Pour command

Started by JollyGreenGiant, May 14, 2004, 03:08:24 PM

Print
Go Down Pages1 2 All
User actions
May 14, 2004, 03:08:24 PM
Is there a way to pour part of a container?  If not, I wouldn't mind seeing one.  Let's say you want to pour a bottle of wine into two glasses, and for some reason, the glasses hold the same quantity as the bottle.  'pour bottle goblet' results in filling the first goblet, with nothing to pour into the second.

What I don't know is how to reasonably solve the problem, with a syntax that makes sense.
quote="Larrath"]"On the 5th day of the Ascending Sun, in the Month of Whira's Very Annoying And Nearly Unreachable Itch, Lord Templar Mha Dceks set the Barrel on fire. The fire was hot".[/quote]
May 14, 2004, 03:18:25 PM #1
buy smaller glasses?

sorry for being worthless. 8)
May 14, 2004, 04:13:15 PM #2
Actually, Agent_137 has the right response.

Currently, there is no way of pouring out a 'smaller' bit of water from two equal containers.  

So get a third cup, a shot glass, and use that.


And note:  You cannot combine two different types of 'drinks' either.  So, you can't piss in your ale.  At least, not codewise.
New Players Guide: http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,33512.0.html


Quote from: Morgenes on April 01, 2011, 10:33:11 PM
You win Armageddon, congratulations!  Type 'credits', then store your character and make a new one
May 14, 2004, 10:05:10 PM #3
When you pour it tryes to pour the entire contents of one container into another container.  If you think this is bad with a wine bottle, imagine the mess when you try to pour a barrel of water into a waterskin.  :shock:  I assume the excess spills all over the floor, you clumsy oaf.


Don't pour, fill.

>fill goblet bottle

This will give a full goblet, but the extra liquid stays in the bottle.


This won't work if your goblet is actually larger than your wine bottle, or if the wine bottle is not full, because there will be no wine left for the second goblet.  In this case you only option is to buy smaller glasses, and stop being such a pig.  You aren't supposed to drink wine from a Big Gulp cup.


AC
Treat the other man's faith gently; it is all he has to believe with."     Henry S. Haskins
May 14, 2004, 10:27:16 PM #4
HAHAh big gulp

44 ounces of SODA!

*pukes*
May 15, 2004, 08:42:10 AM #5
The excess when pouring doesn't get poured on the ground.  Fill and pour both work, but there are funny syntax issues that make one not a possible command at some times.  I also tend to use a different one depending on what my character is actually doing...just pick the one that fits the situation better.  If I'm dipping my chalice in the barrel of water, fill chalice barrel.  If I'm dumping what's left in my chalice back into the barrel, pour chalice barrel.
Quote from: MalifaxisWe need to listen to spawnloser.
Quote from: Reiterationspawnloser knows all

Quote from: SpoonA magicker is kind of like a mousetrap, the fear is the cheese. But this cheese has an AK47.
May 15, 2004, 05:21:43 PM #6
I'd like pour to work on a person.
pour tankard lecherousbastard
You pour a granite tankard of mead all over the tall, muscular man.
The very angry puertorrican woman pours her tankard of mead all over you.
The very angry puertorrican woman pours her tankard of mead all over the tall, muscular man, soaking him.

I never said I was nice.   :wink:
I'm taking an indeterminate break from Armageddon for the foreseeable future and thereby am not available for mudsex.
Quote
In law a man is guilty when he violates the rights of others. In ethics he is guilty if he only thinks of doing so.
May 15, 2004, 06:59:57 PM #7
That'd be great.
May 15, 2004, 07:02:33 PM #8
That would be sweet, I like it. :twisted:
May 16, 2004, 01:23:55 AM #9
Hey, I like that idea too.
quote="Larrath"]"On the 5th day of the Ascending Sun, in the Month of Whira's Very Annoying And Nearly Unreachable Itch, Lord Templar Mha Dceks set the Barrel on fire. The fire was hot".[/quote]
May 16, 2004, 09:08:05 AM #10
Ehh, not such a great idea. Are we just to assume said person sits there and lets it happen? Sort of forces rp on someone and it's really not work adding a agility or defense check just to see if it works.  Some things are best left to Emote.
May 16, 2004, 10:23:54 AM #11
It's a novel idea, but I'm concerned about the same things that Underseven is.  Unless there is a skill test like with the old touch command.

Otherwise I can imagine seeing pour-fests in the Sanctuary.
May 16, 2004, 11:12:51 AM #12
It'd be a mean way to make use of the now-defunct touch command, maybe.
May 16, 2004, 01:09:33 PM #13
I like the idea, with the foresaid checks for failure and success added, of course.
Wynning since October 25, 2008.

Quote from: Ami on November 23, 2010, 03:40:39 PM
>craft newbie into good player

You accidentally snap newbie into useless pieces.

Discord:The7DeadlyVenomz#3870
May 16, 2004, 01:11:40 PM #14
Is it REALLY that hard to just:
emote tries to pour ~tankard over ~seven.
pour tankard ground

Afterall, even IF we put the checks in, what if someone is not paying attention, emotes having their back turned? Or what if said person actually WANTS to get it poured over them?  Are we going to code it to take nosave into affect? Or if the pourer is hidden or  not? Or multiply pourer defense disadvantages?  

