an under the hood coding question
Charles Korzen
begin the descent. where i stand is one level above the oracle level, just a
slime mold experience away from gain 7th level, playing a neutral wiz named
NusRa, got some cool stuff, an alley cat that i,m taking a liking to and
knows who is the boss, also won't be a spoiler but for those that are not
clueless and don't have more than a nickle to buy a real computer and thus
forcing you to the next best thing - a 'billybob' pray at my'gates' i hope
it doesn't BSofD'me any more-MS box of wafers and transitors - there is a
way to break the time immortal rule of thy hack'er thou has only one life,
let just say it has to do with a couple of basic dos batches.
ok so now that you are with me, i've got a couple of questions that are best
illustrated by this example:
i'm trying to achieve four things on the oracle level, gain two wishes and
two spellbooks out of the statues. the wishes are easy since i've got a
magic lamp and there are fountains, i'll play the odds, first i'll #rub
until i get the result that i want- that blessed +5 dwarvish mattock, hey
i'm not greedy, if i don't then it is quit ..\foobar\nethack\ restore.bat
and try it again, if i get it then it is save/quit
..\foobar\nethack\backup.bat and move on to playing the odds of a wish from
a fountain - a blessed +3 black dragon scale mail however will accept any
type of dragon scale mail.
hey i understand mathematics, so i've understand the percentages and the
rules states in the guidebook and the sundry spoilers.
so my question has to do with the the way these constraints of random
probility are implemented in level creation, as we all know - the oracle
level has 4 fountains and 8 statues.
so my question is when you go from one level to the next and , i'm saved
static at the upper level, so if don't like the results - it that
restore.bat and a quick restart. All of this begs the question then if this
next level is the oracle level - this level is always going to be generated
with the basic core features of fountains and statues.
so here it is, my question to those that know the code under the hood, and
the DevTeam of nethack are just a bit smarter than me. a mere pile of
gelatinous goo, so my out-flanking batch files may be a mere pipedream of
frustration going nowhere fast.
here it is - when a level is created are the probilities of a given action
and outcome of an given event or action on a given object
predefined/predetermined intriniscally to a given object at the time of
level creation OR is it the level has been created, and it is the moment of
action that results in the excution of a 'foo' method object to deterime the
statistics of a given outcome, say q( y ) = you got a wish at a fountain of
ramdon chance.
the answer is a basic nuance, that tells me whether i'm wasting my time or
i'm onto something here...
sincerely,
publius kazio
next post to news group will be some thoughts and questions about
Alignment...
Richard Bos
> i'm trying to achieve four things on the oracle level, gain two wishes and
> two spellbooks out of the statues. the wishes are easy since i've got a
> magic lamp and there are fountains, i'll play the odds, first i'll #rub
> until i get the result that i want- that blessed +5 dwarvish mattock, hey
> i'm not greedy, if i don't then it is quit ..\foobar\nethack\ restore.bat
> and try it again, if i get it then it is save/quit
> ..\foobar\nethack\backup.bat
Here's the very first, and the very last, hint you need for the time
being: cheaters never prosper. You will not learn until you start
playing the game properly.
Richard
Boudewijn Waijers
> there is a way to
> break the time immortal rule of thy hack'er thou has only one life,
> let just say it has to do with a couple of basic dos batches.
There is a word for this way: the Way of the Cheater.
Cheaters don't win.
Winners don't cheat.
Boudewijn.
Kent Paul Dolan
is called "Save Scumming", it is a technique with a
long and hoary history running back in the family of
games that preceded NetHack for over two decades.
Everyone who "invents" it afresh has great pride in
the accomplishment, for a brief time, and on some
systems, like competently managed Unix boxen,
getting around the barriers installed to prevent it
is quite a software tour-de-force.
You've probably figured out by now that
save-scumming also gets lots of disapprobation in
rec.games.roguelike.nethack when proposed here.
Unfortunately, the answers that you got were such
knee-jerk shorthand as to be incomprehensible to the
new NetHack player.
All that said, save-scumming isn't very
satisfactory, and is no guarantee of ascension in
any case. A save-scummer, me in former days for
example, tends to set very low value on a game, and
to nuke it deliberately long before it is complete,
because cheating your way to success gets really,
really boring, very early in the game.
