Rune-based ID - yes or no?

[Nick]

The rune-based ID feature branch has been out for a while now, and there's been a lot of discussion in the associated thread, most of which (in my biased viewpoint) has been in favour.

I would like to add rune-based ID to the current master branch, which will (eventually) become version 4.1. Before I do, and because this change hasn't been universally acclaimed, I'd like some indication of what proportion of people think it's a good idea, and what proportion prefer the 4.0 ID system.

So please vote for the system you prefer. I would also greatly appreciate comments explaining why, especially from people voting for the old system, because if this major piece of work is going to go unused I'd like to have good reasons.

[Derakon]

I voted in favor, because I feel that there is nothing interesting in requiring a character to identify things that aren't actually new to them.

[tprice]

I voted in favor because i found in my testing i enjoyed the new version of the ID Minigame much more interesting than the old one. for more details see my comments in the main RuneID thread.

[Nomad]

I vote wholeheartedly for rune-based ID. I've just got to the depth in my current game where I'm clearing greater vaults, and the rune-based system is vastly better for dealing with items in the later game - unwanted equipment disappears seamlessly on walkover, awkward items like Robes of Permanence that I always used to miss because they were indistinguishable from basic {excellent} robes are now insta-ID'd, the old 'find something to drop from your full pack so you can pick up the floor item to get pseudo so it will auto-squelch' juggling act is completely gone, and it's generally just so much less painful to sort through items now.

I also discovered, after the Trap/door feature branch was introduced, that it was an incredibly un-fun hassle going back to the old system - I didn't appreciate until then what an improvement it is even in the early game to be able to see the basic bonuses on low-level weapons and armour on walkover instead of having to carry a big stack of stuff around for an age and then test it in combat. And even negative/useless early game items become more fun to find thanks to the opportunity to learn a rune from them. I find I'm dutifully playing one test game of each new update to the Traps/doors branch and then running back to play another half dozen games in the Rune-ID branch because it's so much more enjoyable to play.

[calris]

I vote in favour - Rune ID definitely feels 'right'. However I think there a few tweaks that, while not necessary would improve gameplay slightly:

• Activation should be an additional Rune - It's a bit frustrating to find a Ring that you have identified the base Rune for, but still don't know what it is, and there is not {??} to indicate you have anything more to learn (I'm talking about rings of Ice, Fire, Acid, etc.)
• It's a bit odd walking over objects that you have set up to ignore and they just disappear when you step on them because you know all the Runes. I know it will make the dungeons very sparse, but it adds to the excitement that you finally see something you don't know everything about
• I'm not liking that scrolls, potions, wands, staves, rods, etc. ID when you activate them no matter what the effect (Wand of confuse monster when no monster was hit). And forcing the player to either use a potion, or sell/give it to a shop is a bit of a backward step. When you hit depths that you start finding scrolls of Acquirement and *Acquirement* is going to lead to some heart sinking moments. Maybe split Identify into 'Identify Rune' and 'Identify' so we have Identify for potions, scrolls, etc.

[AnonymousHero]

And forcing the player to either use a potion, or sell/give it to a shop is a bit of a backward step.

It's possible to be 100% safe when use-ID'ing potions and there's literally no downside to doing that these days (since !Exp was changed).

EDIT: Actually, this isn't strictly true. There's a slight downside to getting early !Exp... if you get stat drained.

[calris]

It's possible to be 100% safe when use-ID'ing potions and there's literally no downside to doing that these days (since !Exp was changed).

Indeed, but finding a scroll of Acquirement and reading it in town is going to be very frustrating.

Also, potions that increase on stat and decrease another can have pretty bad consequences - If you're unlucky enough to have a couple hit your primary stat (Int for mages for example) it can be a bit frustrating

[AnonymousHero]

Indeed, but finding a scroll of Acquirement and reading it in town is going to be very frustrating.

I don't think I mentioned scrolls?

Scrolls can actually also be identified safely in the dungeon (assuming you've dilligently identified the early scrolls which can be dangerous later on), and I find that Acquirement is not worth keeping until later levels.

Also, potions that increase on stat and decrease another can have pretty bad consequences - If you're unlucky enough to have a couple hit your primary stat (Int for mages for example) it can be a bit frustrating

Sure, but it's hardly game-breaking -- just a minor annoyance. Plus, it does require quite a lot of bad luck... as in: there's about a 4% chance of that happening for two successive potions. (In practice it's slightly higher, but I've made some simpliying assumptions for the calculation.)

[calris]

I find that Acquirement is not worth keeping until later levels.

Exactly - If you find one early on, you want to stash it until later

Sure, but it's hardly game-breaking -- just a minor annoyance

As I said, nothing I suggested was necessary - I'm happy to vote for Rune ID despite these quibbles that I have. I would rather see Rune ID with these quibbles than the old ID system

[spara]

What others said. More testing and little polishing is all it needs. Personally I would like ID scrolls to be a bit more common and heavy armor should not have enchant armor runes on them. Same thing with acid producing negative enchantment on armor. But that's just tiny details.

Recently I have died twice on ID by use. First one was an unlucky poison bottle with a virgin ranger. It was the first potion I found from the dungeon and I stupidly did not buy any cure from town. Lesson learned . The other death was an unIDd staff of summoning that I activated with a warrior. I was cocky and felt invulnerable so I activated it when I was out of escapes and away from stairs. It summoned some fast OOD monsters that took care of the character in a few rounds. Again, lesson learned and a story to tell.

[kaypy]

I think the rune based system needs more work, but is an improvement and can just as well need more work in master as in a branch.

Hmm. Actually, on further consideration, I do have one issue: If we assume that there will be future variants based on the new V, how hard is it to reinstate the old behavior in such a fork?

[StMicah]

I'm in favor! Had the same experience / frustration that others mentioned with the former ID-system when I played around with the new trap branch.

I also like the bit of danger with use-to-id scrolls, especially in an ironman game.

[Huqhox]

I'm so in favour I finally bit the bullet after years of lurking to register and vote.

I've been playing Angband since frog knows (if not before) and before that Larn and Moria. Rune based ID is one of those things that occurs as a potentially good idea but it's hard to see the full impact without testing. Kudos to Nick for deciding to build these testing branches so we can give it a bash.

[Derakon]

Exactly - If you find one early on, you want to stash it until later

Reread what they said: Acquirement is not worth keeping until later. And frankly, they're right.

IMO we should replace Acquirement with, like, a jewel-encrusted chest that generates items as if it were 20 levels deeper than where you found the chest. Then not only would there be no point in hoarding things (since chests "remember" where they were generated), but also they'd be a bit more likely to generate something interesting when used early on, which is frankly the only use case that matters. In the late game, an extra Acquirement or chest or whatever is a drop in the bucket compared to the number of "excellent" items you're finding.

[Nick]

Hmm. Actually, on further consideration, I do have one issue: If we assume that there will be future variants based on the new V, how hard is it to reinstate the old behavior in such a fork?

Well, they could fork from before the change and then manually add in later changes fairly easily. Or re-implement the old system (whichever of the multiple variations between 3.0.6 and 4.0 they chose) with nice new clean code. I'd be kind of surprised if a new variant maintainer did this, though.

Thanks everyone for the reminders of things to fix in this thread, btw.