View source for Talk:31337 scroll

==References==
Hey, I'm as much a fan of the Hitchhiker's series as anybody, but do we really need that entire excerpt on this page?--[[User:Atlantima|Atlantima]] 17:40, 12 Aug 2005 (Central Daylight Time)
:We always do.  [[User:DoubleU|DoubleU]] 21:26, 27 June 2012 (CEST)
Is the "translation" from �`ußi13 to "Nubile" correct? 13 can be translated to "B", and that would make it Nubie (nooby) girls.--[[User:Piroteknix|Piroteknix]] 20:17, 15 July 2006 (CDT)
*Wouldn't that make it "Nubib", and I don't know what that is. --[[User:JRSiebz|JRSiebz]] ([[User talk:JRSiebz|&#x260E;]]|[[Special:Contributions/JRSiebz|&#167;]]|[[Special:Listusers/sysop|&#8225;]]) 20:50, 15 July 2006 (CDT)
**But what does nubile mean? The 13 could be IE--[[User:Piroteknix|Piroteknix]] 21:22, 16 July 2006 (CDT)
*** Well, "nubiie" isn't a word either.  There are these things called dictionaries... [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=nubile], [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nubile] --[[User:JRSiebz|JRSiebz]] ([[User talk:JRSiebz|&#x260E;]]|[[Special:Contributions/JRSiebz|&#167;]]|[[Special:Listusers/sysop|&#8225;]]) 21:33, 16 July 2006 (CDT)
****Yeah, and nubile isn't in it either--[[User:Piroteknix|Piroteknix]] 20:31, 17 July 2006 (CDT)
*****I guess clicking on the [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=nubile [1]] (dictionary.com) and/or [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nubile [2]] (wiktionary.org) above was too hard for you then? Have a [http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/nubile [3]]rd (Merriam-Websters). --[[User:JRSiebz|JRSiebz]] ([[User talk:JRSiebz|&#x260E;]]|[[Special:Contributions/JRSiebz|&#167;]]|[[Special:Listusers/sysop|&#8225;]]) 21:09, 17 July 2006 (CDT)
******Sorry, I use wikipedia to look things up. I guess it does make sense.--[[User:Piroteknix|Piroteknix]] 00:56, 28 July 2006 (CDT)
**Nubile means "eligible to marry"--[[User:Ehsteve|Ehsteve]] 23:04, 17 July 2006 (CDT)

Somewhat unclear- does the scroll reset to hermit and stat scripts after ascension? If it does, modify the hermit script page also. -[[User:Killerrabbit]]
*Yeah, a lot of places on the wiki are unclear about that; almost all of them mean once per ascension.--{{:User:Dehstil}} 17:05, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
:: The only quest that isn't reset on ascension is the Toot quest isn't it?--[[User:Veistran|Veistran]] 12:50, 28 October 2006 (CDT)

*"He vanishes in a puff of logic." The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was a radio show, followed by stage shows, 5 books, and a movie. Did this quote come from the radio show, stage show, book (if so, which one), or the movie?--{{:User:Dehstil}} 16:57, 6 August 2006 (CDT)
**It is the final line of the disproof of god (at the end of the babelfish passage) in the first book, but I don't know if it is anywhere else. --[[User:UglyPanda|UglyPanda]] 17:01, 6 August 2006 (CDT)
***It's in the radio show - The Primary Phase, Fit the First, 11th segment (description of "The Babel Fish"). --[[User:Quietust|Quietust]] 19:01, 6 August 2006 (CDT)
**Definitely the book, can't say for any of the others, but it's definitely in the books. [[User:Pthalo|Pthalo]] 15:19, 7 August 2006 (CDT)
*Possible Faust reference?  I mean, deal with the devil for all of those things mentioned.  HOWEVER, in the book Eric, by Terry Pratchet, he is a demonology 'hacker' and he tries to summon a demon to get him all those things.  This is a Discworld book, so Jick could have been influenced by it, and it seems to fit.  Thoughts?
**IIRC, Jick recently said he hasn't read any Discworld. I don't know if he wrote the relevant game text, but the haxx0r's text doesn't seem like it has any specific references besides the oft-used vanishing in a puff.--[[User:Dkohler|Dkohler]] ([[User talk:Dkohler|talk]]) 02:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

* I always thought that "vanishes in a puff of logic" was a reference to Nethack - that's the message when you sit on a throne too many times.  [[User:Y0U|Y0U]] 13:48, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
--[[User:Barstool|Barstool]] 12:37, 28 October 2006 (CDT)

