feature request - spellbook number OPTION

[PowerDiver]

That's right -- I am specifically requesting that Takkaria add a new option.

Referring to spellbooks by letters is bad. Unfortunately, letters are ergonomic and traditional, so we cannot remove them. Inscriptions are clunky and newbies don't use them, but newbies need to be trained to use numbers. Here is my suggestion.


Add an option books_by_numbers that defaults to YES that means that any time you use the hook to select a spellbook you have to use a number and a letter is trapped and reported as an error. If choices are listed, they should be listed with the number.

[camlost]

Honestly, I'd rather that books just end up in the right place all the time. Put book #2 is slot b, even if book #1 isn't around.

Of course, this would probably require a massive redesign of the inventory sorting and (possibly) item lookup code.

But it's what *I* want.

[Magnate]

Honestly, I'd rather that books just end up in the right place all the time. Put book #2 is slot b, even if book #1 isn't around.

Of course, this would probably require a massive redesign of the inventory sorting and (possibly) item lookup code.

But it's what *I* want.

I agree with the general aim, but IMO both your ideas are positively bad.

Leaving aside the massive redesign mentioned above, the right answer is default autoinscriptions. For spellbooks these would be @mX@bX@GX!d!k!v where X is the book number. We could do all sorts of other helpful autoinscriptions as well (like @w0^. on diggers, and so on).

[PowerDiver]

Honestly, I'd rather that books just end up in the right place all the time. Put book #2 is slot b, even if book #1 isn't around.

Of course, this would probably require a massive redesign of the inventory sorting and (possibly) item lookup code.

But it's what *I* want.

In addition, you ought to be able to inscribe with %s to say that an item should be forced into slot s.

The change is actually fairly minor. It is not so hard, and I have implemented it in the past, but it fails from a UI perspective. The advantage of numbers is that you cannot accidentally do the wrong thing if a key is sticky. If p-d-d is invalid, you cannot fail to heal due to problems with the 'd' key or heavy fingers.

The main question with your suggestion is whether to reorder so that equal tvals are together but the letters are not sorted when you look at your inventory.

Personally, I favor both fixed slots for spellbooks and the books_by_numbers option I suggested together, but either singly would be an improvement.

[PowerDiver]

I agree with the general aim, but IMO both your ideas are positively bad.

How is it positively bad to have an option that can be turned off by those who don't want it, but teaches proper technique to newbies? I also want it to help me avoid typos, which cannot be accomplished with autoinscriptions.

I can understand that you might think there is a better solution, but how is this worse than the status quo?

[Sirridan]

Personally I'd like it to be if you hit m/p then a letter, that letter in that context would always be associated with the right book. This could also be my laziness because I'm still training myself to use numbers instead of letters.

To clarify

Beginners handbook (1)
WoWisdom (2)
Chants (3)

I hit mcb, I cast orb of draining, even if beginners handbook is not present. or if I was dumb and picked up magic for beginners and it pushed the other books down.

In any case, autoinscription would be probably better, and easier to code.

[Zikke]

In any case, autoinscription would be probably better, and easier to code.

And very confusing to newbies when they look in their bags

[Sirridan]

And very confusing to newbies when they look in their bags

True... so then why not treat the books like they are inscribed... without inscribing them?

[Magnate]

How is it positively bad to have an option that can be turned off by those who don't want it, but teaches proper technique to newbies? I also want it to help me avoid typos, which cannot be accomplished with autoinscriptions.

I can understand that you might think there is a better solution, but how is this worse than the status quo?

Simply because I have come round to Takkaria's view that options are bad (at least until proven otherwise). I used to want masses of options, but he's shown that we can live without many of them.

I could certainly live with an option, if it was introduced.

[iggy]

Just got bitten by this one myself

Learned the hard way that sometimes bad things happen to good spellbooks. My ranger @ was preparing to recuperate from a fight, so I whipped off a quick maf to discover myself teleported into a pack of hounds.

I survived, but immediately decided that inscribing the books with numbers and retraining myself was the safest route. Personally, I think this is very in line with the rest of the game experience - discovering (usually the hard way) that there's a better/safer way to do things.

I think an 'angband newbie inscription/macro guide' would be more useful: list a macro, explain what it does (since macro-ese is a little cryptic to the uninitiated), and explain why we use it. My life as a ranger became 100x easier once I figured out that I could bind 'f0*t' to the tab key...

A pref file of highly recommended fundamentals (autonumber books, !r on WoR scrolls, etc.) shouldn't be too hard to produce....

[buzzkill]

I think an 'angband newbie inscription/macro guide' would be more useful: list a macro, explain what it does (since macro-ese is a little cryptic to the uninitiated), and explain why we use it. My life as a ranger became 100x easier once I figured out that I could bind 'f0*t' to the tab key...

Try this on for size. Sorry, can't help with the macros.

[Jude]

You know, this thread just made me realize that I can inscribe stacks of arrows with a number and have that be my steady-arrow-shooting macro. Sweet!

[Zikke]

You know, this thread just made me realize that I can inscribe stacks of arrows with a number and have that be my steady-arrow-shooting macro. Sweet!

I don't understand what you mean, but it sounds intriguing. Can you explain?

[Donald Jonker]

I don't understand what you mean, but it sounds intriguing. Can you explain?

S/he means that if you inscribe a stack of ammo w/ {@f1} (or any number, I use zero), then make a macro with the effect "f1*t" (no quotes), it'll automatically fire your chosen stack at the nearest monster. You have to make sure to turn off the "Always use last target" option.

[Zikke]

S/he means that if you inscribe a stack of ammo w/ {@f1} (or any number, I use zero), then make a macro with the effect "f1*t" (no quotes), it'll automatically fire your chosen stack at the nearest monster. You have to make sure to turn off the "Always use last target" option.

Oh okay. I thought he was talking about a meta-macro to hit a single key that auto-inscribes a stack of ammo. That would be pretty cool.