[Slashem-devel] Re: [453234] Maggots should be eyeless

[J. A. H. <al...@ju...>]

On 2004.11.03 11:14 Eva Myers wrote:
> > 453234: maggots should be eyeless
> > 	 A long rambling bug that needs somebody to spend some time to
> > 	 break up into a number of actual bugs and feature requests so
> > 	 they can be addressed.
>=20
> That bug has been around for so long that I got curious and looked at
> it :-)  Here's my attempt at breaking it up.  I've left out some of
> the justifications, but I believe that these are all the actual
> changes requested.

Thanks for doing this, Eva. With a rather more succint version I've been=20
able to do some research. Results as follows:

> 1. Maggots, long worms, and probably most other "w" should be eyeless.

This is debatable from a real-life perspective. In simple terms, worms=20
mostly have ocelli (also known as eyespots or simple eyes) rather than th=
e=20
eyes of more advanced creatures which are capable of forming images. It=20
certainly isn't wrong to refer to ocelli as eyes but it also isn't the=20
whole story.

Let's look at the effect that M1_NOEYES has in Slash'EM and see if we can=
=20
determine whether ocelli fit better into the eye or the no-eye category:

a. Applying a mirror at a monster without eyes has no effect (no-eyes:=20
ocelli couldn't distinguish reflection)
b. Pets avoiding your gaze when wary (no-eyes: ocelli couldn't tell where=
=20
you're looking)
c. Pets choosing not to attack higher level monsters (no-eyes: ocelli are=
=20
unlikely to be able to recognise monster shapes)
d. Defender evades your clumsy kick (eyes: ocelli whould be able to detec=
t=20
an approaching leg)
e. Your eyes water when exposed to broken potions (eyes: there's no reaso=
n=20
to assume ocelli would be less sensitive)
f. Capable of being confused by monster with AD_HALU (eyes: perception is=
=20
relative)
g. Capable of being frozen by floating eye (eyes: this is primarily a=20
function of the floating eye)
h. Resistant to blindness (eyes: ocelli have a physical location and are=20
photo-sensitive)
i. Capable of good tracking (no-eyes: ocelli are too simple)
j. Capable of reading scrolls (no-eyes: ocelli don't have the visual=20
acuity)
k. Resistant to dazzle technique (eyes: this is primarly the function of=20
the player)

All of which is a very long-winded way of saying that ocelli pretty much=20
fit half-way between eyes and no eyes. To my mind we have the following=20
options:

a. Do nothing. Advantage: no work :-)
b. Change lesser worms to have no eyes but leave greater worms (especiall=
y=20
long and purple worms) with eyes. Advantage: Our long and purple worms ar=
e=20
the same as NetHack's.
c. Change all worms to have no eyes. Disadvantage: Why do long and purple=
=20
worms have eyes in NetHack, but not in Slash'EM.
d. Create a new flag for ocelli and change the code along the lines laid=20
about above. Advantage: Better correlation with real-life. Disadvantage:=20
Lots of work, incompatiblity with NetHack, some of the distinctions above=
=20
are arguable.

Personally, I vote for (a), but then I'm probably just lazy :-)

> 2. "baby foo worm" would sound better as "larval foo worm".

This only applies to long worms and purple worms which are both inherited=
=20
from NetHack. I say let the vanilla dev-team make the call.

> 3. "larva" is a vague term which can refer to the immature form of
>    most insects, and should be replaced by something more specific
>    e.g. "larval worm" or "larval dung worm".

If we accept point 4 (so this creature grows up into a dung worm) then I'=
d=20
prefer "baby dung worm" for consistency. If we reject point 4, then I'd=20
prefer to leave it as it is (although I don't have any objections to=20
larval worm, I just don't see the advantage).

> 4. In Slash'EM, larvae grow into maggots, which grow into dung worms.
>    IRL, the maggot is the larval form of the fly.  Quoting the bug:
>=20
>      Maggots would make more sense in a sequence like
>      insect ('x') lays egg =3D> hatches into maggot =3D>
>      matures into 'x'.

This depends on the insect, of course. The immature form of ants, beetles=
=20
and bees is normally refered to as larva and that of flies as maggot, but=
=20
maggots are really just a subset of larvae. So this means that we can=20
either do something simple and define larva as the immature form of an an=
t=20
or bee (eg., giant ant) and maggots as the immature form of a fly (eg.,=20
tsetse fly) or we can do something more fancy and make larva mature into =
a=20
randomly selected ant, beetle or bee and maggots mature into a random fly=
.

I guess I'd vote for the fancy option. It shouldn't be too much work and=20
it does add a little interest.

>      And the dung worm life cycle (if we're talking about
>      the "dung worm" that is a type of earthworm) would be
>      [cocoon or egg capsule] =3D> larva =3D> dung worm.

Obsoleted by the above.

General points:

Some of these changes could be made in Slash'EM Vampire, but some of them=
=20
couldn't and I'd rather push the whole lot into the next version.

Any other views?

--=20
J. Ali Harlow
al...@ju...