When I play characters that are lumberjacks, I tend to have a problem with packing logs onto mounts. I don't think it makes a lot of sense to have to put it into a container, such as a backpack, to do it, because even though a log might weigh less than the backpack's total limit, it doesn't make sense.
Is it possible (code-wise) to allow for logs or very large objects to be strapped onto mounts if they're big enough (like an inix)?
The problem is how is it strapped on. If you get a chance look at some of the artwork of the mounts in Zalanthas. You would have to have rope or something to strap the logs in place. Making you have to pack containers on helps to make sure that it at least somewhat makes sense.
then i move we have more cheap, two-wheeled wagons (like chariots but with flat cargo areas instead of something to stand on - that don't lock) and that are easily pulled by a kank or two.
These should be slow, cheap and easily available.
And completely defenseless.
This seems logical to me.
Plenty of wood up north.
We know about wheels, wagons and kanks.
Yes, but codewise, where would you be keeping these? Wagonyards? Good luck finding YOUR chariot-thing in a sea of several hundred chariot-things. Stables? With your mount or without? Would these quit out with your kank/mount?
This would require quite a bit of reworking/recoding of the mount code, probably including the recoding and debugging of the old wagon code, where you had to hitch the wagon to a physical mount, etc.
But then, that's just my guess. I'm no coder. Just stating forseeable problems.
I doubt this.
Also, we would keep them in wagon yards just like stables.
But as far as knowing how much code work is involved, we're both ignorant, aren't we?
Edit to add:
Im thinking i was not clear the first time - I would'nt have a "hitch / unhitch mount thing" I would have a wagon object (like they are now) but descd to show their use, without doors, single room, maybe a weight allowance in them (if they don't already have one).
Then you just stable it in the wagon yards (we used to have one).
I so hardily support this idea.
So hardily.
I misread 7's response.
lol :oops:
I would definitely love if log wagons were implemented, but how expensive would they be? Should individuals be able to afford them? Sure, just a two-wheeled flatbed, pulled by say, an inix or two to three kanks would be cool.
Again, remember that if you can't pack a huge log in a backpack IRL, it shouldn't be possible IG, unless the packs are HUGE or the logs are tiny. That's really the biggest beef I have.
So, log wagons. Please?
You know, for the longest time I've wanted to see a carrying container that wasn't a bag, mostly from my time as a logger and running into the same strange feeling of stuffing logs into bags.
Maybe make a container, like a bundle of some sort to hold a specific number of items? You could also try using the craft command and a rope to tie the rope around the log, making it wearable on the back and packable. It'd be neat if you could do that with a handful of items as well.
Here is a better idea, how about specific carrying straps for mounts, something WAY to large for a human to wear, but able to hold massive amounts of stuff (for game purposes) to be used by a mount. Infact to make it even easier, make it unwearable all together.
I know there are few similar items in game, but I am thinking of just something inexpensive and common, that is everywhere and easy to find. Especially in the northlands for logs etc, but even in the southlands for obsidian and other materials.
Why not just have rope that you can bind them in. -shrugs-
bind log bundle
you bind a baobab log into a bundle.
bind log bundle
you bind a baobab log into a bundle.
l bundle
a bundle of logs has been tied together with some rope.
-- a baobab log
-- a baobab log
pack bundle kank (KANK!)
you pack a bundle of logs onto a kank
l kank
a large gray kank is here waving its pincers
packed on a large gray kank:
--- a bundle of logs
Yeha, davien. That was one of the things I was thinking about. It'd be nice if it could apply to a few more situations too.
That seems far more complicated than writing up a few 'container' objects.
I'll probably do that in the submissions thread later today.
code-wise it seems like it's just a "bag" object with a couple different descs. the look at bundle and seeing the contents - as opposed to look in bundle may be different, but honestly, I'd be happy enough to live without that. I can "look in bundle" just as well as the next guy.
Quote from: "Delirium"That seems far more complicated than writing up a few 'container' objects.
I'll probably do that in the submissions thread later today.
Yep, thats what I was thinking of doing. Or that was my intentions of the previous thread I put.
I had written something out, but one of you will probably do it better.