacy.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 03:02:07 +0200,
> Janis Papanagnou <Janis_Papanagnou@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'd rather guess it's a bug.
> > (There's really an awful lot of broken software out there...) :-(
>
> I can't find this (quickly) in the RFC's, but I'm not making it up, and
> it's not a bug. See the "mbox" entry in wikipedia:
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbox>

It may have an underlying reason, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a
bug. There is such a term as Broken As Designed, and by now it should
surprise nobody that it applies to Google Broken Beta. Again.

Richard

 

[Guest]

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

rlb@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) wrote:
>Raisse the Thaumaturge <raisse@valdyas.org> wrote:
>> and people who are shock resistant from a ring or eating the right food
>
>No, gamblers. Shock danger is only one of the reasons - do you really
>want to gamble on a dangerous weapon like that not returning, and being
>picked up by a weapon-using monster?

Against shock-resistant targets, Mjollnir (1d4+1/1d4) is inferior to an
equivalently enchanted short sword (1d6/1d8); warhammers are junk. So,
if you have shock resistance, the monsters picking up Mjollnir and using
it against you is not a major concern as long as you've got a backup
weapon.
--
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

 

[Guest]

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

Martin Read <mpread@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

> rlb@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) wrote:
> >Raisse the Thaumaturge <raisse@valdyas.org> wrote:
> >> and people who are shock resistant from a ring or eating the right food
> >
> >No, gamblers. Shock danger is only one of the reasons - do you really
> >want to gamble on a dangerous weapon like that not returning, and being
> >picked up by a weapon-using monster?
>
> Against shock-resistant targets, Mjollnir (1d4+1/1d4) is inferior to an
> equivalently enchanted short sword (1d6/1d8); warhammers are junk. So,
> if you have shock resistance, the monsters picking up Mjollnir and using
> it against you is not a major concern as long as you've got a backup
> weapon.

And even if you aren't shock resistant, you probably have a limited
supply of emergency items such as powerful wands or potions of
paralysis. When that demon picks up Mjollnir, you can throw a potion of
paralysis at him and kill him with your silver saber before he wakes up.

--
David Grabiner, grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu, http://remarque.org/~grabiner
Baseball labor negotiations FAQ: http://remarque.org/~grabiner/laborfaq.html
Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street!
Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc.

 

[Guest]

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

Shadow wrote:

> [...], if you have shock resistance,
> it does as much damage as a normal war hammer

And who's going to tell your equipment?

--
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?)

Boudewijn Waijers wrote:
> Shadow wrote:
>
>
>>[...], if you have shock resistance,
>>it does as much damage as a normal war hammer
>
>
> And who's going to tell your equipment?
>

Oh. I forgot about that.

--
____ (__)
/ \ (oo) -Shadow
|Moo. > \/
\____/

 

[Guest]

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

Boudewijn Waijers wrote:
> Shadow wrote:
>
>
>>[...], if you have shock resistance,
>>it does as much damage as a normal war hammer
>
>
> And who's going to tell your equipment?
>

Hm...

Mjollnir
(neutral* war hammer)
[...]
Wielded
[...]
May explode rings (other than shock resistance) or wands (other than
lightning) carried by the target.

I wonder if this applies to worn rings... If not, simply stash all
shashable wands and rings not worn into a BoH... And drop any
/oCancellation... I mean, if it's thrown and not wielded, there should
be enough time for doing that.

--
____ (__)
/ \ (oo) -Shado
|Moo. > \/
\____/

 

[Guest]

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

Boudewijn Waijers <kroisos@REMOVETHISWORD.home.nl> wrote:

> Certainly, but how would that software know whether the > sign was
> inserted when storing or whether it had been there all the time, even
> before reception?

Because if it had been ">From" to begin with, that software would have
stored it as ">>From".
--
Daniel W. Johnson
panoptes@iquest.net
http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/
039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W

 

[Guest]

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

Shadow wrote:

> Mjollnir
> (neutral* war hammer)
> [...]
> Wielded
> [...]
> May explode rings (other than shock resistance) or wands (other than
> lightning) carried by the target.
>
> I wonder if this applies to worn rings...

yes.

> If not, simply stash all
> shashable wands and rings not worn into a BoH... And drop any
> /oCancellation...

The good thing is that wands just do d10 damage and don't explode as in
a-pplying them.

> I mean, if it's thrown and not wielded, there should
> be enough time for doing that.

I don't think that monsters can actually throw Mojo, at least it's not
referenced in mthrowu.

Lars