Give & Encumbrance Solutions

[Morgenes]

So, based on feedback from the Encumbrance & Fighting thread, I'd like to solicit some input on the potential issue of people giving heavy things to others in an attempt to way them down before combat.

There have been several suggestions listed above, including:

Nogive toggle that stops people from being able to give things to you.  If you have this on, you won't be able to receive items from anyone.

'Bulky' items are automatically dropped when you are attacked or attack.  This circumvents the abuse by making you drop bulky (generally heavy dependent on your size) when you attack or are attacked.

Nothing, I like the possibility.  You think this isn't abuse or is a valid tactic.

[FuSoYa]

Nogive toggle that stops people from being able to give things to you.  If you have this on, you won't be able to receive items from anyone.

The main problem I just thought of with this is when you are at the bar... I seriously would be very annoyed if I kept seeing something like this..

Code Select Expand

OOC: Turn off nogive!  I want to give you this bottle of Red Sun!

Also, the second option which I voted for is a great idea and something that should happen anyway.  I think it will create some interesting situations where raiders might use it as a tactic to rob someone... though if you are a merchant wandering through the sands carrying your goods by yourself you pretty much deserve to be robbed.

Great idea.

Brandon

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Also, the second option which I voted for is a great idea and something that should happen anyway.  I think it will create some interesting situations where raiders might use it as a tactic to rob someone... though if you are a merchant wandering through the sands carrying your goods by yourself you pretty much deserve to be robbed.

Exactly what I was thinking when I saw the idea.

[Lizzie]

The nogive might work, with limitations:

I can envision nogive as being permanently coded, non-togglable, BUT it would work more like this:

Joe's player types "give pack jane" and you see:

Joe offers to give you a backpack filled with a half-giant's weight full of peanutbutter sammies.

You want that pack, so you type:
get pack

and the code automatically defaults the one being offered as first on the list, even if there are 2 on the ground, and one in your inventory.

If you don't "get pack" then after 30 RL seconds, the offer is automatically voided. You can also "get 2.pack" to make sure you're getting the one on the ground, or keyword pack to see if someone -else- just tried offering you one in the middle of the screen-scroll.

This way, if you are with a partner, and you get ambushed and disarmed, your partner can grab the weapon as it flies out of your hand, and offer it back to you without you having to magically know in advance that you should toggle the nogive back on, before you're ever even disarmed.

[Sokotra]

I'm kinda split between choice 2 (bulky items are dropped) and choice 3 (nothing).

My first kneejerk reaction was to want a "nogive" toggle... but after thinking about it for a while, (like I said in the other thread) I decided it really isn't unrealistic for someone to shove a heavy object into your arms or against your chest or whatever.  You just have to be ready drop the item like you have to be ready to get up from resting or whatever.

But then again, you wouldn't just stand there and hold a heavy object if you are getting attacked unless you have a death wish or something or the object is uber-important... like an artifact that Lord Templar will remove your head over if you lose it.

The most realistic solution might be to have the individual holding the heavy object be forced to take a penalty for being hit the first time and then automatically drop the bulky items after that to prevent unrealistic stuff from happening like your character standing there letting themself be killed.  I guess you could have a "nodrop" toggle if you really wanted to make sure you held on to an important item no matter what.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I guess you could have a "nodrop" toggle if you really wanted to make sure you held on to an important item no matter what.

I'd rather see all items changed in the code to be holdable unless the nohold flag is toggled in creation. Then you can hold that precious angle of golden plating and fight with one sword, instead of somehow holding it in your inventory while squabbling. Right now, some items are coded as holdable and sometimes the code tells you that it is too heavy to hold. Its inaccurate, because you can hold things even if they are too heavy to use, IRL.

Dropping heavy inventory items for the win.

[brytta.leofa]

If we want to get a little complicated, a combination of (2) and (3):
- Drop heavy items in combat, with a first-round penalty.
- Add a post-command delay to "give" proportional to the object weight.

This preserves "get Amos to carry the cistern" as a valid strategy, but one that only works when Amos isn't suspicious.

[Sokotra]

Dropping heavy inventory items for the win.

I still say you would probably take a bad first hit if you are holding a heavy object or someone forces something on you and then attacks you... and you could have the "giver" take a small delay for forcing a heavy object into your arms or whatever.

If we want to get a little complicated, a combination of (2) and (3):
- Drop heavy items in combat, with a first-round penalty.
- Add a post-command delay to "give" proportional to the object weight.

This preserves "get Amos to carry the cistern" as a valid strategy, but one that only works when Amos isn't suspicious.

Exactly what I was saying to begin with... I agree with this solution.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

S'fair.

[Tisiphone]

I voted for number 2, though I think in many situations that number 3 is possibly realistic. However, what do you guys think about this?

If #2 is implemented, 'tis possible we might see people attacking others holding bulky items - which everyone can see under the sdesc - in order to grab them up off of the ground and run away with them.

I'm not sure if the above would be considered abuse or not, though.

[nyrk]

I like Lizzie's Idea.  A give-take syntax.

