Just started with monk, got vorpal blade from sacrifice at orcish mines.
Is it good ?
How far can I enhance swords ?
Shall I use it all the time from now on and forget about fighting
without any weapon as I did so far ?
On 22.01.2022 09:15, Isidore Ducasse wrote:
Just started with monk, got vorpal blade from sacrifice at orcish mines.
Is it good ?
It's okay. Long swords do good damage. [...]
On 22.01.2022 09:33, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
On 22.01.2022 09:15, Isidore Ducasse wrote:
Just started with monk, got vorpal blade from sacrifice at orcish mines. >> Is it good ?
It's okay. Long swords do good damage. [...]
This page may help you to compare artifacts once you've got more than
one: http://nh.gridbug.de/artifacts.html
Janis
Just started with monk, got vorpal blade from sacrifice at orcish mines.
Is it good ? How far can I enhance swords ?
Shall I use it all the time from now on and forget about fighting
without any weapon as I did so far ?
Thanks for your hints !
A major advantage of getting Vorpal Blade is that if you make it to the Astral Plane none of the adventurer characters there can wield it
against you to behead you instantly.
Thank you for the tips !
I've tried and got dragonbane, which is worse I think. Then I stopped sacrifice
because I'm afraid the odds of getting a third artefact become very low
and I'll have to wait for a veeeery long time (don't have create monsters).
On 26.01.2022 18:23, Isidore Ducasse wrote:
Thank you for the tips !The odds are not too bad. But then, what if you get another lousy one?
I've tried and got dragonbane, which is worse I think. Then I stopped sacrifice
because I'm afraid the odds of getting a third artefact become very low
and I'll have to wait for a veeeery long time (don't have create monsters).
;-)
Janis
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 1:02:51 PM UTC-5, Janis wrote:
On 26.01.2022 18:23, Isidore Ducasse wrote:
Thank you for the tips ! I've tried and got dragonbane, which isThe odds are not too bad. But then, what if you get another lousy
worse I think. Then I stopped sacrifice because I'm afraid the
odds of getting a third artefact become very low and I'll have to
wait for a veeeery long time (don't have create monsters).
one? ;-)
You can keep going. You can just keep going. Two is easy. Three is
harder. However, it's real hard after four I've found. Three is easy.
Four is okay. Getting a fifth artifact is tough. Your thoughts
Janis?
This is also heavily influenced by "create monster" spell. If you
have THAt any amount of sacrifices can be fine...
On 27.01.2022 01:52, Chris Bowers wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 1:02:51 PM UTC-5, Janis wrote:
On 26.01.2022 18:23, Isidore Ducasse wrote:
Thank you for the tips ! I've tried and got dragonbane, which isThe odds are not too bad. But then, what if you get another lousy
worse I think. Then I stopped sacrifice because I'm afraid the
odds of getting a third artefact become very low and I'll have to
wait for a veeeery long time (don't have create monsters).
one? ;-)
You can keep going. You can just keep going. Two is easy. Three isI may be a pathological case and thus not a sensible sample for
harder. However, it's real hard after four I've found. Three is easy.
Four is okay. Getting a fifth artifact is tough. Your thoughts
Janis?
comparison. ;-)
Once I've managed the food issue, I sacrifice at an altar until I
get a decent artifact weapon; in case of a disappointing series
of only lousy or inappropriate artifacts I continue even beyond
five (or more) already got artifacts, if I think it's necessary
(or convenient) for my character.
But since altar camping at that stage isn't something to suggest unconditionally I abstain from suggesting it. Only my and others'
experience that there's obviously too many lousy artifacts should
be mentioned, so that (in an attempt to get a better artifact) a
player is not too disappointed or brings himself in danger when
trying to get a good artifact during altar campings while odds
are bad.
This is also heavily influenced by "create monster" spell. If youYou need sufficient food for that (or eat some of the bigger
have THAt any amount of sacrifices can be fine...
monsters created). I also keep a couple cursed scrolls of create
monster, or leave one charge in an (identified) wand of create
monster to break it for more outcome; but that requires that you
can handle hordes of tough monsters, or have something to burn
the E-word (in NH-343, or Slash'em, not sure about NH-36x).
Janis
There's more in Nethack than only MR and reflection; the paralysis you experienced was a clerical spell he casted at you. He has a couple more
very effective spells.
On 30.01.2022 07:58, Chris Bowers wrote:
Master Kaen is indeed a monster of a beast. He's just so hard.
Only thing harder are the riders, demogorgon, and some of theIn Slashem there's generally a Demogorgon level so I regularly
demons.
meet that demon. The good thing is that it respects Elbereth
(don't know about Elbereth in recent Nethack versions), where
Kaen doesn't. That's why I consider Kaen even worse than big D.
Boulder forts, scroll of scare monster, and attack spells and wandsOnce he's "awaken" he will immediately pick up the quest artifact
of frost/fire/lightning work well on him. If you are a chaotic monk, stormbringer max enchanted is great. Other options are firebrand/frostbrand/mjollnir. For lawfuls excalibur and greyswandir.
I wouldn't use martial arts on him unless you are grandmaster and
double speeded. Look to damage increasing items such as rings of
increase damage and gauntlets of power. Wand of death also works.
and get MR (unless he already had it from a cloak), so he's immune
to death. Even if you succeed in getting in a straight line without
him noticing you, if your wand misses (I think) he will "wake up".
Always have escape means of teleport, cursed potions of gain levelI'm not a big fan, to say the least, of escaping him. If you come
(for a hasty exit). Scrolls of teleport while confused will levelport
you out.
back you have to start the process again.
adjacent to you and will accompany you on level-teleport "escapes".
Getting confused usually needs an extra turn; that may be deadly
and better spent in teleporting him away - a couple attempts may
be necessary if he immediately comes back - to escape without him.
The instant(!) level-escape is an option if you enter his lair by
accident through a trapdoor; since you want to cover the stairs
and not let Kaen get to that tactical position.
I think it's better to have a plan that reliably works, and the
intention to kill him on the first date you have with him.
Janis
Master Kaen is indeed a monster of a beast. He's just so hard.
Only thing harder are the riders, demogorgon, and some of the
demons.
Boulder forts, scroll of scare monster, and attack spells and wands
of frost/fire/lightning work well on him. If you are a chaotic monk, stormbringer max enchanted is great. Other options are firebrand/frostbrand/mjollnir. For lawfuls excalibur and greyswandir.
I wouldn't use martial arts on him unless you are grandmaster and
double speeded. Look to damage increasing items such as rings of
increase damage and gauntlets of power. Wand of death also works.
Always have escape means of teleport, cursed potions of gain level
(for a hasty exit). Scrolls of teleport while confused will levelport
you out.
On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 5:37:47 AM UTC-5, Janis wrote:
I'm not a big fan, to say the least, of escaping him. If you come
back you have to start the process again.
