feature request - no disturb on 100% search

[PowerDiver]

I ran into a problem in the comp, discussed in comp 88 thread. This is a heads up for those who do not read comp threads.

If searching is 100%, you are disturbed after a search. Presumably that is to stop repeated searching which would be futile. However, you get a free search with every step, so it becomes impossible to run.

Presumably I am the first person to reach 100% searching, since no one has complained of this before. Amulet of esp+7 and hat of seeing+5 and gloves of thievery+2 came to +70% searching to put me at 100%.

After thinking about various ways to remove the disturb, for example no disturb just when running, I have come to the conclusion that the best answer is just to remove it entirely.

If someone can come up with a compelling case where you'd want automatic disturb on each search when you have 100%, now is the time to mention it.

[Matthias]

It wouldn't be a problem in older versions, but currently using the 's'earch command searches for 10 turns, so that's a lot of wasted turns at 100%

What about capping searching at 95%?

[PowerDiver]

It wouldn't be a problem in older versions, but currently using the 's'earch command searches for 10 turns, so that's a lot of wasted turns at 100%

If your searching is 100%, you shouldn't be using the 's' command. You already searched when you moved. I currently use the 's' command to mean "wait 10 turns". Once I have detection spells or rods I hardly ever 's' for any other reason. Read the comp 88 thread for more of my ramblings.

[Matthias]

That's true, don't have a case against the request then.

That said I use 's' for waiting as well and I'm having a hard time changing that habit to '5'. Another habit I can't seem to shake of is 's'earching multiple times in locations where I expect doors/traps. That's 50 turns suddenly wasted. This is off topic but I think searching shouldn't autorepeat 10 times, but a number of times depending on your search rate. Might be overkill though

[PowerDiver]

That's true, don't have a case against the request then.

That said I use 's' for waiting as well and I'm having a hard time changing that habit to '5'. Another habit I can't seem to shake of is 's'earching multiple times in locations where I expect doors/traps. That's 50 turns suddenly wasted. This is off topic but I think searching shouldn't autorepeat 10 times, but a number of times depending on your search rate. Might be overkill though

Can't wait with '5'. That invokes autopickup slowing you and leading to death. At least, it did once to me. That makes it an ironclad rule.

I was opposed to the change also. Still am, but you just have to cope. It really ought to be configurable like the hp warning, except that "wait 10 turns" is a much more useful command than search a while.

As to the other thing -- 1 search at 95% is more effective than 8 searches at 30%. If you are going to configure, instead of doing it on number of searches it probably ought to be on the confidence level you don't miss something. But probably the people who think auto-repeat on searching is a good idea ought to be the ones to decide how it should work, so I'll stay out except to whine the next time it changes because by then the "wait 10 turns" will be ingrained.

[Hariolor]

As to the other thing -- 1 search at 95% is more effective than 8 searches at 30%. If you are going to configure, instead of doing it on number of searches it probably ought to be on the confidence level you don't miss something. But probably the people who think auto-repeat on searching is a good idea ought to be the ones to decide how it should work, so I'll stay out except to whine the next time it changes because by then the "wait 10 turns" will be ingrained.

I hope the people who like auto-repeat also like binomial probabilities, because this sounds like a good solution...

[Derakon]

I'm surprised you play with autopickup on, Eddie. What's your rationale for that?

[PowerDiver]

I'm surprised you play with autopickup on, Eddie. What's your rationale for that?

If it's not worth picking up, it is squelched. I don't need to look to know I want it.

[Magnate]

If it's not worth picking up, it is squelched. I don't need to look to know I want it.

+1.

Funnily enough, I just reached 100% search with Leisa IV: +5 cap of seeing, +6 amulet, +3 ring.

[PowerDiver]

+1.

Funnily enough, I just reached 100% search with Leisa IV: +5 cap of seeing, +6 amulet, +3 ring.

the tabs don't come out with cut and paste so you won't be able to "patch" but that shouldn't hamper you

eddie@linux:~/Angband/work/new/trunk-1971> svn diff src/cmd1.c
Index: src/cmd1.c
================================================== =================
--- src/cmd1.c (revision 1971)
+++ src/cmd1.c (working copy)
@@ -64,7 +64,9 @@
if (chance >= 100)
{
/* Repeat is unnecessary */
+/*
disturb(0, 0);
+*/
}

/* Search the nearby grids, which are always in bounds */

[d_m]

Update to r1972 and this is fixed.

[Marble Dice]

This is off topic but I think searching shouldn't autorepeat 10 times, but a number of times depending on your search rate. Might be overkill though

When I proposed the idea, this is exactly what I had in mind: auto-repeat to 90% certainty. The implementation is easy enough, but some people (who were not the people who didn't like it, or the people who didn't care) thought it should be an invariant number of turns not based on your searching ability.

As to the other thing -- 1 search at 95% is more effective than 8 searches at 30%. If you are going to configure, instead of doing it on number of searches it probably ought to be on the confidence level you don't miss something.

I agree it should be a setting on confidence (rather than number of turns).

I hope the people who like auto-repeat also like binomial probabilities, because this sounds like a good solution...

Why actually, I love them!