Pour command

[JollyGreenGiant]

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.

[Agent_137]

buy smaller glasses?

sorry for being worthless.

[mansa]

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.

[Angela Christine]

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

[Agent_137]

HAHAh big gulp

44 ounces of SODA!

*pukes*

[spawnloser]

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.

[ShaLeah]

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:

[Delirium]

That'd be great.

[jhunter(2L2LOG)]

That would be sweet, I like it. :twisted:

[JollyGreenGiant]

Hey, I like that idea too.

[UnderSeven]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Delirium]

It'd be a mean way to make use of the now-defunct touch command, maybe.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I like the idea, with the foresaid checks for failure and success added, of course.

[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.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

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.

[jhunter]

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.

[Sir Diealot]

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.

[UnderSeven]

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.

[jhunter]

Personally, 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.

[Cenghiz]

Ropes that may be used to tie someone and force-feeding :p ... They will rock.

[EvilRoeSlade]

The staff can decide their priorities without all you people helping them.  It's a decent idea.

[Anonymous]

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.

[ShaLeah]

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?

[Slipshodolio]

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.

[Sanvean]

Just to clarify - I think it's great to see ideas posted on the board. Sometimes they're things that haven't popped up before and they spur the coders into doing something new and interesting.  If you look back at the weekly updates over the past few years, there's actually a lot of ideas that got implemented due to discussion on this board, mostly by Nessalin.  

Other times the idea or ideas may fade into obscurity and move to the dim nether regions of the board.  If it's an idea you really like and would like to see in the game, feel free to email it to me and I will enter it into our database of bugs and ideas. It may fade into obscurity there as well, but it has a better chance of a coder looking at it. There's a little under 1000 entries in it at the moment, just so you have some idea of the scale of things.

When we're looking at coding, things that influence whether or not to do it include:

1. Ease of coding.  A lot of times people will tell me that something is very easy and sometimes it is, other times not so much.  Sometimes a change made in one place will affect other pieces of the code in an unexpected manner. Big complicated projects often have to wait until someone has a lot of spare cycles to devote to them.
2. Impact on the game. Does it affect a lot of people or a small number?  Something that affects a lot of people is more likely to get worked on. Is it something that means we need to take the game down for a while to do? That's negative impact, and something would have to be pretty darn high in other areas to justify that.
3. Amount of work involved. How much gruntwork, in the form of updating or building objects, or producing documentation, is necessary?
4. Urgency.  Is it a feature that is currently unusable?  Then it's high priority. Is it something that works, even if suboptimally or has workarounds right now? Lower priority.

For example, I made a change recently that affected only the Tan Muark players. Low impact and urgency, but it also took me about ten minutes to do, had no additional work involved in it, and was a nice, cool little atmospheric touch. Brewing, for another example, while high impact and involving relatively easy (but extremely lengthy and tedious) coding, also has a very large amount of work involved and is low urgency because it works for the most part and many people use it in the current form.

I've posted from our mission statement before, and will recap the section on our priorities:

The priority list for working in any area of the game, whether it's coding, quests or building, are:

1. Stability: Increasingly, we're working towards less lag and longer uptimes. Being able to use the testport to test possible crash bugs will move us even further in this direction.
2. Balance: Making sure code and building do not unbalance the game. This is pretty important, because (as noted above) a seemingly small change can end up having a major impact.
3. Consistency: Adhering to the existing documentation. while continuing to expand it. Making code and syntax consistent overall.
4. Accountability: Discussing changes ahead of time so there is a consensus on them. Documenting changes thoroughly and letting people know what's new so they can incorporate it in their quests and building. Coding things that are useful to other staff members, and making sure there are no bugs in the code which create problems for people running quests or building.
5. G-Factor: Things that make players go 'Gee-whiz, that's cool!' Anything from a small building detail to a slick piece of code or an inventive, atmospheric quest.

Our coders are at different levels of skill and enjoy working on different things.  I'm at the lowest level - I can mess around and change some stuff, but a lot of projects are way beyond me.  And the really skilled folks aren't as interested in the tedious tasks - they want something challenging - an interesting puzzle to solve.  

Beyond all that, most of us have other mud work to do as well as our pet projects, and even that's aside from the tedium of RL, like fixing dinner, doing laundry, working for a living, or the occasional social excursion.  In my opinion,  the amount of work that goes into the mud on a weekly basis is impressive, and expecting a new code innovation every week a) is unrealistic and b) is too fast. I'd rather see people work slow and focus on quality than whip out a new skill every day, and I'd like to make sure stuff gets discussed and tested thoroughly before it goes in.

And silt skimmers actually are a priority for me. so I keep nudging the more skilled coders about them. I have some plans for them...*schemes*

So I don't mind people proposing ideas. I'm not so fond of the insistence that pet project a, or b, or c is the most important thing in the world and should be worked on before anything else, and even less fond when that's used as a way of saying all the staff are lazy bastards. Because I know from experience that we're not.