Come on people, this is silly, just emote it.
May 16, 2004, 01:15:39 PM #15
It's not silly. It is just easier for the staff to not have to add it. That said, if a coder ever gets bored, it would be a nifty little added, cosmetic feature.

Underseven is halfway right. It is completely not nessesary.
Wynning since October 25, 2008.

Quote from: Ami on November 23, 2010, 03:40:39 PM
>craft newbie into good player

You accidentally snap newbie into useless pieces.

Discord:The7DeadlyVenomz#3870
May 16, 2004, 01:35:45 PM #16
Emoting it would have no chance of causing coded stains to clothing. I was thinking that if it was coded, it doesn't sound like it would be hard to do and there could be a coded effect caused by it.

As for a coded check, it isn't really that hard to pour a damned drink on someone people. :roll:

Maybe there should be a coded check to see if you can hit your mouth with your drink as you get more intoxicated? Because there's a chance, however slim, that you might not be able to without spilling it on yourself.
:roll:

Yes, while unecessary it would be a niftly little feature if it were added.
Quote from: Fnord on November 27, 2010, 01:55:19 PM
May the fap be with you, always. ;D
May 16, 2004, 06:03:13 PM #17
Personally, I would rather them work on Silt Skimmers, and other implementations that have an affect unable to be recreated with simple Rp.

Note: Not a flame, just saying it's moderately useless, and Staff should/will probably focus on other things.
The rugged, red-haired woman is not a proper mount." -- oops


http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19

Diealot - Ninja Helper (Too cool for Tags)
May 16, 2004, 07:43:54 PM #18
I wouldn't say silt skimmers are high on the coding list. Infact, I doubt if they are on the coding list period.  

Luckily probably neither is this.
May 17, 2004, 02:48:45 AM #19
QuotePersonally, I would rather them work on Silt Skimmers, and other implementations that have an affect unable to be recreated with simple Rp.

I would too, but it's still a nice little addition anyway.
Quote from: Fnord on November 27, 2010, 01:55:19 PM
May the fap be with you, always. ;D
May 17, 2004, 01:07:28 PM #20
Ropes that may be used to tie someone and force-feeding :p ... They will rock.
quote="Ghost"]Despite the fact he is uglier than all of us, and he has a gay look attached to all over himself, and his being chubby (I love this word) Cenghiz still gets most of the girls in town. I have no damn idea how he does that.[/quote]
May 17, 2004, 05:32:41 PM #21
The staff can decide their priorities without all you people helping them.  It's a decent idea.
Back from a long retirement
May 17, 2004, 05:37:00 PM #22
Quote from: "EvilRoeSlade"The staff can decide their priorities without all you people helping them.

Sure, but feedback from players can't hurt, especially when trying to determine what will be the best concept to spend some time on.
May 17, 2004, 09:21:06 PM #23
Quote from: "UnderSeven"Is it REALLY that hard to just:
emote tries to pour ~tankard over ~seven.
pour tankard ground

Afterall, even IF we put the checks in, what if someone is not paying attention, emotes having their back turned? Or what if said person actually WANTS to get it poured over them?  Are we going to code it to take nosave into affect? Or if the pourer is hidden or  not? Or multiply pourer defense disadvantages?  

Come on people, this is silly, just emote it.

No, it's not.
Is it hard to emote being drunk?
No, it's not but the code support is great.
Is it hard to emote being hidden in the shadows?
No, it's not, but again, the code support of actually being hidden, is great.
Is it hard to emote being affected by spice?
Etc, etc, etc ad nauseum.

We can emote out anything at all but the code is there for a reason and even the tiniest tweak to said code adds to the realism of the game.

junk tankard tossing it to the side after pouring it over %drawf head

Would work nicely but would it work as nicely as...

pour tankard dwarf
You attempt to pour a tankard of mead on the short, hairless dwarf but he ducks and you miss him!
or
You pour a tankard of mead all over the short, hairless dwarf, how rude!
>l dwarf
<worn across back>       a wet, bone-studded backpack
<worn on right wrist>       a wet, sandcloth wristwrap
<worn around body>       a wet, hooded, black sandcloth cloak
<worn on legs>       a pair of wet, yellow polka dotted, pink leggings
<worn on feet>       a pair of wet, sandcloth and leather boots


Armageddon to me is more than just the serious code, I love the scripts and the drunk and spice code, I like the guard code, I love the bouncer who knows all the elves and kicks them back, I love that sometimes merchants get pissed off and turn you away, the brawl code and the laundry code.  This is just another flower in the colorful garden of Armageddon, can she do without it? Sure, but wouldn't it be nice to see how the plant would look before we decided to spray on the weed killer?
I'm taking an indeterminate break from Armageddon for the foreseeable future and thereby am not available for mudsex.
Quote
In law a man is guilty when he violates the rights of others. In ethics he is guilty if he only thinks of doing so.
May 21, 2004, 12:14:32 PM #24
I've tried to pour fluids on PCs before, and it would be nice if it worked.. but how weird would it be to see "wet" people walking down the road?  They'd be lynched for being a secret Vivaduan.  

Even if they were soaked by a big mug of juice, I think a few steps outside under the harsh Zalanthan sun and they'd be bone dry again.  

So, I'd like to be able to douse people, but under normal conditions, I don't think anyone would stay wet long enough to warrant changing the condition of their garments.  
It's a compromise, or what they made us call "Synergy" over at Disney Interactive - code in pouring on a person, but emote and RP out the sogginess.
Print
Go Up Pages1 2 All
User actions