Sil: What are your least liked features of Sil?

[evilmike]

It can be annoying when you wield a digger as a shield user, and have a full inventory. And even without a full inventory, you have to put on both your shield and weapon each time (it's the same amount of keystrokes really). Macros make this fairly painless, but it still feels like a lot of work just to clear some rubble.

Not that digging is a very large part of Sil, I just don't like how it takes so many keystrokes.

What if the whole wield/unwield process could be handled automatically? Let's say I have a shovel in my inventory (but not equipped), and want to clear some rubble. If I hit ctrl+dir or use the tunnel command, the game could automatically wield the shovel (if you're carrying multiple diggers, just pick the best one), dig, then re-equip my weapon and shield. The turn-count would be the same as if I did all of this manually. But, it would mean that clearing rubble would only be a single command rather than seven (I counted). Also, you'd still be able to weild the digger normally and use it that way, which would be a good choice if you're going to dig multiple squares.

This system should also be smart enough, so if I drop my shield when digging, it automatically re-wields it off the floor.

[BlueFish]

It can be annoying when you wield a digger as a shield user, and have a full inventory. And even without a full inventory, you have to put on both your shield and weapon each time (it's the same amount of keystrokes really). Macros make this fairly painless, but it still feels like a lot of work just to clear some rubble.

Not that digging is a very large part of Sil, I just don't like how it takes so many keystrokes.

What if the whole wield/unwield process could be handled automatically? Let's say I have a shovel in my inventory (but not equipped), and want to clear some rubble. If I hit ctrl+dir or use the tunnel command, the game could automatically wield the shovel (if you're carrying multiple diggers, just pick the best one), dig, then re-equip my weapon and shield. The turn-count would be the same as if I did all of this manually. But, it would mean that clearing rubble would only be a single command rather than seven (I counted). Also, you'd still be able to weild the digger normally and use it that way, which would be a good choice if you're going to dig multiple squares.

This system should also be smart enough, so if I drop my shield when digging, it automatically re-wields it off the floor.

I like it but would refine it so that diggers are just used from inventory. Yes, this would make the game slightly easier and turn counts slightly less, but the differences would be very minor in those regards and the interface would be made significantly less cumbersome for digging.

[debo]

I like it but would refine it so that diggers are just used from inventory. Yes, this would make the game slightly easier and turn counts slightly less, but the differences would be very minor in those regards and the interface would be made significantly less cumbersome for digging.

Also need to think about what happens if you clear rubble and there's e.g. a vampire or a serpent waiting right behind it I'm not sure I'd 100% want to use the next 1-2 turns equipping a sword and a shield. I imagine at that point it would just halt the builtin "macro" and let you decide what to do.

I might also consider it surprising behaviour if the game dropped my shield due to full inventory if I pushed ctrl-dir -- might need to bring up that prompt that says "This will mean dropping your shield, still proceed?"

[BlueFish]

Another option rather than just using diggers from inventory would be to disable the off-hand equipped item when two handed items are wielded, while leaving the off-hand item wielded.

[Derakon]

I think using the digger from the inventory is probably the best solution here. You can still wield the digger as a weapon if you like, but the tunnel command could simply prompt you for the digger you want to use (and users could readily set up keymaps to automatically select their favored digger if they want).

[BlueFish]

Is there a file somewhere that can be edited to make shovels and mattocks one handed? Or is that baked into the code?

[taptap]

Is there a file somewhere that can be edited to make shovels and mattocks one handed? Or is that baked into the code?

You should be able to do this in the object.txt file by removing TWO_HANDED in the description BUT 5d2 can be good damage even now, when you change it to a one-handed weapon mattocks would do 5d4+STR damage (+power+damage rings+charge) when wielded two-handed. As Morgoth has been slain with a shovel once (custom shovel and insane song of mastery by Psi) I guess you can't completely forget about their use as weapons too.

As long as you only have to handle rubble song of freedom is a good way to free an item slot and it does much more as well if you can afford it (say because you found a sharp weapon).

[taptap]

I actually designed the menu to work well for fast switching too. You just hit, say, "<tab> a a" in order to toggle Power. Believe it or not, the spell system in Angband requires you to do a three key sequence like this every time you want to fire a magic missile. I think doing the three key dance when you want to toggle something is pretty easy and you will memorise the two non-tab keys for the ability very quickly.

Believe or not I actually toggled starting with @, then a, then selecting the skill tree with direction keys and RETURN then again direction keys and RETURN... for a dozen more keystrokes each time.

[BlueFish]

You should be able to do this in the object.txt file by removing TWO_HANDED in the description BUT 5d2 can be good damage even now, when you change it to a one-handed weapon mattocks would do 5d4+STR damage (+power+damage rings+charge) when wielded two-handed. As Morgoth has been slain with a shovel once (custom shovel and insane song of mastery by Psi) I guess you can't completely forget about their use as weapons too.

The damage dice are in that same text file, so those afraid they'll abuse the combat system by wielding a mighty mattock one-handed can go ahead and change them to 1d1 or something.

As long as you only have to handle rubble song of freedom is a good way to free an item slot and it does much more as well if you can afford it (say because you found a sharp weapon).

Well, it's generally always handy to be able to get through granite.

[wobbly]

In regards to shields I'd be a fan of keeping it equipped but disabled when using a 2-hander, mainly because it's a pet hate of mine that you can use a bow & shield together. Does 1 of the variants change the name of the shield slot to on-back when wielding a 2-hnder? I have a vague recollection of seeing it somewhere.

[BlueFish]

I don't like that new characters default to female. I'm sure I'm insecure in my masculinity but I prefer playing male heros in these sorts of games. I suspect most roguelike players (who are factually male) feel the same. Why not default to the most common choice, as would happen with any other design decision throughout the game?

I know, I'm whining. Just like a girl. But the frequent deaths and frequent rebuilds lend themselves to lots of character creations and you have to remember to stop at the right point in character creation to flip the default female to male. It's not so much the extra keystrokes as it is the intentional design decision that bothers me. I've totally rethunk gender roles in society. Thanks for the politics.

[Mikko Lehtinen]

It's not so much the extra keystrokes as it is the intentional design decision that bothers me.

You don't like things ordered alphabetically? I'd guess that's the design reasoning.

[BlueFish]

You don't like things ordered alphabetically? I'd guess that's the design reasoning.

And if one choice would be far more common than the other (given equal UI opportunity), would it be good design reasoning? That's the point.

I know, I won't get a real conversation over this. But it's a real point.

[Mikko Lehtinen]

And if one choice would be far more common than the other (given equal UI opportunity), would it be good design reasoning?

Alphabetical order pleases me aesthetically, and that would trump tiny speed benefits for me. And if alphabetical order is used in some other lists, having male first here would bother me slightly. That would seem like a political decision.

(Personally, I always choose sex at random in *bands. And having to choose sex when it doesn't affect anything is not cool.)

[Mikko Lehtinen]

And having to choose sex when it doesn't affect anything is not cool.

Off-topic: I've been interested in how ancient societies always seem to have weird gender rules for magicians. In Viking culture, for instance, male witches were a tabu -- male magic-users were considered dangerous rogues that break the sacred order of the universe. In some other societies it was probably vice versa. I could easily have some different spellbooks for males and females in Halls of Mist.