Rustproof items shouldn't be corroded
issueid=4105 11-26-2015 06:19 PM
Junior Member
Number of reported issues by Nils: 8
Rustproof items shouldn't be corroded
Rustproof items can be corroded

Oozes can currently corrode rustproof weapons.

While I understand that technically speaking rust is a special case of corrosion, most people think of the terms as synonyms: just do Google image search for "corrosion" and see how far your have to scroll to find something that isn't rust.

If we want to keep the current distinction, I recommend changing the term "rustproof" to "waterproof" to avoid nasty surprises.
Issue Details
Issue Number 4105
Project ADOM (Ancient Domains Of Mystery)
Category All
Status Unconfirmed
Priority 8
Affected Version ADOM r64 (v2.0.3)
Fixed Version (none)
Milestone (none)
Users able to reproduce bug 0
Users unable to reproduce bug 2
Assigned Users (none)
Tags (none)




11-26-2015 07:23 PM
Ancient Member
Sorry, but it makes perfect sense to me, as the corrosion that occurs isn't water based, but rather acid based corrosion. As it is currently, rusty items temporarily do half damage until the rust is removed. Acid based corrosion takes chunks out of your weapon so rustproofing wouldn't help.

11-26-2015 08:07 PM
Ancient Member
Weird. I looked up 'corrosion' on wikipedia and it specifically states it to be an interaction with metals. Yet on the page for 'corrosive substance' it refers to what I expect the in-game usage to mean, of eating into a material. Not sure if there are two meanings? Otherwise the jellies would simply rust your items instead.

11-27-2015 12:35 AM
Junior Member
I think it's fair for oozes to be able to corrode rust-proof items, as the attack is acid-based, not water based. For those not expecting this, it's yet another one of those ADOM surprises you won't forget next time. :)

I'd rather keep things as they are - making you plan to have a back-up weapon or two to sacrifice to creatures such as this. (or to have an alternative attack-plan, whether it be magic or whatever.)

11-27-2015 03:19 AM
Member
This always clicked for me for some silly reason. RUST and CORROSION were two different things in my mind, and I always dipped my iron based items completely respecting that while a rust monster couldn't RUST it, an ooze's attack does not RUST my items, not does an annihilation RUST them.

I like the thought of more clear cut wording, however, even if Mister Biskup has this stigma again'st "wussifying" his game.

11-27-2015 05:14 AM
Rusting is a type of corrosion, and thus possible confusion is to be expected and accepted. To me, involving water is moot. Whatever chemical (including water) that is a catalyst for oxidation doesn't mater. Rusting is oxidation. Some other types of corrosion are also oxidation, and some are not. I don't have, nor could I quickly find, a concise explanation for the difference between oxidation, reduction, and/or reduction-oxidation, and I presume that's just the tip of the ICEBERG.

But is the vague distinction even applicable in other real world languages? I wouldn't be surprised if there were some that didn't bother pointing out that rust is a special case; I wouldn't be surprised if some people or groups of people use any of these words synonymous.

I don't think hashing up modern chemistry too much is a good idea in a medieval fantasy game where high-tech was known as 'alchemy', particularly where only magical alchemy is referenced and we see no chemical alchemy at work. I know that the difference at hand is real, but also that it's partially semantical. We should keep the semantics out of a theme where those semantics didn't exist.

I'd be for simplification of this academic case.

11-27-2015 06:08 AM
Ancient Member
Quote Originally Posted by Esoteric Rogue
Rusting is a type of corrosion, and thus possible confusion is to be expected and accepted. To me, involving water is moot. Whatever chemical (including water) that is a catalyst for oxidation doesn't mater. Rusting is oxidation. Some other types of corrosion are also oxidation, and some are not.
You should correct the lying wikipedia article. :)

11-27-2015 08:04 AM
Quote Originally Posted by auricbond
You should correct the lying wikipedia article. :)
Don't know if you're poking at poking at me or serious. As I admitted, I don't have the knowledge, so I presume the former. But you smiled so I guess we're friends.

And I wouldn't know which article that is. For example, Corrosion says "Rusting, the formation of iron oxides, is a well-known example of electrochemical corrosion," which is about what I said, albeit more detailed with the inclusion of "electrochemical" (TIL).

11-27-2015 04:31 PM
ixi ixi is offline
Junior Member
Adding my 5 cents. I never had an issue with this.
Quote Originally Posted by Esoteric Rogue
Rusting is a type of corrosion
But corrosion isn't rusting. There might be other types of corrosion. Say, corrosion from acid... Why rustproof item has to be immune to all types of corrosion, not just rusting? I'm not expert in metallurgy but I think OP doesn't make much sense from the math logic point of view.

11-29-2015 04:38 AM
Junior Member
Acid corrosion should still be able to work through a coating of rustproof oil. The acid is strong enough to eat through both the oil and the item - it's not the same process as the oxidisation of metal.

+ Reply