In the crawl wiki, why is the Horn of Geryon classified as an unrand, but the other miscellaneous evokables like the lightning rod and Gell’s gravitambourine? You cannot get multiple of any miscellaneous evokable, and they have unique sprites and effects. There is no reason that they should not be considered unrandart artifacts, unless the Horn of Geryon’s artefact status is removed.
The wiki has errors. (In this case I believe it’s more of an oversight than an error.) FWIW, except one of the misc evocables (Gell’s gravitambourine?), they’re all highlit in the inventory menu with the same cyan color used to highlight unrandarts. You can test all nine items using Wizard Mode — enter it with & and use the o (create object) command.
I was pretty sure about that, I just didn’t want to say something that I wasn’t sure of. It’s a pretty minor oversight on the wiki’s part, I just wanted to mention it.
1 Thank
None of them are unrands, they’re all misc. I’m not a dev, but all of the unrands are prefixed UNRAND_ and all of the miscellaneous vocables are prefixed MISC_. In game manual also has Misc and Artefacts explicitly separate:
{ Miscellaneous
========================================
These are items which don't fall into any other category. They can be evoked
with 'V', just like wands. Runes, a particular item in this category, have no
function whatsoever except to open the endgame. You must collect at least three
in order to enter the Realm of Zot. Some particularly cocky adventurers brag
about having retrieved ten or even fifteen runes through their strength and
cunning, but most scholars on the subject of Zot agree that such a thing is
probably impossible in the first place, and secondly would be a meaningless
achievement in any regard.
Artefacts
========================================
Weapons, armour, jewellery and spellbooks can be artefacts. These come in two
flavours: randomly created artefacts ('randarts') and predefined ones
('unrandarts'). Randarts will always carry unusual names, such as "golden
double sword" or "shimmering scale mail". Artefacts cannot be modified in any
way, including enchantments.
Conceptually, miscellaneous evocables would be closest to unrandart consumables, but as far as the wiki is concerned the Horn of Geryon is the errant entry. As far as I know the coloring is not categorizing them as unrands but as unique items.
Forgot to mention…
The un in unrand stands for “not” not “unique” as in not a random artefact.
I’m pretty sure the item description as well mentions that the item is an “ancient artefact” and not just the coloring. Whether they’re considered unrandarts in the source code is of lesser concern IMO.
Also your quote from the manual talks about runes of Zot which are very dissimilar to the miscellaneous evocables, so I don’t think that section is meant for them.
Ok, let’s try this a different way.
The in game docs don’t say it’s an artefact.
The wiki explicitly categorizes it as a misc evocable.
The only reference to it being an unrandart is in the list of unrands but when you click into the horn you’ll see it’s categorized as misc.
This all points to the Horn’s inclusion in the unrandart page being the erroneous entry and not the other way around. The code (written by the developers who ostensibly make the decisions around “why”) and in game docs only support this further.
I’ve answered the question of what makes an unrand, and I’ve clarified (with examples) why the Horn is not actually an unrand by the current in game/code definitions.
What exactly is it that you’re trying to argue here?
for a while it was the only unique evoker so the wiki wording is probably from that time
Have you checked the other evocables as well? The only time I’ve encountered the horn of Geryon is once in Wizard Mode. If my memory serves me well the other evocables have the “ancient artefact” text in their description.
I’m not arguing and I’m not sure why you had behaved like a bully to me in a different thread and why you hold hostility towards me in this thread. We’re having a discussion about a game. Cease your hostility please. This would be my last time asking for that. Think carefully before you reply.
It seems like you have a false impression of me being an illogical person that doesn’t care about logic or facts or that I’m unable to critically analyze reality. It stems from your style of writing and the way you’ve presented your arguments towards me both in the aforementioned previous thread and in here. I will not try to justify my position towards you when you’re being needlessly and rudely hostile to me and behaving like a bully. I do not owe you an explanation of why I’m thinking the things I think or why I think that I make sense. If you want to understand how or why I think things you will probably have to accept the fact that we could disagree and have a polite discourse about our disagreement, without you going out of your way to out me or falsely accusing me of having “bad faith” as you did in the aforementioned previous thread.
Look bud. I don’t carry a grudge and tbh I hadn’t even put together you were the same guy from the ChatGPT thread, but don’t threaten me with a good time you’re incapable of following through on. I responded to the OP and you hopped in the shit with assumptions that the source of truth doesn’t matter because that’s your opinion.
You won’t even put in the effort to “check the other evocables as well”. I’ve already shown you the receipts that I checked and you completely disregarded them. I’ve already invested time researching something to provide sound baseline information, and you’re rather ungrateful to the fact that someone with the ability to go look this stuff up is also willing to. It doesn’t take me a long time but it’s something I enjoy doing. I don’t enjoy being blown off because of an incorrect assumption that can easily be corrected.
I’ll continue to respond to clear up ignorance because this is an open forum and your assumptions aren’t helping. You want to argue they should be unrands I’d agree and even point you in the direction of where you might be able to submit that clarification. Or maybe a dev comes in and says I’m fucking wrong and I’ll be like cool bro, but until that happens the code is the best proxy I have for a crawl dev.
