How do you tell an item's condition now??

[Confusolato]

now that the "new" has been removed from an item's short description, how do we figure out what is in good combat condition and what is not? It should be possible to tell at a glance how worn (if at all) an item is in. Can I ask why the condition was removed?

[Bestatte]

Just a guess, but I've had possession of a "new" piece of equipment for half of an in-game year now. It isn't new, it's at LEAST 6 "months" old, and further, I didn't acquire it directly from a shop which means it was definitely used when I got it.

It was only "new" because it hadn't been utilized. But technically, while in "new condition" it wasn't new at all.

[Eternal]

Umm, armor still has "new, used" etc... just clothing does not.  The dust/blood/sweat/president clinton code doesn't seem to affect that.

*shrugs*  You know, I have -got- to play a warrior sometime.

[Confusolato]

I would like to add another question to my original message:

How do you tell the difference between armor and clothing now? The description of items is not enough to make the distinction. Several types of boots, for example, could only be identified as armor or clothing because of the item's condition flag.

I don't think I like the removal of the "new" flag. Only the most literal-minded people would have taken "new" to mean that the item had just been crafted and still had the price tag on it. "New" simply meant that the item of armour was in good condition and would probably not fall apart/crack the next time a gith beat on it.

[crymerci]

I actually like the change for that reason.

[Confusolato]

"Umm, armor still has "new, used" etc... just clothing does not. The dust/blood/sweat/president clinton code doesn't seem to affect that. "

No, most of my armor, and it is unequivocally armor, no longer has the condition flag. One of my collars still does (the other one doesn't) and they are both armor.

The condition is gone from all my armor except my jacket, which is stained so that may have something to do with it, and my collar, which I just now pulled out of my pack where it's been for a couple weeks.

Clothing never had the "new" flag in the first place....

[Lazloth]

I actually like the change for that reason.

Ditto.  Welcome change.

[Confusolato]

Why would you like this change? Because it makes playing the game more complicated? I don't think it's a realistic change.

Anyone at all should be able to tell what condition a piece of armour is in just with a glance. If it's battered, scratched, and cracked, it's obviously seen a lot of wear. If it isn't, then it's in functional "new" condition. If it a bit banged up and maybe has small tears or cracks in it, it's "used".

Additionally, clothing and armor are NOT the same thing, and they certainly are not the same appearance. It should be possible to tell clothing apart from armor with no more than one look (except possibly in a few isolated cases). I don't understand what possible value confusing clothing with armor could bring to anyone, except of course players who as a rule do not wear armors.

[crymerci]

Sometimes you want to wear something for its look, and not for the fact that it is armor. But with the 'new' flag there, it sticks out from the rest of your clothing.

Sometimes you want to wear light armor (reinforced cloth, for example, or leather) that looks like clothing, without giving away on an ooc level that it is, indeed, armor.

Sometimes you want to play a character who would never have access to nice, new, stuff, and would be wearing old castoffs. But the 'new' flag interferes with your desire to look like you've got some wear and tear on you.

As to Confusalato's concerns, I have seen clothing/armor with 'worn-out' and 'tattered' flags on it, so clearly when they begin to get some wear, it shows. Also, it would make sense that your armor is getting nicked, scratched, or battered just about every time you engage in combat of some sort, regardless of whether you can actually 'see' the damage oocly.

[Delirium]

For what it's worth, I like it.

[Anonymous]

Sometimes you want to wear light armor (reinforced cloth, for example, or leather) that looks like clothing, without giving away on an ooc level that it is, indeed, armor.

Agreed, this is one of the "few" exceptions to the rule of being able to spot armor with merely a glance that I mentioned earlier. It isn't a good reason to remove the "new", because, by the same token, maybe other players want it to be known that what they are wearing is beyond question armor--even if it looks like clothing.

By the way, reinforced cloth is hardly armor.

Sometimes you want to play a character who would never have access to nice, new, stuff, and would be wearing old castoffs. But the 'new' flag interferes with your desire to look like you've got some wear and tear on you.

