Object detection and ID - a proposal

[quarague]

On the original proposal, current id works well enough and doesn't require immediate fixing. Something rune based is the long term goal but until we have that, we can keep id as it is.
On the rune system, an artifact is just an item with some collection of runes. It can have some very special or rare runes or unusual combinations but otherwise it works the same as an ego item. If you pick it up you will recognize some runes and notice that there are a few more you don't know yet.
On the squelch topic, an item should only be squelched if all its runes are marked as squelch. So you could squelch fire res fairly early on but only items that have no other nice properties but fire res will get squelched.
On to hit an to damage modifiers, I like the idea to identify everything that is weaker that something you have already seen. Additionally power and accuracy could be runes that just give an independent +10 to damage/ to hit. So you would pick up a bow as say 'bow (+5,+8) one rune, shoot something with it and then notice, oh, it's a rune of power, the bow is (+5,+18).
Oh and my general understanding of rune bases system was that it should encourage and enable id by use on everything, so magic id possibilities should be reduced to a minimum, like dungeon found scrolls only.

[Timo Pietilä]

Three stages of item knowledge:

1. Item is sensed - as with current Treasure Detection. The object list shows an "unknown object"
2. Item is seen - as currently when the player actually sees the object, or Rogue's Object Detection spell. The object list shows a Sling (x2), or a Pink Potion (if the flavour isn't known) or a Potion of Infravision (if the flavour is known).
3. Item is known - as currently after reading ?ID, or getting full ID by use. The object list shows the full name.

Stage 1 and 2 are gained as currently. Stage 3 is gained immediately on stepping onto the item square. Magical ID and ID by use are obsolete and removed.

Variation: Flavoured, non-wearable items still need to be ID'd by use.

Please shoot this down as hard as you can, I'll try to defend it, and we'll see if it's still flying when we're done.

This makes ID easy, and because basic nature of humans is being lazy, if we then introduce rune-based ID that makes ID non-automatic, IOW harder, it will raise resistance.

I'd say change directly to rune-based once it is done and not change ID before.

[Timo Pietilä]

[Rune-based ID]
Next question - what does that even mean? I think there's a general understanding that once you've recognised a property once on an item, you always recognise that property, but what constitutes a property?

Binary flags are easy, every flag equals a rune. Variable values (to_hit, to_dam, AC, PVAL, charges etc.) are hard. How to detect how much of which item has?

[PowerWyrm]

No point of introducing more complexity with another system, the current system is fine. More simplification would be to introduce ADOM's ID system:
- flavored items are never IDed, you need to cast the spell/read a scroll on one
- unflavored items are fully IDed when wielded/worn
- rest is "easily known"

[Timo Pietilä]

No point of introducing more complexity with another system, the current system is fine.

I think goal for this change is to remove tedium of ID while keeping the excitement of finding new things. I think rune-based ID does that pretty much as well as it can be done.

It also makes more sense than you not being able to know that this billionth HA weapon is not HA weapon before you use spell on it. Less suspension of disbelief required.

It is (or at least should be) less complex for player, not more complex, at deeper levels. No more ID-magic required. Complexity is beneath the UI, in the code.

Current system is fine, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be better. This change does change a bit how game is played, but doesn't affect difficulty of the game nearly at all. It is repetitive action tedium remover and as such I welcome it.

[Rydel]

I agree with Timo: I like the idea of a rune-based system. I don't like the idea from the original post, largely because it will make switching to a rune-based system harder for players to accept.

I think a good way to handle squelching would be:
individual runes can be set to Blacklist, Whitelist or Normal
Squelch can be set to Off, Blacklist, or On.
If Squelch is set to Off, nothing is squelched.
If Squelch is set to Blacklist, any object with a Blacklisted rune is squelched, everything else stays
If Squelch is set to Normal:
- Objects with any Blacklisted Rune are Squelched
- Objects with no Unknown or Whitelisted Rune are squelched
- Everything else (objects with at least one unknown or whitelisted rune) stay
The above is specifically written for equipment. Items that don't use runes woul probably do the same on the flavor level.

A more complicated way, but one that allows more fine-tuning by the player, would be one based on how a lot of spam filters work.
- A player could assign a score to each rune.
- Squelch would be a score level. If an item has a lower score than the Squelch level, the item gets squelched.

[mushroom patch]

If I'm understanding what's being said here, people advocating for "rune based ID" (which appears to be some kind of local jargon for "if you identify an item with a given brand, resistance, or other ego characteristic, then that characteristic is immediately evident on any other item with the same characteristic you might find later" -- a shockingly bad idea, see below) are, in particular, saying that you should be able to determine whether a weapon has, say, slay evil without picking it up (good so far), without getting near it (getting questionable), and without getting in line of sight of it (! ! !) if you're a rogue, which you should be anyway. If you believe restricting the ability of detection magic to discriminate between different types of items has an effect on game balance, then you must believe "rune ID" + rogue detection has a huge effect on game balance.

