Rune-based ID should be a game option

[Egavactip]

I do not like the rune-based system as described and it will fundamentally change Angband--generally for the worse, adding a great deal of time and trouble to players to find out inconsequential things. I do not think there is a good reason to make this change.

A drastic change like this is something best suited for a variant, IMO. I do not think it should be added to Angband. And if it were added to Angband, it should be added only as an option, with the traditional system being the default, or being an equal option that players can choose.

[fizzix]

I do not like the rune-based system as described and it will fundamentally change Angband--generally for the worse, adding a great deal of time and trouble to players to find out inconsequential things. I do not think there is a good reason to make this change.

A drastic change like this is something best suited for a variant, IMO. I do not think it should be added to Angband. And if it were added to Angband, it should be added only as an option, with the traditional system being the default, or being an equal option that players can choose.

I disagree completely. Yes it's a big change, and yes angband is probably going to change in more substantial ways in the future. Overall some people will like the changes and some will dislike them. If you really dislike them, you can always play older versions. But the alternative is stagnation and death.

As far as keeping it an option, that seems like a poor choice. Options really should be reserved for stuff like UI and display along with a few challenge choices. Maintaining the game with significant options is a gigantic process, and would probably hinder any future progress.

[TJS]

I don't really see how it will take more time since you only ever have to identify each rune type once, rather than hundreds of times for every item you find.

Plus it is more interesting to use id in this way rather than rushing back to town to id everything every five minutes.

[Egavactip]

I don't really see how it will take more time since you only ever have to identify each rune type once, rather than hundreds of times for every item you find.

Plus it is more interesting to use id in this way rather than rushing back to town to id everything every five minutes.

Who rushes back to town every five minutes? Not this guy.

[Egavactip]

I disagree completely. Yes it's a big change, and yes angband is probably going to change in more substantial ways in the future. Overall some people will like the changes and some will dislike them. If you really dislike them, you can always play older versions. But the alternative is stagnation and death.

No, the alternative is is actually more judicious changes.

As far as keeping it an option, that seems like a poor choice. Options really should be reserved for stuff like UI and display along with a few challenge choices. Maintaining the game with significant options is a gigantic process, and would probably hinder any future progress.

I do not consider this change to be progress, I consider it to be a hindrance and one that will slow down play. I would prefer for it not even to be an option, but I am okay to having it as an option if there are people bedazzled by it.

But the bottom line is that rune-based ID is a bad idea--as currently conceived. If identify continued to work normally, I would not have a problem with it.

[TJS]

I do not consider this change to be progress, I consider it to be a hindrance and one that will slow down play.

But why do you think it will slow down play? Once each rune type is discovered then all items are immediately known unlike previously where every one needs to be id'd even if you've seen a hundred the same before.

[fizzix]

I do not consider this change to be progress, I consider it to be a hindrance and one that will slow down play. I would prefer for it not even to be an option, but I am okay to having it as an option if there are people bedazzled by it.

This has been discussed since as long as I've been participating in this forum. If this isn't progress nothing is.

[nikheizen]

While I'm not sure how I feel about Rune-based ID either, having it as an option does not fit the general idea of what angband's options seem intended to accomplish(challenge/more randomization).

The game should certainly keep changing, even if some people disagree with it.
The game has old versions easily accessible, you are not forced to update.
The game is open source, and you can revert the commits that introduce rune based ID on your local repository if you dislike them. You can also fork the game if you wish.

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.

Have you played the branch yet?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.