@ScionOfUrza411 further beating of the dead horse but again, this is fun for me…
Even better proxy for the devs (I’m too overwhelmed by discord lol) is commit history which is pretty explicit that the misc evocables are not unrandarts.
b43e308ab6 | Implojin | 2024-07-31 17:49:59 -0500
fix: tweak colours of evokers in item stacks
Following from 3b7b6a97b3 and 50297eb6a4, here we give evokers the same
treatment as the previous commit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3b7b6a97b3 | Nikolai Lavsky | 2024-08-01 01:30:45 +0300
fix: tweak colours of artefacts in item stacks
It's hard to notice artefact magical staves and artefact talismans in
big item stacks, because their glyphs are coloured in darkgrey as if
they were mundane items.
This commit fixes that, and also gives unrandarts lightcyan colour as
a followup to cf64465.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50297eb6a4 | Implojin | 2023-12-13 22:06:14 -0600
feat: Menu colouring and search tags for evokers
Elemental evokers are quasi-artefacts now, so it makes sense to give players
a UI heads-up that they're special. This commit colours elemental evokers in
menus as though they were unrands, adds a stash search alias for evokers on
ctrl+f, and lets players easily redefine evoker menu colour in their rcfiles.
Commit b43e308 even updates the option_guide.txt further showing they’re not the same and the color is just there to indicate uniqueness not unrandness:
Non-random artefacts and evokers will be coloured in lightcyan; random
That said, wiki shouldn’t be counted on as a source of truth, and I’m not even sure how someone would go about submitting/requesting updates to it. The distinction is extremely pedantic from a practical standpoint but they might be more appropriately called evodarts or something equally dumb and it looks like the dev team has taken to using the colloquial term “evokers” for this class of items.
I carry no assumptions here, only my own memory of how things are. I explicitly stated that. I’m terribly sorry that I responded to the OP from my memory rather than doing comprehensive research, I didn’t know there was a rule in this forum that requires researching the source code and other data thoroughfully and confirming my memory before posting here (oh wait, there’s no such rule). The whole point of DCSS is what you experience as a user rather than the behind-the-scenes stuff of how it’s coded; even disregarding that, many players don’t care about the source code, but they necessarily care about the gameplay experience (because they’re players, not coders), and so I stated that in my opinion what the source code considers an unrandart is of lesser concern. This logic checks out completely. It’s okay that you don’t agree with it, but you’re thinking I’m some kind of lazy idiot who comes here throwing statements to trip you off where you don’t even understand the reasoning behind my statements or subject me to a please-research-beforehand-to-confirm-your-memory standard that you made up for some reason (this is a game, not academics for goddamn sake). You like doing heavy research before posting here? Good, I appreciate that contribution to the community and perhaps there’s others who appreciate it as well. But don’t subject me to a standard you made up and call me out for not following it, don’t bully me, don’t curse me, and don’t judge me based on your false misunderstanding of my reasoning for thinking or saying things.
I don’t need to be grateful to you if you’re being rude to me, acting like a bully to me, and not apologizing to me in private after you drove me off the previous thread. Yes, I could’ve chosen to continue to participate but I didn’t want the discussion to turn into a heated battleground. I realized that might have been a mistake because I allowed your pressure, profanity, and bully-like behavior to work.
Yes it’s an open forum so expect uninformed opinions to be corrected with facts when available and unwad your fucking panties. You’re just lying and making shit up at this point. Thinking you’re being bullied by someone sharing information is something you should be discussing with your therapist not a game forum.
Oh I didn’t realise all the misc evokables had been turned into unrandarts.
The game keeps track of unrandarts, and if one has appeared, it will never appear again. Unrandarts also cannot be eaten by slimes. These are the defining characteristics, and these are determined in the source code.
The misc evokables used to be regular items, but got changed into unrandarts in 0.30
Figurine of the Zigurat is a weird edge case.
1 Thank
They haven’t.
Yes they have. At least unless someone has been vandalising the wiki.
Don’t generate in duplicate, can’t be eater by slimes === unrandart
Now, how many times have you passed on a really good evocable when now you realize you just lost it permanently?
That’s not what an unrandart is. Those are properties of an artefact, but an artefact having those properties does not make it an unrandart. Randarts have those same exact properties and aren’t unrandarts.
un = not
rand = random
art = artefact
artefact = unique item with a base type
evokers do not have a base type.
This is literally all backed up by the wiki, code, in game docs, option guide, and commit history.
You could make the case they’re artifacts and one commit comment even calls them quasi-artefacts.
At least unless someone has been vandalising the wiki.
If you can actually show me where it says these are unrandarts I’ll gladly add it to all the other shit I’ve found on this, but it still doesn’t change the fact that the wiki isn’t the source of truth.
I never leave them behind in ice caves unless I’ve found duplicates. But there’s one in a shop that I wasn’t buying because i was waiting to find ‘another one’
Ah alright then no big deal then. That’s reassuring lol