Give <object> <target> <emote>

You offer your <object> to <target>

On the receiving end you would type
take <object> <target>

You could even have the exchange initiated from the other side.
take <object> <target>
You attempt to take <object> from <target>

then could then type the give syntax to complete the exchange.

[brytta.leofa]

If #2 is implemented, 'tis possible we might see people attacking others holding bulky items - which everyone can see under the sdesc - in order to grab them up off of the ground and run away with them.

I think I'd file that under "a good idea" rather than "abuse."

But you could:
- Make it impossible to "flee" for the first couple rounds after you initiate combat. (Do allow disengage!)

Of course, this means a lot more posts about inix-kissing...

[RogueGunslinger]

I like Lizzies/nryk's idea as well.

[Gimfalisette]

Overall, I don't really like the MUD's current free-for-all "give" command. I've seen it possibly abused in other situations. So I'd vote for changing give somehow. I also would be quite worried about the dropping heavy items automatically thing, if that meant the attacker still got a free, encumbered-enemy attack. Not cool.

Otherwise, I don't care too much about the details.

[Fathi]

I don't know about you folks, but having to type "get ___" every time somebody tries to give my character anything ever would annoy the hell out of me. It just seems like a superfluous command for solving a problem that isn't worth the inconvenience.

Imagine situations like passing back Kruth cards (some people like to 'give card man' instead of junking it with an emote just for flavour), handing out a round of drinks in a crowded bar, etc.

I don't want to be stuck on a 30-second delay waiting to give somebody a drink in a bar only to find out they couldn't "get bottle" from me because they were in the middle of typing a three-line emote or afk or what-have-you.

Option #2 or nothing at all. Don't unnecessarily complicate such a simple command for the sake of preventing potential abuse--abuse that we don't even know is going to be rampant and has yet to be reported, just speculated upon.

[Winterless]

I like the nogive toggle because not all things that can be given are bulky. What if someone spam gives you like 20 stones or something. That's not one big bulky item, it's a bunch of smaller ones, so then if they abused it and immediately attacked you you wouldn't automatically drop them.

[Cutthroat]

Nogive is okay but it might lead to people forgetting they have it on which would necessitate the use of OOC to straighten things out. I figure option #2 would realistically happen anyway. Shouldn't really be able to fight with a bastard sword and a shield in your hands with a heavy wooden chest in your inventory. Having a give/take function would make things a bit more complicated as well.

I also would be quite worried about the dropping heavy items automatically thing, if that meant the attacker still got a free, encumbered-enemy attack. Not cool.

I agree, so I'll just throw out an idea: what if the "drop" occurs before the fighting starts if the fighting is initiated by the encumbered person or if the encumbered person is attacked by someone who can be seen, and the "drop" occurs after the fighting starts if the encumbered person is ambushed in some way (i.e. attacked by a hidden/invisible person or something similar)? That might make things a bit fairer.

(edited to fix spelling issues)

[nyrk]

Well to make the give/take thing work you could have a trust toggle

trust Amos

Amos offers you a flaming bone bastard sword
You take the flaming bone bastard sword

distrust Amos
Amos offers you a flaming bag of eldru droppings
You look at Amos's flaming bag of eldru droppings and turn away

I've seen other muds use a "consent" command which was similar,  gave higher success rates on some spells such as "summon"

By default you would trust those in your Clan  and distrust everyone else.  And trust could be used for other things as well,  such as when you have a linkdead character and you are trying to lead him to safety  If he trusts you you could hitch him and he would follow you.

[Lizzie]

and - what if that "bulky item" is the trunk containing your two-handed giant-sized uber waraxe of doom, that you NEED to actually fight this battle, that your friend just took off the wagon to give you to use? Nogive be BAD in this situation, and so would auto-bulky-item-drop.

If it was a choice between only 1 and 2, I'd say no change - keep everything as is, and change back the encumbrance "problem" to however it was before.

[Vessol]

I like both.

But if someone gives you a bulky object just before a combat, that is major abuse and OOC code abuse.

[Arabian Nights]

Dropping heavy inventory items for the win.

I still say you would probably take a bad first hit if you are holding a heavy object or someone forces something on you and then attacks you... and you could have the "giver" take a small delay for forcing a heavy object into your arms or whatever.

If we want to get a little complicated, a combination of (2) and (3):
- Drop heavy items in combat, with a first-round penalty.
- Add a post-command delay to "give" proportional to the object weight.

This preserves "get Amos to carry the cistern" as a valid strategy, but one that only works when Amos isn't suspicious.

Exactly what I was saying to begin with... I agree with this solution.

I think that this is the most fair and realistic option. I certainly don't want to have to enter a command to accept something every time somebody wants to give my pc something. That would be annoying.

[roughneck]

I posted for the toggle option because I figured that often times you would want the option of trying to flee with whatever it was that you were hauling around.

Now, reconsidering the ease and speed of movement when encumbered I think I would opt for the drop-the-heavy-shit option.  Unless the code were to seriously slow you down when encumbered so that you couldn't escape easily.

[Karo]

I think it should be a combination of 1 and 2.  Works like this:

First, you set what encumbrance level you want to stay at or under or whatever.

Second, if anyone tries giving you anything that would put you over that level, it would then require a confirmation along the lines of a simple 'accept'.

