Storage space by stones and not mass?

[SailorMars]

I've noticed that a room or container seems to be able to hold X number of stones. The question I have is: Why, for example, would an empty wooden box at first fit inside a large chest, then, if you fill the box up, it might not fit back inside the chest. Codewise, I'm guessing the now heavy box exceeds the chest's stone capacity?

Some kind of system where objects, regardless if they were containers, took up X number of stones worth of capacity might work. So, if the aforementioned wooden box weighed 5 stones empty, but had a 40 stone capacity, it would still only take up 5 stones worth of the chest's capacity, regardless of how much shit was in the box. Of course, the box would still have to deal with its own capacity, etc.

This would ideally change rooms from "having no more space" just because two chests stacked in the corner were full.

Thoughts?

Edit: Caught two typos and assassinated them.

[Dakkon Black]

As much as obviously code-wise that may not seem realistic I think there are alot of other things we are not considering. Most of these store rooms do not give dimentions and I highly doubt alot of them are massive warehouses unless the discription says so. Most are probably like a big sized walk in closet to a small bedroom in size. Also how big are these chests? like I mean there are 20 longswords in that one.. pretty *#(&$# big I'd say. Are all the things in the chest tucked in neatly or is it so packed that they are hanging out? Personally if that happened to me I'd just RP that the crap hanging out of the chest prevented it from fittin anymore. Making a code change to add volume to everything though perhaps neat is really not that critical if you ask me. The wieght distinction brings the situation close enough to RL for me.  Then again I like pickles and peanutbutter  :?

[SailorMars]

Code Select Expand

Making a code change to add volume to everything though perhaps neat is really not that critical if you ask me.

I agree, but then again, that's not what I'm proposing.

I'm suggesting containers within containers would only count as their base weight insofar as how much of the parent container's capacity was used up. That might help with the issues I pointed out in the original post...

[Silent Bob]

The box may be 5 stones but should count as 40 stones when you try to put it in another container and that would fix the problem.  The total weight would be only 5 stones but trying to make it fit inside would count as 40 stones or whatever its max weight is when full.

[SailorMars]

The box may be 5 stones but should count as 40 stones when you try to put it in another container and that would fix the problem. The total weight would be only 5 stones but trying to make it fit inside would count as 40 stones or whatever its max weight is when full.

I am suggesting exactly the opposite of this, I think.

[creeper386]

The problem with what you are proposing... Is that it's volume... Is basically it's MAX CAPACITY. A box that ways five pounds, but can fit forty. Is going to be BIG enough to fit fourty pounds in it. Therefor if you put that box into a room that only holds a hundred pounds. There is only going to be sixty pounds of room left within said room.

And it's already coded this way. I don't think the box well take up fourty five pounds. It'll take up it's MAX capacity, which is about as equivalent to size as we are probably going to get.


Creeper knows he used pounds and not stones, and isn't talking about English Pounds you freaks.

[JollyGreenGiant]

The problem I see with this kind of change is as follows - your wooden box has a 5 stone weight, and 40 stone capacity.  So in that box, I can put another 5 stone weighing box, with 40 stone capacity, and in that box, the same thing... in other words, your outermost box has theoretically no weight limit.

[SailorMars]

Is going to be BIG enough to fit fourty pounds in it.

Thanks for the feedback. I guess my proposed solution might not be the answer, but I still think it's odd that an empty wooden box might fit  in a chest, but if the box is full (having not changed its dimensions at all), it might not fit. At least, that is my observation...

1) Put wooden box chest. You put a wooden box in the chest.
2) You get a wooden box from the chest. You put a silt-horror breastplate into the box.
3) There isn't room to put a wooden box into the chest.

It's like the wooden box magically resized to that of its contents. Codewise, I think it's the weight of the box exceeding what capacity the chest has left, but I hope that example shows why it seems cludgy.

If that's just the way it has to be for the best all-around system, that's cool. My view is admittedly limited as a player.

[Anonymous]

Its diku.  Coding what a container can hold base on object size and no weight would be a nitemare.

[DrunkenSalarr]

The box may be 5 stones but should count as 40 stones when you try to put it in another container and that would fix the problem.  The total weight would be only 5 stones but trying to make it fit inside would count as 40 stones or whatever its max weight is when full.

This is what I thought of when I read the original post.  I'm not sure how difficult it would be, but perhaps the code could be altered so that it returned either the actual weight or the MaxWeight for fixed-sized containers, depending on what was asking.

For example, I have a small box tat weighs 3 stones when empty, and can weigh 10 stones when full.  Right now it holds a few rings and such so that it currently weighs 5 stones.  Now, if I go to put that box into a larger box, the larger box would use the maxWeight (10 stones) in determining if it could fit.  that way, reguardless of how much is in the small box, it will fit inside the larger box (as long as the larger box's contents do not change).  However, when I go to pick up the larger box and the weight/strength check is made, the actual weights would be used (with the small box only adding 5stone to the larger box's actual weight).

