Give & Encumbrance Solutions

[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.