Drop It Like It's Hot (your input requested)

[Oryx]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAYL5H46QnQ

I was having this chat with Nessalin and it went like this. Actually, I'm going to paraphrase. So, I was saying, hey, sometimes I use the drop command and the drop message doesn't fit very well. The command for it is fine. For instance, I would never just drop a cradle. I'd set it down. Most things, in fact, I would set down. If you and I are sitting on cushions in the Storm's End and I want to place the wine bottle between us? I'm not going to drop that. That would be a foolish waste of a good bottle of wine.

Currently we have: >drop bottle
Oryx drops a bottle of fancy wine.
I see: >drop bottle
You drop a bottle of fancy wine.
(I know this will happen ahead of time, so I try to cushion this incoming response with command emotes. -Gently, Oryx drops a bottle of wine, [without breaking it].)

In Oryx's world, a change in the echo would look like this: >drop bottle
Oryx sets down a bottle of fancy wine.
I would see: >drop bottle
You set down a bottle of fancy wine.

Draugr suggests let go of. That would look like this: >drop bottle
Draugr lets go of a bottle of fancy wine.
Draugr would see: >drop bottle
You let go of a bottle of fancy wine.

Akariel suggests that we could change the command functionality for put. That would look like this: >put bottle down
Akariel puts a bottle of fancy wine down.
Akariel would see: >put bottle down
You put a bottle of fancy wine down.
This has the benefit of congruency between the command and output, so I think it's functionally more elegant than changing the echo for the drop command. (I think his idea is better but I'm putting all ideas out so we can have the best possible idea pile)

In all instances, you'd still get to apply command emotes ()[] to alter the full look of it.

Now, Nessalin points out, hey, this would be a pretty big change. We should open it up to the community to see what they think. I get hyped, because I'm sure there are more and likely better ways to phrase this, so lay it on me. Do you like it how it is? Is it nicer if the response is linked intuitively to the command? Do you have an improved suggestion on phrasing? Is this a bad idea?

[Lizzie]

I love the idea of having DOWN be an additional placement for PUT. However I feel anything that would already spill by using the drop command would need to be changed to not spill when you put it down (like a bowl of stew, if that is a thing. I know you can't put a bowl of stew in your backpack, it spills).

You could even have a drop command ALSO - for people who really and truly do intend to drop something, not merely put it down.

[Oryx]

Lizzie, I feel like my post was confusing because it implied that we would also change objects to make them spill when using the current drop command.
That change isn't on the table, so to speak. That's just how the current echo reads to me, if that makes sense. Maybe I should have used the cradle in my examples.

[mansa]

I believe this is most important:

The echo of the game should mimic the command typed into the game.


First:

Draugr : >drop bottle
You let go of a bottle of fancy wine. - this would be cool if it was items you were holding/wielding


Next:

>put bottle down
>put bottle ground
>place bottle down
>place bottle ground

- please include all of this!   It would be great if the command typed in returns the echo of the command used - 'place bottle down' echos you place the bottle on the ground and 'put bottle ground' echos you put the bottle on the ground.




Oryx : >drop bottle
You set down a bottle of fancy wine. - this makes me read and think about a 'set' command, and to try and use it in the future, rather than a drop command.  I think it might get too close to the oset, rset, mset commands and there might be some mistakes make.

[John]

Akariel suggests that we could change the command functionality for put. That would look like this: >put bottle down
Akariel puts a bottle of fancy wine down.
Akariel would see: >put bottle down
You put a bottle of fancy wine down.
This has the benefit of congruency between the command and output, so I think it's functionally more elegant than changing the echo for the drop command. (I think his idea is better but I'm putting all ideas out so we can have the best possible idea pile)

In all instances, you'd still get to apply command emotes ()[] to alter the full look of it.

I'll give it some more thought later. But an immediate point I want to raise is "put bottle down" should be the exact same syntax as "empty bag ground". So it would be "put bottle ground".

As for how we could emote that emote put bottle ground (letting it smash) [causing the liquid inside to spill everywhere] would echo as:
Letting it smash, the man puts a bottle on the ground causing the liquid to spill everywhere."

[Kyviantre]

Sometimes I RP throwing non-damaging things at people's heads/the wall (food, nasty things I find in the rinth, etc) and missing...I use the drop command then.  None of the above would work for that, since I wouldn't be placing/putting down anything.

Draugr's is the closest to being universally 'making sense' for all instances of dropping things that I can think of.

But I guess I mostly just consider 'drop' to be a multi-functional thing that does whatever it 'needs' to at the moment, and don't consider it immersion breaking that the text doesn't necessarily always flow.

[valeria]

I honestly thing that changing it from the "drop" echo without changing the "drop" command will be potentially confusing.

That said, I prefer Draugr's "let go of" option because putting down and setting down imply purposeful movement and a direction, and you wouldn't say that you "put down" something on the top of a high shelf, which you might be doing.

[LindseyBalboa]

Drop is a pretty universal command that shouldn't be changed, in my opinion. It's the same here as it is on some other MU*. It's hard wired into muscle memory as the command to use when putting something down.

Because of that ubiquitousness, drop isn't immersion breaking to me. Let go has the most variety and lack of implication of the suggested changes imo, though.

