Suggestion - Item Descriptions

[dhegler]

Is there any reason why we couldn't show the base level of each item in its description? Such as... "This item starts to be commonly found at Dungeon Level xx"? It would be nice to see if finding a rod of healing at dlvl 40 is why the level is "superb", etc... Just like finding Smeagol on dlvl 1 (yes, this just happened to me and I had a superb feeling) tells me that he is normally found on dlvl 5 (or whatever).

[Magnate]

Is there any reason why we couldn't show the base level of each item in its description? Such as... "This item starts to be commonly found at Dungeon Level xx"? It would be nice to see if finding a rod of healing at dlvl 40 is why the level is "superb", etc... Just like finding Smeagol on dlvl 1 (yes, this just happened to me and I had a superb feeling) tells me that he is normally found on dlvl 5 (or whatever).

+1. I quite like this idea, and it would be quite easy to add. Anyone?

EDIT: I hope takk removes the depth_in_feet option if he hasn't done so already. Not because it would simplify this change (which it would, but it's only a matter of a line or two), but because depth always ought to be shown in feet. Always.

[Derakon]

Makes sense to me, and helps new players learn when they should start expecting to find certain items (especially stat potions).

[Tiburon Silverflame]

I have no particular preference for showing depth in feet, or by level number, but it would make sense to always present this consistently to the player.

[Derakon]

What about when depth should be shown in meters?

[fizzix]

What about when depth should be shown in meters?

depth in Smoots?

yeah no one else is gonna know what that is.

[takkaria]

EDIT: I hope takk removes the depth_in_feet option if he hasn't done so already. Not because it would simplify this change (which it would, but it's only a matter of a line or two), but because depth always ought to be shown in feet. Always.

I think it went a few years back... everywhere now just displays both.

[Derakon]

depth in Smoots?

yeah no one else is gonna know what that is.

I don't think that the appropriate bridge is in Middle Earth, so clearly smoots are a setting-inappropriate measure.

[Max Stats]

What about when depth should be shown in meters?

I vote for leagues. Or possibly furlongs.

[Zyphyr]

Atto-parsecs (1.215in / 3.085 cm)

[Nick]

Atto-parsecs (1.215in / 3.085 cm)

I like it. And time in micro-centuries (~52.5 minutes).

[buzzkill]

If depth is going to be presented in feet only, than I hope descriptive text follows suit. Thus Morgoth would appear at 5000', not level 100.

I feel depth by feet has more flavor, but I prefer, and always use, the dungeon level display. It's just easier. If I see 3750', then I have to do a little math to convert it to a dungeon level, which is the actual number I'm interested in knowing in the first place.

The only benefit I can possibly see arising from the change is that there will be absolutely no confusion between dungeon level and character level. But I don't think that's a problem to begin with.

[fph]

If depth is going to be presented in feet only, than I hope descriptive text follows suit. Thus Morgoth would appear at 5000', not level 100.

I feel depth by feet has more flavor, but I prefer, and always use, the dungeon level display. It's just easier. If I see 3750', then I have to do a little math to convert it to a dungeon level, which is the actual number I'm interested in knowing in the first place.

The only benefit I can possibly see arising from the change is that there will be absolutely no confusion between dungeon level and character level. But I don't think that's a problem to begin with.

A change that would solve both problems would be multiplying all depths by 2, so that you only have to remove a zero to obtain the DL. Of course, this change would annoy to death all long-time players and generate confusion on the forums: so probably no hope to ever see it in the game.