I'm 90% sure, since I tried it recently. This was no try-stuff-with-savescumming-char, but I have 36 lvl necro that already f*ed his chances on ultra win(accidentally lost crown in wilderness) so I can test it shortly.
I'm 90% sure, since I tried it recently. This was no try-stuff-with-savescumming-char, but I have 36 lvl necro that already f*ed his chances on ultra win(accidentally lost crown in wilderness) so I can test it shortly.
Section 0.9.5 , Dealing with annoying monsters
The jelly subsection doesn't state that hitting a jelly while unarmed but wearing gloves will (immediately) destroy the gloves. It's now happened to me twice in a couple of days using a monk. Jelly, wham, gloves destroyed, continue bashing, acid damage, bash again, acid again, dead jelly.
It's also worth mentioning that being acid resistant (usually available from the ants in the puppy cave) will let you hit the jellies barehanded without taking damage from it.
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned already, but the talent "Good Learner" gives an experience bonus of ~40% rather than the stated 2%. The "Great Learner" talent gives a net experience bonus of ~20%--ie. good learner alone is much better than both talents combined.
This is generally believed to be a bug.
Hoping to win with every class, doomed. Archer, Barbarian, Bard, Beastfighter, Druid, Elementalist, Farmer, Fighter, Monk, and ULE Priest down.
Not hugely enlightening.Code:────────────────────────────── uncursed weird tome───────────────────────────── It is an artifact. When used in melee combat it grants a +0 bonus to hit and causes 1d2 points of damage. When used as a missile it grants a +0 bonus to hit and causes 1d2 points of damage.
A minor thing I just noticed: appendix J claims that giant ant worker corpse gives acid resistance. I don't think this is always (or even ever) true. The times I've tried, they just make you vomit. But warrior and queen corpses give resistance always.
On page 3 of this thread I posted some research about how quickly herb generations occur... And now by accident (happened to use the database to test other queries and looked at the results) I noticed that it's not at least truly geometrically distributed (and this explains why it was so unlikely to have generations on 2 consecutive turns).
It seems to be a lot more likely to have a herb generation on certain turns...
For example if the turns when generations occur are grouped by turn counter mod 200:
If there were a constant chance for a herb generation on every turn, these should be quite equally distributed... But it's definitely not very equally distributed. :PCode:+----------+----------+ | turn%200 | COUNT(*) | +----------+----------+ | 0 | 181 | | 1 | 28 | | 2 | 31 | | 3 | 16 | | 4 | 43 | | 5 | 24 | | 6 | 34 | | 7 | 21 | | 8 | 58 | | 9 | 12 | | 10 | 58 | | 11 | 21 | | 12 | 37 | | 13 | 14 | | 14 | 42 | | 15 | 41 | | 16 | 58 | | 17 | 27 | | 18 | 29 | | 19 | 13 | | 20 | 81 | | 21 | 19 | | 22 | 32 | | 23 | 21 | | 24 | 75 | | 25 | 38 | | 26 | 34 | | 27 | 20 | | 28 | 59 | | 29 | 19 | | 30 | 60 | | 31 | 16 | | 32 | 89 | | 33 | 21 | | 34 | 23 | | 35 | 36 | | 36 | 58 | | 37 | 18 | | 38 | 49 | | 39 | 26 | | 40 | 137 | | 