Let's arrange ALL THE THINGS.

[i can haz mantis]

Sooo... being the OCD person that I am, I'd really like it if you could:

>arrange all.log ~ are stacked in a pile
Shown to the room as Many agafari logs are stacked in a pile.
Shown to the room as A few baobab logs are stacked in a pile.

Because it is very tedious to have to:
>arrange log ~ are stacked in a pile
>arrange 2.log ~ are stacked in a pile
>arrange 3.log ~ are stacked in a pile
etc...

Especially when there are several items with that particular keyword in the room that you would like arranged with the same description. Or even several different chests that you'd all like arranged the same way.


Edit to add: Also, it would be great if you have several items in your inventory:

>i
You are carrying:
several pieces of bone
a wooden tankard

And then could drop them using the following:
>drop all.bone ~ are in a pile

And you drop ALL the bones with that arrangement. Currently, doing so only affects the first item dropped.

[Refugee]

Oh yes.  Please.

[chrisdcoulombe]

That would be amazing.

[Zul]

No, this would simply be too much to code with too little benefit. Be the change.


Seriously, I love this idea. Yes please.

[Marauder Moe]

Are you sure this can't be done already?


If not, you could do:
>get all.log
>drop all.log <desc>

(Do it quick before you fill up your inventory)

[i can haz mantis]

Are you sure this can't be done already?


If not, you could do:
>get all.log
>drop all.log <desc>

(Do it quick before you fill up your inventory)

Yes. I'm quite sure. Doing >drop all.item <desc> only results in the first item dropped being arranged that way.

[Delirium]

Yes, please.

[Riev]

THIS, I am for. Turning repetitive commands into a catch-all command, I back.

[LauraMars]

I'm experiencing a range of positive emotions right now

[Vwest]

This.

Absolutely this.

[InsertCleverNameHere]

Absolutely PLEASE!!!

[Barsook]

I dig this.

[Lizzie]

I love the idea, but remind you all of a minor little nitpick on the player side.

When you drop [item] ~ blah blah blah.

And you have "A few logs are spread out along the west corner of the room"

and someone takes four of them

you end up with:

A log are spread out along the west corner of the room.

The only way this will fix itself is if you do *not* use the ~.

And so

drop [item] blah blah no tilde..

give you:

A few logs are here, spread out along the western corner of the room.
and when someone takes four away, it defaults to:

A log is here, spread out along the western corner of the room.

[Samoa]

and someone takes four of them

Burden is on the player who reduces it to a single object to fix the drop desc. All it takes is an arrange.

[Ouroboros]

and someone takes four of them

Burden is on the player who reduces it to a single object to fix the drop desc. All it takes is an arrange.

I'm inclined to agree, and I personally always do, but that's because I prefer to see descriptions that don't include "is/are here" in them. It's jarring for me for some reason. My first train of thought is often, "Damn they're here? Already? Do they come in peace? Now what, do I need to bring them biscuits and tea? Where's the teapot, damn it. Oh, great, it's -here- too." And panic often ensues from there.

Back on point though.... YES PLEASE!

[Barsook]

I love the idea, but remind you all of a minor little nitpick on the player side.

When you drop [item] ~ blah blah blah.

And you have "A few logs are spread out along the west corner of the room"

and someone takes four of them

you end up with:

A log are spread out along the west corner of the room.

The only way this will fix itself is if you do *not* use the ~.

And so

drop [item] blah blah no tilde..

give you:

A few logs are here, spread out along the western corner of the room.
and when someone takes four away, it defaults to:

A log is here, spread out along the western corner of the room.

I dig that last part too.  Maybe have a multiplier in the command too?

[Suhuy]

Awesome idea!

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I like this idea a lot.

[catchall]

I'm not saying this idea wouldn't be nice to have, but in the meantime, there's almost always a less tedious way to execute tasks like this with a decent client that has command stacking and repetition.

In this case, there's no need for "arrange 1.log ... " "arrange 2.log ..." etc.

Assume you have six logs (in the room): then just enter "craft 6.log; arrange log ~ <YOUR LDESC HERE>", then repeat that command six times using your client's command repetition.  All done.

If the items are in your inventory, it's even easier.  You just repeat the same drop command.

If the specifics of this example distract you: You can do it with things that aren't logs, or with a number of items not equal to six, but it doesn't magically make the verb agree!  Enjoy!

(Edited to be easier to understand.)

[Lizzie]

I'm not saying this idea wouldn't be nice to have, but in the meantime, there's almost always a less tedious way to execute tasks like this with a decent client that has command stacking and repetition.