Like I said before, "Only the most literal-minded people would have taken "new" to mean that the item had just been crafted and still had the price tag on it. "New" simply meant that the item of armour was in good condition and would probably not fall apart/crack the next time a gith beat on it." If you want your character to have scruffy damaged armour, my suggestion would be to get scruffy damaged items, not items that are in good serviceable condition. Shops already sell scruffy worn items for a lower price, so there is no reason to get "new" ones.

As to Confusalato's concerns, I have seen clothing/armor with 'worn-out' and 'tattered' flags on it, so clearly when they begin to get some wear, it shows.

I guess that must be the way it works. So as soon as an item becomes "used" it shows? I have seen no "used" items so far and usually the merchants have at least a few. Does it show only when the item is worn out/torn/cracked? If the case is the latter, the system is ridiculous for reasons I trust do not need explanation.

Sometimes you want to wear something for its look, and not for the fact that it is armor. But with the 'new' flag there, it sticks out from the rest of your clothing.

I don't think this is such a bother for the majority of people. But if it really bothers some, I would have suggested to ask an immortal to remove the individual item's flag (or whatever), or to make an item that looks similar to the original but is not armor.

It's practically impossible to confuse clothing with armor, except in a very few cases of extraordinary craftmasnhip, etc. Yet right now I don't have a sweet clue what is armor and what isn't at a shop. Quite often, I can't tell if the people I run into are armored or not, since "sleeves" or "pants" doesn't tell me anything. Even the long descriptions of several items are far from clear, and it's idiotic to have to sift through the long descriptions of the items of everyone encountered before you can figure out if they are armored or not. Sure, you can recognize a number of items after a while, but that is hardly a great method when in fact you oguht to see whether someone is armored with no more than a glance.

[Eternal]

Ahh... mebbe I should dope myself up less and read more.

Hmm, an interesting change... wish the imms had posted a feedback thread on it before they put it in, but that's their perogative.  Personally, I'm interested to see how it's affecting all you warriors and fighters of various types out there.  :wink:

[Confusolato]

Well, as you can probably guess it's affected me in a rather negative way, and my character relies on armor for survival (not to mention trade). Not only that, but I don't imagine a newbie would find this weird system in the least bit friendly.

Maybe all that was needed was a substitute to the word "new" for those people who insist on taking the flag literally.

[crymerci]

There's really only a few cases where the distinction needs to be made: if you're buying from a store which sells both clothing and armor, or if it's a found item. Otherwise if you want to know whether it will help you to wear it, you can figure out by where it comes from.

In other cases...if someone is wearing a pair of hide/leather pants, it's perfectly realistic not to know whether they are for fashion or protection. If someone is wearing chitin, shell, etc. I think it would clearly be armor.

[Confusolato]

No, I honestly don't think so. The distinction you draw really only works on a limited level. If you want to be realistic I do not think you can defend your position. For example, leather that is used for armor is tanned/boiled/cut/whatever in a specific way so that it affords protection. It should be just about impossible to mistake a stylish, non-armour leather vest with a jacket made of leather that has been boiled in paraffin to harden it so it can afford protection from blows.

Just an example of course, but you can see how the issue is not limited to leather. Armor is thick and protective. Clothing isn't, especially clothing in a place as hot as Zalanthas.

And newbies will have a hell of a time trying to find armor.

PLUS, whereas before we could tell at a glance whether someone was armoured and we could decide whether to scrutinize the clothing/armor in more detail, now we have no choice, we have to scrutinize. I imagine that will detract from reading of character and NPC descriptions.

[Delirium]

For the longest time, I didn't even -notice- the tacked on 'new' meant that it was armor, yet I pretty much knew if something was going to protect you or not. It's pretty obvious whether what you've got is armor or whether it isn't most of the time.. and if it isn't, take a closer look at it.
I fail to see the big deal.

[Twilight]

It makes a huge, huge difference in combat if you are wearing armor or not, at times.  The ability to know, without a doubt, that what you are wearing is armor (whether good or not is a different question), was a big, big plus.  Perhaps instead of the "new" flag, a few things could be added to the assess command and the view command, noting that the piece looks like armor.

