Let's Talk Wands

[Thurman]

Is there something I am missing? I can have two of the same type of wand, and yet one is not identified. When I right click on both of them, each state the same number for the maximum number of charges that the wand can hold. Yet when I recharge the wand to full, it does not display that number if it has not been identified.

The only hindrance to not identifying the wand is during the recharging process, you don't get notified as to how many charges went into the wand. It seems to me if you identify one wand of the same type, then the magic that fills that wand would be the same magic that fills any wand of that type, so I just don't get it. Why not show the charges on an emptied wand once it has been emptied or once it has been fully charged?

[Blade]

Recharging scrolls don't always fill wands to the maximum value (nor to any consistent value), so you won't know exactly how many charges are left after reading a scroll of recharging. Wands can be generated with any number of charges within their range, and recharged to any number of values within a set. There is no problem here.

[Thurman]

Recharging scrolls don't always fill wands to the maximum value (nor to any consistent value), so you won't know exactly how many charges are left after reading a scroll of recharging. Wands can be generated with any number of charges within their range, and recharged to any number of values within a set. There is no problem here.

Okay, so I am missing something. Please help me understand the logic in this. I have a two wands of Lighting that say they can hold 12 charges. I identify both of them and they both max out at 12 charges. Only one had originally had 10 charges, the other I had emptied, then had to identify it, before it would show me that its max was 12 charges (which I already knew).

If I had a dozen of these wands they would all only hold 12 charges, so how does identifying one that has been emptied change this?

I understand the randomness in the recharging process, but logic would dictate that a small puff of energy would produce less charges, than that of a greater discharge of energy (using surrealism to illustrate that if I was a wizard in a lab, I would be able to deduce).

I can understand the need to Identify a wand to know how many initial charges it has, but after that a wand is a wand, and just as I would conclude that when I came across the same wand again, say in this instance, it was a wand of lighting, then would I not also be able to conclude what takes place while it gets recharged?

[Blade]

You could not conclude what takes place while it gets recharged, because the process is inherently random. There is no way for you to know that it gets to full charge except by formal identification, and that should not be known. Yes, they are both wands of lightning (to continue your example). No, the player does not know enough about wands to figure out how many charges one wand of lightning has from the charges of another (or from recharging scrolls). Note also that characters with high evo -can- identify wand charges left upon zapping and (maybe) recharging. It's a skill that can be learned, but not every dungeon diver possesses it instinctively.

Identification does not exist to show you max charges. It exists to show you current charges. I'm still not quite sure what you think is wrong with it.

[Thurman]

You could not conclude what takes place while it gets recharged, because the process is inherently random. There is no way for you to know that it gets to full charge except by formal identification, and that should not be known. Yes, they are both wands of lightning (to continue your example). No, the player does not know enough about wands to figure out how many charges one wand of lightning has from the charges of another (or from recharging scrolls). Note also that characters with high evo -can- identify wand charges left upon zapping and (maybe) recharging. It's a skill that can be learned, but not every dungeon diver possesses it instinctively.

Identification does not exist to show you max charges. It exists to show you current charges. I'm still not quite sure what you think is wrong with it.

Well, to follow this logic, would mean that I would need to identify a wand every time it went empty, would it not? If we can conclude that a wand is a wand is a wand, and that they all hold the same amount of charges, then the only thing that Identify does is allow the recharge process be seen. But if you say that it is that process that makes the need to be identified, that it can't be deduced, then wouldn't the wand need to be identified every time that it went empty?

I am just trying to understand how I can conclude that it is a wand of lighting, yet not know how it works. I guess I can look at it like charging a battery.

I understand how in the heat of battle, if you only had one scroll of recharging and you tossed that into an unidentified wand it adds mystery to the end result, and that is a great game mechanic. I guess I am just looking at it from like the amulet/ring or better yet the projectile point of view where you can look at the markings on the projectiles and tell that they are similar without having to identify each set of projectiles that you pick up.

[Grimm]

I understand how in the heat of battle, if you only had one scroll of recharging and you tossed that into an unidentified wand it adds mystery to the end result, and that is a great game mechanic.

This is pretty much it. In Crawl, gameplay trumps real-world consistency, every time.

[mageykun]

Okay, I'm going to write some equations, because I can't follow what's being said.

  Code:

(1) Unknown Wand + scroll of ID ==> Wand of <foo>, <n> charges

(2) Wand of <foo>, unknown charges + scroll of ID ==> Wand of <foo>, <n> charges

(3) Wand of <foo>, <n> charges + scroll of recharging ==> Wand of <foo>, <m> charges (where m >= n)

(4) Wand of <foo>, unknown charges + scroll of recharging ==> Wand of <foo>, unknown charges (but presumably, more than before).