"vanishes in a puff of smoke" was a common [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SmokeOut trope] when [[Wikipedia:Douglas Adams|DNA]] subverted it for the original radio series of [[Wikipedia:The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy|H2G2]]. (which i feel very privileged to have heard when it was first broadcast.) for this reason it's unlikely that "vanishes in a puff of anything else but logic" is a reference to H2G2. and the NetHack wiki mentions [http://nethackwiki.com/wiki/Throne specifically] that the throne message is a H2G2 tribute. --[[User:Evilkolbot|Evilkolbot]] ([[User talk:Evilkolbot|talk]]) 12:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

==drop rates==
{|BORDER=1px CELLPADDING=3 CELLSPACING=0
|+ End products of a 31337 scroll (post Clover ner-hancement)
|- style="background: #EEEEEE"
!Era
!Date
!Used
!Clover
!Gewgaw
!Knick-knack
!Trinket
!Total Worthless
!Who
|-
|1 || 11/17/2006 || 200 || 313 || 173 || 156 || 166 || 495 || [[User:DirkDiggler|DirkDiggler]]
|}
--[[User:DirkDiggler|DirkDiggler]] 01:26, 17 November 2006 (CST)

==Muti-Use==

Just used 2, and got the exact same text as normal use (with 4 trinkets, 1 gewgaw and 2 clovers)--[[User:RPGMarker35|RPGMarker35]] 20:56, 22 December 2006 (CST)
* Thanks!  --[[User:Suraimu|sl1me]] 22:25, 22 December 2006 (CST)

Multiuse might not have same distribution among worthless objects. Using ten at once I got: 23 worthless trinkets (FNORD), 4 worthless knick-knacks, and 16 ten-leaf clovers. No gewgaws. --{{User:Club/sig}} 13:50, 29 December 2006 (CST)

I got an odd distribution from 270 31337 scrolls, I think it may be class-based.  I am a sauceror:
*You acquire 193 worthless trinkets
*You acquire 51 worthless gewgaws
*You acquire 461 worthless knick-knacks
*You acquire 396 ten-leaf clovers
Favors the knick-knack, now my fiancee Garnet Rene, she tried using 26 of the scrolls as a Turtle Tamer and got:
*You acquire 7 worthless trinkets
*You acquire 54 worthless gewgaws
*You acquire 4 worthless knick-knacks
*You acquire 38 ten-leaf clovers
Hers favored the gewgaws by far...so I'm thinking it may have attachment to main stat and secondary stats.--[[User:WhiskeyJack|WhiskeyJack]] 17:33, 23 February 2008 (CST)

I used 23 and got the following:
*You acquire 16 worthless trinkets
*You acquire 6 worthless gewgaws
*You acquire 42 worthless knick-knacks
*You acquire 40 ten-leaf clovers
Favoring knick-knacks for me as a TT --[[User:CheezyBob|CheezyBob]] 15:45, 8 March 2008 (CST)

I used 47 and got the following:
*You acquire 6 worthless trinkets
*You acquire 50 worthless gewgaws
*You acquire 68 worthless knick-knacks
*You acquire 72 ten-leaf clovers
Favoring gewgaws AND knick-knacks as a DB --[[User:Terrabyte|terrabyte]] 16:45, 18 April 2008 (CST)

I used 63 and got the following:
*You acquire 19 worthless trinkets
*You acquire 8 worthless gewgaws
*You acquire 134 worthless knick-knacks
*You acquire 94 ten-leaf clovers
Favoring knick-knacks as a DB --[[User:Terrabyte|terrabyte]] 8:23, 21 April 2008 (CST)

Awise, ancient discussion thwead!  There is no apparent correlation between class and what trinket you get a disparity in.  For example, I have a TT and a S both seeing a prevalence of trinkets.  The disparity is certainly fact.  Best as I can tell, the disparity is not on a batch-to-batch basis, but persists at least through the ascension.  I would conjecture that each ascension you get a new set of hidden values that determines the ratio of worthless items you would see (in the long run).  It would seem that these were not set up to be equal on average.  Possibly something along the lines of "Roll 1-100 for one type of worthless' percentage, get value of N.  Roll 1-(100-N) for second type of worthless.  Rest are the third type of worthless".  The issue, then, would be that the rolls are not done with equal probability for all values, but instead favoring a low value for the first type (possibly randomly determined), a low to moderate value for the second type, and then resulting in a large value for the third type.  Basic point being that it seems to be using some sort of weighted mechanism to determine how many of 2 types of worthless items are given, but the weighting is not commensurate with/uniform over the total number of worthless items to be given.  Resulting in the significant remainder being given to the 3rd type.  --[[User:Flargen|Flargen]] 06:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
*Well, it's been confirmed that this is either intentional or not something that's going to be fixed.  The distribution appears to be something like a 70/24/6 split on average.  Not entirely sure if which one is the 70 is influence by anything; I've been seeing a couple of gew-gaw dominances on characters that had otherwise seemed to be trinket-aligned.  So it could just be randomly determined each time you multi-use.  --[[User:Flargen|Flargen]] 21:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