When you have the epipheny that NetHack should be
played like chess, not like Asteroids, your whole
approach to the game will change. Unfortunately,
save-scumming disrupts chances to acquire this
insight for most players.
You are more than free to "win" all the NetHack
games you want by save-scumming (though bragging
here about such wins is going to make you a prime
target for text-mode brick-bats), but since
e(X)plore mode provides exactly the same "can't
possibly die" outcome (though not the same multiple
attempts to get wishes from thrones and so forth at
each probability forking point in the game),
save-scumming is really pretty pointless extra
effort.
If you really want to have limitless wishes and
every goodie the game provides, start your game like
nethack -u wizard -X
[IIRC] and you can also wish for whatever you want
whenever you want; that startup (meant to be used
for debugging by the developers, but left enabled
for anyone who wants to use it, and many do to
answer a question about if something _will_ work in
the game before trying that same something in a
normal game of NetHack) adds a bunch of extra
commands to the game; consult the in-game list of
commands to see them. Again, after a while, playing
this way tastes a lot like eating a dry toast
sandwich instead of like playing a game with real
meat filling, though.
Do as you like, since you will anyway, I just
thought I'd try to translate the previous responses
for you. Some kind person should put this much
detail on the issue into the FAQ, and wrap that FAQ
with the distributed game, so everyone would have
it at hand easily.
xanthian, the never ascended. At my age sixty now I
may well die with the same status, and not regret
one game of NetHack ever played anyway. Playing
NetHack is about the journey, not about the
destination, much like real life. In both cases,
reaching the end just means you have to stop playing.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
John H.
> here it is - when a level is created are the probilities of a given action
> and outcome of an given event or action on a given object
> predefined/predetermined intriniscally to a given object at the time of
> level creation OR is it the level has been created, and it is the moment of
> action that results in the excution of a 'foo' method object to deterime the
> statistics of a given outcome, say q( y ) = you got a wish at a fountain of
> ramdon chance.
First, this technique is a form of cheating. Of course you can do
anything you want with your own copy of the game, but to really "win,"
you must go through without restoring backed-up save files.
If you really want to play to learn the game you could always try
Explore Mode. Start Nethack with the -X switch, and you'll start a
game with a wand of wishing, and whenever you die you'll be given the
option of not dying. Explore Mode games do not check the score list
when you die, however.
Now addressing your question, yes, if you were to do this, the dungeon
level would be different every time you entered it. But the chances
of getting just the items you want would be slim to none on each load.
Just some words of advice, to try to convince you not to cheat (and
thus be able to post news of your eventual ascension without fear of
guilty conscience):
1. Nethack isn't about getting everything you want, at least for the
early and mid game. It's about taking what the game gives you and
making good use out of it. (Note that later on, when assembling the
items you need to win, the game does devolve to the point where you're
trying to gain specific items. In my view, this is one of the reasons
Nethack gets a lot less interesting after the Castle level....)
2. ** SPOILER **
The best place to gain early wishes is on the Mine Town level.
Izchak's shop is probably the best place to look for wishes before the
Castle. It's not rare to find a magic lamp there for reasonable cost,
and sometimes you may even find two.
- John H.
tyson
nethack is not just a game; it is a culture. Most games are written by
businesses, which have to cater to whiners that want cheat codes
because they aren't good enough to win on their own. If you tried to
whine to the devteam, you'd meet a wall of indifference (if you're
lucky). People have made it out with the amulet; the only reason this
act still *means* anything is because the culture and the dev team
don't allow it, or recognize these attempts as valid.
It's a nice reminder that real accomplishment is earned, and not
bestowed as the due to anyone. It keeps us humble. Don't be surprised
or offended that asking or demonstrating your programming skills or
save-file methods gets you flamed. That's the culture that keeps the
game clean, pure, and untainted by the culture of whiners. Even
winning spoiled is better than twisting the code to suit your ego.
After all, with both the good and bad advice out there, you still have
to be a good player to survive.
I've never ascended. I may never ascend. If I do, the accomplishment
will be sweet, because I did not give in to temptation.
Eric Wright
<snip story of wannabe cheater>
> the answer is a basic nuance, that tells me whether i'm wasting my time or
> i'm onto something here...