I escape quest nemesis all the time. You fight them and you're not
sure how tough they will be or how powerful you are. So you try it.
If it starts to go real bad, you get out of there. Go do the castle
or whatever else. Come back later, stronger.
Moreover, typically he's
adjacent to you and will accompany you on level-teleport "escapes".
Getting confused usually needs an extra turn; that may be deadly
and better spent in teleporting him away - a couple attempts may be
necessary if he immediately comes back - to escape without him. The
instant(!) level-escape is an option if you enter his lair by
accident through a trapdoor; since you want to cover the stairs and
not let Kaen get to that tactical position.
Yes. Step 1 wand of teleport you away.
Step 2. confuse self, step 3,
read scroll of teleport to GET YOU OFF THE LEVEL. Or if he follows
you upstairs or escapes upstairs.
I think it's better to have a plan that reliably works, and the
intention to kill him on the first date you have with him.
Of course. But we all make mistakes. If you plan for mistakes and
have escape routes, often you don't need them. But if you do: they
are there.
On 30.01.2022 11:50, Chris Bowers wrote:
On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 5:37:47 AM UTC-5, Janis wrote:
I'm not a big fan, to say the least, of escaping him. If you come
back you have to start the process again.
Yes. Step 1 wand of teleport you away.
Usually I teleport the foe away (not me), which works also on
no-teleport levels. In case of Kaen I also want to stay on the
stairs, even if escape is the tactical plan - and then there's
even no confusion or scrolls necessary, just go upstairs while
he's dislocated and non-adjacent any more.
On 30.01.2022 11:50, Chris Bowers wrote:
On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 5:37:47 AM UTC-5, Janis wrote:
I'm not a big fan, to say the least, of escaping him. If you come
back you have to start the process again.
I escape quest nemesis all the time. You fight them and you're notThat's certainly sensible as suggestions for the unexperienced or
sure how tough they will be or how powerful you are. So you try it.
If it starts to go real bad, you get out of there. Go do the castle
or whatever else. Come back later, stronger.
unspoiled players.
In case of Kaen I feel the need for a plan in the first place,
since his attacks require more than just a bit more AC or weapon enchantments or some additional tool. Either I don't have what I
need, then I wait - and don't go in a "first round" with him -,
or I am prepared then I just do all necessary procedures to kill
him.
Moreover, typically he's
adjacent to you and will accompany you on level-teleport "escapes".
Getting confused usually needs an extra turn; that may be deadly
and better spent in teleporting him away - a couple attempts may be
necessary if he immediately comes back - to escape without him. The
instant(!) level-escape is an option if you enter his lair by
accident through a trapdoor; since you want to cover the stairs and
not let Kaen get to that tactical position.
Yes. Step 1 wand of teleport you away.Usually I teleport the foe away (not me), which works also on
no-teleport levels. In case of Kaen I also want to stay on the
stairs, even if escape is the tactical plan - and then there's
even no confusion or scrolls necessary, just go upstairs while
he's dislocated and non-adjacent any more.
Step 2. confuse self, step 3,
read scroll of teleport to GET YOU OFF THE LEVEL. Or if he follows
you upstairs or escapes upstairs.
I think it's better to have a plan that reliably works, and the
intention to kill him on the first date you have with him.
Of course. But we all make mistakes. If you plan for mistakes andSure.
have escape routes, often you don't need them. But if you do: they
are there.
Janis
Now that I play a variety of roles. I often don't spoil myself about
the quest nemesis, or I forget who they are and don't look it up.
(More fun that way). Just now I fought the quest nemesis in the Arc
quest (minion) two weaponing with Excalibur +6, Silver Sabre +2, and
a ring of increase damage +4. I was able to sneak up on him and stand
next to him and suprise him immediately. He was completley kicked off balance, and instantly teleported to the upstairs (as I did so much
damage) leaving the orb behind. I walked back to the upstairs. I
approached him, and He went down in three turns. Two weapon, silver
damage, the enchantments, and of course the ring of increase damage
(which applies to both attacks) was just too much for him.
[Scorpious]
I second that. Don't meet him before sufficiently prepared. If you
manage to paralyse him with a potion (preferably wearing a ring of free action), you don't even need a weapon to beat him, at least in slash'em. Apply a few of the particular techniques that a sufficiently high-level
monk has available, attacking with a chained blitz action that allows
you to concatenate several martial arts moves. You can kill him with two
hits this way. Monks need artifact weapons only if dealing with several enemies in short succession or at once. (If the technique is available,
a monk should be able to kill any of the riders with a single hit. The
Wizard of Yendor with two. Unfortunately, it takes time to regenerate
the technique, and it is easy to enter incorrect sequences of chained
blitz. You simply have to know your martial arts well...)
Teleporting away may not be a good strategy when you are already low at hitpoints and your opponent is fast.
On 30.01.2022 21:57, Klaus Kassner wrote:
I second that. Don't meet him before sufficiently prepared. If youFrankly, I haven't yet succeeded with the martial arts techniques _interface_. I tried it once or twice but it didn't work, yet not
manage to paralyse him with a potion (preferably wearing a ring of free action), you don't even need a weapon to beat him, at least in slash'em. Apply a few of the particular techniques that a sufficiently high-level monk has available, attacking with a chained blitz action that allows
you to concatenate several martial arts moves. You can kill him with two hits this way. Monks need artifact weapons only if dealing with several enemies in short succession or at once. (If the technique is available,
a monk should be able to kill any of the riders with a single hit. The Wizard of Yendor with two. Unfortunately, it takes time to regenerate
the technique, and it is easy to enter incorrect sequences of chained blitz. You simply have to know your martial arts well...)
as I'd expected. So I abstained from using techniques at all (call
it one hand behind ones back technique for not using techniques :-).
I actually play monks just conventionally (simple martial arts and
artifact weapons in Slashem, and only artifact weapons formerly in
Nethack).
Teleporting away may not be a good strategy when you are already low at hitpoints and your opponent is fast.Absolutely correct. It's more an issue if you accidentally have got
Kaen adjacent (by accidentally losing a turn or opening the boulder
fort in the heat of the fight), so that you can fix that mishap.
Janis
So the potion of paralysis looks like a terrible thing, as many monsters
can throw them, even in the early game ?
Does it mean that as soon as I can get a ring of free action, I should
keep it on all the time ?
Glancing at the wiki, I didn't had the feeling that this ring was that
much important...
So the potion of paralysis looks like a terrible thing, as many monsters
can throw them, even in the early game ?
Does it mean that as soon as I can get a ring of free action, I should
keep it on all the time ?
Glancing at the wiki, I didn't had the feeling that this ring was that
much important...
On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 4:26:53 PM UTC-5, Janis wrote:
On 30.01.2022 21:57, Klaus Kassner wrote:
Teleporting away may not be a good strategy when you are already low atAbsolutely correct. It's more an issue if you accidentally have got
hitpoints and your opponent is fast.