This would allow you to keep yourself from getting weighed down by people throwing rocks to you, and would also stop the need to confirm every single thing handed to you.

Also, you could toggle how heavy your willing to go so that if your in town helping carry around heavy stuff, it doesn't get in the way.

Note that this would -not- prevent you picking heavy stuff up off the ground or from shelves or anything like that.

May be a bit difficult to program, but I think it works well.

I say either that or do nothing.  If someone twinks you like this, the staff should res you and annihilate the person who did it.

[mansa]

I like both 1 and 2 at the same time!

[Qzzrbl]

I think it should be a combination of 1 and 2.  Works like this:

First, you set what encumbrance level you want to stay at or under or whatever.

Second, if anyone tries giving you anything that would put you over that level, it would then require a confirmation along the lines of a simple 'accept'.

This would allow you to keep yourself from getting weighed down by people throwing rocks to you, and would also stop the need to confirm every single thing handed to you.

Also, you could toggle how heavy your willing to go so that if your in town helping carry around heavy stuff, it doesn't get in the way.

Note that this would -not- prevent you picking heavy stuff up off the ground or from shelves or anything like that.

May be a bit difficult to program, but I think it works well.

I say either that or do nothing.  If someone twinks you like this, the staff should res you and annihilate the person who did it.

I like this.

[manonfire]

Once again, I turn to my old MUD, Dragonrealms, which solved this problem quite simply.

syntax (giving): give <item> <person>
syntax (recieving) : <accept or decline> <person giving the item>

Your end:

Code Select Expand

>give penis aging

You offer a brightly-painted, ceramic penis to the aging, spandex-clad woman.

Their end:

Code Select Expand

The trim, mask-wearing criminal offers you a brightly-painted, ceramic penis. You have thirty seconds to accept or decline their offer.

> accept trim

The trim, mask-wearing criminal gives you a brightly-painted, ceramic penis.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> decline trim

You refuse the trim, mask-wearing criminal's offer.

This also opens up the possibility of the 'exchange' command.

syntax (giving):  exchange <person> <item> <amount desired for item>
syntax (acceptance): exchange <accept or decline>

Code Select Expand


> exchange aging penis 10000

You offer the aging, spandex-clad woman a brightly-painted, ceramic penis for 10000 obsidian coins.

Code Select Expand



The trim, mask-wearing criminal offers you a brightly-painted, ceramic penis for 10000 obsidian coins.

> exchange accept

The trim, mask-wearing criminal trades a brightly-painted, ceramic penis to you for 10000 obsidian coins.

[Delstro]

I like option 2.

If give breaks sneakiness, then I don't think we need option 1.

If you are carrying something heavy, when you see someone visibly attacking you, you are either going to throw it at them, or drop it.

[Sokotra]

But if someone gives you a bulky object just before a combat, that is major abuse and OOC code abuse.

What if I drop a huge rock on you and then proceed to draw my weapon and attack?  Would that be OOC code abuse or just a dirty IC trick to get the upper hand?  Yeah, there should probably be a delay after I push a table over on you or something, but I would say that is just IC realistic, gritty fighting rather than OOC abuse.

[musashi]

I think the code abuse issue comes from the fact that the other PC has no chance whatsoever to avoid it codewise.

N/PC's always accept something "given" to them. So even if you pose dropping the rocks on a N/PC's head from your hiding spot ... what if they had AI agility? Shouldn't they have a chance to get out of the way?

Since there isn't anything coded to give them that chance ... it's better not to do it at all.

Well, as far as I'm thinking, anyway.

[Tisiphone]

Rethinking, I'd like to change my vote to #3. Not because I think shoving heavy things to people is necessarily a good combat tactic, though Sokotra does make half of a good point, but because I prefer leaving open and monitoring the possibility of abuse to either of the proposed solutions. My problem with #2 is that it more rigidly (and I think unrealistically) defines inventory.

#2 appears to assume that things in your inventory are somehow being held in your hands or in a similar encumbrance-management position. However, on second thought, I don't like that assumption. What if that heavy chest the code will make me drop is virtually strapped onto my pack? The apartment key's in a tiny pocket on one sleeve, the vestric-quill pen is stuffed partway down my shirt, and the bottle of Red Sun, I'm holding in my teeth (the better to drink it with, my dear). Right now, IG, we don't really have ways to simulate this sort of carrying things around other than the inventory system (part of the reason I'm against a hands-only inventory system), and any way I can think of other than our virtual inventory space seems clunky by comparison (e.g., adding crazy eq spots like <over pack> and <down shirt>).

[Sokotra]

What if that heavy chest the code will make me drop is virtually strapped onto my pack? The apartment key's in a tiny pocket on one sleeve, the vestric-quill pen is stuffed partway down my shirt, and the bottle of Red Sun, I'm holding in my teeth (the better to drink it with, my dear). Right now, IG, we don't really have ways to simulate this sort of carrying things around other than the inventory system (part of the reason I'm against a hands-only inventory system), and any way I can think of other than our virtual inventory space seems clunky by comparison (e.g., adding crazy eq spots like <over pack> and <down shirt>).

