Change Locdesc

[mansa]

http://www.armageddon.org/cgi-bin/help_index/show_help?change

Change locdescs moves your character to a room where you can add scars to your character's location descriptions. The message sent to the room when you do this is the same as if you had quit out of the game. When you are done adding scars you type 'leave' to return to the in-character world and the message sent to the room is the same as if you were entering the game.

Syntax:
> change locdescs

[RunningMountain]

Nice. Very nice.

[Lazloth]

Should come in handy when evading that big group of gith!

[Xygax]

It has the same restrictions as "quit".

[John]

Very very impressive Change oponent  is also very impressive (I don't remember it being around before)

[Lazloth]

It has the same restrictions as "quit".

While I was marginally joking, your response has me asking: inclusive of the ranger perk, or simply the quit-timer?

[Xygax]

It has identical criteria to quit.  Those classes for whom quit behaves differently will have the same luxuries with this.  That said, you shoudn't abuse -either- feature for the purpose of avoiding conflicts...  we had to find a happy medium between usability and abusability, as always.

[Delirium]

This is awesome. Very awesome.

Nice solution.

[jhunter]

I have just one thing to say:

FUCKING SWEET!

[Larrath]

Kickass.

Great jorb!

[JollyGreenGiant]

Great jeoooooorrrrrb!

[Lazloth]

Those classes for whom quit behaves differently will have the same luxuries with this.

I don't see why this is necessary -- there are plenty of quitsafe rooms everywhere -- , but now descend back into silent lurking.

[Sanvean]

Thank Ness, who kindly figured it out and put it all together.

[Mr.Camel]

Lovely. Seriously. Lovely. Seriously. Lovely.

Thank you!

[joyofdiscord]

Those classes for whom quit behaves differently will have the same luxuries with this.

I don't see why this is necessary -- there are plenty of quitsafe rooms everywhere -- , but now descend back into silent lurking.

When you're coding something, using the existing set of quit checks is much more practical than making a new set of checks just for that command.  One has to question whether the extra work is really necessary just to prohibit rangers from adding scars in the wilderness.

[Lazloth]

When you're coding something, using the existing set of quit checks is much more practical than making a new set of checks just for that command.  One has to question whether the extra work is really necessary just to prohibit rangers from adding scars in the wilderness.

Long post.
[/derail]There is no indication that the aforementioned classes were not purposely retained within the old quit checks, so you have to assume it's just another boon.  This was the point of the complaint in my post.

[Agent_137]

Looking a gift horse in the mouth, lazloth.


Thanks for the quick and dirty work on this, Ness! I love it.

[John]

Long post

While a very good point, it can be utterly pointless to this thread. It's relevancy to this thread assumes that rangers shouldn't be able to add scars in the wilderness. I don't see why them being able to do that is bad.

[Tlaloc]

Honestly? What Lazloth posted made absolutely no sense, and I'd have to agree with John: it doesn't seem to have a point in this thread, and as it pertains to the Mud as a whole. Furthermore, I think its kind of rude to imply that coders who are spending thier free time, volunteering to impliment something that I've heard nearly every player in the game ask about are 'Lazy Developers' because they might chose to approach a problem from a different perspective than you would.

You likely have no idea about the particular code that is being delt with, or the many nuances which are involved. I know I don't. But I do know that we have on staff some of the most talented coders I've seen anywhere, and I trust them not to make half-baked, lazy descisions with the code just because it is 'easy'.

There is no indication that the aforementioned classes were not purposely retained within the old quit checks, so you have to assume it's just another boon. This was the point of the complaint in my post.

Thats right. Because giving Rangers the ability to add scars easily is a fantastic class ability that we thought was desperatly lacking from Rangers as a whole.

Sarcasm aside: it is just another boon. Its a boon that Nessalin took the time to code up for the good of the Mud in his own free time, so that anyone who wanted could update thier scars as they saw fit. I say be happy with that, and be happy with the knowledge that we can easily remove the Ranger class (amongst many other things) from anyone who abuses this new command.

[Lazloth]

Honestly? What Lazloth posted made absolutely no sense, and I'd have to agree with John: it doesn't seem to have a point in this thread, and as it pertains to the Mud as a whole...

Perhaps it would have been better as a PM; you're right.  I thought I indicated it as a derailed response to joyofdiscord's post and was partially fueled by misgivings at work.

The addition is great!  If there was an impression I was calling anyone lazy, that wasn't the intent.  Bowing out now.

[Xygax]

Since this thread derailed long ago, I'm not going to worry about plunging ahead further.  I'm not insulted by being called a "lazy programmer" personally.  Usually that's a sign that someone writes pretty decent code.

Laz:  The reason we used the same criteria as for quit is for mechanical reasons having nothing to do with code.  We -want- the criteria to be the same.

On a side note, I'm not a big fan of cutting and pasting code for small changes.  If you need different functionality (a very small change, say), I'd prefer a functional parameter to what you call "recasting a new macro" and "growing my object file."...  it's more maintainable to have one set of logic manage these restrictions than to potentially have to manage endless repetitions of -nearly- the same code.  So I strongly disagree with the implied assertion that using the existing criteria is somehow "quick and dirty".

If you feel that the existing criteria is open to an abuse to which the quit code is not also vulnerable, please PM me and I'll look into it.

-- X

[Fnord]

I haven't tried it yet, but that seems like a brilliant solution. If it's not already, please make the scar room a peace room, i.e. no aggro actions possible.

[Morrolan]

This is awesome. Now I can get a scar every time I get my butt kicked.

Perfect for the aspiring hunter!  

[Cenghiz]

By the way, reusing code is called: Object Oriented Programming.
It's not something dirty and tricky.. Sometimes even rewriting the code is easier. But it is a must.

And a quick question... We're not allowed to remove our scars in that room, right?

[John]

I just realised wounds can be updated from when they're first created through the whole process until they've scarred.

This is going to be great