User talk:Gus Van
Welcome!
Hi, Gus Van! Welcome, and thanks for joining NetHackWiki!
- The How to help and Style guide pages are excellent starting points.
- Special:Recentchanges is a great first stop, because you can see what other people are editing right this minute, and where you can help.
- Questions? Need help? You can ask at the Community Portal, the forum, or on the discussion page associated with each article! Just remember to sign those posts with four tildes: ~~~~. That will expand to create a signature.
You can put {{NAOplayer|NAO player account}} on your user page to link to your NAO player account. Capitalization matters.
We are really happy to have you here, and look forward to working with you!
This is an automated greeting.
-- New user message (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Wand of cancellation
So I asked AmyBSOD on IRC about the properties of the wand of cancellation in SLASH'EM Extended:
"The wand is zapped by monsters in both slashem and slex, it cancels the player's stuff in both slashem and slex, and should also self-identify if you saw the wand being zapped... if you get "The goblin zaps a wintry wand! You are covered in sparkling lights!", the game should automatically identify that the wintry wand is a wand of cancellation.""
Thus, the behavior is consistent with that of SLASH'EM. The only difference is that the effect is fully resisted by magic resistance in SLASH'EM, but only 95% resisted in SLASH'EM Extended. Could you edit the variant information to reflect this? -- Luxidream (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- Well, there is a problem with the facts. I actually intended to autoidentify the wand by blanking some evil scrolls in SLEX235. And the scrolls got blanked but the wand did not autoidentify at all. As for AmyBSOD's statement I'd suppose that the sheer number of items in SLEX won't permit to have all details accurately in her mind. Some code diving should be necessary. Due to not knowing the src-filename and its webadress that's not so easily done. - Contrary to your assumptions the differences between SLASH and SLEX are tremendous and increasing. Maybe Amy should remove the old name Slash'EM Extended as leading astray and obsolete. -- Gus 12:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- What I said was for when you see the wand being zapped by a monster. Zapping items to cancel them has never identified the wand, not in vanilla, not in SLASH'EM and also not in SLEX... --Bluescreenofdeath (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- I must admit, SLEX is quite extreme. Not at all balanced like other roguelikes. Overkill of too much items and monsters. Pinches/challenges my nerves. Just didn't want to give in. But I'm not a freak that specializes completely in NetHack variants' details. So I didn't know about 'never autoidentified'. And no, I not remember anything about "You are covered in sparkling lights!" indicating WoC being zapped by monsters. -- Gus 21:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- Returning to the topic of the wand of cancellation text... so the only difference between SLASH'EM and SLEX, as per the developer and with no evidence otherwise, is the 95% chance (vs 100%) of magic resistance nullifying the effect. I suppose the SLASH'EM section could add the message about sparkling lights, and the SLEX section could become something along the lines of "This wand mostly works the same as in SLASH'EM, and monsters can zap the wand at you, but magic resistance will only protect your items 95% of the time." How does this sound? --Phol ende wodan (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, wait a little Phol ende wodan. You surely did a good job in summarizing the details of this thread. But I've still doubts that it's all the facts. I'll ask Amy for the filename and webadress to source dive it myself. -- Gus 07:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