Your complaint, if I follow you, is that you're unhappy that 4 doesn't give the same result as 3?

[Thurman]

Okay, I'm going to write some equations, because I can't follow what's being said.

  Code:

(1) Unknown Wand + scroll of ID ==> Wand of <foo>, <n> charges

(2) Wand of <foo>, unknown charges + scroll of ID ==> Wand of <foo>, <n> charges

(3) Wand of <foo>, <n> charges + scroll of recharging ==> Wand of <foo>, <m> charges (where m >= n)

(4) Wand of <foo>, unknown charges + scroll of recharging ==> Wand of <foo>, unknown charges (but presumably, more than before).

Your complaint, if I follow you, is that you're unhappy that 4 doesn't give the same result as 3?

It's not a complaint, but just a lack of understanding. I had to think about it, but the projectile example best fits. If I don't have to identify every set of projectiles to equate the damage each set can do then why do I have to identify every single wand? It's just laziness on my part. I find it tedious to have to do it, especially when I start from zero or a fully charged wand. In the fantasy setting, does the wand get a charge strip glued to it when it gets identified? How would the wizard know how many charges got placed in a wand just by identifying it and how would that stick to the wand from then on? Does the wand end up with a Heads Up Display? It just doesn't seem realistic, to me. When I think of identifying something I think "Wand of Lighting" tells me all I need to know. The charging as a skill set is where I am lacking agreement with, but can understand and accept.

To address what you supplied as an example, I just don't understand why the charging is not known. I identify a wand, but then I now have to identify each wand of that type before I can know how many charges "I" put on it. I could understand not knowing how many charges someone else put on it, but when I am charging it, it just seems odd that I wouldn't know even when I am starting from a known. This is where the skill set comes in and I have to accept that 'yes' if I was not a tailor, then I just don't know how many stitches hold my pants up.

There are Pros and Cons to every game, believe me when I say that this shadows very small in the greatness of the work you all have done with this. I don't have to like every angle, I will just accept it and go on, because I know you are right. It should be based on a skill set. I will just have to get over being lazy.

[galehar]

I'm not sure if you're suggesting that, but I certainly don't think that fully identifying a wand should also identify the charges of all the wands of the same type.

However, there are a couple of inconsistencies. The worst one when you fully recharge a wand. The message is different ("flickers for a moment" instead of "glows for a moment") and it gets marked as {fully recharged}. After you zap it its marked as {zapped: 1}, so you can deduce its number of charges if you remember it was fully charged. In this case, it should definitely be fully identified instead of marked as {fully recharged}.
The other one is for empty wands. They are marked as (0) or {empty} depending on whether they are fully identified or not. To be consistent, we would need to either fully identify empty wands, or "unidentify" the number of charges when recharging. But I don't think either would be desirable. I think the status quo works well, even if a bit inconsistent.
Reasoning: in the former case, you've paid a price with recharging, so it's fine to identify the wand. And it's not a very common case to fully recharge wands anyway. In the latter, if empty wands become fully identified, then nobody would bother using id scrolls on them, it would be a waste. If you lose the charge count each time you recharge them, then it would be quite annoying and identifying worthless.

[jejorda2]

You don't remember projectile enchantment, either. If you have a stack of +2 arrows, enchant them to +3, and then find a stack of +2 arrow on the ground, the +2 arrows won't be identified until you fire them a few times. I'd love for the game to remember each kind of ammo that you've identified, so the next time you see a +2 arrow you know it. Right now, it almost makes sense to leave a single +0, +1, +2, +3, etc. arrow in your stash so you can use it to identify new stacks you come across. That's tedium.

[Kate]

However, there are a couple of inconsistencies. The worst one when you fully recharge a wand. The message is different ("flickers for a moment" instead of "glows for a moment") and it gets marked as {fully recharged}. After you zap it its marked as {zapped: 1}, so you can deduce its number of charges if you remember it was fully charged. In this case, it should definitely be fully identified instead of marked as {fully recharged}.

You can't always fully deduce the number of charges it has if you recharge a wand you just picked up, since they can sometimes generate with more than the max number of charges (see _wand_max_initial_charges compared to wand_max_charges). Could be worth just using the same number in both places (or at least never generating wands with more than their max charges), and then identify wands that get the "flickers for a moment" message. Other than that the status quo seems fine though, yeah.

[galehar]

Wow, I never noticed that. Doesn't seem like it's serving any purpose though, and the numbers are quite close. I say it would be simpler to use wand_max_charges in item generation and id fully recharged wands.

[Blade]

Keeping max starting charges consistent with max recharge would be much more intuitive. Before I found out the cause, I would get rather confused when I would find /tele with 10+ charges despite the max charge being 9.

[galehar]

Done and done.