Discussion:
Scare Monster
(too old to reply)
jim in austin
2018-06-01 16:35:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Noticed some odd behavior with the "new and improved" scrolls of scare
monster in 3.6.1 on hardfought.org. Some stack and some don't, even
though they are all the same beatification. All attempts to #adjust
them to a single inventory letter fail. Is this behavior intentional?
This is the first time I've actually collected enough to witness this
possible bug...
Janis Papanagnou
2018-06-01 18:10:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jim in austin
Noticed some odd behavior with the "new and improved" scrolls of scare
monster in 3.6.1 on hardfought.org. Some stack and some don't, even
though they are all the same beatification. All attempts to #adjust
them to a single inventory letter fail. Is this behavior intentional?
This is the first time I've actually collected enough to witness this
possible bug...
I can just say that this behaviour is a well known and very old effect;
it was there in NH-343 already (and I wouldn't be astonished if that
behaviour was observable even since these scrolls were introduced).

Janis
Yosemite Sam
2018-06-01 21:06:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jim in austin
Noticed some odd behavior with the "new and improved" scrolls of scare
monster in 3.6.1 on hardfought.org. Some stack and some don't, even
though they are all the same beatification. All attempts to #adjust
them to a single inventory letter fail. Is this behavior intentional?
This is the first time I've actually collected enough to witness this
possible bug...
Janis would be the expert on this, due to his unswerving tendency to identify identify identify.
David Damerell
2018-06-01 22:35:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jim in austin
Noticed some odd behavior with the "new and improved" scrolls of scare
monster in 3.6.1 on hardfought.org. Some stack and some don't, even
though they are all the same beatification.
This is not new behaviour. It has happened since at least 3.1.3.

https://nethackwiki.com/wiki/Scroll_of_scare_monster describes what is
going on.
--
David Damerell <***@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
And now, a seemingly inexplicable shot of a passing train.
Today is Wednesday, June.
Tomorrow will be Thursday, June.
Pat Rankin
2018-06-01 23:42:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Damerell
This is not new behaviour. It has happened since at least 3.1.3.
It probably started much earlier than that. Possibly before blessed and
cursed were introduced, whenever that was.
Post by David Damerell
https://nethackwiki.com/wiki/Scroll_of_scare_monster describes what is
going on.
That wiki entry is slightly out of date for 3.6.1. Unlike in 3.6.0, shopkeepers
and temple priests inside their special rooms are not scared by the hero
standing on a scroll of scare monster.
jim in austin
2018-06-02 00:19:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pat Rankin
That wiki entry is slightly out of date for 3.6.1. Unlike in 3.6.0, shopkeepers
and temple priests inside their special rooms are not scared by the hero
standing on a scroll of scare monster.
I noticed that. Makes early pets a bit more valuable in a shop...
David Damerell
2018-06-02 13:26:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pat Rankin
Post by David Damerell
This is not new behaviour. It has happened since at least 3.1.3.
It probably started much earlier than that. Possibly before blessed and
cursed were introduced, whenever that was.
You're not wrong - it's in Hack 1.0.3, which is the earliest Hack I've got
to hand.
--
David Damerell <***@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
If we aren't perfectly synchronised this corncob will explode!
Today is Thursday, June.
Tomorrow will be Friday, June.
jim in austin
2018-06-02 00:17:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Damerell
Post by jim in austin
Noticed some odd behavior with the "new and improved" scrolls of scare
monster in 3.6.1 on hardfought.org. Some stack and some don't, even
though they are all the same beatification.
This is not new behaviour. It has happened since at least 3.1.3.
https://nethackwiki.com/wiki/Scroll_of_scare_monster describes what is
going on.
Ah, nothing new then. Had never encountered it while it was still possible
to make permanent engravings. Just happened to be in the midst of a game
where I stumbled across a wealth of scare monster scrolls and noticed the
behavior. But the question still remains. Is this intentional or an unfixed
bug?
Janis Papanagnou
2018-06-02 06:14:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Damerell
Post by jim in austin
Noticed some odd behavior with the "new and improved" scrolls of scare
monster in 3.6.1 on hardfought.org. Some stack and some don't, even
though they are all the same beatification.
https://nethackwiki.com/wiki/Scroll_of_scare_monster describes what is
going on.
But the question still remains. Is this intentional or an unfixed bug?
After reading that wiki entry (section "BUC degradation and disintegration")
I suppose there's in principle no choice but to let them not stack, because
of the internal (not user-visible) distinguishing flag that differentiate
the scrolls in addition to their BUC status. If scrolls with different flags
would stack the consequence would be that one of the objects' flag would
have to be overwritten by the flag of the other scroll thus changing the
scroll's behaviour just by stacking them.[*]

Janis

[*] Note that there is a change in behaviour with other object properties;
e.g. the food degradation turn counter.
David Damerell
2018-06-02 13:38:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janis Papanagnou
But the question still remains. Is this intentional or an unfixed bug?
After reading that wiki entry (section "BUC degradation and disintegration")
I suppose there's in principle no choice but to let them not stack,
Well. One could abandon the principle that each object stack in inventory
represents one object stack in the game's internal representation. Each
object stack in inventory would then combine all items that appeared
identical to the player, with the game selecting a random one as necessary
(quaff one from a stack of mixed beatitude, etc). This would be a lot of
work and open a number of cans of worms (for one thing, it would mean
inventory stacks might expand on identification / buc-ID, which would
incentivise players sometimes to leave items un-IDed to keep them stacked
[1] - in my view it would only work in conjunction with lifting the
52-item limit, which also would be a lot of work albeit a nice outcome.)