I agree with that line of thinking... but I'm a little less willing to think that you have a huge, bulky chest strapped to your pack or whatever rather than hefting it around.  So yeah, I'd have to agree with everything you said except for that... which is why I still think the best solution would be the following, as mentioned before:   You get a penalty when you are first attacked, but then automatically drop the heavy object (if it is in your inventory or in your hands) and if a person gives you a heavy object they get a small delay.

N/PC's always accept something "given" to them. So even if you pose dropping the rocks on a N/PC's head from your hiding spot ... what if they had AI agility? Shouldn't they have a chance to get out of the way?

Since there isn't anything coded to give them that chance ... it's better not to do it at all.

Good point.  However, you could easily give them that chance by giving them(pc's also) a chance to save in the code. (i.e. a saving throw or whatever)  For instance, when said person is attacked after having a large rock dumped on them, then the code would roll the virtual dice in order to see if they take the penalty when they are attacked or not.  AI agility may give them a better chance to roll a save and not take that penalty... or the saving throw, if successful, would allow the person to automatically drop the heavy object BEFORE they take that first hit.  Thanks for bringing that up.. it would be a good idea to put that in there if this were, in fact, to be the solution implemented.

[Synthesis]

I voted nothing.

Only because I can't -wait- to log some ass-clown doing this to me and have him burninated by the furious wrath of the admin.

[Armaddict]

Seriously?

I think you guys are implanting the idea to do it in more people's heads than the code did.

I don't think this is a serious concern.  And if it gets abused, it will be handled.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Seriously?

I think you guys are implanting the idea to do it in more people's heads than the code did.

I don't think this is a serious concern.  And if it gets abused, it will be handled.

QFTHMFT.

That said, I still say option 2. I've always thought option 2 should be in play.

[Salt Merchant]

After some thought, I voted for option two.

It makes sense in general. If you're carrying a table on your back, it would be pretty ridiculous if you didn't drop it before attacking someone or after being attacked, for example.

[Jenred]

I voted for number 1, because number 2 doesn't really make sense to me.

Just because Im attacked doesn't mean I'd randomly drop everything large Im holding.

ESPECIALLY, if I was a merchant... someone used the example of a merchant. I'd be clutching to that heavy bag for dear life if a raider attacked me, and be attempting to get away.

I just don't see the logic in being made to drop everything im holding that is large, when someone initiates "attack" on me. They could be SEVERELY unskilled in comparison to me, but because of a coded hiccup, I'd be made to drop things. I see this as just as much, if not more, abused then tossing heavy items on people.

If I saw some merchant hauling a bag of expensive goods, I could, as an unskilled merchant, attack that person knowing full well I won't kill him, just to get him to drop it so my buddy can pick it up. Or any of a number of similar situations.

CONVERSELY - I don't see how its unrealistic to be "refused" something. Having it in your inventory implies holding it in some manner, or making it be held on yourself in some manner. Just because someone "gives" me a cup at the bar, doesn't mean I'd take it. They'd have to put it in my hand and clasp my hand around it. Which I wouldn't likely do unless I was unconscious. Nogive is a fairly realistic command to me.

It should be toggleable on and off, be automatically off when sleeping, unconcious, or under certain spell effects.


As a compromise, I'd say I wouldn't mind either of the commands (1 or 2) if they were made will skill-based fail-checks. Like:
You are not GUARANTEED to drop what you are holding, but perhaps every round of combat a check is done and something like:
"You try to hold onto A Large Bag, but fail to hold it" or "You barely hold onto a Large Bag after dodging the tall muscular man's slash".


But I'd be very perturbed by a flawless whenever I'm attacked I drop everything heavy.

[Lakota]

The above poster makes a very valid point.

Personally, I have just enough trust in the pbase to agree with those who believe neither options are needed.

Honestly, I don't think any of this became an issue until one person brought to light a potential scene that might pan out as a result of the new code change. However, I've never heard of this happening in the past, nor do I think it'd be such a big issue, especially after so many in our community have shown their disdain for said tactic.

If I were to pick, though, I'd prefer to have the first option for the reasons Jenred posted above. Automatically dropping items in your inventory because you were attacked has the potential to unfairly bypass any roleplaying you were trying to hash out. i.e. Your pc is clutching an important item that can't be codedly wielded or held, and have no pack. ICly, you've got a kung fu deathgrip on this item, but when attacked, you magickally drop it. *shrug* I see potential for the second option being a failure.

The first option would of course become a nuisance. However, this is most certainly alleviated by allowing the acceptance of items to be toggled. If you want to accept items, keep nosave off for that particular thing, hrm?

[Marauder Moe]

I like option 2 because in most situations it seems more likely that the character is going to drop what they have and fight rather than hold on to it like it was more valuable than their own lives.

Also, it creates some good non-lethal raiding/robbing opportunities.


Also, I don't think we're talking about automatically dropping all items in inventory, just the big heavy ones.  If you've got a ring tucked in a virtual pocket or a third dagger stuck in your belt, you'll keep those.  You'd only lose things like logs, bags full of rocks, furniture, etc.

