[Feature Request] A whole horde of them!

[Rizwan]

[QUOTE=Daniel Fishman;5573]

Also, Free Action covers Slow spells as well as paralysis. Not a major effect in comparison but Free Action is not exactly equivalent to Resist Paralysis.

How about Resist Slowing? With Paralysis being the Ultimate in Slowness

[slashme]

[QUOTE=Rizwan;5580]

How about Resist Slowing? With Paralysis being the Ultimate in Slowness

Actually, "free action" is not just "resist slowing": As has been pointed out, gloves of FA are nice for mages, but also, FA doesn't stop you being slowed by certain types of attack (think Gravity Z...)

[takkaria]

4. Object knowledge order

When displaying rings, potions, etc., could we have it in some sensible order? Personally I prefer to have cursed items first, and then good items in ascending order (I had hacked some files in 3.0.6 to do this), but alphabetical would do as well. At the moment they're in no order at all, due to just being taken in order from the item file, and that has evolved and grown over time.

Actually, this is not the case. Currently, items are sorted by: aware status, tried status, and then if they aren't aware, they are sorted by flavour name, and if they are then by cost.

Changed, anyway, so things are sorted alphabetically.

[JamesDoyle]

Thanks Andrew, and sorry I wasn't clearer - I meant that the identified items were unsorted. I'm pretty certain that when I looked at this back in 3.0.6, the order of display was the N: order from objects.txt, but I could be wrong.

[Pete Mack]

The current sort is by gold value, then depth, then N: or name. The benefit of this is that all worthless magic items get sorted first, utility potions second, and valuable potions last.
I don't think sorting entirely alphabetically will improve things.

[JamesDoyle]

But worthless items don't get sorted first... not on my screen, anyway. That was my point - see post 1

[Pete Mack]

But worthless items don't get sorted first... not on my screen, anyway. That was my point - see post 1

After things are IDed, stuff with cost 0 goes first. I checked the code, and I verified it in the game.

Nothing gets sorted before it is IDed, otherwise sort order would be exploitable as an indicator of value.

Prior to ID, things are kept in order of discovery. This is somewhat likely to be in order of native depth, and also helps characters with weak pseudo keep track of how long things have been ripening.

[JamesDoyle]

Pete, I know you're a coder, so you can look inside this but I can assure you that on my previous character who died a couple of days ago, and all characters before that, Poison, Sickliness, Slowness and (one other negative potion) appear about halfway down the list, once identified. That was an example of what annoys me, there are others

Are you running on overnight versions? I'm running 3.0.9, if that helps.

[roustk]

Poison, Sickliness, Slowness and (one other negative potion) appear about halfway down the list, once identified.

Just to be crystal clear, halfway down *which* list?

The 'i'nventory is sorted by type (e.g., potion), then value, then depth. Stores are in a fixed order. Floor piles are FIFO, so essentially random order. I haven't looked enough at the squelch screen (under =) or the knowledge screen (under ~) to know about those.

Kevin

[Pete Mack]

Ah, I didn't understand what you meant. Yes, things are grouped by class (tval), then by value within that class. It would really be awful to have things all mixed up by alphabetical order. Keeping track of utilities would be a lot harder.

[JamesDoyle]

mmm, well an apology but also a clarification.

the list (I thought) I was talking about was the list (by type, e.g. potions) of identified objects, in the object knowledge lists. This previously had no order, and I was pretty certain this was still the case. So not the inventory, or shop - I agree those should group similar objects.

HOWEVER.. the list I appear to have recalled was the squelch list - this is in the same order that the identified list USED to be in, i.e. the order of N-values from object.txt.
So, sorry Pete - it appears I was arguing from a false premise!