Main | My View | View Issues | Change Log | Wiki | Tavern | News
  

Viewing Issue Simple Details [ Jump to Notes ] [ Wiki ] [ View Advanced ] [ Issue History ] [ Print ]
ID Category Severity Reproducibility Date Submitted Last Update
0002712 [DCSS] Bug Report minor have not tried 2010-10-12 22:21 2010-10-14 00:49
Reporter KiloByte View Status public  
Assigned To galehar
Priority normal Resolution done  
Status resolved   Product Branch 0.8 ancient branch
Summary 0002712: autoinscribe is hidden behind manual inscribing
Description Since the noun-verb patch, autoinscribing seems to be missing. After some poking around, it is now available only after, unexpectedly, selecting manual 'i'.

This is quite a regression, as it requires navigating two menu levels for something you could do outright before -- not to mention confusing old players.
Additional Information
Tags No tags attached.
Attached Files

- Relationships
child of 0002156resolvedgalehar easier use of inventory 

-  Notes
(0008987)
galehar (administrator)
2010-10-13 00:25

 As I stated in the original mantis (2156), with all the actions and all the inscription options (add, replace, clear, auto), there is no way to fit them all in 80 chars. So I suggested to group all the inscription commands under (i), because they are not used very often (especially autoinscribe).
Maybe we can go further and treat inscriptions commands as actions and display them when we have enough room, but I'm not sure it's worth it. Also, (r)eplace conflicts with (r)ead and (r)emove.
Adding only autoinscribe shouldn't be too hard though. Do you think it's important?
(0008994)
dpeg (administrator)
2010-10-13 11:33

 This is only important for players who don't use the default options, I think.

I agree that confusion can occur, so what about keeping the mechanic as now, but changing the description line to "...(i) (auto)inscribe."? This will make players press 'i' and then they'll see the inscription list.
(0008997)
galehar (administrator)
2010-10-13 15:50

 dpeg: I don't really like that. (i)(auto)inscribe is ugly and confusing.
I have found one case for which adding autoinscribe would break the 80 chars limits:
You can (u)nwield, e(v)oke, (d)rop, (i)nscribe or (a)utoinscribe the Staff of Olgreb.
This is 85 chars. And it would be better if the code were futur-proof. What if someone makes an evocable artefact dagger? wield, evoke, quiver, ...
I'll try to add autoinscribe and the following conditions:
* If there's no room to print the item name, just print "the item"
* If there's no room even for that, then don't print the last action
(0008998)
OG17 (reporter)
2010-10-13 18:35

 Why not put inscription commands on a separate line
(0009001)
galehar (administrator)
2010-10-14 00:49

 fixed in trunk

- Issue History
Date Modified Username Field Change
2010-10-12 22:21 KiloByte New Issue
2010-10-13 00:14 galehar Relationship added child of 0002156
2010-10-13 00:25 galehar Note Added: 0008987
2010-10-13 11:33 dpeg Note Added: 0008994
2010-10-13 15:50 galehar Note Added: 0008997
2010-10-13 18:35 OG17 Note Added: 0008998
2010-10-14 00:49 galehar Note Added: 0009001
2010-10-14 00:49 galehar Status new => resolved
2010-10-14 00:49 galehar Fixed in Branch => 0.8 development branch
2010-10-14 00:49 galehar Resolution open => done
2010-10-14 00:49 galehar Assigned To => galehar

Mantis 1.1.8[^]
Copyright © 2000 - 2009 Mantis Group
Powered by Mantis Bugtracker