[Furious George]

Really bad, yet realistic option #4:
Anything over a certain weight value no longer gets to be in that strange, floating hand that follows all pcs around, but must be held or held etwo since it's so damned heavy.  Anytime you pick up something massive, you *gasp* have to have free hands, like with the lift code, and it actually goes into your wield/hold slots.

There comes a point where sacrificing realism for playability becomes an issue, but also where too much code takes away from the player's responsibility. 

My mind says the only good option is to just dump the heavy stuff in inventory when attacked and to be off balance (with a delay) if you throw something heavy at someone to engage combat.

Nogive is just ...odd.  Go through the airport sometime, on those bad busy days, you will likely end up with some sort of religious pamphlet in your hand.

[staggerlee]

The second option just seems like a nightmare to me, I'm imagining losing items when you get attacked and flee/kill an npc, pc or anything else.  Having code that automatically drops items in games leads to enormous frustration for me, it's so easy to miss in the spam, where as your character would certainly notice the loss of whatever they were carrying.


And as far as it goes, in terms of theft it seems just as open to abuse as the original code was in terms of murder.  I think the current system works as well as anything, it's a bit more versatile and simple which is a good thing, we can't code out every possible loophole in new code.

[Qzzrbl]

I say we leave it as it is.... And to just rain down fire and brimstone on anyone who tries to twink out by giving you a sack full of boulders before attacking. Along with resurrecting the victim of the twinkage.

[BreakBad]

I voted for the third option, because I don't think I would like seeing "nogive", period. Option two, however, could be a great solution, though I don't think you should just automatically drop something heavy in your inventory.

Maybe make it so that in order to draw your weapons, heavy objects have to be dropped. Something like:

>draw sword
In order to draw your sword, you drop your heavy wooden chest.
You draw a sword.

Like people have said, there are somethings that maybe your character will not want to drop, and must guard with his life.

I only read the first page, the second one didnt load so sorry if this was mentioned already.

[Sokotra]

Like people have said, there are somethings that maybe your character will not want to drop, and must guard with his life.

There could still be a "nodrop" option that you could toggle on if you are carrying something that you must guard with your life.

[Marauder Moe]

I like it.

Auto-drop bulky items when attacked/fighting + nodrop toggle to disable it.

[flurry]

I voted for dropping bulky items.  I like the addition of nodrop too (although I think we should be careful about getting carried away with too many flags to toggle for the sake of new players).

I still think it should be considered abuse to attempt to give someone bulky items to hinder them in combat, unless there is roleplay to support it being realistic for the person to accept the item.  (e.g. "Here, would you hold onto this bag for me?"  "Of course.  Give it here." Smack.)

[BreakBad]

I still think it should be considered abuse to attempt to give someone bulky items to hinder them in combat, unless there is roleplay to support it being realistic for the person to accept the item.  (e.g. "Here, would you hold onto this bag for me?"  "Of course.  Give it here." Smack.)

This part I left out of my first post.

It should be acceptable to load Amos up with gear until he won't be able to fight back, just don't do it all at once right before you draw your weapons and kill him, just toss him something every now and again until he's struggling to carry it all.

[Delstro]

Option 2 is a lot better with one of those ideas along with it.
Either you must drop the item to draw your weapons, or a new nosave feature.

[Sokotra]

So to summarize... here's the way I'd like to see it:

 - A small delay given to someone that hands you a heavy object.
 - Penalty when attacked in first round, but heavy items auto-dropped after that. (auto-drop applies only when above a certain
    encumbrance level or maybe if the item is a really heavy object above a certain weight limit)
 - A saving throw added so you might be able to save against the penalty OR a save that would make you auto-drop before you
   are dealt that first attack.
 - 'Nodrop' toggle that you can turn on when carrying extremely important items to disable the 'auto-drop'.


This would leave open the possibility of someone using the tactic of forcing a heavy object on you and attacking, but would limit it so that abuse would be less likely or less possible.  As it is now, someone could hand a heavy object to, for example, a PC that is AFK/linkdead or an NPC and they would just stand there holding the heavy object while being attacked to death.  With this solution in place, I think it would solve the problem of leaving it how it is.

[Riev]

The -only- thing I would dislike about dropping heavy objects, is that with the encumbrance change, warriors have a new training tactic, IE training with heavy shit like packs in inventory. If they were forced to drop that every combat, it seems kinda counter-intuitive.

If there was a way to make it easy to drop only heavy items which were JUST given in inventory, I would be ok, but otherwise I'd have to vote for nothing. I still voted for dropping, because I trust the players and raiders in this game about as much as a trust that dog not to piss on my foot. Oh, look, the dog is LOOKING at me in the eyes while he does it. Thats the Arm Playerbase right there.

So, yeah, I'd vote for two, even though I dislike the idea. I LIKE the idea of tossing a big log at someone and getting like, a free hit, but thats just subdue/kill all over again.

[Sephiroto]

Option 2 and the 'noggle' with the following:
Add "nodrop" command.  Characters using nodrop command on an item in their inventory will not drop the item when attacked.  This will establish a priority for item preservation.  Nodropping the same item will remove it from a priority state.  "nodrop <keyword>"  "nodrop bag"

Example 1:  Amos is carrying a baobab log in his inventory.  It is heavy.  He does not use the nodrop command.  Malik the halfling arrives from the west, jumpping out of the bushes, and attacks Amos.  Amos drops the log immediately and runs for his life.  Amos has established that the log is unimportant.