Does that make since to anyone else?

[Rindan]

Anything you do is going to lead to a paradox, so the paradox that is the least confusing and easiest to code is the one that is used.  In your suggestion, you could have 9 identical 5 stone boxes that hold 40 stones.  You could fill all of those boxes but one, and 8 full boxes into a single empty box, further, this single empty box would only take up 5 stones worth of space, even though it is now somehow holding 320 stones.  Even if you coded a way around this, you would still run into the paradox that a heavy metal chest of the exact same dimensions of a light wooden chest would take up more space.  Thus, the actual weight of the box really is not an accurate approximation of volume, which is what really matters in the end, but there is no code for.

Having it so that max capacity is the deciding factor prevents a lot of odd paradoxes like putting large boxes in small boxes.  It also prevents a metal or obsidian box from taking up more space then a wooden box of the same dimensions.  True, this still has its problems and paradoxes, but they are minor and not really worth an elaborate code around.

[Angela Christine]

If you are in a space crunch, and you've already gone through and sold off all the useless crafting supplies and abandoned doodads, then you could always ask a friendly imm to resize the room.  To some extent the space in the room available to PCs should relate to the number of PCs using the room (NPCs and VNPCs use virtual space).  If your clan grows so that you have 12 people trying to store things in the same amount of room 5 people used to have, then each person will get less space.  Eventually the amount of space aloted to each PC isn't useful for much.

That doesn't address the elastic container issue, but as others have said there doesn't seem to be a good way to fix that without rewriting the code from scratch.

Angela Christine

Why are people putting these big boxes inside other boxes anyway? If the code was based on size, you wouldn't be able to put the boxes inside each other to begin with, so I don't see the big loss as the code is right now.

[SailorMars]

Why are people putting these big boxes inside other boxes anyway? If the code was based on size, you wouldn't be able to put the boxes inside each other to begin with, so I don't see the big loss as the code is right now.

Not to be pedantic, but most examples thus far have be in regard to putting containers within a large chest or the room itself.

Thanks for the feedback all, btw.

[Silent Bob]

The problem was as I understood it to be was the box fits when empty so why wont it fit when its full.  Thats because the check is being made against the current weight of the box when empty and not the maximum capasity of the box.  The way the game is being used is that even boxes with fixed walls are really bags with flexable walls they adjust to be what they are filled with and there max is what they are currently at.  So if you tried to put an empty box in an empty box in an empty box etc.  The first box weighs 5 stones, but the next box weighs 10 stones and each one 5 more than the last as you add boxes.  The problem with this is that us as real people think a box has fixed dementions, but in the coded world we have it does not.  This could be fixed by like what I said before have any container placed in another container count as its max capacity unless it is truely flexable.  This envolves giving a bag flex but a chest or box not such a flag or label.  Then if you can fit an empty box you fit a full one, but also just because an empty bag fits (it can flex) a full one might not.  Now you have the real world.  Aint it neat?

[spawnloser]

Okay, wait...I think someone is obviously missing something.  Stones = Kilograms...kilograms is mass, and thus, an indicator of weight when gravity remains the same.  I'm not saying this to harp on anyone, but just to clear something up.

[JollyGreenGiant]

I would just like to take this opportunity to say, "Gravity is a harsh mistress."

[spawnloser]

I would just like to take this opportunity to say, "Gravity is a harsh mistress."

Especially when the Byn Sergeant that you're following takes the proverbial dive off the shield wall, yes.

[creeper386]

Thanks for the feedback. I guess my proposed solution might not be the answer, but I still think it's odd that an empty wooden box might fit in a chest, but if the box is full (having not changed its dimensions at all), it might not fit. At least, that is my observation...

Hmm... How it works in the room code now, is that the Max the container is, takes up that much space in the room.

So even if the bag is holding 10 stones but it's an 80 stone bag. When you put it in a room, it takes up 80 stones.

Now that I think about it. Container/within container isn't that way, and it should be, but what should be coded both with rooms and contain in container, is if they material the container is made out of is solid, it takes up it's max capacity in space, if the material is soft, it takes up enough space as to whats in side.

Example:

You have a bag that holds 40 stones, and it's canvas, and has 20 stones in it. You have a Chest that holds 50, is empty and is made out of wood. And a bone box that holds 20 stones and is also empty. You can put both the box, and the bag in the chest, and still have ten pounds. If the smaller box was full, you'd still have ten pounds of room. If the bag is empty, it only takes up it's weight in space. But if the box is empty, it still takes up max capacity in space.

It might make problems with things like solid leather boxes and stuff, which could just be coded to be bone or wood or something, although THAT might cause a few other problems... I think it'd be minimum for the most part.

Creeper doesn't make sense, or does he?[/quote]

[Silent Bob]

Hey thats what I said.  Must be why I likes it.