Re: New ID system for Angband

Andrew Sidwell <jul07@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Problem: Current ID is tedious.
Proposed system:

There you go jumping to solutions before exploring the problem.
I think it makes sense to examine the rationale behind ID and
rethink implicit assumptions before moving on to solutions.

Also, it is vital to differentiate between weapons/armor and flavored objects.
I'll assume we are talking about weapons/armor and maybe rings/amulets.


You've proposed a huge change elsewhere about curses. That might change the
whole environment. If there are objects that, when you test them, could end
your game, then you need one kind of ID. If you decide not to include such
objects, you can take an entirely different route.

The first issue you have to address is whether you wish to encourage testing
items or discourage testing items. I think you want to encourage, but I
haven't seen a definitive statement that e.g. things like weapons of morgul
and potions of death will be eliminated 100%.


To me, the history looks like the following. ID is vital. So lets design the
game around different amounts of ID for different classes, and make all sorts
of little tweaks. One could take a contrary viewpoint, that ID is only for
players unwilling to do testing, and then you come to very different
solutions.

I think you need to decide what is noticeable about a weapon
(1) from a distance
(2) when you pick it up
(3) when you wield it
(4) when you hit with it
Further, there are things you notice over time. Currently (1) is damage dice,
(3) is a small chance at immediate pseudo, and (2)/(3)/(4) over time is
pseudo.

I'd change all this. Again, it matters if you re-work curses. It is tedious
to wield each item individually checking for things, at least in the current
TMJ environment. With re-worked curses [that do not stop you from unwielding]
it is reasonable to automate so that the player is assumed to wield for a
quick test each item picked up, combining (2) and (3) above.

Consider a flaming sword. It might be reasonable to recognize that it is
magic in any of the 4 situations. The only unreasonable situation, IMO,
is the current one where you only notice randomly over time.

I have my opinions about what ought to be in each case, but there is no point
discussing specifics unless you agree that the framework needs discussion.

There are two kinds of knowledge which apply globally to all items of a
given kind:
* Kind lore: this means you recognise the kind of item something is;
e.g. kind of ego-item, kind of wand. At birth, a character has kind
lore of randomly chosen items.

I don't like this. Let players learn everything.

* Charge lore: this means you know how many charges a rechargeable has
without needing to ID it.

I find this belief that ID is needed for charges very strange. The player can
tell the difference between 0 and 1 charges on a rod. Why not allow him to
tell 0 versus 1 on a wand? [Btw that is already implicit in wand stacking,
but maybe that is just a bug in the current stacking implementation method.]

Why should I need to use ID to make my wands stack? IMO this comes from the
perspective "ID is necessary, so lets make it do all sorts of different
things". I'd rather take the viewpoint "let's make ID as unimportant as
possible".

There are two kinds of knowledge which apply only to individual items:
* Bonuses: this means you know the (hit, dam, ac) bonuses of
un-ID'd gear.

I think you should get this when you wield something, (3) above.

* Identification: this means you know everything about the item.

Pseudo-ID
---------
There are three/four tiers of items:
* average
* masterwork -- current "good", they are simply well-made items

Surely a masterwork should be immediately apparent when you wield it, and
perhaps from a distance, not needing pseudo-id in the current sense. Or do
you mean something else?

* magic -- current "everything else"
* (special)

Average items and items the player has lore of are automatically ID'd.
Other items are displayed with their status in brackets appended (e.g.
"(magic)"), until ID'd. Cursed items are unnoticeable until they are
worn or Identified -- curses are powerful magics, more than capable of
hiding themselves. (This would go hand-in-hand with removing
pointlessly cursed items.)

This is the sort of thing I would love to see, but it means that essentially
you are eliminating pseudo entirely. I found when coding stuff related to
this that what stopped my confusion and endless bugs was to come up with a
physical interpretation. Brands and resists and slays are caused by magic
runes built into the objects, and you can see them when you inspect an object.
Thus you know immediately if something is "magic" as per above. If you don't
like that one, pick another, but pick something or else bugs await you.

If you use a piece of masterwork combat gear for a while, you ID it. If
you use magic combat gear, then you learn its bonuses, but ID is still
required to figure out what artifact/ego it is.

I don't see that there should be a difference between masterwork and average.
You wield, you get the +hit/+dam/+AC, and what else is there? I suppose
it could be about my (1) above, seeing the difference at a distance.

Do you plan to eliminate the spells of enchant weapons? I haven't seen that
mentioned yet. Do you really want there to be a difference between a
masterwork(+9,+9) and an average item that is enchanted up to (+9,+9)?

If you have an artifact currently known as "magic", then after n turns
(or n/2 turns if it is being worn), its status changes to "special".

This seems bogus to me. Of course, I view "artifact" as just a method of item
generation. I've never understood this excellent vs special distinction.
Feel free to ignore me on this.

When using ID
-------------
If you identify an ego-item, there is a small chance you will gain kind
lore of it. Similarly, every time you ID a rechargeable, there is a
chance (proportional to magic devices skill?) that you will gain charge
lore of it.

The same recharge spell works on ALL wands. Liches drain charges from all
wands indiscriminately. IMO, charges should be the same and obvious on all
wands. I'll try to shut up about this now, will probably fail.

In any case, if you have to have charge lore, I think you should make it
depend on the number of times you use it, not the number of times you ID it.
The idea would be that you notice something changes in the appearance of the
wand as you use it. Why am I still talking about this? Must shut up ...


Eddie
.

Relevant Pages

  • YAVP Incursion - Fenwell Highhill
    ... Wand +1 of Dragon Summoning (40 charges) ... Potions of Dimension Door ... Scroll of Dispel Magic ...
    (rec.games.roguelike.misc)
  • Re: [Gum] YASD
    ... anything seems to hit hard if you play a Yeek Mindcrafter. ... n) a Wand of Light (14 charges) ...
    (rec.games.roguelike.angband)
  • Re: [Gum] YASD
    ... Looks like you didn't use autoroller or point-based stat generation. ... Plus some STR-based bonus damage resulting in: ... n) a Wand of Light (14 charges) ...
    (rec.games.roguelike.angband)
  • {S} One-Skill Insanity
    ... After dying with a three-skill character, ... without using charges up. ... I've found my first attack rod on the ground. ... You aim a Pewter Wand of Stinking Cloud. ...
    (rec.games.roguelike.angband)
  • Re: New to this variant{O}
    ... a Holy Book of Prayers ... o) a Brass Wand of Stinking Cloud ... p) 2 Runed Wands of Magic Missile (10 charges) ... r) an Ash Staff of Perception ...
    (rec.games.roguelike.angband)