[betweenford]

Maybe a material dependent drop echo for items would be more appropriate? I feel like it'd be a great idea either way.

"Fragile" materials that often compose bottles, jewelry, etc like gem, ceramic, glass could be "set down".
Cloth items could be "lain down" onto the ground. Cloth, sandcloth, silk, etc.

[Bushranger]

Akariel suggests that we could change the command functionality for put. That would look like this: >put bottle down
Akariel puts a bottle of fancy wine down.
Akariel would see: >put bottle down
You put a bottle of fancy wine down.
This has the benefit of congruency between the command and output, so I think it's functionally more elegant than changing the echo for the drop command. (I think his idea is better but I'm putting all ideas out so we can have the best possible idea pile)

In all instances, you'd still get to apply command emotes ()[] to alter the full look of it.

I'll give it some more thought later. But an immediate point I want to raise is "put bottle down" should be the exact same syntax as "empty bag ground". So it would be "put bottle ground".

As for how we could emote that emote put bottle ground (letting it smash) [causing the liquid inside to spill everywhere] would echo as:
Letting it smash, the man puts a bottle on the ground causing the liquid to spill everywhere."

I like Akariel's idea, especially with John's addendum of using ground instead of down to maintain the same style and syntax as the empty command, so I will add my support for that. I also think that the drop command should be left in so that those of us with many years of history and long term habits will not find ourselves in a situation where he need to suddenly drop the chest we just picked up and can't remember the new >put chest ground command because three gith riding mekillots charged us and we're panicked!

[Thomoto]

I believe this is most important:

The echo of the game should mimic the command typed into the game.


First:

Draugr : >drop bottle
You let go of a bottle of fancy wine. - this would be cool if it was items you were holding/wielding


Next:

>put bottle down
>put bottle ground
>place bottle down
>place bottle ground

- please include all of this!   It would be great if the command typed in returns the echo of the command used - 'place bottle down' echos you place the bottle on the ground and 'put bottle ground' echos you put the bottle on the ground.




Oryx : >drop bottle
You set down a bottle of fancy wine. - this makes me read and think about a 'set' command, and to try and use it in the future, rather than a drop command.  I think it might get too close to the oset, rset, mset commands and there might be some mistakes make.

I love the idea Oryx! And mansa that would make sense yes. Fuck it lets do it.

[Vex]

I'm pretty OK, with drop as it is.

It's functional and, as others have said, pretty much a universal to at least MUDs, if not most MUs.

[Raptor_Dan]

Put (object) ground, please.

I'm still going to use drop for approx. three years after this change though, then slowly begin to integrate it.

[ChuciPeppers]

Leave drop alone. The barrier for new players is already a lot. Making it hard for them to get rid of stuff in their inventory without looking up a help file probably won't help that.

Do add the put and set stuff, though. But with the ground vs down option, unless you want to do both, which would be cool.

/2sid

[mirk_o_loio]

Just make the drop command produce different echoes for different items.

>drop stone
You drop the copper-infused stone of death and doom.

>drop bottle
You set down the curvaceous, gnarled bottle.

((Items in this are a work of fiction. Any and all resemblances to IRL/IG items is purely coincidential))

I also don't get how this would make people think it'll be a 'set bottle down' next time around.

Like, really. If you're told the command is 'drop', do you suddenly think "Hmm.. I think the command is 'set'.

There's a considerable difference, imho.

Additionally- Just go with Akariel's and Oryx's ideas. Put the Put or Set command in 'additionally', so it too can be used instead of the classic drop.

[Kyviantre]

Just make the drop command produce different echoes for different items.

>drop stone
You drop the copper-infused stone of death and doom.

>drop bottle
You set down the curvaceous, gnarled bottle.

((Items in this are a work of fiction. Any and all resemblances to IRL/IG items is purely coincidential))

I also don't get how this would make people think it'll be a 'set bottle down' next time around.

Like, really. If you're told the command is 'drop', do you suddenly think "Hmm.. I think the command is 'set'.

There's a considerable difference, imho.

Relatedly...I was helping a friend try MUDs, and they struggled with the idea of the 'stand' command.  They had been knocked unconscious, and when they tried to move the command said something about 'You'd have to stand up to do that'.  So they were stuck in a loop of "Why won't typing 'stand up' work???", and, along with similar barriers to entry, as ChuciPeppers is also concerned about, the above -may- be problematic for newbies.

Yes, all us old hands may realise that when someone sets a bottle it is the drop command working with a fragile-tagged item, but newbies...not necessarily.  And newbies are the folks we want to attract.  Arm already -HAS- us, it needs to be lowering the barrier for newbie acquisition (in ways that don't hinder good RP - ie keeping the Byn active, players being newbie-approachable OOCly, helpfiles being maintained/expanded upon where needed).

In short, if you do have some items being fragile-tagged so they are 'set' down...at least make 'help set' redirect to 'help drop', bare minimum!

[ChuciPeppers]

make 'help set' redirect to 'help drop', bare minimum!

I like this, too. Addendum: The stuff I posted above, but also with the help file redirects because that would make it easier for new players to get the hang of and learn that set as a command and put on the ground stuff we even a thing.