Rune-based ID should be a game option

[StMicah]

I said this in the other thread on rune-id, but I'll say it here. I am a big fan of the rune-based id...and that's just after a run or two (one cheating and generating artifacts to test the new system).

[Ingwe Ingweron]

How about no vote unless you playtest the feature branch. I find the ID mid game tedious. I will play test. Then give an opinion.

+1 here!

Geez, the feature-branch has only been out, what, three days? The purpose of the feature branches is to test and refine ideas and see if they work. Only if they work and improve the game in the eyes of the community (or at least do in Nick's opinion ), are they added to the "official" Vanilla version. As far as I know, the "official" version currently on Rephial does not have any of the feature-branches (cone-breath, player-knowledge, or rune-based-ID).

Let's play-test the ideas first before calling for their demise! No-selling works great. Monster groups works great. Nick's thorough recoding (with huge work also from PowerWyrm works great). So far, I think cone-breath is an interesting change and makes tactics for the game a little more interesting. Player-knowledge seems to work well, although there are possibly some tweaks still to be worked out. Rune-based-ID should be given a chance. I think it may have a few problems left to work out, but until people play it, I don't think they should be raising a hue and cry about it.

[sandtrap]

This is a feature branch to play test

Actually, this development should not go forward unless there is a widespread consensus that it should. I do not think there is evidence that "most people" like the proposed change. Only a small number of people have even been posting about it, period.

How about no vote unless you playtest the feature branch. I find the ID mid game tedious. I will play test. Then give an opinion.

[debo]

Do you mean you prefer the existing system? How about if I tell you that it would be really easy to put in a birth option where everything is identified from the outset?

Despite the fact that I would much prefer to play V with everything pre-identified from the start, I still don't think that should be an option.

IMO a mechanic like this should eventually become good enough to be part of the guts of the game, not a configurable feature of it.

I'm sure this system could be refined to the point that you weirdos who think that an even more tedious version of mastermind should be superimposed in a combat tactics game will eventually really like it

[Nick]

I think that the only idea worse than rune-ID is the idea of adding it as an option. If this is going to be done, it should be a core part of the game.

Do you mean you prefer the existing system? How about if I tell you that it would be really easy to put in a birth option where everything is identified from the outset?

[fph]

I do not think there is evidence that "most people" like the proposed change. Only a small number of people have even been posting about it, period.

I haven't posted about it yet, but I like the change and I appreciate the dev team trying to make Angband evolve.

[AnonymousHero]

Actually, this development should not go forward unless there is a widespread consensus that it should. I do not think there is evidence that "most people" like the proposed change. Only a small number of people have even been posting about it, period.

"Widespread consensus" does not good gameplay make. (Nor, usually, much else good.)

[debo]

I think that the only idea worse than rune-ID is the idea of adding it as an option. If this is going to be done, it should be a core part of the game.

[fizzix]

From what I recall, v4 never made it that far. Trialling rune-based ID was one of the things it was going to do, but interest waned before that point was reached.

It was implemented. A bit buggy, but it mostly worked.

[Derakon]

Rune-based id has been added once already, hasn't it? Didn't v4 have rune-based id?

From what I recall, v4 never made it that far. Trialling rune-based ID was one of the things it was going to do, but interest waned before that point was reached.

[nikheizen]

Actually, this development should not go forward unless there is a widespread consensus that it should. I do not think there is evidence that "most people" like the proposed change. Only a small number of people have even been posting about it, period.

A widespread consensus among who?

IMO if you don't voice your opinion (i.e. posting about it) then your opinion in this doesn't really matter. That said, I would like to see more dissenting opinions like yours.

Have you played the branch?

[Carnivean]

This is only about the 1000th thread where the general consensus is that rune ID is a good idea and should be trialled. This little game is boring, thank f**k that Nick is finally going to implement it so that we can see how it goes.

This pattern is a repeat of the no-selling threads, consensus and development and now noone bats an eyelid at no-selling.

[Philip]

Rune-based id has been added once already, hasn't it? Didn't v4 have rune-based id?

Anyway, it could be added into nightlies so that it can be tweaked according to feedback and to see how it works. If there are no problems with it, it can go into the next version.

You will never have consensus for anything. Consensus is fundamentally impossible to achieve. For one, this is the first time I've posted anything in months. A lot of people who follow and play the game don't read or contribute to the forums.

Also, how do you know you won't like it? Have you played a similar game except with rune-based id so that you know how it affects the game?

EDIT: Turns out it is in a feature branch that is not in fact in the main branch. See? Devs are clever folks.

[Egavactip]

Halting development because some people dislike the changes you are introducing is outrageously backwards. Judging from it's reception here, I feel like most people like the change too.

Actually, this development should not go forward unless there is a widespread consensus that it should. I do not think there is evidence that "most people" like the proposed change. Only a small number of people have even been posting about it, period.

[Derakon]

Rune-based ID will probably slow down the early game some, when the player has relatively few items that they need to identify, and previously could have just spent a cheap ?ID on them. It will greatly speed up the mid and late game, where the number of items that needed identifying under the old system was huge. And at that point, the player's identification resources are functionally limitless anyway (except for poor warriors, who always seem to get the shaft somehow). So what was the point of making items not automatically identified?

Honestly the main reason I want to try rune-based ID is because I worry that we've grown too comfortable with the current system. We're so used to it that we don't really understand what its pros and cons are at a visceral level. If it turns out that rune-based ID really just doesn't work well, once we've given it a fair shake, then I'll be happy to consider alternatives. Including, if necessary, going back to the old system -- though I would first prefer to try a system in which equipment is always permanently identified and you only ever have to identify consumables.

But I have a sneaking suspicion that the old ID system is much like selling items to the stores for cash: an idea that the majority of players put up with only because they didn't realize that there was a plausible alternative. There will always be a few holdouts, though. Unfortunately, unlike no-selling, rune-based ID has such a huge impact on the game implementation-wise that I don't think it's feasible to make it an option.