artefact = unique item with a base type
Are you sure that’s the complete definition?
I’ve always understood
but if we’re allowed to add conditionals, why not…
Truly, the possibilities are endless when you open your mind ^^
Yes I’m sure this is the complete definition. The in game docs on artifacts explicitly state what base types an artifact can have.
books don’t have a base type. So you’re going to have to choose either this definition or the other, or fudge by declaring “book is a base type, but misc evoke isn’t”.
As for why this text is capable of being wrong: the game is in flux, and it extremely hard to update all the documentation properly with every code change. I should know, since that’s been my job for a while.
Thank you for the clarification, and I do appreciate the hard work you put into keeping it up to date. It’s by far the best in game documentation that I’ve ever seen. I’m absolutely not throwing shade on in game docs at all, and I look to them as just as much as source of truth as code commits.
Seems we’re both a little wrong since OBJ_BOOKS and OBJ_MISCELLANY are both base types.
There’s literally no evidence anywhere of these being “unrandarts” except for Horn of Geryon being included on the unrandarts page (but not category) on the wiki, and all the code commits and in line documentation support evokers being explicitly separate from unrandarts.
All that said, I do want to understand the changing nature of classifications and terminology, so maybe you can help me in clarifying what makes an unrandart explicitly an unrandart?
Sorry I should clarify I meant what I wrote about updating code in general. Though I have contributed some code to DCSS, my contributions are very minor compared with the main devs, and I don’t want to take credit for their work.
The current code for jelly item eating is this:
bool item_is_jelly_edible(const item_def &item)
{
if (item_is_stationary_net(item))
return false;
// Don't eat artefacts or the horn of Geryon.
if (is_artefact(item) || item_is_horn_of_geryon(item))
return false;
// Don't eat zigfigs or elemental evokers. (They're artefact-like, and
// Jiyvaites shouldn't worry about losing them.)
if (item.base_type == OBJ_MISCELLANY)
return false;
// Don't eat mimics.
if (item.flags & ISFLAG_MIMIC)
return false;
// Don't eat special game items.
if (item_is_collectible(item))
return false;
return true;
}
which frankly needs to be cleaned up, but I could see why one would wait with cleaning this up until they’re certain they’re happy with the gameplay.
We see that currently according to the code, an item is edible unless one of the following applies:
So based on this code, the game does not consider misc evocables to be artifacts, and does not consider the horn of geryon to be a misc evocable, and does not consider it to be an artifact either.
Personally I would use the definition mentioned above,
artifact == unique & not edible,
unrandart == artifact & not randomly generated (== unique & not edible & not randomly generated),
which both helps me think about playing the game, and would also clean up the dcss code base.
Because crawl is a bit messy the language has edge cases. Are randomly generated books artefacts? Are zig figurines?
It is my policy to use language that is the most useful for making connections and for stating things simply. I believe the common use of the word “unrandart” signifies an object that is hardcoded to always have the same properties and that causes your character to permanently lose potential if it is destroyed or lost or stuck in a shop.
But we cannot personally dictate how language should be.
I’m not trying to dictate how language is used, I’m trying to find a common shared understanding of a word that is directly asked in the OP. I got a little argumentative with Zikada because he just dismisses things arbitrarily when his assumptions are challenged. But my goal has always been clarity and I’m more than happy to shift my viewpoint. I hope ya’ll are able to understand at least why I defended my position with the data available.
You distilling this down to a question of edibility is immensely useful to me and the community.
I usually leave people’s private chats alone and try to stay in public, but you had asked for a private apology. I’m not ready to do that, and I’d like to try to reach a common ground so maybe I can offer you a genuine apology.
Unfortunately, you aren’t accepting PMs. If you’re willing to have a conversation so we can better understand one another please shoot me a PM. Please don’t take any of this the wrong way, I’m trying to act in good faith here and head off future misunderstandings.
And rude and used profanity.
Ditto.
False.
Reasoning, not “assumptions”.
Misunderstood, not “challenged”.
Interesting that when I said this:
Petercordia has demonstrated this de facto. And yet you still say this:
Reminder: What you’re referring to is this:
Reminder: The original quote is this:
So not only you’re rude to me and use profanity against me, and not only you’re accusing me of being “ungrateful”:
to your empirical contributions, and not only you misunderstand my reasoning and then misjudge me based on your inability to comprehend my disagreement with you nonetheless accept that I can disagree with you, but in the same post you say you can accept such changes/adapt while at the same time accusing me of carrying assumptions when said assumption you specifically accused me of is the one you’re claiming de facto to drop. So in addition, you’re either a hypocrite or rather forgetful. I believe the latter, honestly, but that’s still annoying.
I have been, actually, until this post:
I’m sorry that my comment made you feel it necessary to shut down your PMs, the context was intended to be about the open visibility of the information that’s all. I’m still willing to have a civil conversation to get to understand each other better. I’m perfectly happy to have it here as well if that’s where you’re more comfortable.
I’m also sorry for calling you ungrateful. It was petty of me.