You're wasting your time on rgrn asking the denizens how to help you
cheat. Since its your game, just start up a wizard mode game, wish
for +50 gray dragon scale mail (wizards can do anything), a boffo
weapon, a few other baubles and start hacking. This should get really
boring after an hour or two.
--
E...If you thought the Wizard was bad, just wait till you meet the
Warlord!
David Damerell
>i'm trying to achieve four things on the oracle level, gain two wishes and
>two spellbooks out of the statues. the wishes are easy since i've got a
>magic lamp and there are fountains, i'll play the odds, first i'll #rub
>until i get the result that i want- that blessed +5 dwarvish mattock, hey
>i'm not greedy, if i don't then it is quit ..\foobar\nethack\ restore.bat
>and try it again, if i get it then it is save/quit
If you want to cheat, use wizard mode. I'm not going to help you, and I
hope no-one else is, either.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Boudewijn Waijers
> What you've described has a NetHack term of art, it
> is called "Save Scumming", [...]
> Everyone who "invents" it afresh has great pride in
> the accomplishment, for a brief time, [...]
> You've probably figured out by now that
> save-scumming also gets lots of disapprobation in
> rec.games.roguelike.nethack when proposed here.
Couldn't have said it better, so far.
> Unfortunately, the answers that you got were such
> knee-jerk shorthand as to be incomprehensible to the
> new NetHack player.
You just can't resist offending people, can you? :-)
> All that said, save-scumming isn't very
> satisfactory, and is no guarantee of ascension in
> any case. [...]
Again, agreed completely!
> You are more than free to "win" all the NetHack
> games you want by save-scumming [...], but since
> e(X)plore mode provides exactly the same "can't
> possibly die" outcome [...], save-scumming is
> really pretty pointless extra effort.
Indeed.
> If you really want to have limitless wishes and
> every goodie the game provides, start your game like
>
> nethack -u wizard -X
>
> [IIRC] and you can also wish for whatever you want
> whenever you want; that startup [...] adds a bunch of extra
> commands to the game; consult the in-game list of
> commands to see them. [...]
You don't recall correctly: the command you provided gets you into
explore mode, which will indeed give you immortality and a wand of
wishing to start with, but no extra commands or the like.
The command you meant, which will get you into wizard mode, is
nethack -D -uwizard
[IIRC] :-)
> [...] Some kind person should put this much
> detail on the issue into the FAQ, and wrap that FAQ
> with the distributed game, so everyone would have
> it at hand easily.
I don't think the FAQ should go into too much detail on such a minor
subject, but I do agree strongly that the Dev Team might include the FAQ
into the next NetHack distribution.
There might be a problem with this, though, since the FAQ is written
*after* a version of NetHack appears, and, as a consequence, always
describes the game *afterwards*. The FAQ is a changing document, and
adding it to the source or binary distribution would mean that the
official distribution would change over time, without the actual game
changing. This would be undesirable, in my opinion.
Alternatively, there could be a prominent download link next to the
source/binary distribution's link.
Boudewijn.
Kent Paul Dolan
>> Unfortunately, the answers that you got were such
>> knee-jerk shorthand as to be incomprehensible to the
>> new NetHack player.
> You just can't resist offending people, can you? :-)
Oh, if I'd meant to offend people, I'd have been more
direct about it, addressing the posters rather than their
postings:
Unfortunately, the muggles who answered were so full of
uncontrollable loathing for the noble save-scummer
they gave knee-jerk reactions to the innocent questions
you asked, providing the usual lackwittean clueless and
valueless output for which they are famous. Here's the
_real_ information, something only a super intelligent
person like me could provide you.
Trust me, if I set out to offend someone, there's never
any doubt in the mind of the target, it won't require
inferring.
The stuff to which you object is mere bluntness, a beast
of a different breed.
xanthian.
And yes, my remarks addressed to Bruce were deliberately
designed to offend him. I don't care to have his mindless
and arrogant slime touching my postings; dissuading him
from reading them will accomplish that goal. [Of course,
that doesn't always work, there are people like Dan Sempsey
and David Polewka who scan everything I post everywhere in
case they find themselves mentioned there, but those poeple
are obsessively dependent morons, too, living only for the
humiliation of them they can provoke from me.]