Kaen adjacent (by accidentally losing a turn or opening the boulder
fort in the heat of the fight), so that you can fix that mishap.
Janis
I like teleporting self. In 3.6x teleporting an opponent may not work. But teleporting yourself is 100% guaranteed
.
On a no-teleport level it is 100% guaranteed to fail... (unless you are
in wizard mode, of course). Well, on Kaen's level teleportation is
allowed. But where do you teleport to, if you were already on the
upstairs? He will follow you swiftly, if you teleport inside the level,
so you will not save yourself, if you had already problems to begin
with, and immediately, if you level teleport and he was next to you.
so you will not save yourself, if you had already problems to begin
with,
And immediately, if you level teleport and he was next to you.
On a no-teleport level it is 100% guaranteed to fail... (unless you
are in wizard mode, of course). Well, on Kaen's level teleportation
is allowed. But where do you teleport to, if you were already on
the upstairs? He will follow you swiftly, if you teleport inside
the level, so you will not save yourself, if you had already
problems to begin with, and immediately, if you level teleport and
he was next to you.
Right. So against Master Kaen, you zap teleport on yourself. That's
100% success.
He will follow you swiftly, if you teleport inside the level,
so you will not save yourself, if you had already problems to begin
with,
That is not true. It takes time for him to teleport to you. The
teleports happen about once every 5 turns.
On 02.02.2022 02:09, Chris Bowers wrote:Wow. That's never happened to me.
On a no-teleport level it is 100% guaranteed to fail... (unless you
are in wizard mode, of course). Well, on Kaen's level teleportation
is allowed. But where do you teleport to, if you were already on
the upstairs? He will follow you swiftly, if you teleport inside
the level, so you will not save yourself, if you had already
problems to begin with, and immediately, if you level teleport and
he was next to you.
Right. So against Master Kaen, you zap teleport on yourself. That's
100% success.
He will follow you swiftly, if you teleport inside the level,
so you will not save yourself, if you had already problems to begin
with,
That is not true. It takes time for him to teleport to you. TheReally? I recall nemeses that came back immediately and needed a few consecutive teleport zaps until my character got a single free turn.
teleports happen about once every 5 turns.
"Movement
When a covetous monster wants to attack, they simply appear
adjacent to you, [...]" [ Wiki ]
I read that as if it's directly correlated with the monster's speed.
Janis
On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 10:15:04 PM UTC-5, Janis wrote:
On 02.02.2022 02:09, Chris Bowers wrote:Wow. That's never happened to me.
Really? I recall nemeses that came back immediately and needed a few
On a no-teleport level it is 100% guaranteed to fail... (unless you
are in wizard mode, of course). Well, on Kaen's level teleportation
is allowed. But where do you teleport to, if you were already on
the upstairs? He will follow you swiftly, if you teleport inside
the level, so you will not save yourself, if you had already
problems to begin with, and immediately, if you level teleport and
he was next to you.
Right. So against Master Kaen, you zap teleport on yourself. That's
100% success.
He will follow you swiftly, if you teleport inside the level,
so you will not save yourself, if you had already problems to begin
with,
That is not true. It takes time for him to teleport to you. The
teleports happen about once every 5 turns.
consecutive teleport zaps until my character got a single free turn.
"Movement
When a covetous monster wants to attack, they simply appear
adjacent to you, [...]" [ Wiki ]
I read that as if it's directly correlated with the monster's speed.
Janis
Hey. Maybe You're unlucky or I'm lucky. But I use self-teleport to escape from demons and demogorgon and quest nemesis on the regular.
I presume the immediate reappearance happens when you teleport *him*
away. When you teleport yourself away, you may have more time (the logic behind this being that he has to find you again). But if the
approximately 5 turns means between 1 and 5 turns, then the method is
only probabilistically safe, because he can reappear after 1 turn or 2 already. (A code reader should be able to verify this.)
But since altar camping at that stage isn't something to suggest unconditionally I abstain from suggesting it. Only my and others'
experience that there's obviously too many lousy artifacts should
be mentioned, so that (in an attempt to get a better artifact) a
player is not too disappointed or brings himself in danger when
trying to get a good artifact during altar campings while odds
are bad.
[ playing a lawful hobbit Monk, lacking good artifact gift,
unrestricted long sword by crowning, dipped for Excalibur,
continued sacrificing, got the Wallet of Perseus ]
I'm settled meanwhile, let's see how it continues.
On 02.02.2022 10:46, Klaus Kassner wrote:
I presume the immediate reappearance happens when you teleport *him*
away. When you teleport yourself away, you may have more time (the logic
behind this being that he has to find you again). But if the
approximately 5 turns means between 1 and 5 turns, then the method is
only probabilistically safe, because he can reappear after 1 turn or 2
already. (A code reader should be able to verify this.)
In Slashem, on the guaranteed Demogorgon level, he comes adjacent soon; typically in one or two turns, but I've had (very) few games where his attention was a bit delayed, which could have been these mentioned 4-5
turns. It would be interesting what distribution the values have, since
it seems to me that maximum is close to around ~1.3 turns (in my games).
(I haven't inspected the code, though, that's just from experience.)
Covetous Monsters do not reappear after one turn when you teleport
yourself away with wand of teleport. I've never, never seen that.
Slash 'em might be different.
On 07.02.2022 05:52, Chris Bowers wrote:
Covetous Monsters do not reappear after one turn when you teleport yourself away with wand of teleport. I've never, never seen that.Any evidence for that?
Slash 'em might be different.I'd expect that Slashem behaves like NH-343. (Not sure about NH-36x;
while teleport tactics of monsters, as far as I've heard, changed
with respect to the choice of stairs, I haven't heard anything about
any change in covetous monsters following the character.)
In Slashem, as in Nethack, the demon lairs are non-teleport levels.
So there you cannot teleport yourself away. And you have to use a
different setup.
In my regular hobbit monk game that I currently play, and where I
had reached Demogorgon's lair yesterday, I could thus only try the teleport-monster-away tactics. Demogorgon came instantly once he saw
me and he also quickly returnd.
Is there any founded reason why you think that it makes a difference
whether you teleport yourself away or teleport a covetous monster
away? (The monster certainly "knows" where you are, in both cases.)
In Nethack (NH-343) I've just tried in Explore mode, but that didn't
work well; wishing for a figurine wasn't possible, and wishing for a
statue and stone-to-fleshing that statue will create a "Demogorgon"
(that quickly follows you if you teleport away; in my test it was on
2nd turn), but that monster was just a shape-changer that quickly
turned to another beast, so I could only test/try the escape once.
(My assumption would be that properties of a shape-shifted creature
would match the new shaped species, but that may also be wrong.)
So tests (while imperfect), own experience, and wording of the Wiki
seem to all support our point.
What non-subjective evidence can you provide to support your opinion?