In this case, there's no need for "arrange 1.log ... " "arrange 2.log ..." etc.

Assume you have six logs (in the room): then just enter "craft 6.log; arrange log ~ is sitting in the corner."  Then repeat that command six times using your client's command repetition.  All done.

If the items are in your inventory, it's even easier.  You just repeat the same drop command.

When you do it that way, the end result is:

Several logs is sitting in the corner.

That's the present "issue" with the code - if you use the tilde, it uses whatever verb you type as the active verb. If you don't use the tilde, you're stuck with the "is/are here" vernacular, which is awkward at times, redundant always (where else WOULD they be, if not "here?")

[catchall]

When you do it that way, the end result is:

Several logs is sitting in the corner.

Big deal, use "are."  This thread was for multiple-item arranging.  This funny verb agreement thing only came up partway through the thread.

[Lizzie]

When you do it that way, the end result is:

Several logs is sitting in the corner.

Big deal, use "are."  This thread was for multiple-item arranging.  This funny verb agreement thing only came up partway through the thread.

And then when there's one log left, you end up with

A log are sitting in the corner.

So you have to stand up, arrange the last log, then sit back down to do whatever you were doing with the logs.

The whole point of the thread is to streamline the process so that you don't end up with weird or incorrect verbs or extra steps to take just to fix one item that throws everything out of whack.

I'd love to see more dynamic code - some mucks I believe accommodate it, but I don't know the code behind it. Basically you'd do something like..

drop log [@ *piled up* in a corner]

and if there's one log, you see:

A log is in a corner.

if there are a few logs, you'd see

A few logs are piled up in a corner.

[catchall]

The whole point of the thread is to streamline the process so that you don't end up with weird or incorrect verbs or extra steps to take just to fix one item that throws everything out of whack.

Did you even read the thread?  It's about arranging multiple items.  You brought up verb agreement halfway through as a "minor nitpick" and just promoted it to "the whole point of the thread."

[IssacF]

+1. I agree with the ideas.

[Lizzie]

The whole point of the thread is to streamline the process so that you don't end up with weird or incorrect verbs or extra steps to take just to fix one item that throws everything out of whack.

Did you even read the thread?  It's about arranging multiple items.  You brought up verb agreement halfway through as a "minor nitpick" and just promoted it to "the whole point of the thread."

I was being facetious about it being a minor little nitpick. Any time the code forces me to use an incorrect word, it bugs the shit out of me.

And yes, it IS the whole point of the thread. To be able to drop multiple items. When you do that, it needs to be done so that the result is correct. If it's not going to be correct, then there's no point in doing it at all. Any coder can code something wrong. This isn't that mud. In THIS mud, our coders try to do it right.

[Maso]

If I pick up a bunch of items and leave one....and then the dropdesc is all grammatically incorrect...I fix it. Tada!

[catchall]

I was being facetious about it being a minor little nitpick. Any time the code forces me to use an incorrect word, it bugs the shit out of me.

So you were "facetiously" declaring your personal pet peeve to be a minor nitpick (and believe me, it is), and expect others in the discussion to automatically crown it "the whole point of the thread."  You have to understand how that doesn't facilitate productive discussion, right?

I appreciate that you have a personal derail that you consider to be very important and I apologize that my direct response to the issue brought up in the OP did not address your particular pet derail.  I suggest that you start a thread where you propose a more sophisticated operator that will tag a verb for potential context-based third-person singular inflection.  It will also apply to the use of "#" in emotes.  This is one clue that we're talking about a completely different idea with a completely different technical scope.

Arrange is a command that sets a string value of an object. This thread suggested allowing that command to set a string value to a whole stack of identical objects simultaneously.  Very simple: Set string value of one object => Set string value of stack of objects.

I offered a much faster way to set the string value of a stack of objects than the tedious way that another player mentioned using.  That method works perfectly!  It sets the string values to exactly the value you provide.  No, it doesn't turn "arrange" into a grammar-checker (or for that matter, solve world hunger).  I promise that when you start your thread about adding grammatical functionality to 'arrange,' I won't clutter it up with posts that don't address that issue.


(You might be interested to look up the CS terms "separation of concerns" and "garbage in, garbage out," which are both relevant here. Your insistence on lumping everything together makes it obvious you don't have much experience solving computational problems. You don't need that kind of knowledge, but it may you understand why when someone brings up Problem X, and someone else offers a partial solution to Problem X, it's really not relevant to offer a belabored explanation of why the solution doesn't fix Problem Y, which everyone already understands.)

Added: BTW, I enjoy derails, but if you're going to subtly derail a thread in your own mind, you can at least let people continue to discuss the OP.