If there's anything of tactical value in the current ID system, it's that you don't know what weapons and armor do just by seeing them, so you enter into potentially risky situations (lol) to get these items even though most of them are garbage. Nick's idea preserves this one arguably redeeming quality of the current ID regime. Rune ID does not, yet it somehow maintains the bad things that Nick's ID gets rid of (actually having to find, buy, and/or carry special items and perform some action with them to learn what a weapon or armor does).

Now maybe there's some other aspect to "rune ID" I've missed, e.g. you have to pick the item up or stand over it to learn what it does. If it's "stand over it," okay, not so bad. If it's pick up, that's bad and only marginally better than the current situation (really bad).

Btw, if people want casting characters to have an advantage/keep ID related spells/effects, a spell that reveals what items in LoS are in Nick's system would be reasonably useful and give ID spells a tactical side.

[Derakon]

Now maybe there's some other aspect to "rune ID" I've missed, e.g. you have to pick the item up or stand over it to learn what it does. If it's "stand over it," okay, not so bad. If it's pick up, that's bad and only marginally better than the current situation (really bad).

I don't think this has been discussed much, but I would expect that "runes" would not be evident until you're standing on the item. The information you can obtain from a distance is only going to be very basic information about roughly what the item is (e.g. longsword vs. dagger or green potion vs. red one); you need to get close for a detailed inspection before you can recognize subtler properties.

Having a ranged-ID spell (in-LOS only of course) is an interesting idea though. And we could certainly use more flavorful/niche spells.

[Zireael]

I also assumed that you only see the runes if you're standing over it (no seeing the runes from halfway over the dungeon and/or with no LOS).

LOS-range ID spell is a good idea, though.

[EpicMan]

I also assumed that you only see the runes if you're standing over it (no seeing the runes from halfway over the dungeon and/or with no LOS).

LOS-range ID spell is a good idea, though.

We allow seeing flavors over distance, though. Why can't you see a rune you recognize if you can see a scroll you know?

[Derakon]

We allow seeing flavors over distance, though. Why can't you see a rune you recognize if you can see a scroll you know?

The runes are on the inside collar / inside of the band / under the scabbard / similarly always on the wrong side of the item to be visible.

More seriously, scrolls are a weird edge case because all other flavors are things like color or material that should be at least somewhat discernable from a distance. If we didn't have so many scroll types, we could replace the scroll flavors with vellum, papyrus, flaking, ratskin, leathery, etc. flavors.

[fizzix]

More seriously, scrolls are a weird edge case because all other flavors are things like color or material that should be at least somewhat discernable from a distance. If we didn't have so many scroll types, we could replace the scroll flavors with vellum, papyrus, flaking, ratskin, leathery, etc. flavors.

I'm pretty sure we could do this. Scrolls having names is probably a holdover from an earlier version, possibly all the way back to rogue. Crawl has similar named scrolls.

It wouldn't be too hard to come up with 80 or so adjectives for scrolls if we wanted to. Especially if we can use all the "skin" words.

[Nomad]

I'm pretty sure we could do this. Scrolls having names is probably a holdover from an earlier version, possibly all the way back to rogue. Crawl has similar named scrolls.

It wouldn't be too hard to come up with 80 or so adjectives for scrolls if we wanted to. Especially if we can use all the "skin" words.

There are 41 types of scroll by my count. Off the top of my head:

ancient, brittle, calfskin, canvas, cloth, cracked, crumbling, crumpled, dragonhide, faded, flaking, frayed, glowing, gold-trimmed, leathery, mouldy, orcskin, ornate, painted, parchment, papyrus, pigskin, ragged, ratskin, ribbon-tied, ripped, rumpled, rune-covered, scribbled, sheepskin, silk, smudged, tattered, tightly-knotted, torn, vellum, wax-sealed, wrinkled, wormskin, yeekskin, yellowed

[Djabanete]

I admire the creativity, Nomad, but this method creates as many realism issues as it fixes --- after all, why would the magical properties of the scroll be determined by the material it's made of rather than the mysterious words written on it? I've never had trouble suspending my disbelief in being able to read scrolls from far away, especially when I assume that they're written in huge block letters, like FOOBIE BLETCH.

Edit:
You read a yeekskin scroll.
Orfax, Son of Boldor appears upset.

[Nick]

I'm thinking of "rune" as a name we are using as an aid to understanding the system, not envisaging everything as actually having runes on it. We're saying rune-based ID because innate-property-you-can-notice-on-inspection-but-initially-don't-understand based ID doesn't roll off the tongue quite as easily.