Additional Keywords

[Larrath]

It's small, but I really think it could help a lot.  I see two variations.

Code Select Expand


> look
The Room
  This is a room that Larrath wrote even though he's tired as hell but whatever.
It's got walls and floor and a ceiling and some stuffed tregils and some stuffed ginka fruit and yum ginka fruit yum yum now you made me hungry damnit.
A small ruby ring has been left here.
A small ruby hand grenade is sitting here.
A large, priceless ruby is lying here.
A ruby-framed painting is here.

> get ruby.grenade
You get a ruby hand grenade.

> look ruby.painting
This is a painting, but Larrath isn't writing it so screw you.


Basically, let us add a period and a second (or more) keyword to our commands.

The second variation includes three special 'keywords', and those would also help clear up what we PCs want to refer to, and giving the Remove command an extra set of these keywords.  The Remove keywords would let players specify the location (head or shoulder) or a keyword and a location (for those people with 25 rings), and generally prevent people putting away their knife belts instead of their daggers by accident.

Code Select Expand


> put diamond.inventory backpack
You put [diamond from inventory] inside a backpack.
> put hat.equipment backpack
You remove a small black hat and put it inside a backpack.

> look cloak.room
Blah blah blah cloaked figure.

> remove leather.waist
You remove a leather belt.


I would really like to see this addition, and I hope it won't be too hard to code in.
Feel free to agree with me, everybody.

[Marauder Moe]

I understand a lot of MUDs already have this.  Considering we do have "2.keyword" and the new multi-keyword contact, I don't understand why this hasn't been added as well.

Don't forget the ability to use "emote scratches his head as he studies ~ruby.painting".  We'd need that too.

[Hymwen]

I see the point, but isn't it easier to type "get 2.ruby" than "get ruby.grenade"?

[Larrath]

I see the point, but isn't it easier to type "get 2.ruby" than "get ruby.grenade"?

Not in a room that has fifty objects dropped on the floor and three Ruby objects.  It would be much less jarring to smooth roleplay to just type a little extra but be sure to get what you want instead of spending five minutes just picking up that one item.
Also, sometimes putting down/away the wrong object can be critical, though I won't give a more specific explanation due to ICness.

Sometimes you need to target that figure in the brown duster as opposed to that brown-haired guy and the dude in the black duster.  This would help against all sorts of mishaps, especially with the .eq/.room/.inv keywords, making everything much smoother.

[James de Monet]

I see the point, but isn't it easier to type "get 2.ruby" than "get ruby.grenade"?

Well yes, but then sometimes it's:

Inside a nondescript chest:
a couple of ugly rings
a few nice-looking rocks
several nondescript rocks
many ugly stones
an ugly rock

So what do you type if you want the ugly rock?  You have to take out a whole bunch of the other things first or just start guessing "get 12.rock chest" etc.

[Hymwen]

Not in a room that has fifty objects dropped on the floor and three Ruby objects

Oh yeah, I guess that's true. I was only looking at the example log you gave.

[spawnloser]

You?  James do Money = Larrath?

On topic, I like the idea and would love to see something along these lines in.  Maybe grouping keywords somehow?  I don't think we could use parentheses, but something along those lines?

Code Select Expand

> get {ruby grenade}

[Hymwen]

You? James do Money = Larrath?

Shut up.  :roll:

[Morfeus]

Well yes, but then sometimes it's:

Inside a nondescript chest:
a couple of ugly rings
a few nice-looking rocks
several nondescript rocks
many ugly stones
an ugly rock

So what do you type if you want the ugly rock?  You have to take out a whole bunch of the other things first or just start guessing "get 12.rock chest" etc.

count rock chest
get <the last>.rock chest


Sorry, I could not resist the urge. I like the idea of multiple keywords, really.

[DesertT]

I like it too.  Multiple key-words!  Yay!!

[bloodfromstone]

While I accept that it is possible to get along without it, multiple keyword targetting is something that I think Arm is sorely missing. Yes, you can count then get 58.hide or assess every elf in the room, etc, but mutiple keyword targetting would make things so much smoother and eliminate a lot of accidently targettings.