I’m genuinely trying to figure out where my fault lies here, and I’m offering a conversation. You’ve been aggrieved enough to feel you need an apology. I’m willing to admit where I’m wrong, but maybe you can take two seconds to step back and look at the totality of our interactions and realize that as a person I have an innate need to understand things. I’m not trying to debate you here, but if we both keep running into each other we’ll continue to have the same problems. I’m trying very hard to understand you right now so our future interactions don’t end up so poorly.
In the interests of understanding your grievances,
and I don’t mean to diminish any of them, but do they boil down to?
And are you ok if I ask you more clarifying questions about each individually? You’re my source of truth on you.
This is getting off-topic (1). I don’t know you in person and can’t give a solemn judgement of whether you’re genuine or not and I don’t wanna tax myself with analyzing that (2), and also I’m busy with other things as well (3) and I feel like discussing the conduct of our interactions is beyond what I’m willing to engage in (4). So for these four reasons (counted), I think the most appropriate course of action would be to just see how we get along from now on.
Wait, I thought jellies didn’t eat items unless you went with ol’ Jiv.
So there are situations were a non-Jiver can have their stuff gobbled up!!??! O.o
No, only with Jiv.
There’s a separate check to ensure that items are only eaten if you’re with Jivya.
Good to know that none of the miscellaneous evokables are considered artifacts. Also, zikada, you can’t just act like someone is making a personal attack just because someone said something that you found rude.
“Bully” was in reference to what happened in the previous thread, not in this thread. But when I saw this line:
It ticked me off; before that I was willing to just chat normally in a nice discussion.
Now, I’d love if you wouldn’t try to educate me as to what I’m allowed or not allowed to do, say, or think. You’re not a moderator and you have no authority over me.
That does help a bit and I think this might be part of where there is a major disconnect between us.
I’m very confused as to why you would be ticked off that I think you’re making an argument. It’s a normal part of discourse when there are opposing ideas, and you responded directly to me saying some of the information I provided was irrelevant.
From my perspective that is you arguing against the points I made, so I responded with more information.
Is there some negative connotation to arguing that you’re projecting here? Is it my approach to presenting my arguments? How do you expect viewpoints that differ or even oppose yours to be presented?
Again, I’m trying to get better about my interactions with you. You said you didn’t want to talk and I was going to and will leave it if that’s still what you want, but you responded again. This still might be better in the format of a DM conversation too if you’d be more comfortable that way, no pressure for time commitments either async is fine with me.
That’s if I would’ve interpreted the line I quoted for what it is plainly — with that there’s not really a problem, as you highlight; but I interpreted it with additional connotation that I felt was implied in it, which was easier for me to do given the awful way our interactions have gone in the ChatGPT thread. It’s the last sentence that ticked me off, but you should also consider the sentence before it, the full quote is:
I interpreted the way you presented what you did do as a way to imply what I didn’t do, and then the sentence following it I interpreted as you trying to invalidate my opinion, which felt like an off-topic personal remark because I didn’t state an opinion about unrandarts (the subject), only a minor comment about the source code being of lesser concern.
Yes. This is all true. Also true is this is a very small community and you and I are both within the top 10 most active people here. We will interact again, I’m not going to ignore false or ambiguous information when I can correct it - even if it turns out in spite of all the evidence that I’m wrong. It’s a fucking forum.
I do have authority and moderation over myself though. I’ve already decided that I’ll question your assumptions first instead of assuming myself what you’re basing them off even if it seems pretty obvious by your word choice because there seems to be an inherent difference in perspective here.
I’m willing to talk through this. It’s the most genuine form of apology you could ever ask for. Here or in DMs, idc. I’m not here to be a dick. You said I was bullying you. That hurt enough to make me check myself. I don’t agree with your assessment but I’m trying to give you space to help me understand your point of view.
ETA: I didn’t see your other comment before I posted this, also didn’t read it yet but wanted to prevent any confusion
No no that was in response to @ScionOfUrza411 not towards you
EDIT: I’m not sure if it’s a bug but this forum software sometimes doesn’t show the person you’re replying to. That whole post was in reply to @ScionOfUrza411
Thank you, this does help.
If you would do me the favor of trying to see things from my perspective as well I hope you’ll understand that while I might have been a bit abrupt in my response it was more a lack of me putting in the effort to intentionally butter it up and my natural personality than me trying to be hostile with you.
I did feel a bit dismissed by your comment because you didn’t provide anything beyond “I think” (not a direct quote just in the general sense) which implies to me you don’t know for sure (something I already knew for a fact in this case) while simultaneously saying it didn’t matter based on an opinion. I could definitely have corrected the first part in a much more cordial way, and I should have asked more clarifying questions about why you didn’t think source code mattered and stuff.
It also felt a bit dismissive for you to ask if I checked them all when I already felt dismissed that the other things I’d shown you didn’t matter, and that is when I lashed out calling you ungrateful. Again, I’m sorry it was petty. I’m not trying to excuse it, just asking you to consider me as a person. Honestly, even simply changing it to a request like “could you check the others? I could have sworn it was on one of them” and I’d have happily gone and looked it up for you.
Would me asking you a question like this still seem hostile to you?
Why shouldn’t the source code matter? It’s the closest thing we have to a developers brain.