As for the argument over what that flag meant, you could wear a piece of armor for years and years IC and it would still be "new".  You could fight for years and years and years, in that same piece of armor, and it would still be in that condition.  What the flag really was for was to give you an idea of how badly damaged the item was, to the extent that it would compromise its ability to help defend you.  Certain things would change this quality in armor, but you could conceivably fight a long time in something, which makes sense.  Just because you fought in it doesn't mean it is so damaged that it doesn't work as well anymore, even if you did get hit.

I think this change would give a big advantage to older players over newer players going forward, if nothing was put in to be able to tell what is armor and what isn't.  Boots, for example, are pretty much inconsistent sometimes, when what you think is armor isn't and vice versa.  There are other things, like (fictional) the "leather t-shirt" which wouldn't seem to be armor at first glance, but actually is.  There could be the argument that it isn't IC to be able to tell from a flag like the condition flag whether something was armor or not.  I will agree with that, but it is IC for a character to know if something will help protect him/her/it in combat.  The "new" flag fulfilled this function.

[Bestatte]

I'm not sure I understand the problem. If you "examine" your item, and it's tattered and torn or damaged or obviously used, it'll show that in a tagline at the end of the description. I've seen things that issue a funky smell, things that are battered and worn, etc. etc. and don't show it in the short desc.

If it's trash, Salarr won't buy it, or will make a comment before offering you a really low price. That's another way to tell.

[Samoa]

Well, two things:

One, I brought a friend here, and we were getting him armour, and, actually, it *was* kinda hard to shop around and look about, because things didn't have the 'new' flag.  Sort of a hassle, but, on the other hand...

Things didn't *used* to have this sflag business.  Actually, this sflag stuff is pretty new, is it not?  We didn't *used* to have trouble distinguishing.  I think we've just grown reliant upon the condition flag to tell armour status as a crutch, and kicking the habit seems hard.

That said, it would be nice if in view or assess something showed up as armour or not, sort of like how weapons show what kind of weapon they are.

[Rindan]

I am rather boggled as to what the problem is.  First, telling the difference between armor and not armor is very easy.  Just look at the item if the sdesc isn't enough.  I really can't think of many instances where it isn't blatantly obvious.  Perhaps it might be confusing on the occasional leather item, but simply looking at the item generally clears up any confusion.  Come on now people, having to look at an item is not going to cause your eyes to fall out.  If you look at the item and you still can't tell if it is clothing or armor, then it is probably armor that is so light that it probably doesn't matter that much.  At the very worst, if you are horribly confused, just don't buy that piece of armor/clothing.  It isn't like there is a great shortage of armor in the game.

The same applies to looking over a warrior.  It is generally blatantly obvious if someone is decked out in armor.  If he has a helmet, everything else is probably armor too.  If you see anything made out of chitin or shells, that is armor.  On the rare chance that it is ambiguous, then that is probably what they are going for.  My last thief for instance wore a combination of clothing and very light armor.  I imagine that most people at a glance would had a hard time deciding if he was trying to look armored or not.  That isn't a bad thing.  If you really care that much about how well armored someone is, just look at the individual items that are confusing you.  That said, if they really are dressed so subtly, as far as  your weapon is concerned, it won't be much more then normal cloth you have to cut through.

As to confusion as to if something is worn or not, only the new flag was removed.  That means that used, tattered, and other such flags will stop pop up.  So, if you see some kank shell plate, and it just says 'a big hefty kank shell plate' then you can assume that it is in good condition.  If it has no flag to indicate condition, then it is in 'normal' (or 'new' as we used to call it) condition.

I for one love the change.  I always hated how my warriors would spam the screen with 'new' whenever you looked at them.  It was flat out ugly and distracting to see everything labeled as 'new'.  I welcome the change and would go as far to say that it is one of the best changes in the sflags in a while.

[Elven Mul]

After reading it, I think I count at least 6 mentions in this discussion that explain there are many items where it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell whether an item is actually armour or not. Some gloves, boots, bracers, and collars are just a few examples. There are also certain sleeves, pants, jackets/jerkins, etc.

Quite often the long description will not help either (particularly in the case of boots, but certainly not limited to that).