41 | 16 | | 42 | 41 | | 43 | 19 | | 44 | 51 | | 45 | 32 | | 46 | 37 | | 47 | 20 | | 48 | 67 | | 49 | 27 | | 50 | 70 | | 51 | 13 | | 52 | 46 | | 53 | 18 | | 54 | 37 | | 55 | 34 | | 56 | 85 | | 57 | 15 | | 58 | 32 | | 59 | 19 | | 60 | 88 | | 61 | 17 | | 62 | 27 | | 63 | 15 | | 64 | 84 | | 65 | 35 | | 66 | 39 | | 67 | 21 | | 68 | 51 | | 69 | 17 | | 70 | 59 | | 71 | 18 | | 72 | 91 | | 73 | 25 | | 74 | 38 | | 75 | 40 | | 76 | 42 | | 77 | 14 | | 78 | 26 | | 79 | 22 | | 80 | 135 | | 81 | 15 | | 82 | 38 | | 83 | 19 | | 84 | 54 | | 85 | 22 | | 86 | 37 | | 87 | 19 | | 88 | 77 | | 89 | 25 | | 90 | 61 | | 91 | 21 | | 92 | 41 | | 93 | 16 | | 94 | 33 | | 95 | 38 | | 96 | 84 | | 97 | 22 | | 98 | 29 | | 99 | 14 | | 100 | 119 | | 101 | 14 | | 102 | 27 | | 103 | 13 | | 104 | 71 | | 105 | 37 | | 106 | 34 | | 107 | 20 | | 108 | 52 | | 109 | 21 | | 110 | 71 | | 111 | 18 | | 112 | 72 | | 113 | 18 | | 114 | 31 | | 115 | 34 | | 116 | 38 | | 117 | 15 | | 118 | 39 | | 119 | 18 | | 120 | 122 | | 121 | 8 | | 122 | 39 | | 123 | 17 | | 124 | 41 | | 125 | 50 | | 126 | 31 | | 127 | 21 | | 128 | 68 | | 129 | 20 | | 130 | 78 | | 131 | 23 | | 132 | 54 | | 133 | 19 | | 134 | 33 | | 135 | 30 | | 136 | 65 | | 137 | 15 | | 138 | 30 | | 139 | 27 | | 140 | 102 | | 141 | 19 | | 142 | 39 | | 143 | 25 | | 144 | 74 | | 145 | 31 | | 146 | 39 | | 147 | 16 | | 148 | 49 | | 149 | 20 | | 150 | 85 | | 151 | 20 | | 152 | 64 | | 153 | 24 | | 154 | 30 | | 155 | 26 | | 156 | 60 | | 157 | 15 | | 158 | 35 | | 159 | 16 | | 160 | 149 | | 161 | 18 | | 162 | 36 | | 163 | 26 | | 164 | 61 | | 165 | 30 | | 166 | 31 | | 167 | 11 | | 168 | 76 | | 169 | 19 | | 170 | 66 | | 171 | 17 | | 172 | 45 | | 173 | 17 | | 174 | 27 | | 175 | 37 | | 176 | 82 | | 177 | 25 | | 178 | 27 | | 179 | 11 | | 180 | 85 | | 181 | 21 | | 182 | 29 | | 183 | 19 | | 184 | 87 | | 185 | 34 | | 186 | 44 | | 187 | 19 | | 188 | 60 | | 189 | 18 | | 190 | 75 | | 191 | 18 | | 192 | 81 | | 193 | 21 | | 194 | 33 | | 195 | 24 | | 196 | 48 | | 197 | 15 | | 198 | 34 | | 199 | 9 | +----------+----------+
There are clearly shown a huge peak on every 200 turns, a major peak on every 40 turns and other peaks on every 20/10/4 turns. Still I'm not sure if the period is 200, longer or if there's any period at all...
http://www.students.tut.fi/~maki36/a...ationturns.txt It simply contains every turn when a herb generation occured (and these are in order where they were inserted).
Edit: Somehow I have a feeling that it has something to do with primes... Maybe it's more likely to get a herb generation on turns where turn counter is divisible by more prime factors? If it's so, it should be most unlikely to have a herb generation on turn that's a prime.
The only 2 numbers that occurs 3 times in dataset are 227520 and 189000 and both of them have 10 prime factors. :P
Last edited by Sami; 06-24-2009 at 03:39 PM.
Yeah, it may very well be related to the number of divisors, since you have arranged the numbers modulo 200, and the ones that get a larger count are those multiples of 2, 4, 10, 20... i.e. the divisors of 200.
Try to arrange the numbers modulo 49 instead, and let's see if we get large counts on the multiples of 7. (I'd do it myself but I have no time right now).