Janis
On 07.02.2022 05:52, Chris Bowers wrote:
Covetous Monsters do not reappear after one turn when you teleport yourself away with wand of teleport. I've never, never seen that.Any evidence for that?
Slash 'em might be different.I'd expect that Slashem behaves like NH-343. (Not sure about NH-36x;
while teleport tactics of monsters, as far as I've heard, changed
with respect to the choice of stairs, I haven't heard anything about
any change in covetous monsters following the character.)
In Slashem, as in Nethack, the demon lairs are non-teleport levels.
So there you cannot teleport yourself away. And you have to use a
different setup.
In my regular hobbit monk game that I currently play, and where I
had reached Demogorgon's lair yesterday, I could thus only try the teleport-monster-away tactics. Demogorgon came instantly once he saw
me and he also quickly returnd.
Is there any founded reason why you think that it makes a difference
whether you teleport yourself away or teleport a covetous monster
away? (The monster certainly "knows" where you are, in both cases.)
In Nethack (NH-343) I've just tried in Explore mode, but that didn't
work well; wishing for a figurine wasn't possible, and wishing for a
statue and stone-to-fleshing that statue will create a "Demogorgon"
(that quickly follows you if you teleport away; in my test it was on
2nd turn), but that monster was just a shape-changer that quickly
turned to another beast, so I could only test/try the escape once.
(My assumption would be that properties of a shape-shifted creature
would match the new shaped species, but that may also be wrong.)
So tests (while imperfect), own experience, and wording of the Wiki
seem to all support our point.
What non-subjective evidence can you provide to support your opinion?
Janis
On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 1:38:07 PM UTC-5, Janis wrote:used this to escape demogorgon too in 3.6.1.
On 07.02.2022 05:52, Chris Bowers wrote:
Covetous Monsters do not reappear after one turn when you teleportAny evidence for that?
yourself away with wand of teleport. I've never, never seen that.
Is there any founded reason why you think that it makes a difference
whether you teleport yourself away or teleport a covetous monster
away? (The monster certainly "knows" where you are, in both cases.)
In Nethack (NH-343) I've just tried in Explore mode, but that didn't
work well; wishing for a figurine wasn't possible, and wishing for a
statue and stone-to-fleshing that statue will create a "Demogorgon"
(that quickly follows you if you teleport away; in my test it was on
2nd turn), but that monster was just a shape-changer that quickly
turned to another beast, so I could only test/try the escape once.
(My assumption would be that properties of a shape-shifted creature
would match the new shaped species, but that may also be wrong.)
So tests (while imperfect), own experience, and wording of the Wiki
seem to all support our point.
What non-subjective evidence can you provide to support your opinion?
Janis
I mean, it's not really SUBJECTIVE evidence. I mean, I've done it so, so many times. Unless you think I'm an unreliable witness or something. Teleport self away from quest nemesis or demon, confuse self with spell, read scroll of teleport. I've also
Even if the demon were to reappear instantly the first turn, I assume you have more zaps from your teleportation wand, so you just do it again. I've never had the nemesis or demon follow me on the first turn, or 2nd turn either.always assumed the same mechanic was in effect, the monster takes 3-8 turns to teleport to you, just as it does when it teleports to the upstairs.
In 3.6.0 monsters can resist wand of teleport, so there it would be MORE effective to zap yourself, especially if the nemesis is behind other monsters. Monster can resist=not guaranteed. Teleport wand on self always succeeds.
In addition, the nemesis can often summon monsters, so it often is effective to teleport yourself away instead, because by teleporting yourself away you're away from BOTH the quest nemesis and attendant monsters.
Teleporting yourself on a non teleport level works 100% of the time, so I would assume that you are talking about the number of turns it takes for the nemesis to follow you could be 1 turn? I've never seen that, but I GUESS it could happen.
When talking about a teleporting-to-the-upstairs monster, you are aware of course what happens. You hit it several times, and it teleports to the upstairs to heal up for 3-8 turns or so, and teleports back to you. When you teleport yourself away, I
I guess I could film it on my computer or something.
-Chris
Would it be easy for a code-reader to find out by inspection of the
sources?
Obviously, this tactics will not work on no-teleport levels, so it does
not normally help against Demogorgon in Slash'em. But that's a
no-brainer. If you meet Demogorgon on his own level, you are usually
well prepared. Meeting Demogorgon in NH is another issue and there self-teleporting away may be a good approach.
The main question in this context is how likely it is that a covetous
monster really takes several turns to get back to you once you teleport
away. If you teleport *them* away, they seem to be back within one turn (meaning you may have two moves, if the timing is right).
I personally think that an in-game rationale for them coming back to you faster when *they* are teleported away than when you teleport *yourself* might be that in the first case they definitely know your position
whereas in the second they "have to look for you".
[...]
I mean, it's not really SUBJECTIVE evidence. I mean, I've done it so,
so many times. Unless you think I'm an unreliable witness or
something.
Teleport self away from quest nemesis or demon, confuse
self with spell, read scroll of teleport. I've also used this to
escape demogorgon too in 3.6.1.
Even if the demon were to reappear instantly the first turn, I assume
you have more zaps from your teleportation wand, so you just do it
again. I've never had the nemesis or demon follow me on the first
turn, or 2nd turn either.
In 3.6.0 monsters can resist wand of teleport, so there it would be
MORE effective to zap yourself, especially if the nemesis is behind
other monsters. Monster can resist=not guaranteed. Teleport wand on
self always succeeds.
In addition, the nemesis can often summon monsters,
so it often is
effective to teleport yourself away instead, because by teleporting
yourself away you're away from BOTH the quest nemesis and attendant
monsters.
Teleporting yourself on a non teleport level works 100% of the time,
so I would assume that you are talking about the number of turns it
takes for the nemesis to follow you could be 1 turn? I've never seen
that, but I GUESS it could happen.
When talking about a teleporting-to-the-upstairs monster, you are
aware of course what happens. You hit it several times, and it
teleports to the upstairs to heal up for 3-8 turns or so, and
teleports back to you. When you teleport yourself away, I always
assumed the same mechanic was in effect, the monster takes 3-8 turns
to teleport to you, just as it does when it teleports to the
upstairs.
I guess I could film it on my computer or something.
On 05.03.2022 06:46, Chris Bowers wrote:
I mean, it's not really SUBJECTIVE evidence. I mean, I've done it so,
so many times. Unless you think I'm an unreliable witness or
something.
I had not the least made any personal assumption when I wrote that
post, and there was certainly no offense intended.
Teleport self away from quest nemesis or demon, confuse
self with spell, read scroll of teleport. I've also used this to
escape demogorgon too in 3.6.1.
As far as I recall, in Nethack, there's no Demogorgon level, and
Demogorgon could only appear in case that two specific demons (was
it Orcus and Yeenoghu or Asmodeus?) would summon him.
On 05.03.2022 14:28, Klaus Kassner wrote:aning you may have two moves, if the timing is right).