Eample 2: Amos steals 5000 obsidian coins from a weapon shop and puts them in a bag.  On his way out he also sights a bone-bladed, obsidian-edged battle axe.  He decides to take that as well.  Amos uses the 'nodrop' command on the bag of 5000 coins, but not the 500 coin battle axe.  Malik, the shop owner, arrives from the west and attacks him.  He immediately drops the heavy axe but keeps his hands on the big bag of coins and attempts to flee.  Amos has established that the bag full of money is very imortant and is worth risking his wellbeing for but the axe is not.

The addition of a 'nodrop' command to a "drop bulky items" code would allow us great flexibility.  On top of this I am also in favor of a 'noggle' command.  The three things combined should give us the greatest flexibility to handle the reception and dropping of items in any situation.

[musashi]

For the record, if the code would make you drop something in order to fight, I would like to see the added ability of being able to "guard" an object as well as a person.

You're a half-giant with a big club carrying a heavy oak chest of your master's under one arm, and two folks leap out at you. If the code is going to make you drop the chest to draw your club, or some such, I would also like for the code to give you a chance to swing that club at anyone who tries to get close to your feet and grab the chest.

That way every pair of newbies could not instantly become highwaymen extrodanaire!

[Sokotra]

You can guard items.  I just wish you could still -attempt- to guard items during combat... although it would probably fail most of the time until you got really good at it.

[X-D]

I had to vote nothing.

But not because I think it is a valid tactic, or even that it might not be a problem. I just think that it is something that the request tool/player complaint is for. That and I don't like the other options givin.

[Jenred]

A nodrop command is just as bad as dropping items in the first place.

It establishes that its realistic to drop large things when attacked, It is not.

And it also adds another inconvienceing thing to toggle on an item. Which is another thing to remember.

Just because someone is attacked does not mean they fight back, or drop things. Knocked down? Sure, I can see that causing someone to drop something. Disarm? maybe have that work with items in the inventory too.


If it came down to either 1 or 2, I'd much rather see 1, at least then there arn't any weird arbitrary laws governing how I hold my possessions.

At least not accepting things from people with a nogive command is realistic. If someone hands me something in real life, and I don't want it, I don't voluntarily extend out my hand and receive it.

[Lakota]

Let's compromise. Tell ya'll what: make option #2 toggable and you'll win me over. 

[Ender]

A nodrop command is just as bad as dropping items in the first place.

It establishes that its realistic to drop large things when attacked, It is not.

And it also adds another inconvienceing thing to toggle on an item. Which is another thing to remember.

Just because someone is attacked does not mean they fight back, or drop things. Knocked down? Sure, I can see that causing someone to drop something. Disarm? maybe have that work with items in the inventory too.


If it came down to either 1 or 2, I'd much rather see 1, at least then there arn't any weird arbitrary laws governing how I hold my possessions.

At least not accepting things from people with a nogive command is realistic. If someone hands me something in real life, and I don't want it, I don't voluntarily extend out my hand and receive it.

I'm in agreement as well.  It's always been one of those minor things that's bugged me.  Plenty of people over the years have tried to give me things I didn't want to take, and it's really easy to just not take them IRL.

To illustrate my point, here's someone who really doesn't want the glasses someone else it trying to give him:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqKFadyJxwg

I'd say with nogive the only ways to give something to someone would be with plant/throw/archery or if they were subdued or unconscious.

[Delstro]

At least not accepting things from people with a nogive command is realistic. If someone hands me something in real life, and I don't want it, I don't voluntarily extend out my hand and receive it.

No more realistic than number two is.
The situation: You are walking down the street minding your own, maybe even on your ipod. I am just another random person on the street. I'm betting if I shoved a backpack towards your torso, you would open your arms to take it. I'm betting you would. Now, if I tried to punch you in the face, you might clutch that ipod that is already in your hand, but you are going to drop that backpack.


My point:
If you are holding something heavy(I.E. a couple boxes of paper, a mini-fridge, an unwieldy sized computer box), you are most likely going to drop that heavy thing because a) You just got unbalanced b)You can't attack somebody effectively with a couple boxes of paper c)You just got attacked and you don't care about the item anymore.

[brytta.leofa]

Normally there's a limit to how many items you can have in inventory (which seems related to Agility).

Can someone give you more items than you could otherwise hold?  i.e. does give bypass the number-of-items check?

[Tisiphone]

Can someone give you more items than you could otherwise hold?  i.e. does give bypass the number-of-items check?

No.

[Only He Stands There]

I vote #3, not because it's a valid tactic or because I like it, but because I really don't foresee this becoming such a huge, rampant problem that we need to make coded preventions for it. Encumbrance penalties have been in for forever and a day, and well known, albeit not as dire as they are now -- and when was the last time a mul raider threw a bag of obsidian slag into your arms before he cut you down?

Unnecessary and unwieldy. KISS method.

