A couple of small bugs in V 3.1.2

[miyazaki]

Just a couple of bugs I have noticed while playing the recent release:

My INT was drained and I "forgot" three spells (they turned yellow in my books) but I could still cast them. Lesser recharging, if it makes a difference.

A long bow of extra might in the BM showed (x3) instead of (x4).

I couldn't equip a weapon off the floor when I was blind (WAD?).

[miyazaki]

I am standing beside a small chest and press 's' to search and get the message "You can't make out your surroundings well enough to search."

Ah, never mind--I have an amulet of searching (-5) on. This is a first for me. Pretty cool.

[Philip]

A long bow of extra might in the BM showed (x3) instead of (x4).

I found this too. It happens in the weapons store as well.

[Marble Dice]

My INT was drained and I "forgot" three spells (they turned yellow in my books) but I could still cast them. Lesser recharging, if it makes a difference.

A long bow of extra might in the BM showed (x3) instead of (x4).

Both of these are fixed in r1956. Previously, you could cast forgotten spells, but not browse them, heh.

I couldn't equip a weapon off the floor when I was blind (WAD?).

That is close enough to "as designed" for my blood, I think.

[Siggesigge]

Also, a couple of small bugs which I stumbled upon:

The first one was when I was inspecting a dagger of extra attacks (+2) in the weapons store. The description said something along the lines of "You will get 4 blows using this weapon. With an additional 0 strength and 0 dex you would get 6 blows" which was pretty weird. Unfortunately I can't remember the specific circumstances and haven't been able to reproduce it, I should have kept the save file. I do know I was wearing a weapon that was increasing my strength at the time though.

The second one might not be a bug, but I found it pretty weird anyway. I drank an un-id'd potion off the floor and got a direction prompt. I canceled and the potion stayed un-id'd and nothing happened. It might not be a bug, but it left me a bit confused. I think a more consistent behavior would be to consume the potion and id it, since it's pretty clear at that point that it's a potion of Dragon's Breath, if I haven't missed any other potions which need targeting?

[edit] Fixed some silly spelling mistakes. [/edit]

[Magnate]

Also, a couple of small bugs which I stumbled upon:

The first one was when I was inspecting a dagger of extra attacks (+2) in the weapons store. The description said something along the lines of "You will get 4 blows using this weapon. With an additional 0 strength and 0 dex you would get 6 blows" which was pretty weird. Unfortunately I can't remember the specific circumstances and haven't been able to reproduce it, I should have kept the save file. I do know I was wearing a weapon that was increasing my strength at the time though.

The second one might not be a bug, but I found it pretty weird anyway. I drank an un-id'd potion of the floor and got a direction prompt. I canceled and the potion stayed un-id'd and nothing happened. It might not be a bug, but it left me a bit confused. I think a more consistent behavior would be to consume the potion and id it, since it's pretty clear at that point that it's a potion of Dragon's Breath, if I haven't missed any other potions which need targeting?

Clearly we need more potions that take a direction prompt.

On your first one, I've fixed squillions of bugs in that piece of code but there could always be one more. If you can reproduce it, pls attach a savefile.

[SaThaRiel]

Well, yesterday i stumbled across two rings - un-ided and i wasn't too deep (as usual). So i choose to sell them because i couldnt afford a scroll of identify and the rng usually dont like me at all.
After i sold the first ring it was identified as a ring of search (-3) {cursed} - 28 gold for nothing is good...but since i wanted to sell other stuff too, i pressed s and saw that the other ring was identified as a ring of searching (which was ok...same type of ring) but it had a (-2), was cursed too and it appeared in the sell list! The shopkeeper took it, payed the 28 gold (as for the unidentified) and howled in agony. 56 gold for crap is nice but i think that this behaviour wasnt planned
Game version is 1953, maybe the bug is fixed already. Was too busy/lazy to report it before.

Edit: Oh, and i think a read an un-ided scroll which asked me for a direction. Sadly i had this 2 events while using some free minutes at work. So i can't recall them exactly.

[PowerDiver]

Well, yesterday i stumbled across two rings - un-ided and i wasn't too deep (as usual). So i choose to sell them because i couldnt afford a scroll of identify and the rng usually dont like me at all.
After i sold the first ring it was identified as a ring of search (-3) {cursed} - 28 gold for nothing is good...but since i wanted to sell other stuff too, i pressed s and saw that the other ring was identified as a ring of searching (which was ok...same type of ring) but it had a (-2), was cursed too and it appeared in the sell list! The shopkeeper took it, payed the 28 gold (as for the unidentified) and howled in agony. 56 gold for crap is nice but i think that this behaviour wasnt planned
Game version is 1953, maybe the bug is fixed already. Was too busy/lazy to report it before.