Dylan O'Donnell
> Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
[savescumming]
> > [...] Some kind person should put this much
> > detail on the issue into the FAQ, and wrap that FAQ
> > with the distributed game, so everyone would have
> > it at hand easily.
>
> I don't think the FAQ should go into too much detail on such a minor
> subject
For what it's worth, I'm happy with the amount of detail that it
currently _does_ have on the subject. I could probably improve the
wording, but I think the content is ok.
> but I do agree strongly that the Dev Team might include the FAQ
> into the next NetHack distribution.
I would be opposed to this. It is the rec.games.roguelike.nethack FAQ,
not a general NetHack FAQ; taking it out of the context of being for
the newsgroup would, I believe, be a bad idea.
--
: Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ :
: "Any sufficiently arcane magic is indistinguishable from technology." :
: -- Lebling's Inversion of Clarke's Third Law :
Jakob Creutzig
> > but I do agree strongly that the Dev Team might include the FAQ
> > into the next NetHack distribution.
>
> I would be opposed to this. It is the rec.games.roguelike.nethack FAQ,
> not a general NetHack FAQ; taking it out of the context of being for
> the newsgroup would, I believe, be a bad idea.
I agree. The way rgrn sees nethack is not the only possible
one (for some time, I had fun just running mindlessly berserk
through the game), and though I am a piously aligned follower
of the FAQs statements, I would not like the idea of labeling
it as 'the' nethack FAQ. (Besides, if people post to rgrn
without having read the FAQ, why should one believe they will
read a FAQ delivered with the game?)
Best,
Jakob
Boudewijn Waijers
> "Boudewijn Waijers" <bwai...@home.nl> wrote:
>> You just can't resist offending people, can you? :-)
> Trust me, if I set out to offend someone, there's never
> any doubt in the mind of the target, it won't require
> inferring.
> [Of course,
> that doesn't always work, there are people like Dan Sempsey
> and David Polewka who scan everything I post everywhere in
> case they find themselves mentioned there, but those poeple
> are obsessively dependent morons, too, living only for the
> humiliation of them they can provoke from me.]
Since I never heard of those people before, I had a look at the headers
of your message and my suspicion was correct: you added a cross-posting
to misc.misc. Again, I cannot assume otherwise than that you
intentionally set out to offend people.
Why add a newsgroup that is completely irrelevant to the discussion here
in rec.games.roguelikes.nethack? Only to sollicit comments from Dan and
David mentioned above? You should know better.
Boudewijn.
Jorge Estrada
news:bGm*7w...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk:
> Charles Korzen <cak...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>i'm trying to achieve four things on the oracle level, gain two
>>wishes and two spellbooks out of the statues. the wishes are
>>easy since i've got a magic lamp and there are fountains, i'll
>>play the odds, first i'll #rub until i get the result that i
>>want- that blessed +5 dwarvish mattock, hey i'm not greedy, if i
>>don't then it is quit ..\foobar\nethack\ restore.bat and try it
>>again, if i get it then it is save/quit
>
> If you want to cheat, use wizard mode. I'm not going to help
> you, and I hope no-one else is, either.
I don't really understand this response? He isn't playing the same
game we are, so why should you care if anybody helps him or not.
Nobody will take away your skill or acomplishments in the type of
nethack we play.
Jorge
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins
Jukka Lahtinen <juk...@despammed.com> wrote:
>"Charles Korzen" <cak...@earthlink.net> writes:
>> so my question is when you go from one level to the next and , i'm saved
>> static at the upper level, so if don't like the results - it that
>> restore.bat and a quick restart. All of this begs the question then if this
>That would be cheating.
"I am now offering to share the lifetime supply of chocolate with the
computer."
hawk
--
Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign
doc...@psu.edu 111 Hiller (814) 375-4846 \ / against HTML mail
These opinions will not be those of X and postings.
Penn State until it pays my retainer. / \
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins
Boudewijn Waijers <bwai...@home.nl> wrote:
>Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
>> nethack -u wizard -X
>> [IIRC] and you can also wish for whatever you want
>> whenever you want; that startup [...] adds a bunch of extra
>> commands to the game; consult the in-game list of
>> commands to see them. [...]