So in answer to jim's question, I think it is neither intentional nor an
unfixed bug; it is an unfortunate consequence of not wanting to do that
pile of work. However, it's not that unfortunate - in practice you want to
keep your degraded and undegraded scare monsters separate, and if this
pile of work was done, the player would just have to put in some effort to
do that.

[1] Like the way now that if you have a stack of items you know is
uncursed, you don't want to actually buc-ID it because it won't then stack
with newly found items of that type.
--
David Damerell <***@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
If we aren't perfectly synchronised this corncob will explode!
Today is Thursday, June.
Tomorrow will be Friday, June.
jerk-o
2018-06-02 20:21:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Damerell
Post by Janis Papanagnou
But the question still remains. Is this intentional or an unfixed bug?
After reading that wiki entry (section "BUC degradation and disintegration")
I suppose there's in principle no choice but to let them not stack,
Well. One could abandon the principle that each object stack in inventory
represents one object stack in the game's internal representation. Each
object stack in inventory would then combine all items that appeared
identical to the player, with the game selecting a random one as necessary
(quaff one from a stack of mixed beatitude, etc). This would be a lot of
work and open a number of cans of worms (for one thing, it would mean
inventory stacks might expand on identification / buc-ID, which would
incentivise players sometimes to leave items un-IDed to keep them stacked
[1] - in my view it would only work in conjunction with lifting the
52-item limit, which also would be a lot of work albeit a nice outcome.)
But but but... The Dev Team Thinks Of Everything!!! Hashtag sarcasm.
Yosemite Sam
2018-06-03 21:24:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by jerk-o
Post by David Damerell
Post by Janis Papanagnou
But the question still remains. Is this intentional or an unfixed bug?
After reading that wiki entry (section "BUC degradation and disintegration")
I suppose there's in principle no choice but to let them not stack,
Well. One could abandon the principle that each object stack in inventory
represents one object stack in the game's internal representation. Each
object stack in inventory would then combine all items that appeared
identical to the player, with the game selecting a random one as necessary
(quaff one from a stack of mixed beatitude, etc). This would be a lot of
work and open a number of cans of worms (for one thing, it would mean
inventory stacks might expand on identification / buc-ID, which would
incentivise players sometimes to leave items un-IDed to keep them stacked
[1] - in my view it would only work in conjunction with lifting the
52-item limit, which also would be a lot of work albeit a nice outcome.)
But but but... The Dev Team Thinks Of Everything!!! Hashtag sarcasm.
Not quite everything - -

Classifying identify spells was called a scum, but the dev team forgot to have the shopkeepers tear them out of the adventure's hands.
Yosemite Sam
2018-06-02 18:05:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janis Papanagnou
Janis
[*] Note that there is a change in behaviour with other object properties;
e.g. the food degradation turn counter.
[**] Note that I's prefers to identify me rods of cancellation by putting
the rod in a bag of holding. Similar to matters of insignificance of
classification of scrolls of identify by shopkeeper value.
Patric Mueller
2018-06-18 09:49:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janis Papanagnou
But the question still remains. Is this intentional or an unfixed bug?
After reading that wiki entry (section "BUC degradation and disintegration")
I suppose there's in principle no choice but to let them not stack, because
of the internal (not user-visible) distinguishing flag that differentiate
the scrolls in addition to their BUC status. If scrolls with different flags
would stack the consequence would be that one of the objects' flag would
have to be overwritten by the flag of the other scroll thus changing the
scroll's behaviour just by stacking them.[*]
The obvious choice would be to make the behavior of picking up a ?oSM
to be consistent.

I don't see a reason why it does transition from blessed to uncursed
but not from uncursed to cursed when picked up. Actually I didn't even
know that it didn't do that until this thread.

This code was there even in hack 1.0, so long before the BUC got
introduced. It probably was therefore not an oversight as the code
around it must have been changed several times since then but I don't
see a compelling reason not to integrate it completely into the BUC
system. The loss of the uncursed reading effect for the scroll is IMO
not important enough.

Bye
Patric
--
NetHack-De: NetHack auf Deutsch - http://nethack-de.sf.net/

UnNetHack: https://unnethack.wordpress.com/
Loading...