michael@fuzz.cognet.ucla.edu (Michael Gersten) (08/09/89)
In 3.0, how is invisibility and blindness handled? 2.3 had these reversed. If you are blind, you cannot see the walls, and so you should not be told where you are (because you can't tell). 2.3 showed you where you were. If you are invisible, you can still see the walls, and tell where you are. 2.3 did not show you where you were. Does 3.0 get these right, i.e., blind = no displayed @, invisible = displayed @? (I'd check myself but its not running yet) Michael
2014_5001@uwovax.uwo.ca (08/15/89)
In article <82@mara.cognet.ucla.edu>, michael@fuzz.cognet.ucla.edu (Michael Gersten) writes: > In 3.0, how is invisibility and blindness handled? 2.3 had these reversed. > > If you are blind, you cannot see the walls, and so you should not be > told where you are (because you can't tell). 2.3 showed you where you were. > You are assumed to have a superb memory :-) > If you are invisible, you can still see the walls, and tell where > you are. 2.3 did not show you where you were. That was terrible. It made the potion of invisibility one of the most dangerous potions. > > Does 3.0 get these right, i.e., blind = no displayed @, invisible = > displayed @? (I'd check myself but its not running yet) > > Michael 1/2 right. blind = invisible = displayed (except that for invisible, only a cursor is shown) -- Alexander Pruss, at one of: Department of Applied Mathematics, Astronomy, Mathematics, or Physics University of Western Ontario pruss@uwovax.uwo.ca pruss@uwovax.BITNET A5001@nve.uwo.ca
xanthian@well.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) (08/19/89)
In article <3550@uwovax.uwo.ca> 2014_5001@uwovax.uwo.ca writes: >In article <82@mara.cognet.ucla.edu>, michael@fuzz.cognet.ucla.edu (Michael Gersten) writes: >> In 3.0, how is invisibility and blindness handled? 2.3 had these reversed. >> >> If you are blind, you cannot see the walls, and so you should not be >> told where you are (because you can't tell). 2.3 showed you where you were. >> >You are assumed to have a superb memory :-) > >> If you are invisible, you can still see the walls, and tell where >> you are. 2.3 did not show you where you were. >That was terrible. It made the potion of invisibility one of the most >dangerous potions. > >> >> Does 3.0 get these right, i.e., blind = no displayed @, invisible = >> displayed @? (I'd check myself but its not running yet) >> >> Michael > >1/2 right. > >blind = invisible = displayed (except that for invisible, only a cursor is >shown) >-- >Alexander Pruss, at one of: Department of Applied Mathematics, Astronomy, >Mathematics, or Physics University of Western Ontario >pruss@uwovax.uwo.ca pruss@uwovax.BITNET A5001@nve.uwo.ca Nah, the 2.3 had it right! A blind (think of in total darkness) character is still capable of making a map, and pacing off or measuring with a knotted string or whatever the floor on which s/he stands, but only the current square = part within arms reach, and is totally unable to see features which have changed since blindness occurred. E.g.: wonder-pup or an avaricious orc just passed over a square I recently explored; is that overheavy extra suit of armor I dropped still there? While, for invisibility, the message is: "you can no longer see yourself", (or a near approximation); the curse you (don't) see is the one intended. Now for my favorite bugs from the (ancient, Amiga-ported, graphic characters) version I play: when you zap a floating eye, nymph, or Umber Hulk with a wand of invisibility, how does their appearance respectively freeze, seduce, or confuse you? Denying them these powers when invisible would, to me, both make sense, and change the wand of invisibility from a pure curse to a mixed blessing, in the true spirit of Hack! [Of course, if this has long ago been fixed, ignore the above!) And, of course, for the truely foolhardy, a "zg." with wand g of invisibility should allow you to play the game invisible to monsters as well as yourself. While I'm rattling on, once the bug with the cursor following your (invisible) self is fixed, the next thing to fix is the out that lets you do a "C." to determine your location. The Christen function should quite happily let you move the cursor from its rest location to the to-be-christened monster, rather than from your (unknown) location, when you are invisible. There are lots of other ways to find yourself, but the "C." is too cheap. Etc.: when you are blinded and have see monsters when blind ability, IMHO you should then be able to Christen every monster on the level, if needed; I don't care that the _game_software_ can't see the monster there; I sure can! Etc^2: I hope there aren't any yahoos out there still doing this, but we had lots of terminal screens covered in ink dots by players who wanted to keep track of the location of nice objects seen with a "find gold" or "see objects" or etc. capability. If I had a real map, I'd note them down as I explored; why can't *hack leave them on the screen (like it does after you really see them by entering and then leaving the room), like *rogue* does, rather than show them only momentarily? I'd even advocate leaving the immobile monsters showing (until they move or wonder-pup moves them), for the same reasons: a real dungeon explorer would mark them on the map at once, even in unexplored areas. You don't, on average, run into even one of these "see around corners" potions or spells per level; I don't think it would be giving away the store to keep what is known on the map. Of course, thoughts of Maude should clear even these important data from your slippery memory! ;-) More than enough from: well!xanthian Kent, the man from xanth, now just another echo from The Well.