|
View Poll Results: Which ID system should be in Angband 4.1? | |||
The same as in 4.0 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
4 | 11.11% |
Rune-based ID |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
32 | 88.89% |
Voters: 36. You may not vote on this poll |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#1 |
Vanilla maintainer
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Canberra, Australia
Age: 55
Posts: 8,760
Donated: $60
![]() |
Rune-based ID - yes or no?
The rune-based ID feature branch has been out for a while now, and there's been a lot of discussion in the associated thread, most of which (in my biased viewpoint) has been in favour.
I would like to add rune-based ID to the current master branch, which will (eventually) become version 4.1. Before I do, and because this change hasn't been universally acclaimed, I'd like some indication of what proportion of people think it's a good idea, and what proportion prefer the 4.0 ID system. So please vote for the system you prefer. I would also greatly appreciate comments explaining why, especially from people voting for the old system, because if this major piece of work is going to go unused I'd like to have good reasons.
__________________
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Prophet
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,024
![]() |
I voted in favor, because I feel that there is nothing interesting in requiring a character to identify things that aren't actually new to them.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Adept
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 105
![]() |
I voted in favor because i found in my testing i enjoyed the new version of the ID Minigame much more interesting than the old one. for more details see my comments in the main RuneID thread.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Knight
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 958
![]() |
I vote wholeheartedly for rune-based ID. I've just got to the depth in my current game where I'm clearing greater vaults, and the rune-based system is vastly better for dealing with items in the later game - unwanted equipment disappears seamlessly on walkover, awkward items like Robes of Permanence that I always used to miss because they were indistinguishable from basic {excellent} robes are now insta-ID'd, the old 'find something to drop from your full pack so you can pick up the floor item to get pseudo so it will auto-squelch' juggling act is completely gone, and it's generally just so much less painful to sort through items now.
I also discovered, after the Trap/door feature branch was introduced, that it was an incredibly un-fun hassle going back to the old system - I didn't appreciate until then what an improvement it is even in the early game to be able to see the basic bonuses on low-level weapons and armour on walkover instead of having to carry a big stack of stuff around for an age and then test it in combat. And even negative/useless early game items become more fun to find thanks to the opportunity to learn a rune from them. I find I'm dutifully playing one test game of each new update to the Traps/doors branch and then running back to play another half dozen games in the Rune-ID branch because it's so much more enjoyable to play. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Adept
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 194
![]() |
I vote in favour - Rune ID definitely feels 'right'. However I think there a few tweaks that, while not necessary would improve gameplay slightly:
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,372
![]() |
Quote:
EDIT: Actually, this isn't strictly true. There's a slight downside to getting early !Exp... if you get stat drained. Last edited by AnonymousHero; April 8, 2016 at 06:31. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Adept
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 194
![]() |
Quote:
Also, potions that increase on stat and decrease another can have pretty bad consequences - If you're unlucky enough to have a couple hit your primary stat (Int for mages for example) it can be a bit frustrating |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,372
![]() |
Quote:
![]() Scrolls can actually also be identified safely in the dungeon (assuming you've dilligently identified the early scrolls which can be dangerous later on), and I find that Acquirement is not worth keeping until later levels. Sure, but it's hardly game-breaking -- just a minor annoyance. Plus, it does require quite a lot of bad luck... as in: there's about a 4% chance of that happening for two successive potions. (In practice it's slightly higher, but I've made some simpliying assumptions for the calculation.) |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | ||
Adept
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 194
![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Adept
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 234
![]() |
What others said. More testing and little polishing is all it needs. Personally I would like ID scrolls to be a bit more common and heavy armor should not have enchant armor runes on them. Same thing with acid producing negative enchantment on armor. But that's just tiny details.
Recently I have died twice on ID by use. First one was an unlucky poison bottle with a virgin ranger. It was the first potion I found from the dungeon and I stupidly did not buy any cure from town. Lesson learned ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Rune-based ID | Nick | Vanilla | 503 | October 1, 2016 23:48 |
Idea: Rune based magic system | calris | Development | 5 | March 29, 2016 12:43 |
Rune-based ID should be a game option | Egavactip | Vanilla | 22 | March 2, 2016 21:25 |
How about Rune-based squelching? | Tobias | v4 | 3 | January 17, 2012 10:18 |
Rune-based ID just got a little better | Magnate | v4 | 24 | December 8, 2011 06:31 |