Current master post-4.2.1

[DavidMedley]

OK, I'll play along. How is the order in class.txt chosen? I'm looking for an answer that gets down to the ones and zeroes of the individual transistors, please.

[Nick]

OK, I'll play along. How is the order in class.txt chosen? I'm looking for an answer that gets down to the ones and zeroes of the individual transistors, please.

There is no deeper answer. It's the order I happened to put them in in class.txt when I introduced the new classes. Presumably I had some reason for that order at the time. When the game starts they're read in by the datafile parser, and then spat out onto the birth screen in the same order.

[DavidMedley]

Yeah, nothing wrong with that. Let me propose a different order, based roughly on class complexity.

Non-Casters
- Warrior
Half-Casters
- Ranger
- Paladin
- Rogue
- Blackguard
Full Casters
- Druid
- Priest
- Mage
- Necromancer

This is not too different from the current order except that currently it goes Warrior, Full, Half. In this version I kept the type of magic order the same: Nature, Holy, Arcane, Shadow. My main priority is thinking of a new player who tries the classes in order, probably skipping a few along the way.

Another way that gives precedence to the old school classes would be to organize by magic school alphabetically:

- Warrior
Arcane
- Rogue
- Mage
Holy
- Paladin
- Priest
Nature
- Ranger
- Druid
Shadow
- Blackguard
- Necromancer

But I like this less because of the new player scenario I posited above.

[Nick]

Yeah, nothing wrong with that. Let me propose a different order, based roughly on class complexity.

So we could do this, and it doesn't break savefiles (the class name is stored). I'm inclined to not change things like this unless there's a strong reason, though.

What do others think?

[Sphara]

I cannot see any reasons to oppose this. It won't affect me ofc, but if it helps new players, why not?

[bughunter]

What do others think?

If it doesn't have even the most remote possibility of breaking something else, then go for it.

Otherwise, don't fiddle with it.

[DavidMedley]

When does it not work? I know there are difficulties if you also have ammo inscribed with @f0, but are there other cases?

I still haven't figured out when it works and when it doesn't. But sometimes, seemingly most times, when I have a thrown weapon in my quiver I can't fill the "w" slot of my inventory. When the w slot is filled with 35 or fewer missiles I can't pick up a thrown weapon. I've tried inscribing @v0 and @v1 and it seems to work -- I see it listed in my quiver -- but I don't get the inventory space benefit consistently.

[Nick]

I still haven't figured out when it works and when it doesn't. But sometimes, seemingly most times, when I have a thrown weapon in my quiver I can't fill the "w" slot of my inventory. When the w slot is filled with 35 or fewer missiles I can't pick up a thrown weapon. I've tried inscribing @v0 and @v1 and it seems to work -- I see it listed in my quiver -- but I don't get the inventory space benefit consistently.

OK, looks like there's something wrong with the counting.

[Gwarl]

Awesome.

Are there any other ways of reaching Gwarl than waiting him to appear in angband.live chat?

I've sent a personal message weeks ago. He finally addressed me in angband.live that he has sent my bug report further regarding to my vanilla save file. He just never removed the save file. He even apologized me for having a long absence. I have specifically stated that a save file of 'SPHARAGAIN' in angband.live is corrupted. But it is still there. I'm forced to play 4.2.1. Not a bad thing as such, but I want to be a part of new development. As far as playtesting goes.

So, unless there is not a string of misunderstandings, just remove spharagain vanilla nightly save file. And if there is another person who can do this, please inform me.

Loving f'***ing everyone, Sphara

Sorry it's gone now.

[Ingwe Ingweron]

Yeah, nothing wrong with that. Let me propose a different order, based roughly on class complexity.

I don't really care one way or another, but I do find you are making an implied assumption that is really a matter of opinion. You propose that "half-casters" are less "complex" than full-casters, therefore place them first after warrior. However, that is entirely based on a point of view. From another point of view a "full-caster" is less complex than a "half-caster", one class being simpler than a hybrid of two classes.

[mrfy]

To me, it makes more sense to have it in the order of Warrior, full casters followed by their half casters.

Warrior

Mage
Rogue

Druid
Ranger

Priest
Paladin

Necromancer
Blackguard

[DavidMedley]

a "full-caster" is less complex than a "half-caster", one class being simpler than a hybrid of two classes.

Yes, fully matters of opinion and there are several sensible ways to organize. But this is a fact: there's about 40% less spells to learn as a Paladin than as a Priest. Also, I think 0%-50%-100% is a bit more intuitive sorting than 0%-100%-50%.

The current none-full-half order is fine with me, honestly. But the seeming lack of organization within that framework causes my OCD to flare a little.

[DavidMedley]

My thoughts on this subject are heavily influenced by introducing the game to my sons (12 and 9 yo) and seeing what works for them.

[archolewa]

Honestly, in my experience, with the possbile exception of Priests, the full casters are harder to play. They have fewer hitpoints, and their primary source of offense can run out of juice. So they tend to be less forgiving of mistakes.

[fph]

What do others think?

I like DavidMedley's suggestion. Sorting by class complexity makes sense and seems a good newbie-friendly change.

As for class complexity, I have no doubts that beating orcs with a stick is simpler than beating orcs with a stick and occasionally casting spells, which in turn is simpler than using spells, wands, and arrows while not letting them get close because you're squishier.