YANI wands of light

G

Guest

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

Simply put, zapping a wand of light at a monster would blind them much like
the expensive camera.
 
G

Guest

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

"Haakon Studebaker" <heptapod@gmail.com> wrote:

> Simply put, zapping a wand of light at a monster
> would blind them much like the expensive camera.

Seems reasonable, if you change the wand of light to be directional.
In that case, should the lit area vary depending on the direction you
chose?

P.
 
G

Guest

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

Paul E Collins wrote:
> "Haakon Studebaker" <heptapod@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Simply put, zapping a wand of light at a monster
>>would blind them much like the expensive camera.
>
>
> Seems reasonable, if you change the wand of light to be directional.
> In that case, should the lit area vary depending on the direction you
> chose?
>
> P.
>
>

It would be cool if it made a sort of cone shape in the direction you
pick. Anyone in a direct line gets blinded, and the other squares still
are illuminated.
 
G

Guest

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

Andy Johnson <swervy.a@take-this.out.gmail.com> wrote:
> Paul E Collins wrote:
>> "Haakon Studebaker" <heptapod@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Simply put, zapping a wand of light at a monster
>>>would blind them much like the expensive camera.
>>
>>
>> Seems reasonable, if you change the wand of light to be directional.
>> In that case, should the lit area vary depending on the direction you
>> chose?
>
> It would be cool if it made a sort of cone shape in the direction you
> pick. Anyone in a direct line gets blinded, and the other squares still
> are illuminated.

And straight up could give a normal radius of light, with no chance of
blinding.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
 
G

Guest

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

Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
> Andy Johnson <swervy.a@take-this.out.gmail.com> wrote:
>> Paul E Collins wrote:
>>> "Haakon Studebaker" <heptapod@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> And straight up could give a normal radius of light, with no chance of
> blinding.

And straight down hovering over a hole would illumiate some of the level
below?
 
G

Guest

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

Ian Stirling <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>> Andy Johnson <swervy.a@take-this.out.gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Paul E Collins wrote:
>>>> "Haakon Studebaker" <heptapod@gmail.com> wrote:
><snip>
>> And straight up could give a normal radius of light, with no chance of
>> blinding.
>
> And straight down hovering over a hole would illumiate some of the
> level below?

That is just the sort of obscure thing nethack lives for. Why not?

You could, with some work, use it to illuminate the entirity of the
level below.

.... it might be expected that having the lights come on like that would
draw monsters, too.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
 
G

Guest

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

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 08:51:01 GMT
Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:

>And straight up could give a normal radius of light, with no chance of
>blinding.

Unless cursed.
 
G

Guest

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

Ian Stirling wrote:
> Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:

>> And straight up could give a normal radius of light, with no chance
>> of blinding.

> And straight down hovering over a hole would illumiate some of the
> level below?

Why? A hole doesn't even necessarily lead to the next level below. You
end up in a maze of twisty little passages, which sometimes lead you two
levels down, sometimes one, and you always end up in a different spot.

No way to tell where that light should shine (and given that the
passages are twisty and turny and lightbeams are not, the light won't
shed on any level below).

--
Boudewijn.

--
"I have hundreds of other quotes, just waiting to replace this one
as my signature..." - Me
 
G

Guest

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

Boudewijn Waijers <kroisos@REMOVETHISWORD.home.nl> wrote:
> Ian Stirling wrote:
>> Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>
>>> And straight up could give a normal radius of light, with no chance
>>> of blinding.
>
>> And straight down hovering over a hole would illumiate some of the
>> level below?
>
> Why? A hole doesn't even necessarily lead to the next level below. You
> end up in a maze of twisty little passages, which sometimes lead you two
> levels down, sometimes one, and you always end up in a different spot.
>
> No way to tell where that light should shine (and given that the
> passages are twisty and turny and lightbeams are not, the light won't
> shed on any level below).

NHIRL, remember

Say -- I know that holes always go down, and it's what, 1-4 levels?
Will a particular hole always take you to the same level, once it's
known?


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
 
G

Guest

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

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

>> A hole doesn't even necessarily lead to the next level below.
>> You end up in a maze of twisty little passages, which sometimes lead
>> you two levels down, sometimes one, and you always end up in a
>> different spot.

> NHIRL, remember

Is it?

> Say -- I know that holes always go down, and it's what, 1-4 levels?
> Will a particular hole always take you to the same level, once it's
> known?

No. Holes have no memory. You may end op on different spots at different
levels every time (until you've gone through so many times that there
are no spots left to land on) :). If is completely random.

Boudewijn.

--
"I have hundreds of other quotes, just waiting to replace this one
as my signature..." - Me
 
G

Guest

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

Boudewijn Waijers <kroisos@REMOVETHISWORD.home.nl> wrote:
> Keith Davies wrote:
>> Boudewijn Waijers <kroisos@REMOVETHISWORD.home.nl> wrote:
>
>>> A hole doesn't even necessarily lead to the next level below.
>>> You end up in a maze of twisty little passages, which sometimes lead
>>> you two levels down, sometimes one, and you always end up in a
>>> different spot.
>
>> NHIRL, remember
>
> Is it?

typo.

>> Say -- I know that holes always go down, and it's what, 1-4 levels?
>> Will a particular hole always take you to the same level, once it's
>> known?
>
> No. Holes have no memory. You may end op on different spots at different
> levels every time (until you've gone through so many times that there
> are no spots left to land on) :). If is completely random.

Ah. In that case it doesn't really make any sense to try to do this.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
 

Similar threads


ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS