Give & Encumbrance Solutions

[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.