Rune-based ID just got a little better

[Magnate]

Hi all,

New v4 in the usual place: http://buildbot.rephial.org/v4-build...er/builds.html.

The changes are to do with rune-based ID. The runes now have random names, and will all appear in the rune knowledge menu from the start of the game. Inspecting items will now list all their runes, known and unknown (except store items, which have the runes scratched off ....).

Any bugs or issues, please report.

[Derakon]

(except store items, which have the runes scratched off ....).

That can't be legal. What if you need to get a replacement under warranty?

[Nomad]

Hmm, I didn't realise that the unknown runes would be sorted into subsections while they're still unknown. I wondered for a moment if that was too spoilerly, but on reflection I think I rather like it. After all, the only time you're going to see a rune is when you've already found an object with that rune on, so really it just takes some of the hassle out of figuring out how to ID by use. (It's certainly going to remove some of the frustration from figuring out an item has a sustain.)

Also it adds a fun little discovery element to looking up a new rune in the knowledge menu to see what kind it is. I will now picture all my adventurers wandering the dungeon with a copy of the The Beginner's Guide to Identifying Runes and rifling through it whenever they find a new ego.

Plus, hey, I see that a useful side effect of this is that Inspecting consumables now tells you what elements can destroy them. That's pretty handy, especially for newbies. Although "hates <element>" is kind of awkward name-wise. And should vulnerabilities really be included on the list? I didn't think they were implented on items yet.

[bio_hazard]

My first time playing v4. Very first character, very first weapon found on the very first level (on 50') was a Thanc! I've got to say that is a good way to get beginners interested!

Also found some sort of splendid gnomish hammer on 250'. And a magical sling.

my 'thanc has "Hates Acid"- is that intended?

Also, I know "Fire Brand", but I apparently know this from throwing a flask of oil. I suppose that is logical, but somehow I could imagine magical brands being separated from, you know, actual fire. Otherwise, wouldn't you get the fire brand from carrying around a torch?

edits while I go along
First unique- Bullroarer (250') drops 2 excellent weapons.
a gnomish whip (0, -1) [Should whips be excluded from Gnomish?]- Also, the gnomish hammer is also (0, -1)
a Maul of Slay Animal (0,0)

I'm getting some odd text corruptions on the message line at the top of the screen.

OK- dead. use-ID'ed deep descent, ended up meleeing Grishnak who outlasted me. Upon death, Nimthac has the somewhat contradictory
"Cannot be harmed by acid, e, f, c"
"Can be destroyed by acid"

d'oh and I totally forgot about the activation!

[Magnate]

Thanks for the reports. It hadn't occurred to me that some knowledge is leaked by the unknown runes being sorted into sections. If people think that's too much, we can just add a section called "unknown" and put them all in there.

It is silly that Inspect describes IGNORE_ and HATES_ for the same element. I'll fix that. EDIT: done.

Yes I suppose torches ought to have BRAND_FIRE too, though we don't expect people to throw them. But there's also an argument for removing it from oil, since that's not magical fire.

On the text corruption, could you post a savefile and a screenshot? Then we can see if the savefile reproduces what's shown in your screenshot on our systems.

Probably time to re-think pseudoID. I've really never liked the idea that +digging is "splendid".

@Nomad: not yet, but soon. In the meantime, are they doing any harm, other than annoying completists who can't find them? (re vuln runes)

[fph]

Plus, hey, I see that a useful side effect of this is that Inspecting consumables now tells you what elements can destroy them. That's pretty handy, especially for newbies. Although "hates <element>" is kind of awkward name-wise.

Can I suggest the clear and descriptive "could be destroyed by {acid,fire,frost,lightning}"?

[Magnate]

Can I suggest the clear and descriptive "could be destroyed by {acid,fire,frost,lightning}"?

This is exactly what it says in the Inspect screen. Nomad is talking about the flag name, which needs to be a single word like Ignore or Brand or Immunity. If there's a better one than Hates, I'm happy to use it - but it needs to be specific to the object, and not imply any protection extended to the player (like Resist, or Oppose etc.). Since the Hates flags are listed in a menu section called Susceptibilities, and they say on inspection "Can be destroyed by", I think it's clear enough. But there's always room for improvement.

[Nomad]

Probably time to re-think pseudoID. I've really never liked the idea that +digging is "splendid".

Me neither. It seems like now that affixes are rated bad/good/great/uber there's probably some sort of 'points' system that could be worked out with that, totalling up the number and level of affixes to rate an item. (Which would have the advantage that pseudo feelings would automatically get lower for some items when you pass the point at which a given affix falls from 'good' to 'average'.)

This is exactly what it says in the Inspect screen. Nomad is talking about the flag name, which needs to be a single word like Ignore or Brand or Immunity. If there's a better one than Hates, I'm happy to use it - but it needs to be specific to the object, and not imply any protection extended to the player (like Resist, or Oppose etc.).

Yeah, I didn't suggest a better name than 'hates' because I was struggling to come up with one too. (I'm assuming the code needs flags in FOO_ACID format rather than "Acid susceptible", which also makes it harder.) The best I can come up with is something like "Ruined Acid" or "Broken Acid", which is not really very grammatical.

[Magnate]

Me neither. It seems like now that affixes are rated bad/good/great/uber there's probably some sort of 'points' system that could be worked out with that, totalling up the number and level of affixes to rate an item. (Which would have the advantage that pseudo feelings would automatically get lower for some items when you pass the point at which a given affix falls from 'good' to 'average'.)

Excellent idea, thanks. I'll see how this works out to code.

Yeah, I didn't suggest a better name than 'hates' because I was struggling to come up with one too. (I'm assuming the code needs flags in FOO_ACID format rather than "Acid susceptible", which also makes it harder.) The best I can come up with is something like "Ruined Acid" or "Broken Acid", which is not really very grammatical.

No, the name text is now distinct from the flag's defined name in the code, so HATES_ACID can be called "Acid-susceptible" if we like. I'm not sure that's better, but I don't tend to take the pulse well on naming things, so happy to change it if it is.

[Nomad]

No, the name text is now distinct from the flag's defined name in the code, so HATES_ACID can be called "Acid-susceptible" if we like. I'm not sure that's better, but I don't tend to take the pulse well on naming things, so happy to change it if it is.

It's still a pretty awkward name, yeah, but I think it's probably a bit less weird than "hates". And everything else I can think of is even more awkward.

[ekolis]

Vulnerable to acid?

[Prismatic]

Fragile? I mean, if descriptors like IMMUNE_FIRE are okay, why not FRAGILE_FIRE?

[Therem Harth]

I agree with Ekolis, VULN_FIRE or such would be better.

[Derakon]

VULN_FIRE is already used for giving the player an elemental vulnerability, if I recall correctly.

[Nomad]

There's definitely something amiss with the 'hates' vs 'ignores' flags: I have an Everburning Lantern of Brightness that tells me it has both "Ignore Fire" and "Hates Fire" runes.

Also there's an issue with pseudo-ID feelings now being somewhat late/redundant, in that Inspecting an item can tell you instantly whether it has runes and how many. The two solutions I can see are: 1, runes don't appear until psuedo, or 2, pseudo on pickup. (Or I guess 3, ditch pseudo feelings entirely now we have rune-based ID?)