Rune-based ID - yes or no?

[sandtrap]

In Favor but don't give the spell casters Identify

I am 100% in favor.

I was amazed by the version where spellcasters did not have identify. That is the version I would like to see.

I am still 100% in favor of the current build.

[Nick]

Just pushing this back to the front page.

[Derakon]

Debo, did you notice that Nick added a birth option for all runes to be known from the start?

I think that's what he was referring to with the "it's pretty easy to ignore" bit.

[Ingwe Ingweron]

Debo, did you notice that Nick added a birth option for all runes to be known from the start?

[debo]

I was one of them, but I think I'm a special case. I categorically hate the id game in its entirety. I don't understand why we have a mechanic in a game that takes a billion years to play that generates maybe 2-3 interesting situations per game, and distraction for the rest. But there's no accounting for taste, I guess. The only thing I like about it in V trunk right now is that it's pretty easy to ignore.

I did actually play runeid a bit and it's basically impossible to avoid the kinds of silly crap that I hate doing in most bands. So, I don't think my opinion should count for anything here. (Plus, I have rocketband now, which is clearly superior to V in every way.)

[Carnivean]

We know from a previous thread that Evgactip (hopefully spelling that right) didn't like the idea, and now we have 2 no voters. I think it would be good to hear their objections at some point, as this thread contains mostly positive votes with a few that are ambiguous. They might be intractable, or they might yet be won over.

[Ingwe Ingweron]

...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.

+1 here. I find myself doing the exact same thing!

[Estie]

Voted yes, for the reasons Nomad expressed better than I could.

[calris]

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

Ah yes, I see now.

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.

Or ditch it completely - with the number of new vaults, I'm swimming in good, excellent, and artifact items. A few extra through Acquirement and *Acquirement* aren't really going to make any difference at all

[Ingwe Ingweron]

To my mind, rune-id is an unequivocal improvement and should be implemented. Although, before going into the main it still had a couple bugs to work out, most of which have been pointed out up-thread. Three that I didn't see, well one bug and then another two changes depending on consensus...
- autoinscriptions still not quite working properly.
- having to activate an item even though the rune is known, e.g., rings of digging, flame, etc. Even though examination reveals that everything is known about the object (no unknown runes), the item remains flavored until activated, though it would not always be obvious to a novice that activation was even an option let alone required.
- having to id by use stat swap potions, banishment scrolls, etc. It seemed to me that opinions varied about whether this was a problem. I'm in the, "I don't like it, but I guess I can live with it" camp. Rune-id is such an overall improvement that if I have to live with this annoyance, so be it.

[PowerWyrm]

Yes for V. For my variant, I'll have to test that separately, since I have no idea how it will work in a multiplayer environement.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.