I personally think that an in-game rationale for them coming back to you
faster when *they* are teleported away than when you teleport *yourself*
might be that in the first case they definitely know your position
whereas in the second they "have to look for you".
The test that I made does not seem to support that assumed behavior.
Or can you confirm that from own observation?
I seem to remember that I once encountered Demogorgon while fighting the Wizard of Yendor and I assumed that he had summoned him (Demo was
peaceful, but not for long). Is that also possible or must the wizard
have summoned, say, Orcus, and Orcus then Demogorgon?
(In any case, I
had to fight the wizard and two major demons, including Demogorgon,
then, but I survived.)
With teleport control, self-teleportation is preferable to escape melee situations with many foes -- but it does not work on non-teleport
levels.
Teleport away seemed to work always in pre-3.6.x versions, [...]
On 06.03.2022 18:30, Klaus Kassner wrote:
With teleport control, self-teleportation is preferable to escape melee
situations with many foes -- but it does not work on non-teleport
levels.
Thanks for the [NH-36x] confirmation. For NH-343 I knew it already.
So we can now ignore the recently fostered myth, I suppose.
Teleport away seemed to work always in pre-3.6.x versions, [...]
What?! - For NH-343, the decades long running version before NH-36x,
that had never worked using scrolls or wands at self.
To what level do you want to teleport? 24 # Medusa non-teleport
What do you want to read? [ijklm or ?*]
As you read the scroll, it disappears. # scroll of teleport
A mysterious force prevents you from teleporting! # <<<<< ineffective
The Woodland-elf throws a runed dagger!
You are almost hit by a runed dagger.
What do you want to zap? [cn or ?*]
You may wish for an object.
For what do you wish? blessed wand of teleportation
q - a zinc wand.
What do you want to zap? [cnq or ?*] # wand of teleportation
In what direction? # at elf - got teleported away
What do you want to zap? [cnq or ?*] # wand of teleportation
In what direction? # at self - no effect, but...
A mysterious force prevents you from teleporting! # <<<<< ineffective
You hear a distant squeak.
...and a scream of mine.
Can we now, please, stop spreading that misinformation.
Janis
On 06.03.2022 18:34, Klaus Kassner wrote:
I seem to remember that I once encountered Demogorgon while fighting the
Wizard of Yendor and I assumed that he had summoned him (Demo was
peaceful, but not for long). Is that also possible or must the wizard
have summoned, say, Orcus, and Orcus then Demogorgon?
I don't know. (But also wouldn't be too surprised.) Was that in NH-36x ?
Where is the misinformation? What I was saying is that "teleport away"
always worked, not "self-teleport". "Teleport away" always refers to
"not self"... (the "away" is "away from the person causing the teleport").
You are not saying anything different, but why then am I spreading misinformation?
On 07.03.2022 11:33, Klaus Kassner wrote:
Where is the misinformation? What I was saying is that "teleport away"
always worked, not "self-teleport". "Teleport away" always refers to
"not self"... (the "away" is "away from the person causing the teleport"). >>
You are not saying anything different, but why then am I spreading
misinformation?
Given that "teleport away" doesn't seem to say anything about what is teleported away, and given that the existing spell called "teleport
away" is refering to self-teleports I misunderstood your intention.
After the many repetitions of the other poster's misinformation saying: "Teleporting yourself on a non teleport level works 100% of the time,"
I assumed you joined that "alternative facts".
Thanks for clarifying and sorry that my post sounded harsh!
On 07.03.2022 11:33, Klaus Kassner wrote:
Where is the misinformation? What I was saying is that "teleport away"
always worked, not "self-teleport". "Teleport away" always refers to
"not self"... (the "away" is "away from the person causing the teleport"). >>
You are not saying anything different, but why then am I spreading
misinformation?
Given that "teleport away" doesn't seem to say anything about what is teleported away, and given that the existing spell called "teleport
away" is refering to self-teleports I misunderstood your intention.
terms of turns it takes the covetous monster to "find" him again. Even
if he has speed, the two moves will take at least one turn, so his
By the way, in the Wiki on the spellbook of teleport away, I found the following statement: "however, note that although covetous monsters can
be affected by the spell, there is typically no point in doing so as the monster will simply teleport back next to you as part of its next turn."
This seems to clarify that after being teleported away, a covetous
monster will be back *at* the next turn (so you can escape upstairs only
if you have one more move in the current turn).
I'm sorry to interrupt, especially as, tbh, I don't understand most ofThey were not fully deterministic even before (when you were burdened or worse). In any case, all my experience refers to pre-NH3.6 games.
what is said here, because I'm far too newbie about NH, but there's one
thing I find surprising (probably because my guess about how NH works is plain wrong):
terms of turns it takes the covetous monster to "find" him again. Even
if he has speed, the two moves will take at least one turn, so his
I had the feeling after reading the wiki that in NH36 the "moves per turn" are not any more deterministic ?
I mean, the "speed" value is used as a prob threshold:
for instance, the program samples a random number between 0 and 100, and
if this number is smaller than the "speed value", then you get a move.
Well, it's likely more complex than that, because the number of
possible moves per turn also depend on the speed, although I didn't get exactly how, but there's always a part of "randomness"; so we can never
be sure to get enough moves, can we ?
Am 07.03.2022 um 21:04 schrieb Isidore Ducasse:
I had the feeling after reading the wiki that in NH36 the "moves per
turn" are not any more deterministic ?
They were not fully deterministic even before (when you were burdened or worse). In any case, all my experience refers to pre-NH3.6 games.
[...]
I mean, the "speed" value is used as a prob threshold:
for instance, the program samples a random number between 0 and 100, and
if this number is smaller than the "speed value", then you get a move.
I think it worked a bit differently, based on the accumulation of
movement points, but I could not explain how precisely. Maybe Janis
knows this.
On 08.03.2022 08:37, Klaus Kassner wrote:
Am 07.03.2022 um 21:04 schrieb Isidore Ducasse:
I had the feeling after reading the wiki that in NH36 the "moves per
turn" are not any more deterministic ?
They were not fully deterministic even before (when you were burdened or
worse). In any case, all my experience refers to pre-NH3.6 games.
As far as I see they are deterministic in NH-343. The point is that
the various speeds have to be mapped onto a discretized scale, with
the effect that, depending on the speed of the participants, you
will occasionally get a "free turn" (sort of) if you are faster, or
suffer from an additional attack if the foe is faster.
Am 08.03.2022 um 16:33 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:
On 08.03.2022 08:37, Klaus Kassner wrote:
Am 07.03.2022 um 21:04 schrieb Isidore Ducasse:
I had the feeling after reading the wiki that in NH36 the "moves per
turn" are not any more deterministic ?
They were not fully deterministic even before (when you were burdened or >>> worse). In any case, all my experience refers to pre-NH3.6 games.
