Armageddon General Discussion Board

I think a fairly easy idea that would make gameplay much easier is numbered crafting options.

craft marble

You can make 1. a few hand-sized chunks of green marble
2. a green marble bracelet from that.

craft marble into #2

You begin cutting the marble into a bracelet.

Esp when you're on telnet, away from your mud client, it's really hard to accurately type "a few hand-sized chunks of green marble," so you have to try three times. This has no potential for abuse (not really. Spam crafting is already pretty close to impossible due to the delay), and would make life much, much simpler.

(edited to add the poll cause it didn't go in first time)

Holy god yes...

Agreed

They may have to number ALL recipes in the system, though, depending on how this can be implemented.  It'd suck to have to 'craft stone into 126432' just as much as it does now.  Now you can remember some of the recipes and how they're worded so that you don't have to 'craft stone' ...pause, and then 'craft stone into stone club of doom' afterwards.

Quote from: "spawnloser"They may have to number ALL recipes in the system, though, depending on how this can be implemented.  It'd suck to have to 'craft stone into 126432' just as much as it does now.  Now you can remember some of the recipes and how they're worded so that you don't have to 'craft stone' ...pause, and then 'craft stone into stone club of doom' afterwards.

*frown* I wouldn't think so. I don't know why it would be tied to the keyword and not the item.

Providing it could be implemented easily, it couldn't hurt.

Hey, I don't know all the ins and outs of how the crafting system is coded...and if it could have a system that would number just the recipes you can currently craft or if they'd have to be numbered beforehand in the database.  That's all I'm saying.  I don't know how feasible it is, the way you picture it, and if it goes the way I fear it might have to, I'd rather stick with what we go than have to type out a string of essentially random numbers that I can't remember due to the fact that there is no relation between number and recipe.

Well, you would still be able to type the string out. Like when dealing with merchants, you can buy #6 or buy cloak. The number wouldn't be mandatory.

I don't see why you'd need to number each object uniquely, when you're only dealing with a specific number of objects that appear on your "craft item" list.

Everyone could share certain things and have things others can't do, and it would still work just fine. It's the placement on the list that matters, not the object itself. All it would do is send an automatic alias through the server to the code, which would translate it back to the full string. I don't know how difficult to code it would be in this game's code, but in C# it's 3 lines of code. I know, because I just did it :)

I like this idea a lot and don't see why it shouldn't be implemented if it's not a huge project. I don't know anything about coding but I wouldn't think each and every craftable item would need a number, you just add numbers to the options you get when typing 'craft stone' or whatever, similar to the way shops work. I suggested something similar a while ago, only my idea was to use a single word from the recipe, such as 'craft flour into cakes'.

Quote from: "Hymwen"I like this idea a lot and don't see why it shouldn't be implemented if it's not a huge project. I don't know anything about coding but I wouldn't think each and every craftable item would need a number, you just add numbers to the options you get when typing 'craft stone' or whatever, similar to the way shops work. I suggested something similar a while ago, only my idea was to use a single word from the recipe, such as 'craft flour into cakes'.

The only problem with that is sometimes there's more than one "cakes" or "ring" on the list and you end up with the wrong thing.

I think this is still one of the more major weaknesses in the crafting system.

I really like this idea, good work!

All they have to do is base the list numerically off what can be crafted at that point.  Logic looks like this:

>craft object1 object2

<CODE>
This player can make the following:
product1
product3
product16
product21

Output list to player:
You can craft the following --
1. product1
2. product3
3. product16
4. product 21
</CODE>

>craft object1 object2 into #4

See?

It's not even that involved really. Not exactly pseudocode, but here's more or less how it could work:

User types (input)
>craft bone
Output:
You can craft that into:
1. a bone necklace
2. a bone earring
3. a bone doodad
4. a bone widget
User types (input)
>craft bone into #4
Code translates #4 as "a bone widget" and sends input as "a bone widget" then outputs the echo and attempt code.

The only difference between the current code and a new code is the translation itself, which would take however many lines of code as this game's code requires for translations, such as the ones for merchant NPCs. Virtually, it's turning the PC's own crafting list into the merchant NPC, who produces the object dependent on success/failure of the craft code.

L. Stanson

Ya but what they're saying, Lizzie, is that you would then need to assign a number to every object in the database.  How does the code know that #4 is a bone widget?  That's what my post was about.  It would assign an arbitrary placeholder number (by way of a simple numbered list) based on what the player is able to craft from given ingredients, rather than applying categorically unique numbers to every single craftable item.

Quote from: "bardbard#4"Ya but what they're saying, Lizzie, is that you would then need to assign a number to every object in the database.  How does the code know that #4 is a bone widget?  That's what my post was about.  It would assign an arbitrary placeholder number (by way of a simple numbered list) based on what the player is able to craft from given ingredients, rather than applying categorically unique numbers to every single craftable item.

It knows, the same way it knows that the item exists on your list of things you can craft. Dealing with object numbers can get really complex. Dealing with text strings - telling the code function to simply replace the string called #4 with the other half of that text string - the half, that appears on your craft list next to the string (not the numeric value, but the keyboard's text entry) #4, called "bone widget." You're not asking for the 4th item. You're asking for a text string. It's the difference between saying:

Please replace #1 with the item known as a bone widget

and

Please replace "number one" with "bone widget."

I can't really explain it any better in non-coding terms, but hopefully coder-types of people will know what I'm trying to say.

L. Stanson

It works some way in shops, I don't know how the code works and whether soemthing similar would be possible, but it would definitely be neat.

Yes please!

por favor

Quote from: "Lizzie"

Quote from: "bardbard#4"Ya but what they're saying, Lizzie, is that you would then need to assign a number to every object in the database.  How does the code know that #4 is a bone widget?  That's what my post was about.  It would assign an arbitrary placeholder number (by way of a simple numbered list) based on what the player is able to craft from given ingredients, rather than applying categorically unique numbers to every single craftable item.

It knows, the same way it knows that the item exists on your list of things you can craft. Dealing with object numbers can get really complex. Dealing with text strings - telling the code function to simply replace the string called #4 with the other half of that text string - the half, that appears on your craft list next to the string (not the numeric value, but the keyboard's text entry) #4, called "bone widget." You're not asking for the 4th item. You're asking for a text string. It's the difference between saying:

Please replace #1 with the item known as a bone widget

and

Please replace "number one" with "bone widget."

I can't really explain it any better in non-coding terms, but hopefully coder-types of people will know what I'm trying to say.

L. Stanson

So in other words we're saying the exact same thing.

They could set it up to number the way the shops number shit.


List

#1 Sword of d00m.
#2 Sword of doomslaying.
#3 and so on doomer.