Preparation for 4.1 release

[PowerWyrm]

I'm also likely to revert the "books only get referred to by numbers" change, because it still has some issues which are unlikely to be sorted quickly.

This is an amazing change though, since you don't have to inscribe your books @m1-@m9 when you use keymaps. Seems to work fine too, except the fact that the header still displays letters instead of numbers.

[Nick]

This is an amazing change though, since you don't have to inscribe your books @m1-@m9 when you use keymaps. Seems to work fine too, except the fact that the header still displays letters instead of numbers.

It was takkaria's work, and takkaria has also suggested it be reverted because it still has some issues. What do other people think?

[Gwarl]

Okay here's why I think we're better off not changing it:

1. makes it more complicated to add/alter books by changing .txt files
2. whether to use letters or numbers seems like an arbitrary matter of preference, but in every other list menu in the game, letters are used instead of numbers - in the default keyset, numbers are only used to enter numerical values. It would be a shame to break this consistency.
3. you can achieve the same results yourself, or slightly different results if you prefer, by setting up autoinscriptions for books. You can even copy the .prf files between updates so you don't have to go through the process again for each new build.
4. my muscle memory will have to adapt

It probably comes down to preference and I think in that case we should prefer the status quo, particularly as there are already methods to adapt spellbook selection to ones own preference.

[Huqhox]

Okay here's why I think we're better off not changing it:

1. makes it more complicated to add/alter books by changing .txt files
2. whether to use letters or numbers seems like an arbitrary matter of preference, but in every other list menu in the game, letters are used instead of numbers - in the default keyset, numbers are only used to enter numerical values. It would be a shame to break this consistency.
3. you can achieve the same results yourself, or slightly different results if you prefer, by setting up autoinscriptions for books. You can even copy the .prf files between updates so you don't have to go through the process again for each new build.
4. my muscle memory will have to adapt

It probably comes down to preference and I think in that case we should prefer the status quo, particularly as there are already methods to adapt spellbook selection to ones own preference.

To my mind this comes very much under the heading of "if it ain't broke don't fix it". Using inventory slots (letters) to select books is very consistant with the rest of the game. And since as Gwarl noted there is an easy way to auto inscribe to allow the use of numbers if required already this seems like maybe it doesn't need to be done at all.

Personally I don't like using the numbers; having to move from the letter keys to numbers (either top row or number pad) when typing the command is a lot slower for me and that far outweighs any benefit from knowing that a particular spell is always on a particular number.

Best solution may be to allow both letters *or* numbers to be used, seems like that provides what everyone wants.

[fph]

It was takkaria's work, and takkaria has also suggested it be reverted because it still has some issues. What do other people think?

I think it's a good change. Most expert players were already using inscriptions, so now we get the same result more easily and we don't have to tell newcomers "inscribe your books with this magic letter soup, otherwise you're going to regret it the moment you drop a spellbook and maybe make a fatal mistake". Don't worry about breaking someone's workflow, this change is a step forward for both old and new players.

[Pete Mack]

I think an auto-inscription pref file that's read automatically the way the roguelike keymaps would be better. Include conditional checks by class.

[Ingwe Ingweron]

It was takkaria's work, and takkaria has also suggested it be reverted because it still has some issues. What do other people think?

I worked around the issues I had with it for my test case. It seems to work okay, though when you consider adding the capability of multiple realms and differing numbers of books in user editable files, then you may need to revisit the change.

[Sky]

Can i make a brief suggestion?

Ive read ideas of adding classes and spells and such.

Should ... would it not be better to think of a new game, perfect Angband as it is now, and leave it as a legacy?

Instead of having a game which is very different from the original vanilla.

[Derakon]

Can i make a brief suggestion?

Ive read ideas of adding classes and spells and such.

Should ... would it not be better to think of a new game, perfect Angband as it is now, and leave it as a legacy?

Instead of having a game which is very different from the original vanilla.

I have good news! Nick put a ton of effort into archiving old versions of Angband, so you can still go download and play them today. Which leaves us free to change the current version without losing the historical versions.

[kandrc]

If you delete (or otherwise don't have) your .angband directory and attempt to run the game, it exits with code 1 after printing "Cannot open 'randart.txt'". This is current top of tree, gc95fee7. I am configured --with-no-install, in case that makes a difference.

[Sky]

ouch ouch ouch! too much sarcasm!

look, i understand that 'ol angband wouldn't disappear, but it wouldn't be evident to anyone starting, or playing the game casually. i thought there was some effort to bring angband to the masses?

right now you have a game that is, essentially, the same as 2.9.0, except a few nerfs of the obvious design oversights (like Glaive of Pain + ring of acid, or boots of speed +23), a much improved UI, nice but not massive AI changes, and some more minor tweaks that make the game easier to play. And graphics, that too. But it's still angband.

I'm just worried that next year we'll have vampyre shapeshifter molds as playable characters *COUGH tome COUGH*

[Nick]

If you delete (or otherwise don't have) your .angband directory and attempt to run the game, it exits with code 1 after printing "Cannot open 'randart.txt'". This is current top of tree, gc95fee7. I am configured --with-no-install, in case that makes a difference.

Yeah, that's to be expected. Randarts are not in the savefile now, they're written to a file with the same format as artifact.txt, and stored in an archive directory inside your user directory (which is ~/.angband/Angband on Linux).

I guess a possible change here would be to make the user directory be lib/user when configured with --with-no-install, but I'm hesitant to change because these things are usually done the way they are for a million arcane reasons that I don't understand...

[Gwarl]

Yeah, that's to be expected. Randarts are not in the savefile now, they're written to a file with the same format as artifact.txt, and stored in an archive directory inside your user directory (which is ~/.angband/Angband on Linux).

I guess a possible change here would be to make the user directory be lib/user when configured with --with-no-install, but I'm hesitant to change because these things are usually done the way they are for a million arcane reasons that I don't understand...

This is to do with those shenanigans about config.h

It is a bug IMO, as none of the compilation switches affect the behaviour of where these things end up - if you're running something unixy that's where they go whether you like it or not, and you can't change that with command line options either.

[kandrc]

The bug is that, if you don't have a .angband--i.e., you've never run the game before--the game attempts to open the randarts file. Of course it doesn't exist.

[Nick]

The bug is that, if you don't have a .angband--i.e., you've never run the game before--the game attempts to open the randarts file. Of course it doesn't exist.

Oh, right. Will look into that.