This is a display bug. When you are aware of the flavor, you see the pval even though you haven't learned the pval yet.

In the glorious *band universe, when you don't know the pval the shopkeeper does not either. The display bug cropped up pretty recently. I was hoping it was bitflag related and would go away when some other bitflag bug got fixed, but I guess I should volunteer to track it down sooner rather than later.

[Marble Dice]

This is a display bug. When you are aware of the flavor, you see the pval even though you haven't learned the pval yet.

In the glorious *band universe, when you don't know the pval the shopkeeper does not either. The display bug cropped up pretty recently. I was hoping it was bitflag related and would go away when some other bitflag bug got fixed, but I guess I should volunteer to track it down sooner rather than later.

There's a somewhat related ticket http://trac.rephial.org/ticket/1068

Some time ago I was planning on introducing an IDENT_PVAL flag, which I think would resolve that ticket and this situation, but I never got around to it. If you want to step up and take care of it one way or another, more power to you.

[PowerDiver]

There's a somewhat related ticket http://trac.rephial.org/ticket/1068

Some time ago I was planning on introducing an IDENT_PVAL flag, which I think would resolve that ticket and this situation, but I never got around to it. If you want to step up and take care of it one way or another, more power to you.

I think the code is currently set up so that "knowing" a flag with a pval means you know what is affected, but not by how much. The alternative is not to "know" the flag until you know the pval. It is not clear to me what is right.

For now, I propose that the pval is considered visible when the item is wielded. This is not ideal, but the only iffy thing at the moment is the pval for searching. I'm pretty sure all other pvals have been traditionally obvious on wield. If you accept this premise, then I think the solution is to add a check for object_was_worn in object_pval_is_visible.

I've made the change in my code. Let me playtest a while and see if any unintended consequences arise.

As to the open ticket, it appears that I used a double negative instead of a triple negative somewhere, possibly because of confusion about what flags mean as above. I'll look into that.

[Nick]

For now, I propose that the pval is considered visible when the item is wielded.

FA does this.

[Marble Dice]

For now, I propose that the pval is considered visible when the item is wielded. This is not ideal, but the only iffy thing at the moment is the pval for searching. I'm pretty sure all other pvals have been traditionally obvious on wield. If you accept this premise, then I think the solution is to add a check for object_was_worn in object_pval_is_visible.

Searching is currently considered obvious on wield, like all other pval flags, so this seems natural to me.

[miyazaki]

Another bug: the armoury will buy my leather cap [2,-4] for 2 gold.

[Pete Mack]

That's actually reasonable, given valuation on power, and not on rarity.
A leather cap's basic value is +7 AC, assuming basic enchantment, or +11 enchantment assuming maximal enchantment. Given that it weighs very little, it's a relatively valuable repository for AC, significantly more valuable than Leather armor.

Of course, given that Leather caps [2, 0] are readily available in the armory, any positive value for [2,-4] is ridiculous. However, for low-value items, this isn't a real issue,
considering that just about anything that's actually useful is worth at least 10GP.

I would call this pecularity NOT A BUG or WILL NOT FIX. The real issue is whether the economics involved in valuation of Power and Rarity is actually worth doing. My answer is: not really, so long as a few basics have very high cost. (ESP, or total speed >= 10)

[Magnate]

That's actually reasonable, given valuation on power, and not on rarity.
A leather cap's basic value is +7 AC, assuming basic enchantment, or +11 enchantment assuming maximal enchantment. Given that it weighs very little, it's a relatively valuable repository for AC, significantly more valuable than Leather armor.

Of course, given that Leather caps [2, 0] are readily available in the armory, any positive value for [2,-4] is ridiculous. However, for low-value items, this isn't a real issue,
considering that just about anything that's actually useful is worth at least 10GP.

I would call this pecularity NOT A BUG or WILL NOT FIX. The real issue is whether the economics involved in valuation of Power and Rarity is actually worth doing. My answer is: not really, so long as a few basics have very high cost. (ESP, or total speed >= 10)

I don't expect Takk to change his mind on this, so if it's ok with you I'll keep working on it.

There is of course a healthy difference in cost between a cap [2,-4] and a cap [2,0]. What nobody's pointed out yet is that while a cap [2,-4] fetches 2gp, [2,-5] would not. However you do this there's a cutoff somewhere - for caps it happens to be at -4. For the reasons Pete gives, plus the fact that it halves acid damage on occasion, it doesn't strike me as a bug.