There are also items that are borderline armour, such as surmacs and "reinforced" cloth items. These aren't really armour, but they afford a bit more protection than non-armour items do, and it is now impossible to tell what they are (unless, if I understand correctly, they are no longer in "new" condition).

If you have a hard time understanding the difficulties after two pages of detailed messages on the subject, maybe you haven't thought about the matter long enough. The recent change _IS_ a problem, no matter how much it may boggle or astound you. Unless, of course, you do not consider the above a problem.

In response to other objections, I believe Confusolato said it best when he said that there is a big difference between clothing and armour, and that the two shouldn't be so difficult to tell apart (especially in a world where clothing has to be as cool as possible, and armour as protective as possible).

My feelings on the "new" tag are mixed. On one hand I am not one of those nitpicky literalists who believe that "new" must have necessarily meant in mint condition; on the other hand I can see how literalists might get finicky over something like that.

I must agree with those who mention that this could be a problem for newer players. Myself, I know many of the items in the game from memory, and will therefore be using that knowledge to negotiate my way around the armour issue. But newer players or players with less exposure won't be able to do that, and will conceivably be at a disadvantage because of that sooner or later.

[creeper386]

I'm going to have to say, first of all, the statement that, "especially in a world where clothing has to be as cool as possible, and armour as protective as possible," is true only to a point. This is STILL a desert world. It can also be true on the flip side that CLOTHING has to be as protective as possible and armour as COOL as possible.

Have to say often there isn't going to be a close difference, there well be differences, but are going to be subtle. I'd say the MUD is better off in not COMPLETELY seperately clothes from armour, and that things protect in vary degrees to how it is made and what it is made out of.

Now, on the same thing, I have to say most the armour is going to be able to be told apart, hardened and studded leather or chitin, is going to be armour, now softer leathers can be made to be protective to, and it can be a subtle difference as where the seem lines are placed and heavier stiching. Which isn't normally greatly noticable, but still haven't ever came over much of the problem.

Myself, I never really looked at that "new" tag, it annoyed the hell out of me to the point of ignoring it, alot of stuff that had the "new" flag, at a glance I could mistake as clothing, and vice versa. Now if this MUD was one that had very short to no long description on items, I could say that the "new" flag would be worthwhile, but not only are the items long descriptions ussually better descriptive and longer then PC descriptions, the short descriptions are also very good, precise and to the point.

Guess my point over here is, if you can't tell it at a glance by the short description, and your character doesn't take the time to look closer at it(Or you don't decide to look closer at the long description) and even after that you can't tell. Theres a good chance that you shouldn't be able to tell by a short little three letter word. The descriptions are accurate, a few may be alittle iffy, but I'm sure the MUD would be better for fixing those descriptions instead of spamming every where the world "new" that just looks tacky and out of place.


Creeper who isn't taking the word new to mean it's in perfect condition and STILL didn't like it, being absolutely repetetive and more often then not completely useless if it's only reason for being there was to tell if something was armour or not.

[Rindan]

If you have a hard time understanding the difficulties after two pages of detailed messages on the subject, maybe you haven't thought about the matter long enough. The recent change _IS_ a problem, no matter how much it may boggle or astound you. Unless, of course, you do not consider the above a problem.

As I already said, I don't see the above as a problem.  For me it is pretty simple.  If something is heavy or medium armor, it is blatant and obvious.  The only material that can possibly offer confusion is reinforced sandcloth.  For anything else, cloth is clothing, everything else is armor.  In the rare few cases where it is not clear, it doesn't really matter.  The difference between cloth and reinforced sandcloth to a blade is minimal, both code wise and RP wise.  If someone hits solidly, it is going to hurt.  At the point where it is gray as to if something is clothing or armor it doesn't really mater.  In the case of boots it becomes a little more hazy, but much like other items, if it is a soft tendu hide, it is not armor.  If it is made of mek or tembo hide, it is armor.  This is pretty common sense stuff.  If the description doesn't mention anything to suggest protection properties in a boot, then it probably doesn't have any or has very low properties.

