Adom Wiki

[JellySlayer]

You are making excuses.

You wanted to demonstrate that D8 ring dipping could be determined without code-diving. I don't disagree. It's just that, in practice, the test is extraordinarily difficult to do. This strongly suggests to me that the information is code-dived. I'm not passing judgment one way or another on whether or not that information is appropriate to be used in this (or any other) guide.

A "clean" (whatever that means) guidebook that has no code-dived or otherwise cheated (for example adombot... sorry, its not really different from what we call codediving here: you take a look (read and/or write) at ADOM's memory, its just that its done in an automated way.) info in it, but is missing a few interesting things (such as that =oDS are best generated at D8)? Or would you rather like it the other way around?

I don't care one way or another. It's not my project; if the author wants to use information that is code-dived, that's his choice. In this particular case, I think it would probably be a bit of a disservice to the readers not to include this information, simply because it is so well known.

I really don't get this whole fuss. I think this "no codediving" goes in the wrong direction.

If I understand correctly, the creator of ADOM has explicitly stated that he doesn't want people codediving, and the people here are respecting his rights to his property. I don't see anything wrong with that. Your other examples aren't really relevant to this particular point.

[Soirana]

to be honest i also do not see difference between codediving and Adombotting.

I like using Adombot so...

[Jack the Ripper]

There was a great big discussion about this on RGRA, especially when Pavel started the IGB, in which he included all the code-dived info. Eventually, the common consensus was that using Adombot was ok as long as you used in a way that could simply have been replicated if you'd had a save-scummed char with a wish engine readily available. As such, you could test stuff like wishing for items and seeing what you'd receive, creating traps so as to determine that there's that pattern, using wands of trap creation to determine the top trap type of different dungeons. You couldn't get to know things like how does the rift descent work, or more stuff that can only be found out through diving in the executable. This 'modus operandi' regarding what Adombot can and can't be used for is also Andy's stance, IIRC.

[Ascaron]

Interesting discussion we're having here... I guess my point of view on all this is summed up perfectly as follows:

There was a great big discussion about this on RGRA, especially when Pavel started the IGB, in which he included all the code-dived info. Eventually, the common consensus was that using Adombot was ok as long as you used in a way that could simply have been replicated if you'd had a save-scummed char with a wish engine readily available. As such, you could test stuff like wishing for items and seeing what you'd receive, creating traps so as to determine that there's that pattern, using wands of trap creation to determine the top trap type of different dungeons. You couldn't get to know things like how does the rift descent work, or more stuff that can only be found out through diving in the executable. This 'modus operandi' regarding what Adombot can and can't be used for is also Andy's stance, IIRC.

Although I don't use AdomBot (I have a far better program of my own design ), information generated using it would be acceptable to me, IF it could have been generated without.
Anyway, in this case at least it's no trouble for me to do 100 or 200 tests with a wish engine on D8 and then another on D9 to see what we get. Stay tuned for results


And back to my other questions. Does anyone know how deep into the ID the community has gotten? I know that Grey Elven Archer on the GB site got to I500... anyone ever get deeper then that? What's your personal record, everyone?

[Grey]

There won't be any difference in ring-dipping results between D8 and D9 since there are no danger level 9 rings. The danger level of items was most certainly gained through houeland's data, not empirical testing. Only RoDSes and a couple of other items are really well known to people who don't regularly check that though.

I've definitely seen someone get to around 1700-1800 in the ID before. There could be deeper out there. Does it really matter though?

[Ascaron]

There won't be any difference in ring-dipping results between D8 and D9 since there are no danger level 9 rings. The danger level of items was most certainly gained through houeland's data, not empirical testing. Only RoDSes and a couple of other items are really well known to people who don't regularly check that though.

Call me a n00b for having to ask this, but who is houeland? And is there a copy of his research that I could read?

I've definitely seen someone get to around 1700-1800 in the ID before. There could be deeper out there. Does it really matter though?

Just wanted to record for completeness sake the deepest anyone has ever gotten into the ID.
Oh and I was wondering if anyone has beaten my personal best for an ID dive...

[Andy Williams]

Just wanted to record for completeness sake the deepest anyone has ever gotten into the ID.
Oh and I was wondering if anyone has beaten my personal best for an ID dive...

I believe it was Raymond Martineau who "wrapped" in the ID, that is he went to the last level allowed by the 16 or 32 bit integer variable then went down again. He wound up on I:1. This was with some sort of hack, of course.

[Grey]

Definitely with a hack, since it would take longer than a human lifespan to do it manually.

As for houeland's data... actually it seems to be down at the moment. It's pure code-dived stuff - info on all monsters and items, including danger levels, base stats, etc.

[Andy Williams]

2^16 is "only" 65536.

[Grey]

Heh, okay, if it's 16-bit then it's doable - 1 second per level means it's just 18 hours! If it's 32-bit though then you're looking at 4,294,967,296 - that's 136 years at 1 second per level.