As far as I see they are deterministic in NH-343. The point is that
the various speeds have to be mapped onto a discretized scale, with
the effect that, depending on the speed of the participants, you
will occasionally get a "free turn" (sort of) if you are faster, or
suffer from an additional attack if the foe is faster.
Yes, I think they are deterministic in a technical sense. (But that is
true for pseudorandom numbers, too.)
I thought that when you are burdened, you lose moves randomly, but I may
be wrong in that, technically speaking.
In practice, moves per turn are *not* deterministic in the *standard
sense* of randomness: you do not have sufficiently detailed knowledge of
the deterministic mechanism and this creates (apparent) randomness.
(This is by far the most frequent way randomness appears outside of
quantum mechanics, which is the only physical theory with "true"
randomness.)
This may not be true if you are unburdened, because then it would be
easy, in principle (but not in practice), to follow the addition of
motion points and to know when you get moves. On the other hand, since I
do not know by which algorithm moves get lost when you are burdened or stressed, moves are lost randomly (for me) in that case.
On 08.03.2022 17:41, Klaus Kassner wrote:But there is randomness without random number generators. You have
Am 08.03.2022 um 16:33 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:
On 08.03.2022 08:37, Klaus Kassner wrote:
Am 07.03.2022 um 21:04 schrieb Isidore Ducasse:
I had the feeling after reading the wiki that in NH36 the "moves per >>>>> turn" are not any more deterministic ?
They were not fully deterministic even before (when you were burdened or >>>> worse). In any case, all my experience refers to pre-NH3.6 games.
As far as I see they are deterministic in NH-343. The point is that
the various speeds have to be mapped onto a discretized scale, with
the effect that, depending on the speed of the participants, you
will occasionally get a "free turn" (sort of) if you are faster, or
suffer from an additional attack if the foe is faster.
Yes, I think they are deterministic in a technical sense. (But that is
true for pseudorandom numbers, too.)
But pseudo-random numbers are nothing but a hypothesis here. I was
speaking about determinism without making any assumptions on the
random number generator. Whether the RNG used by NH is a PRNG or a
"real" RNG, there's just no RNG involved in this case.
Yes. This is what I was not sure about.
I thought that when you are burdened, you lose moves randomly, but I may
be wrong in that, technically speaking.
You can count your moves; for example: step, step, step, free turn,
step, step, step, free turn, etc. - completely deterministic..
Being burdened will in NH-343 reduce the speed by a constant factorO.k. So it is deterministic within the program, but random in practice,
that depends on the strictly quantified grade of your burden.
There is. Have you ever thought about the meaning of randomness?
In practice, moves per turn are *not* deterministic in the *standard
sense* of randomness: you do not have sufficiently detailed knowledge of
the deterministic mechanism and this creates (apparent) randomness.
There is no randomness here. (And that's all what has to be said.)
No. Because there is no randomness in the sense that you seem to assign(This is by far the most frequent way randomness appears outside of
quantum mechanics, which is the only physical theory with "true"
randomness.)
(Irrelevant here.)
Only if you are good enough at the necessary calculations and know the algorithm well enough.
This may not be true if you are unburdened, because then it would be
easy, in principle (but not in practice), to follow the addition of
motion points and to know when you get moves. On the other hand, since I
do not know by which algorithm moves get lost when you are burdened or
stressed, moves are lost randomly (for me) in that case.
In combat situations where I have to be cautious I generally count
my moves to anticipate when I will not need to move away but where
I may place a hit without the danger of a counter-attack. I can do
that in any case (independent of my burden status), because it is deterministic.
Am 08.03.2022 um 18:24 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:
On 08.03.2022 17:41, Klaus Kassner wrote:
Am 08.03.2022 um 16:33 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:
On 08.03.2022 08:37, Klaus Kassner wrote:
Am 07.03.2022 um 21:04 schrieb Isidore Ducasse:
I had the feeling after reading the wiki that in NH36 the "moves per >>>>>> turn" are not any more deterministic ?
They were not fully deterministic even before (when you were
burdened or
worse). In any case, all my experience refers to pre-NH3.6 games.
As far as I see they are deterministic in NH-343. The point is that
the various speeds have to be mapped onto a discretized scale, with
the effect that, depending on the speed of the participants, you
will occasionally get a "free turn" (sort of) if you are faster, or
suffer from an additional attack if the foe is faster.
Yes, I think they are deterministic in a technical sense. (But that is
true for pseudorandom numbers, too.)
But pseudo-random numbers are nothing but a hypothesis here. I was
speaking about determinism without making any assumptions on the
random number generator. Whether the RNG used by NH is a PRNG or a
"real" RNG, there's just no RNG involved in this case.
But there is randomness without random number generators. [...]
You have
randomness whenever your knowledge is insufficient to determine the
outcome uniquely.
You can then assign probabilities to the different
possible outcomes.
Yes. This is what I was not sure about.
I thought that when you are burdened, you lose moves randomly, but I may >>> be wrong in that, technically speaking.
You can count your moves; for example: step, step, step, free turn,
step, step, step, free turn, etc. - completely deterministic..
Being burdened will in NH-343 reduce the speed by a constant factor
that depends on the strictly quantified grade of your burden.
O.k. So it is deterministic within the program, but random in practice,
as the player cannot really do the calculations in his head. But he can
know probabilities.
There is. Have you ever thought about the meaning of randomness?
In practice, moves per turn are *not* deterministic in the *standard
sense* of randomness: you do not have sufficiently detailed knowledge of >>> the deterministic mechanism and this creates (apparent) randomness.
There is no randomness here. (And that's all what has to be said.)
No. Because there is no randomness in the sense that you seem to assign
(This is by far the most frequent way randomness appears outside of
quantum mechanics, which is the only physical theory with "true"
randomness.)
(Irrelevant here.)
to it outside of quantum mechanics.
But there is randomness in the standard sense: sufficiently chaotic
dynamics, and lack of knowledge to determine a unique outcome.
[...]
Obviously, the decision of whether something is random or not depends on
the precise notion of randomness. What I was saying and where we seem to disagree is that in all but one cases (i.e. quantum mechanics)
randomness is an expression of lack of knowledge while the true dynamics
is always deterministic.
So if you accept only "true" randomness as
random, then saying there is no randomness here is an empty statement, because there is *never* randomness (as we excluded quantum mechanics).
But if you take the point of view of physics that randomness in practice comes from lack of knowledge, then of course there is randomness -- for
the player -- in the way the number of moves per turn is determined,
even in NH3.4x.
No RNG is involved, but the algorithm is complex enough
for the player not to be able to do the calculations
(unless he is unburdened, then the calculations may be simple enough),
so he must rely on probability statements.
In the case of NH3.6x, an RNG is involved
which increases the complexity and makes it more random in the sense
that now even with step counting and a calculator at hand, the player
cannot determine the number of moves uniquely that he will get on his
next turn.