==Really Obscure Notes==
A character that has never bridged the Orc Chasm (never ascended), but managed to use an 3l337 scroll to summon the UB3r 31337 HaX0R in the distant past, gets the "You have no idea what this is for" message when trying to use one now. --{{User:Club/sig}} 14:40, 3 January 2007 (CST)
*That's pretty much already covered by the "haven't yet bridged the chasm" case, minus the technicality of supposedly having summoned him in the distant past. --{{User:Quietust/sig}} 16:55, 3 January 2007 (CST)
**quietust is always so polite. i think he means "read the page, dude." --[[User:Evilkolbot|Evilkolbot]] 16:37, 3 January 2007 (CST)
:*I have read the page. It was an obscure border case (which rule takes precedence) that I could answer, and now have done so. There's also a reason why I put this on the talk page instead of the main page. --{{User:Club/sig}} 19:00, 3 January 2007 (CST)
::*if by "obscure border case" you mean irrelevant nonsense, then yes, you were right. --[[User:Evilkolbot|Evilkolbot]] 15:02, 4 January 2007 (CST)
***This case is completely irrelevant, since it doesn't state whether or not you've summoned the H4x0r. Presumably, in the early days you could summon the H4x0r without ever entering the Valley, but it was subsequently fixed so that you had to use the bridge before you could understand what to do with the scrolls. Since you never used your bridge, the "You have no idea what this is for" response is what you get. Since you insist on being pedantic, however, the criteria for each action have been clarified. --{{User:Quietust/sig}} 15:31, 4 January 2007 (CST)


==[[Thirty-seven]]==
I just used 28 scrolls at once, and got the message "You acquire 37 ten-leaf clovers
(In a row?!)"  Could this be a reference to something?   Edit: If you use 37 clovers at once you get "You acquire 37 disassembled clovers
(In a row?!)" if you want to try it yourself.  Maybe this already mentioned somewhere...--[[User:Rasputin23|Rasputin23]] 04:11, 9 January 2007 (CST)
*yes, try [[Thirty-seven]]. --[[User:Evilkolbot|Evilkolbot]] 06:55, 9 January 2007 (CST)

==Distribution==
*is the distribution of the three items truly random? i just used 16 and then 18, and got 39 and 40 trinkets each time. it's almost as if the RNG can tell i'm collecting trinkets and want gewgaws and kick-knacks to use at the hermit. if the mechanism were set up for true randomness you'd expect with these numbers a slightly more even distribution. any maths geeks care to work out probabilities? i suspect, though, that jick's implemented the much talked about "super-duper not having to roll the dice x times" algorithm and it's, um, suboptimal. --[[User:Evilkolbot|Evilkolbot]] 06:49, 2 April 2008 (CDT)
*There's some evidence agreeing with your observations [[#Muti-Use|above]]. --[[User:Bagatelle|Bagatelle]] 22:08, 2 April 2008 (CDT)

== Do they disappear upon Ascension? ==

Do 31337 scrolls disappear when you Ascend?  If I read them during a Bad Moon run I can only get worthless items, which I can only convert to clovers less than 5 times per day.  Is there any way to save the scrolls to read on a future, non-Bad Moon run or will they, as quest items, disappear from my inventory when I Ascend? -- [[User:Antaeus Feldspar|Antaeus Feldspar]] 19:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
*quest items disappear when you ascend. this is a quest item. therefore... --[[User:Evilkolbot|Evilkolbot]] 21:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

== No more hermit script! ==

I just tried this today expecting to get a hermit script for getting more clovers, only to discover that this is no longer the case. The hermit script no longer exists, instead you just get the stat script and that's all. There may be other changes but that's the most immediate one.--[[User:Tombot|Tombot]] ([[User talk:Tombot|talk]]) 23:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)