A couple of minor bugs in 3.1.1.1626

[bron]

I few minor problems I noticed in my most recent game. I'm running Linux 2.6.18, and I built the 3.1.1.1626 sources with gcc 4.1.2, and I use the "curses" (single window) interface.

1) When the "Sense Invisible" prayer wears off, the message says:
. "Your no longer feel so sensitive."
clearly this should be
. "Your eyes no longer feel so sensitive."

2) I set "auto-squelch worthless" to yes, but "hide squelchable" to no. If I now attempt to destroy ('k') an empty chest, the game crashes.

3) The item list given with ']' does not list items set as squelchable, even when "hide objects set as squelchable" is set to "no".

4) The meaning of the pval for object with a plus to searching is confusing at first. For example, I have an amulet of ESP. The extended description (the capital-I description) says something like:
. Amulet of ESP (+6)
. (+30% to searching)
When I read this, I like the idea I'm getting +30%, but I'm left wondering just exactly what the +6 applies to. It was only after comparing this description to several other different items with plusses that I realized that the +6 applies to searching, and each +1 translates to +5%. This is not at all clear from the original description. I admit it's not that hard to figure out, but I really think that the description could be a lot clearer in the first place, i.e. something like:
. Amulet of ESP (+6)
. (+6 (i.e. +30%) to searching)

[Marble Dice]

1) Thanks, fixed in r1856

2) I can't reproduce this in the development version.

3) Is this a bug or a feature? I'm not sure.

4) Searching isn't displayed as a straight integer anywhere that I know of. It's a percentage on the character sheet, so I feel like mentioning the number (+6 in this case) would be just as misleading.

[Magnate]

3) Is this a bug or a feature? I'm not sure.

It's a bug. If hide_squelchable is false, the player may well be looking for something squelched (e.g. a stat restore potion).

[Marble Dice]

It's a bug. If hide_squelchable is false, the player may well be looking for something squelched (e.g. a stat restore potion).

Fixed in r1851.

[bron]

isn't displayed as a straight integer anywhere that I know of. It's a percentage on the character sheet, so I feel like mentioning the number (+6 in this case) would be just as misleading.

I think this is my whole point. Mentioning the straight integer is misleading. And yet there it is: "Amulet of ESP (+6)", leaving me to wonder "+6 what?".
The connection between the "+6" and the "+30%" isn't immediately obvious.

[Zababa]

I think this is my whole point. Mentioning the straight integer is misleading. And yet there it is: "Amulet of ESP (+6)", leaving me to wonder "+6 what?".
The connection between the "+6" and the "+30%" isn't immediately obvious.

I agree. I only recently found out by trying out different rings of searching that "+1" translates to "+5%". What I still don't know is the number behind Ring of Reckless Attacks, something like [-16] or that. I admit that I never was too curious to put on different rings or reckless attacks to see how it influences my stats, maybe because these rings are "bad" and I squelch them right from the beginning.

Maybe it is not necessary to change the info description of these rings or amulets, just mention the meaning of this number somewhere in the documentation. I remember there is a paragraph or two explaining all the kinds of different magical bonuses to weapons, so it could mention these numbers too.

[buzzkill]

The [-16] applies to AC. I believe any modifier placed within the squarish brackets [ ] is an AC adjustment.

[Derakon]

Quoting from TANG, which I wrote over a decade ago (!?):

(+x, +y) This is the item's magical bonuses to hit and to damage, respectively.
[a, +b] This is the item's base armor class and magical bonus to armor.
(+c) This is the item's magical bonus to other statistics
XdY This is the weapon's base damage.

Unfortunately this breaks down with Rings of Accuracy and Rings of Damage, both of which have a single (+x) in parentheses, affecting to-hit and to-damage, respectively. I'm not offhand aware of any other exceptions, though. All numbers in square brackets are armor class modifiers.

[d_m]

Quoting from TANG, which I wrote over a decade ago (!?):Unfortunately this breaks down with Rings of Accuracy and Rings of Damage, both of which have a single (+x) in parentheses, affecting to-hit and to-damage, respectively. I'm not offhand aware of any other exceptions, though. All numbers in square brackets are armor class modifiers.

In head, rings of accuracy and damage use (+x,+0) and (+0,+x) respectively, to address this concern.

[Magnate]

In head, rings of accuracy and damage use (+x,+0) and (+0,+x) respectively, to address this concern.

In your head? I thought they did that in HEAD too - at least, they did for a while. IMO that would be best.

@Derakon: you wrote TANG?! Awesome! I must have read it pretty soon after you finished it (mid-2000). Have you checked out the new user manual? What do you think?

[d_m]

In your head?

Well played.

[Derakon]

@Derakon: you wrote TANG?! Awesome! I must have read it pretty soon after you finished it (mid-2000). Have you checked out the new user manual? What do you think?

I haven't seen the manual before, but I'll give it a look-see.

I don't remember exactly when I wrote TANG; I'm just going by the 1999 date on the page I linked. It could easily have been earlier; you should be able to roughly gauge based on the variants that are discussed at the end. IIRC Kamband had a pretty short run, for example, though I don't know exactly when it was live.

Ahh, the days when I'd get home from school, download the RGRA posts, and spend a few hours reading and responding...