1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. REC.GAMES.ROGUELIKE.NETHA

  • HP cheat, bug or standard?

    From Janis Papanagnou@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jul 4 15:32:31 2021
    There had been a HP cheat by exploiting a polyself bug in a former
    version. On NAO I currently see a character with HP:5315(5320) and Pw:2913(2913) at Xp:30 (T:~200k). - Is that still that bug or just
    normal to achieve in version NH-366? That number looks quite large
    considering that pudding farming had been nerfed.

    Janis

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Pat Rankin@21:1/5 to Janis on Mon Jul 5 16:48:07 2021
    On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 6:32:33 AM UTC-7, Janis wrote:
    There had been a HP cheat by exploiting a polyself bug in a former
    version. On NAO I currently see a character with HP:5315(5320) and Pw:2913(2913) at Xp:30 (T:~200k). - Is that still that bug or just
    normal to achieve in version NH-366? That number looks quite large considering that pudding farming had been nerfed.

    That bug was fixed at least two different ways for 3.6.0 but
    perhaps those fixes weren't sufficient. Why not review the ttyrec(s)
    to see how it was done? You'll probably know by 100000 turns. :-}

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Janis Papanagnou@21:1/5 to Pat Rankin on Tue Jul 6 03:40:40 2021
    On 06.07.2021 01:48, Pat Rankin wrote:
    On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 6:32:33 AM UTC-7, Janis wrote:
    There had been a HP cheat by exploiting a polyself bug in a former
    version. On NAO I currently see a character with HP:5315(5320) and
    Pw:2913(2913) at Xp:30 (T:~200k). - Is that still that bug or just
    normal to achieve in version NH-366? That number looks quite large
    considering that pudding farming had been nerfed.

    That bug was fixed at least two different ways for 3.6.0 but
    perhaps those fixes weren't sufficient.

    Fixes that don't fix it? - Nice definition of fixed. Avoids hard work.
    As [political] principle this is well known also from other areas. :-)

    Why not review the ttyrec(s) to see how it was done?

    I'm not so much interested in how to exploit it. I was more interested
    to get a feeling how Nethack is developed, where the focus areas are.

    You'll probably know by 100000 turns. :-}

    Manual inspection? I seem to recall that there are ttyrec-grep tools;
    I suppose using that might simplify matters (for those who care). ;-)

    Janis

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jukka Lahtinen@21:1/5 to Janis Papanagnou on Tue Jul 6 14:59:08 2021
    Janis Papanagnou <[email protected]> writes:
    On 06.07.2021 01:48, Pat Rankin wrote:
    On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 6:32:33 AM UTC-7, Janis wrote:

    That bug was fixed at least two different ways for 3.6.0 but
    perhaps those fixes weren't sufficient.

    Fixes that don't fix it? - Nice definition of fixed. Avoids hard work.
    As [political] principle this is well known also from other areas. :-)

    Sometimes a bug is more complex and more obscure than it seems at first.
    It may get partly fixed, so that it doesn't present itself in every use
    case it did before, but only in some rare cases.
    So the developers assume they fixed it, when it actually is only partly
    fixed.
    Sometimes fixing one bug even enables another bug that was already
    there, but hidden by the first bug.
    This is SO familiar at work..

    --
    Jukka Lahtinen

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Janis Papanagnou@21:1/5 to Jukka Lahtinen on Tue Jul 6 14:19:20 2021
    On 06.07.2021 13:59, Jukka Lahtinen wrote:
    Janis Papanagnou <[email protected]> writes:
    On 06.07.2021 01:48, Pat Rankin wrote:
    On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 6:32:33 AM UTC-7, Janis wrote:

    That bug was fixed at least two different ways for 3.6.0 but
    perhaps those fixes weren't sufficient.

    Fixes that don't fix it? - Nice definition of fixed. Avoids hard work.
    As [political] principle this is well known also from other areas. :-)

    Sometimes a bug is more complex and more obscure than it seems at first.
    It may get partly fixed, so that it doesn't present itself in every use
    case it did before, but only in some rare cases.
    So the developers assume they fixed it, when it actually is only partly fixed.
    Sometimes fixing one bug even enables another bug that was already
    there, but hidden by the first bug.
    This is SO familiar at work..

    Yes, an indication that a bug is not correctly identified or really
    understood. That's why folks should state clearly whether the have
    fixed it or just tried to (based on assumptions, educated guesses).

    But my comment above was addressing another Real Life related case;
    government could not fix the regulative frame to control emission
    effectively to the necessary degree, so they changed the law by
    adjusting the acceptable emission rate. ("If we cannot fix it then
    we allow it." - voila, it's "fixed"!)

    Janis

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris Bowers@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jul 28 23:50:12 2021
    Pudding farming has indeed been nixed, but as others have said, maybe there's a workaround to the "fix". I personally know a high level ADOM player who has discovered bugs and exploits that other people don't know about (and he has sworn me to secrecy to)
    . There are always areas of the game to be explored or which might be discovered by accident. This happens more often in modern games but it can happen in ancient games as well.

    Good on the guy who found an exploit. If you look at the ttyrec then you could find out the exploit and have "inside information" that only you and he would know. (But please do tell us? Mwahahaha!)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)