Feature Request: Buy and destroy all shortcut

[Dark]

Come on, his reasoning was perfectly clear: he didn't want to do anything which condoned the current (ab)use of stores. It's not *just* a significant UI improvement, it's a psychological change to the game.

But you make a good point about there now being a significant gap before the store revamp.

Personally, I can't comment on the buying out issue as I haven't got far enough if the game for it to matter.

I do however much prefer playing Daaj with the extra gold and no item sale options sinse personally I find exploring, mining and slaughtering my way to wealth much more fun carting loads of junk around in inventory slots which I need for other purposes, ---- just a personal opinion though, and if other people prefer the complexity of selling mechanics that's fine as well.

On the suggestion about destructive Id though, I'd say that'd make things far too easy, ---- especially with replaceables like scrolls and potions. There would be no point trying any new potion at all, ---- just destroy Id it, wich Imho would remove a lot of the risk and interest from the game.

I'd say selling for zero gold or selling for Id should stay as it is.

[Maupin]

Cannot wait for a patch or "bug fix" to remove the current annoying squelch prompt every single time you want to destroy an item! This is my number one pet peeve with the current Angband. We already have a squelch menu - no need to pester the player relentlessly.

[Zikke]

I love the questions to squelch things. I think I'm the only one...

[fizzix]

I love the questions to squelch things. I think I'm the only one...

yes, yes you are.

[Elsairon]

I didn't like the prompt mixed w/ destroy at first, but it grew on me.

I found that anything I was destroying, I didn't want to bother destroying (that same item) the next time, and over the course of a couple games it saved many keystrokes.

I think on principal having destroy prompt seperate from squelch prompt would be an improvement in the U.I. eventually though.

[buzzkill]

Come on, his reasoning was perfectly clear: he didn't want to do anything which condoned the current (ab)use of stores. It's not *just* a significant UI improvement, it's a psychological change to the game.

Along these lines, can we then remove auto-scum too ??? Ya know, make the player work for it.

If your goal is to reduce abuse, why not just make it so buying out store slots does not increase the possibility of new stuff showing up, and buying out stores does not refresh the stock. Then there's no abuse.

Another fine idea without a chance of implementation. Would it make the game impossible? No, and it would speed and aid the inevitable re-balancing of objects.

[Marble Dice]

I didn't like the prompt mixed w/ destroy at first, but it grew on me.

...

I think on principal having destroy prompt seperate from squelch prompt would be an improvement in the U.I. eventually though.

The commands used to be separate - k for kill and K for squelch. I don't exactly hate the new combined version, but I'd still rather have two separate commands. I wouldn't mind if the role was reversed - k for squelch, and K for kill. I definitely squelch more than I kill, but I still kill enough to to warrant a second command.

[Nightmarjoo]

I've never bought out a store in my life, but I sleep 1000 turns at dl1 a lot ._.

[Rizwan]

Whats with this instant gratification thing. We need to suck it up and wait it out. If a thing is not in the store then tough luck. You can't have everything when YOU want it. In this regard I suggested a while back to use the shopkeeper rotation method. There are four shopkeepers, use them, rotate them at some predetermined time (turn count) and every shopkeeper then brings new inventory. Make the time that the shopkeepers rotate such that a modest dive would be enough to trip the counter.

[ewert]

I vote "yes" for either allowing a "propose retirement to shopkeeper" button or then make certain small stacks of regular items spawn each and every time on the shopkeepers. 1-3 teleport scrolls, a bunch of phase doors, few word of recalls, cure crit wounds, all basic spellbooks, or something ...

Or the npp way of having some store services. I really liked the npp store services, except brand ammo is a bit overpowered IMHO, but otherwise.

[Ghen]

After hearing both sides of the argument I only like the ideas of bringing back retiring shopkeepers via bugfix or whatever and also forced retirement by bribery.

I don't like the idea of automating buying out a store in the main V code because it sounds like a hack to me that while it would improve the game as it sits right now its true that the underlying problem would then still exist and all this would be is a bandaid.

Also, the option to buy entire stores for a ludicrus sum wouldn't be a bad idea either. Since money isn't a problem in the late game there needs to be more money sinks for the player and owning the town so they stock specific inventory all the time would be a good one (albiet a lot of programming and a new UI piece)

[fizzix]

Whats with this instant gratification thing. We need to suck it up and wait it out. If a thing is not in the store then tough luck. You can't have everything when YOU want it. In this regard I suggested a while back to use the shopkeeper rotation method. There are four shopkeepers, use them, rotate them at some predetermined time (turn count) and every shopkeeper then brings new inventory. Make the time that the shopkeepers rotate such that a modest dive would be enough to trip the counter.

It has less to do with 'instant gratification' and more to do with the difficulty of using a certain game option. If you think the game option should not be there, that is a separate issue. Granted it's one that should be discussed, but it's not at the heart of this debate.

[Magnate]

I plan to release a patch with (1) buyout button and (2) UI option controlling squelch prompting and (3) birth option for no selling.

With regards to (3), I'm thinking I will allow selling for 0 money for id purposes. Should I change the option name from no_selling to selling_for_zero or something like that?

Yeah, that works. Rather than write a buyout button from scratch, why not have a look at the "persuade shopkeeper to retire" code from S? It's essentially the same fix to the same problem, with the abuse bar raised a little higher.

Does the squelch prompting really have to be an option? IIRC Takk is trying to avoid option bloat - can't we just agree on whatever the small change is that stops it being irritating to so many?

[PowerDiver]

Does the squelch prompting really have to be an option? IIRC Takk is trying to avoid option bloat - can't we just agree on whatever the small change is that stops it being irritating to so many?

I see two choices to avoid an option, both really bad. (1) Separate commands for squelch vs destroy. This is bad because commands are at a premium, and it just isn't worth the future cost of losing a letter. (2) The game remembers how often you squelch vs destroy, and adjusts the order of the questions. That's horrible for fingers that learn to do things one way then face a reversed UI later on, and it would screw up writing macros. There used to be (y/n/s) prompt, but I believe Tak is more strongly opposed to that than to a UI option, so I don't think that possibility is on the table.

The point of me writing a separate patch is to let Tak keep V pure, but give people who can't stand the status quo a way around it. There are people who think it is better to use the godawful squelch menus, and I don't see how argument will change their minds.

Maybe they will change their minds when you have the option to squelch all weapons weighing more than 7 lbs doing less than (2d5 + 7) damage, but that sort of thing is off in the uncertain future. There may also be reluctance to squelch things that are junk on this trip, but you think you might sell if picked up on a later trip. Another unintended consequence of allowing selling.

The main argument against option bloat is about the difficulty of balancing the game against all permutations of options, but that is irrelevant when discussing pure UI options. Also, I'm adding a gameplay option, so clearly I'm not even convinced by the main argument.

[Magnate]

I see two choices to avoid an option, both really bad. (1) Separate commands for squelch vs destroy. This is bad because commands are at a premium, and it just isn't worth the future cost of losing a letter. (2) The game remembers how often you squelch vs destroy, and adjusts the order of the questions. That's horrible for fingers that learn to do things one way then face a reversed UI later on, and it would screw up writing macros. There used to be (y/n/s) prompt, but I believe Tak is more strongly opposed to that than to a UI option, so I don't think that possibility is on the table.

That y/n/s solution works for me - I have no idea why Tak is opposed to it.

Looking forward to your patch.