[Synthesis]

Heh, reminds me of that fencing video on YouTube, where the guy throws a sword way up in the air for his opponent to catch, and then kicks her off the stage while she's timing the catch.

[mansa]

Once again, I turn to my old MUD, Dragonrealms, which solved this problem quite simply.

syntax (giving): give <item> <person>
syntax (recieving) : <accept or decline> <person giving the item>

Your end:

Code Select Expand

>give penis aging

You offer a brightly-painted, ceramic penis to the aging, spandex-clad woman.

Their end:

Code Select Expand

The trim, mask-wearing criminal offers you a brightly-painted, ceramic penis. You have thirty seconds to accept or decline their offer.

> accept trim

The trim, mask-wearing criminal gives you a brightly-painted, ceramic penis.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> decline trim

You refuse the trim, mask-wearing criminal's offer.

This also opens up the possibility of the 'exchange' command.

syntax (giving):  exchange <person> <item> <amount desired for item>
syntax (acceptance): exchange <accept or decline>

Code Select Expand


> exchange aging penis 10000

You offer the aging, spandex-clad woman a brightly-painted, ceramic penis for 10000 obsidian coins.

Code Select Expand



The trim, mask-wearing criminal offers you a brightly-painted, ceramic penis for 10000 obsidian coins.

> exchange accept

The trim, mask-wearing criminal trades a brightly-painted, ceramic penis to you for 10000 obsidian coins.

I like I like!

[Obeliskocism]

I don't like the automatic drop idea, because what if someone is carrying a bag of jewels or a basinet with a baby, and the last thing they'd do is drop it, at the cost of their own life?  They would cover it with their bodies and get beaten protecting it, maybe be choice, and I wouldn't want code to rob them of this or making it an easy way for someone to be robbed.  Attack someone with a heavy object, flee, run back in, grab the object, and run out.  -ick.

And I think people should be able to accent an item while fighting.  There are times when you'd want to.  You get disarmed and your sidekick wants to toss you a backup heavy broadsword.  I wouldn't want code to rob you of that cinematic action sequence either.  I say leave it like it is.  You can type 'drop <item>' as fast as the other guy typed 'give <item>' and while he's typing 'attack <you>'.

[Sokotra]

 - A small delay given to someone that hands you a heavy object.
 - Penalty when attacked in first round, but heavy items auto-dropped after that. (auto-drop applies only when above a certain
    encumbrance level or maybe if the item is a really heavy object above a certain weight limit)
 - A saving throw added so you might be able to save against the penalty OR a save that would make you auto-drop before you
   are dealt that first attack.
 - 'Nodrop' toggle that you can turn on when carrying extremely important items to disable the 'auto-drop'.

[Yam]

Couldn't we just trust everyone to not abuse this system?

[Delstro]

Couldn't we just trust everyone to not abuse this system?

Yes, we should, IMHO. It isn't -that- big of a deal. It happens every once in a blue moon, so I don't care.

[Is Friday]

Is there any way to hot-flag an item for 30 seconds to 1 minute after it's given to someone, and have it be dropped if it's heavy and just-been-given if someone attacks them?

[Karo]

I'm surprised this hasn't come up.

There are alot of people supporting and casting down option 2.


I'd like to point out a few possibilities.

For those who really like the idea of option 2, if it doesn't get implimented, you could always create a trigger to drop heavy things you would commonly be carrying and not care about (logs, chests of sid, boulders) whenever you got into a fight.  Or if you don't want it to be a trigger, make an alias for it, you could even do it through the Arm alias system I'm sure.

For those who don't like option 2.  I'd assume that they would make this an entirely optional piece of code.  If you don't -want- your character to chuck everything but his skivvies when you enter combat, just turn off the option.

Now, I think it would be easier for the people who don't like option 2 to simply turn off the stuff then it would be for the people who like option 2 to make a trigger/alias to do it.  In that light, I think it would be the best option to implement system 2.

Oh, and option 5:
give an after delay to giving any item based on how heavy it was.  So you could pass around a sword or waterskin easily, but handing someone a bunch of boulders would put you off for a while (much less time then it would take them to drop them.)

[brytta.leofa]

One advantage of the auto-drop option is that it protects NPCs.

[Jenred]

Many people in their arguments are implying that everyone will "try to fight back" and thus "drop what they are holding in order to fight". Not everyone is brave, not everyone is a fighter, not everyone wants to drop their valuables.

Especially if you consider the ambiguity to how items in the inventory are represented. Not everything in your inventory is being held in your two hands, or in your arms, or you wouldn't be able to have an inventory while dual-wielding things.

A bag might not be in your hands, but strapped to something. A chunk of obsidian might be slung somehow in a length of leather.

The list goes on.

Just because I get attacked does not mean that the things strapped to my backpack would all fall off.

If you are physically "holding" the heavy item, maybe. But not from the inventory, unless the inventory ambiguity is cleared up.

[staggerlee]

Maybe we should all take a couple days and make sure that the difference after the code change is large enough to warrant all the fuss.
Personally I haven't noticed that it's been too debilitating, though I haven't really played with the extreme ends or anything.

[a strange shadow]

I think we should leave it as is.