The only time I can see genuine confusion that can't be sorted out just by looking at an item and going "um,  yeah, that is armor" is when you have old generic descriptions like 'a pair of leather pants' with the ldesc 'These are a pair of leather pants.'  If you run into items where you truly can't tell after spending a few moments looking at the long description, then just typo it.  The MUD is very liberal about letting people suggest changes, especially in terms of items.  The few rare freak items that are holdovers from 5+ years ago should not stop a change.  Better to fix those items then to slap new on to the end of everything.

My feelings on the "new" tag are mixed. On one hand I am not one of those nitpicky literalists who believe that "new" must have necessarily meant in mint condition; on the other hand I can see how literalists might get finicky over something like that.

It isn't a matter of literalist verse people with imaginations.  I am sure that everyone realizes that new does not mean it is brand spanking new.  The doesn't stop it from being distracting and ugly.  The tag could be "fresh out of the factory" or "really shinny" and we could also use our imaginations to know that just means it is not severely damaged.  The atmosphere is helped by trying to eliminate references to things that don't make sense within the game world.  That is why you will never see a Templar whose description is, "This women has a very sexy shape, kind of like a mid 80's Madonna look.'.   We might all know exactly what that means, but it is out of place.  Having my desert warrior's every piece of armor read 'new' is out of place.  We know what it means, but it is out of place.  If nothing else, it is flat out ugly to see a description spammed with 'new' at the end of everything.

I must agree with those who mention that this could be a problem for newer players. Myself, I know many of the items in the game from memory, and will therefore be using that knowledge to negotiate my way around the armour issue. But newer players or players with less exposure won't be able to do that, and will conceivably be at a disadvantage because of that sooner or later.

I doubt that most newbies pick up on the fact that a new tag means that an item is armor.  It isn't mentioned in any help file or any sort of public documentation.  It is something people might start to pick up on after a time, but hardly something that is obvious that new people depend on.

Finally, I am glad the new tag is gone if for no other reason then that people can focus on RP instead of maxing out on coded advantages.  I honestly had no idea that everyone was so horribly paranoid that their tendu hide boots might not be coded armor until this thread came up.  If you are wearing armor so light that you can't tell if it is going to stop a sword, then it doesn't matter if the code is going to add a -1 to total damage or not.  Further, if you truly care that much, then go find someone who knows anything about armor, let him read the ldesc for you, and he can tell you that that light crap you are wearing isn't going to stop an obsidian blade.

So, you now have a horde of options should you ever become confused as to if an item is armor or not.

A)  Get the description of the item fixed so that it is clear what the item looks like.
B)  Ask someone who knows armors and armor.  They will be able to tell you that tandu hide makes crappy armor and that tembo hide makes good armor.
C)  Accept that the -1 to damage some very light armor might give you isn't really all that important.  If you want to run into battle with cloth armor, then expect to get hurt if you are hit regardless if it is coded armor or coded clothing.
D)  Look at where you are buying the armor from.  If it is from Salarr, it is coded armor.  If it is from Kadius, it is clothing.
E)  Just go buy something else!  It isn't like there is a horrible shortage of items in the game.  16094 objects at last count.
F)  If you truly must know, then e-mail the account detailing the item, and explain to them why it is you need to exactly know if the object in question gives that -1 to damage.  If that sound foolish and like an invitation for rejection, it is because the request is foolish.  It is my deepest hope that the imms would tell someone asking to know the coded properties of an item to bug off, RP, and stop trying to min/max the perfect warrior.  If your warrior wears light crap that doesn't offer protection and most people can't tell if it is armor or clothing, then it doesn't matter if that light crap is coded armor crappy armor or coded clothing.  How do you tell the difference between armor and cloth?  The same way you tell the difference between good armor and bad armor.

There you have it, 6 ways to avoid ever getting confused about the exact coded advantages of a certain piece of armor ever again.

[Dan]

I used to feel cool becuase I had mud-flagged leggings... little off topic but go me!

I don't think its as big a problem as some are making it out to be. I like this change.

[Sanvean]

Removing "new" was something multiple people had requested. That said, bear in mind that this is still in process and that further work is being done on the sflags, including some with some nifty crafting potential. Expect to see more changes over the next month or so.