But of course, with the right numerical equipment and
knowledge of the internal initialization procedures of NH, you could determine this number uniquely (essentially you could write a program
that, given the right input, predicts exactly what the game will do next).
To state it succinctly, randomness is in the eye of the beholder. Except
in quantum mechanics.
On 09.03.2022 11:46, Klaus Kassner wrote:I already agreed that this works for unburdened, but I still do not´know
Am 08.03.2022 um 18:24 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:
On 08.03.2022 17:41, Klaus Kassner wrote:
Am 08.03.2022 um 16:33 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:
On 08.03.2022 08:37, Klaus Kassner wrote:
Am 07.03.2022 um 21:04 schrieb Isidore Ducasse:
Yes. This is what I was not sure about.I thought that when you are burdened, you lose moves randomly, but I may >>>> be wrong in that, technically speaking.
You can count your moves; for example: step, step, step, free turn,
step, step, step, free turn, etc. - completely deterministic..
Being burdened will in NH-343 reduce the speed by a constant factor
that depends on the strictly quantified grade of your burden.
O.k. So it is deterministic within the program, but random in practice,
as the player cannot really do the calculations in his head. But he can
know probabilities.
Why are you assuming that? If you know the underlying algorithms you
can simply determine it. And if you don't know the algorithm (by Wiki,
source code, or whatever) you can do the experiment on the fly; "step,
step, step, one-quare-space-gained" - remember? It suffices that you
know that there's no RNG involved and the experiment will provide you
the actual deltas. That's also what I do; I'm not doing calculations,
I am testing the delta once and apply it subsequently, and I do that
_in practice_.
Yes. Because even if it is not RNG-controlled, it may be random,There is. Have you ever thought about the meaning of randomness?
In practice, moves per turn are *not* deterministic in the *standard
sense* of randomness: you do not have sufficiently detailed knowledge of >>>> the deterministic mechanism and this creates (apparent) randomness.
There is no randomness here. (And that's all what has to be said.)
As a computer scientist and big fan of physics; of course I did.
Why do you doubt that? (Because I pointed out that the algorithm
in this context is not RNG-controlled but deterministic?)
Because I do not know of a simple algorithm for the case of burdened,No. Because there is no randomness in the sense that you seem to assign
(This is by far the most frequent way randomness appears outside of
quantum mechanics, which is the only physical theory with "true"
randomness.)
(Irrelevant here.)
to it outside of quantum mechanics.
But there is randomness in the standard sense: sufficiently chaotic
dynamics, and lack of knowledge to determine a unique outcome.
But that isn't the case here with the movement-scales. - Why do you
think it is?
For our given case, Nethack, we have algorithmic implementations forWell, if you *define* deterministic to be not triggered by the RNG, then
some functions that are highly triggered by a RNG, and others that are
not, but are deterministic, like the one we are talking about here.
Whether other functions - off-topic here! - are truly random or not IA PRNG would be deterministic, of course, having a finite period.
cannot tell. It could be that the various random functions in Nethack
rely on a PRNG algorithm, or it could rely on an RNG provided by the operating system. In the latter case that could be retrieved from a
device that either relies on an OS-library algorithm that actually is
again a PRNG, or it can rely on some quantum effects of HW-circuits.
Here, for example, is a quote from my OS'es description, obtained by
the command 'man urandom':
random, urandom - kernel random number source devices
...
The random number generator gathers environmental noise from
device drivers and other sources into an entropy pool. The
generator also keeps an estimate of the number of bits of noise
in the entropy pool. From this entropy pool random numbers are
created.
No. I never claimed an RNG was involved in the move calculation of a
Obviously, the decision of whether something is random or not depends on
the precise notion of randomness. What I was saying and where we seem to
disagree is that in all but one cases (i.e. quantum mechanics)
randomness is an expression of lack of knowledge while the true dynamics
is always deterministic.
Erm, no. That's not where we disagree. It appears to me that we disagree
that we could not tell what the RNG in an actual Nethack implementation actually is.
And we disagree in that it has any relevance in the givenYes, there we disagree, because you can have randomness without an RNG.
case, where there's no dispute necessary what randomness actually is,
because there isn't any (neither a PRNG, nor an "unknown mechnics" RNG,
nor a RNG based on quantum mechanics effects), in the given case.
Yes, in saying that it is irrelevant here. If it is irrelevant, it canSo if you accept only "true" randomness as
random, then saying there is no randomness here is an empty statement,
because there is *never* randomness (as we excluded quantum mechanics).
I didn't exclude it.
(Actually I assumed that the "noise" (that is aboveI am less knowledgeable here than you. I simply assumed that NH uses a
mentioned in the man-page) would be a quantum effect. - I admit I may be wrong with that assumption, since I haven't examined or read about what physical effects generates the noise in the HW-circuits of that device.
I seem to recall to have heard, though, that this noise stems from a
quantum effect. If you know differently I'm curious to hear from you.)
But as said; whatever you consider random, the only relevant factor isHere I do not agree. If everything is deterministic, the determinism is
the determinism, so disputes about true randomness or about grades of randomness is irrelevant.
We have none here. (Not even the "randomnessThat's what we disagree about.
by lack of knowledge", because an individual _personal decision_ to not inform oneself can (IMO) not be a normative factor for the _term_.)
Yes. Randomness is not absolute.But if you take the point of view of physics that randomness in practice
comes from lack of knowledge, then of course there is randomness -- for
the player -- in the way the number of moves per turn is determined,
even in NH3.4x.
So for someone who has inspected the source code or informed himself
from the Wiki it's non-random and for others, uninformed folks, it's
random?
- If that's what you are saying then this definition makes noSo you are saying it is useless that throwing dice gives you a sequence
sense to me; it's certainly of no use here.
We spoke about the profane topic whether we can determine the free turnsNo. We were talking about whether there is randomness involved,
or not - yes, we can! -, and whether the algorithm is deterministic or
not - yes, it is!
Yes.In the case of NH3.6x, an RNG is involved
which increases the complexity and makes it more random in the sense
that now even with step counting and a calculator at hand, the player
cannot determine the number of moves uniquely that he will get on his
next turn.
Correct.
But of course, with the right numerical equipment and
knowledge of the internal initialization procedures of NH, you could
determine this number uniquely (essentially you could write a program
that, given the right input, predicts exactly what the game will do next).
You can work with probabilities. But whether you can deterministically predict the result would still depend on whether the implemented RNG
function relies on a device that gets its entropy from quantum effects
and emits truly random numbers or not.
To state it succinctly, randomness is in the eye of the beholder. Except
in quantum mechanics.
Fine. Here, with this statement, we have finally reached agreement. :-)
(This is by far the most frequent way randomness appears outside of
quantum mechanics, which is the only physical theory with "true"
randomness.)
