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.