>You don't recall correctly: the command you provided gets you into
>explore mode, which will indeed give you immortality and a wand of
>wishing to start with, but no extra commands or the like.
>The command you meant, which will get you into wizard mode, is
> nethack -D -uwizard
>[IIRC] :-)
It *would* work, *if* you were logged in as wizard . . .
Jeremy Turner
> In article <yrjr7rq...@despammed.com>,
> Jukka Lahtinen <juk...@despammed.com> wrote:
>>"Charles Korzen" <cak...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>>> so my question is when you go from one level to the next and , i'm
>>> saved static at the upper level, so if don't like the results - it
>>> that restore.bat and a quick restart. All of this begs the question
>>> then if this
>
>>That would be cheating.
>
> "I am now offering to share the lifetime supply of chocolate with the
> computer."
>
> hawk
hehehe
"It says, 'What would a computer do with a lifetime supply of
chocolate?' "
"I am now telling the computer EXACTLY what it could do with a lifetime
supply of chocolate."
I've heard Dahl HATED that movie... I don't get why. I thought it was
cleverly done.
jeremy "i can't wait for tim burton's version, starring johnny depp"
turner
--
SPAMPROOFING: i wrap my entire body in plastic, so Spam slides right
off of me. (NOTE: does not work on fresh-from-the-pan hot Spam.) but if
you insist on trying, replace the thing about goats with "yahoo".
Keiran
wrote:
>ha...@slytherin.ds.psu.edu (Dr. Richard E. Hawkins) writes:
>> Jukka Lahtinen <juk...@despammed.com> wrote:
>> >"Charles Korzen" <cak...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>> >> so my question is when you go from one level to the next and , i'm saved
>> >> static at the upper level, so if don't like the results - it that
>> >> restore.bat and a quick restart. All of this begs the question then if this
>
>> >That would be cheating.
>
>> "I am now offering to share the lifetime supply of chocolate with the
>> computer."
>
>Err.. I don't get it.
>What does chocolate have to do with save file cheating?
Quote from "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory", a movie from the
70's starring Gene Wilder. The quote refers to a scene in which a
scientist claims to have a computer which can determine the location
of the remaining Golden Tickets. The computer replies, "I won't tell,
that would be cheating" [hence the connection to the current thread],
etc.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067992/
--
Keiran
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins
Jeremy Turner <turnerjer0000@i_like_to_pet_friendly_goats.com> wrote:
>On 13 Jul 2004, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins said:
>> In article <yrjr7rq...@despammed.com>,
>> Jukka Lahtinen <juk...@despammed.com> wrote:
>>>That would be cheating.
>> "I am now offering to share the lifetime supply of chocolate with the
>> computer."
>hehehe
:)
>"It says, 'What would a computer do with a lifetime supply of
>chocolate?' "
>"I am now telling the computer EXACTLY what it could do with a lifetime
>supply of chocolate."
One of my favorite portions of the movie.
>I've heard Dahl HATED that movie... I don't get why. I thought it was
>cleverly done.
It's not quite the same, but always seemed a reasonable adaptation to
me.
>jeremy "i can't wait for tim burton's version, starring johnny depp"
>turner
Shirley, you must be joking . . .
jerk-o
Lord of Terror, and destroyer of souls!
>ha...@slytherin.ds.psu.edu (Dr. Richard E. Hawkins) writes:
>> Jukka Lahtinen <juk...@despammed.com> wrote:
>> >"Charles Korzen" <cak...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>> >> so my question is when you go from one level to the next and , i'm saved
>> >> static at the upper level, so if don't like the results - it that
>> >> restore.bat and a quick restart. All of this begs the question then if this
>
>> >That would be cheating.
>
>> "I am now offering to share the lifetime supply of chocolate with the
>> computer."
>
>Err.. I don't get it.
>What does chocolate have to do with save file cheating?
Have you ever seen Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory?
--
no, i didn't forget the 'F's
http://www.geocities.com/jerk_o2002
http://www.geocities.com/nameless_mod
-My 1.10 Diablo 2 Mod
http://tinyurl.com/wn0
-For hacks and cheats,
go here!