But I get what you mean; may be I should have said "NH devs have used pseudo-random numbers generator in the method that determines the number
of turns", more precise :)
Am 10.03.2022 um 07:23 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:
Why are you assuming that? If you know the underlying algorithms you
can simply determine it. And if you don't know the algorithm (by Wiki,
source code, or whatever) you can do the experiment on the fly; "step,
step, step, one-quare-space-gained" - remember? It suffices that you
know that there's no RNG involved and the experiment will provide you
the actual deltas. That's also what I do; I'm not doing calculations,
I am testing the delta once and apply it subsequently, and I do that
_in practice_.
I already agreed that this works for unburdened, but I still do not´know that it is that simple for burdened. At one point, you seemed to say
that it depends on the degree of burden (by which I thought an internal number depending on the actual overweight, not just on the three degrees burdened, stressed, strained).
Since I do not know the algorithm, I
cannot do the calculations, which makes it random for me, [...]
In practice, you simply
may not have the time to determine this when needed.
But there is randomness in the standard sense: sufficiently chaotic
dynamics, and lack of knowledge to determine a unique outcome.
But that isn't the case here with the movement-scales. - Why do you
think it is?
Because I do not know of a simple algorithm for the case of burdened, stressed, etc.
In the case of unburdened I agree that it is not random, [...]
once I take the care of observing the sequence of two and one moves -- because that sequence is repetitive enough for a human brain to make the prediction. If the sequence has a period of, say, 20 steps, I may
already need paper and pencil to ascertain the periodicity. [...]
Whether other functions - off-topic here! - are truly random or not I
cannot tell. It could be that the various random functions in Nethack
rely on a PRNG algorithm, or it could rely on an RNG provided by the
operating system. In the latter case that could be retrieved from a
device that either relies on an OS-library algorithm that actually is
again a PRNG, or it can rely on some quantum effects of HW-circuits.
Here, for example, is a quote from my OS'es description, obtained by
the command 'man urandom':
random, urandom - kernel random number source devices
...
The random number generator gathers environmental noise from
device drivers and other sources into an entropy pool. The
generator also keeps an estimate of the number of bits of noise
in the entropy pool. From this entropy pool random numbers are
created.
A PRNG would be deterministic, of course, having a finite period.
Any RNG that does not use the random effects of quantum mechanics in
some way would be deterministic, not necessarily by having a periodicity
that could be determined, but by its random numbers being predictable by
an appropriate computer program that gets all the input data of the RNG.
(More simply, take a second RNG of the same kind, make sure it receives
the precisely same input and starts with the same internal state, then
it will give you the same sequence of random numbers. If you run the
second RNG in a way that gives you the random nubers a minute earlier
than those of the first, then you can predict the latter with certainty
a minute ahead of time. So they are clearly deterministic.)
And we disagree in that it has any relevance in the given
case, where there's no dispute necessary what randomness actually is,
because there isn't any (neither a PRNG, nor an "unknown mechnics" RNG,
nor a RNG based on quantum mechanics effects), in the given case.
Yes, there we disagree, because you can have randomness without an RNG.
The algorithm acts as an RNG, if your knowledge is sufficiently restricted.
So if you accept only "true" randomness as
random, then saying there is no randomness here is an empty statement,
because there is *never* randomness (as we excluded quantum mechanics).
I didn't exclude it.
Yes, in saying that it is irrelevant here. If it is irrelevant, it can
be excluded from the discussion.
I am less knowledgeable here than you. I simply assumed that NH uses a
PRNG [...]
But if you take the point of view of physics that randomness in practice >>> comes from lack of knowledge, then of course there is randomness -- for
the player -- in the way the number of moves per turn is determined,
even in NH3.4x.
So for someone who has inspected the source code or informed himself
from the Wiki it's non-random and for others, uninformed folks, it's
random?
Yes. Randomness is not absolute.
- If that's what you are saying then this definition makes no
sense to me; it's certainly of no use here.
So you are saying it is useless that throwing dice gives you a sequence
of random numbers, even though each single result could be predicted by
a physicist with an appropriately sophisticated experimental apparatus,
[...]
We spoke about the profane topic whether we can determine the free turns
or not - yes, we can! -, and whether the algorithm is deterministic or
not - yes, it is!
No. We were talking about whether there is randomness involved,
requiring a probabilistic description, and that does not depend solely
on whether the algorithm is deterministic. If it is not, we surely have randomness, but if it is, randomness depends on the knowledge state of
the person/entity dealing with the problem. [...]
To state it succinctly, randomness is in the eye of the beholder. Except >>> in quantum mechanics.
Fine. Here, with this statement, we have finally reached agreement. :-)
Strange. Because if randomness is in the eye of the beholder, then it
may clearly be present also in deterministic systems.
On 11.03.2022 13:22, Klaus Kassner wrote:
Am 10.03.2022 um 07:23 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:
Have a look at the Wiki (https://nethackwiki.com/wiki/Speed) for that.
The point is not calculation, that just stands in for *any* way ofSince I do not know the algorithm, I
cannot do the calculations, which makes it random for me, [...]
It's hard to get rid of the idea that a calculation would be necessary?
Well, that would not work 100% as I deduce from the Wiki. But the WikiIn the case of unburdened I agree that it is not random, [...]
There's no algorithmic difference between unburden and burden here;
it's just another scaling factor. But the concrete factors are only
necessary for the algorithmic computation, not for the tests on the
fly that I had described, where it is irrelevant whether your speed
has internally a value of 16 or 12; you just observe and count steps.
once I take the care of observing the sequence of two and one moves --
because that sequence is repetitive enough for a human brain to make the
prediction. If the sequence has a period of, say, 20 steps, I may
already need paper and pencil to ascertain the periodicity. [...]
It is not that bad; one typically needs to count only up to 4 or 5.
(This is by far the most frequent way randomness appears outside of
quantum mechanics, which is the only physical theory with "true"
randomness.)
;-) I wasn't thinking that far about the definition of randomness :)
But I get what you mean; may be I should have said "NH devs have used pseudo-random numbers generator in the method that determines the number
of turns", more precise :)
Anyway, thanks to both for all your informations (and opinions) about
NH, interesting !
This is why I emphasized that to exclude randomness, it is insufficient
to observe determinism.
Anyway, this discussion has become pretty off-topic. So let's get back
to nethack.
Not quite. That is true only for systems with very many degrees ofThis is why I emphasized that to exclude randomness, it is insufficient
to observe determinism.
May I add that, the more randomness you have, the more deterministic you
are ? ;-)
Thinking of central limit theorem for instance, where you can be prettyYes.
sure of what you obtain after all this randomness occurs;
so determinism emerges from randomness, doesn't it ? ;-)
Anyway, this discussion has become pretty off-topic. So let's get back
to nethack.
Well, you do have quantum mechanics in NH... You may even kill it
if you don't like it, to please Bohm & De Witt...
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 295 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 18:50:45 |
| Calls: | 6,640 |
| Files: | 12,188 |
| Messages: | 5,325,150 |