If you're carrying something heavy, pack it to an animal or deal with the risk.

"But I might get attacked!"

Boo hoo hoo, cry me a fucking river. It's called 'realistic conflict', baby. I cringe to imagine the "hey, he's carrying something heavy, let's go jump him" scenes that will ensue if the auto-drop code goes in. Feels like a clunky workaround to me. It doesn't fix the underlying fear which I feel is way overblown anyway.

[Sokotra]

One advantage of the auto-drop option is that it protects NPCs.

Exactly.. and people that are AFK or linkdead.  Sure, you can set up aliases, but I think this would be a good addition to the game that would keep people from having to setup scripts and aliases and crap to keep up with all the other "leet" players. 

Just because I get attacked does not mean that the things strapped to my backpack would all fall off.

Which is why a "nodrop" toggle was suggested.  Turn it on or off depending on the importance of the heavy item or depending on how you feel like playing or if you just don't like the auto-drop at all.

I cringe to imagine the "hey, he's carrying something heavy, let's go jump him" scenes that will ensue if the auto-drop code goes in.

Yeah, it would happen anyway... auto-drop has nothing to do with the penalty you take for being over-encumbered.   Auto-drop would solve the problem of unrealistically standing there holding a heavy item in both arms while you are beat to death... or drawing weapons or other things.  Unless you want to go the other direction and have a coded response of "You cannot draw your weapons unless you drop <heavy object>."  or something like that.  I think that would just cause more problems, even though it would fix a realism issue.  The auto-drop would fix multiple problems and would work pretty realistically with the additions I/we suggested.  *shrug*

[Maso]

I didn't read the entire thread, but I am all for a combination of idea #1 and Lizzie's idea. Rather than have 'give' toggled so you either can accept or you can't, have it toggle so that you either can accept or it just gives you an option to reject/accept.

I don't like number 2, I don't want to be attacked in order for someone to make me drop something I was carrying. I don't want to be forced to drop something.

Shame it's come to this, I'm not actually a fan of the changes to encumberance.

[number13]

I'm carrying a table. Someone hits me with hammer. What happens next?  Probably I drop the table and start crying. Option #2 it is.

People dragging heavy things -- in their arms -- across the desert should be open for attack. Asking for it even. Note, we aren't talking about a little bag full of leaves here. Big chucks of sid, furniture, massively heavy sacks full of rocks, etc.

As stated by others, option #2 also protects NPCs and the linkdead. It doesn't add any new interface to the game; a good thing in a game already laden with syntax  and behaviors for newer players to discover.

Caveat: items packed on a mount shouldn't autodrop when the mount is attacked.

[Ashes]

Why do we need any option at all?  If someone hands you a big, heavy bag full of severed elven dicks to slow you down in combat, there's nothing stopping you from just giving it back to them.

[mansa]

Why do we need any option at all?  If someone hands you a big, heavy bag full of severed elven dicks to slow you down in combat, there's nothing stopping you from just giving it back to them.

Because you'll probably be hit for 60 hit points before you notice that someone gave you a back of dicks, and then hit for 60 more while trying to type drop all.

[Ashes]

Point taken.

[Kill4Free]

look

A raider stands here, weapons drawn

Raider says: Drop your pack or you die.

give raider log
give raider log
give raider log
give raider log

ep lumberaxe

kill raider

You do unspeakable damage to a raider's neck with your chop.
raider lets out a cry of pain
raider drops to the ground

[Armaddict]

Why do we need any option at all?  If someone hands you a big, heavy bag full of severed elven dicks to slow you down in combat, there's nothing stopping you from just giving it back to them.

Because you'll probably be hit for 60 hit points before you notice that someone gave you a back of dicks, and then hit for 60 more while trying to type drop all.

Which you would then email about, and it would be blatant abuse, and you'd probably get your character back anyway.

[Marauder Moe]

My understanding is that the staff do not give out resurrections for characters killed by code abuse.  I could be wrong, though.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

You know ... I still have not had a chance to fight under these new restrictions. Anybody notice a huge difference?

[Desertman]

My understanding is that the staff do not give out resurrections for characters killed by code abuse.  I could be wrong, though.

This is true, they only give characters back if you die from a code glitch....

Sometimes.

I have seen people get rezzed after accidentally fireballing themselves, I have seen them get rezzed after accidently running off the Shield Wall (Twice with the same PC actually, this was back before the "insta-stop no fall" code was put in). I have seen them get rezzed for accidentally walking into the Sea of Silt. And I have seen them get rezzed, this one is good, for accidentally eating something they posioned themselves and dieing.

None of which were code glitches, so my assumption is its very much based on character by character basis. 

I can kind of see why though, all of the above PC's were deeply involved in World plots, and as such, having them suddenly die and end thier important parts in these plots would be a huge bummer, not only for the staff pushing the plots, the player of the PC, but also for all of those PC's depending on the "now dead" PC for thier enjoyment.

Not everything is black and white, if you think you deserve a rez, regardless of how you died, send in a email, it does happen often enough that its worth your time to try and get your pc back.

[Forest Junkie]

You know ... I still have not had a chance to fight under these new restrictions. Anybody notice a huge difference?

Y-E-S