25 May, 2011, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 21st comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
It's absolutely related to the subject of drawing/sheathing. I allow players to draw and sheathe weapons during combat, but not wear and remove

Sheating is removing it….that is what I am talking about. If you remove your weapon, it is quite obvious where you put it.
25 May, 2011, KaVir wrote in the 22nd comment:
Votes: 0
Rarva.Riendf said:
Quote
It's absolutely related to the subject of drawing/sheathing. I allow players to draw and sheathe weapons during combat, but not wear and remove

Sheating is removing it….

No, sheathing moves something from being held to being worn. If a player uses the "sheathe" command to sling their target shield across their back, it still counts towards their encumbrance, and it will protect them from blows that target the back (in the same way as armour). The item is not removed.
25 May, 2011, Ssolvarain wrote in the 23rd comment:
Votes: 0
Rarva.Riendf said:
Sheating is removing it….that is what I am talking about. If you remove your weapon, it is quite obvious where you put it.


Are you really that anal about sheathing?
25 May, 2011, plamzi wrote in the 24th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
Rarva.Riendf said:
Quote
It's absolutely related to the subject of drawing/sheathing. I allow players to draw and sheathe weapons during combat, but not wear and remove

Sheating is removing it….

No, sheathing moves something from being held to being worn. If a player uses the "sheathe" command to sling their target shield across their back, it still counts towards their encumbrance, and it will protect them from blows that target the back (in the same way as armour). The item is not removed.


In my game, players can hold a light while holding an item for a separate bonus while wielding a weapon while wearing a shield. In addition to those, the ranger class can dual-wield a bow for an extra attack and extra bonuses. No explanation given! :)

But wait, it gets worse! People can strip naked at the first available battle round, and put on a different set at the next. Again, no explanation.

The game focuses so heavily on eq bonuses, that people take such things for granted and don't care for explanations. I bet all of my power players will cry out in outrage if I reduce the number of eq slots or limit wear/remove in fights. Although, I could probably reduce number of held items if I let them wear rings on all ten fingers… uhm, I mean sixteen fingers. You get the picture ;)

In the two years I've run my game, I had one player (returning oldie) raise the question of how credible holding/wielding this many items is. He had quit an old version of the game for this very reason. I'm sure he moved on to greener pastures where everything, presumably including magic and mana, is explained realistically.

I personally care more about making gameplay enjoyable than believable and more about enhancing existing long-term goals like eq-set-building rather than enhancing realism. Sure, I could spend a few min. renaming the "held light" slot to something "believable" like "floating magically above you" or write a silly back-story explaining how the natural ability of time-warping helps everyone swap eq during battle. Or, I could spend a few more minutes removing and restricting these. But I don't think either is a good move for this particular game.

And finally, I don't think the level of realism has anything to do with how "modern" a MUD feels. I mean, look at the popular MMORPGs dominating the RPG scene. Can any of them claim (or does any of them even care for) realism?
25 May, 2011, KaVir wrote in the 25th comment:
Votes: 0
plamzi said:
In my game, players can hold a light while holding an item for a separate bonus while wielding a weapon while wearing a shield. In addition to those, the ranger class can dual-wield a bow for an extra attack and extra bonuses. No explanation given! :)

But wait, it gets worse! People can strip naked at the first available battle round, and put on a different set at the next. Again, no explanation.

That's the standard approach, used by the majority of Diku muds over the last couple of decades, so I'm sure many players take it for granted.

Personally I find my approach more enjoyable and more tactical, and it's an essential part of my combat system (and I would hope that any modern mud would have something a little more entertaining than standard Diku combat). The fact that it's also more realistic is a relatively trivial bonus.
25 May, 2011, plamzi wrote in the 26th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
plamzi said:
In my game, players can hold a light while holding an item for a separate bonus while wielding a weapon while wearing a shield. In addition to those, the ranger class can dual-wield a bow for an extra attack and extra bonuses. No explanation given! :)

But wait, it gets worse! People can strip naked at the first available battle round, and put on a different set at the next. Again, no explanation.

That's the standard approach, used by the majority of Diku muds over the last couple of decades, so I'm sure many players take it for granted.

Personally I find my approach more enjoyable and more tactical, and it's an essential part of my combat system (and I would hope that any modern mud would have something a little more entertaining than standard Diku combat). The fact that it's also more realistic is a relatively trivial bonus.


I think we are hitting against a fundamental difference in what people read into "a modern MUD."

To me, it's a game drawing lessons from any MMORPG before it, predictably opting to go for casual gameplay/player convenience/realism be damned in order to attract players, trying everything possible to 'layer' the experience so the dumb can be as entertained as the super-intelligent.

To most MUD devs who've been at it for much longer than I have, I believe it means a game drawing lessons from other MUD's before it and trying to 1) not be stock, 2) show die-hard MUD players something they've never seen before.

The fundamental difference between these two definitions is obviously that one is going after the whole population of "modern" players (including oodles of idiot kids), while the other is after a select few who've already been playing MUDs for years and have reached a "modern" height in acquired/special taste and overall jadedness.
25 May, 2011, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 27th comment:
Votes: 0
Ssolvarain said:
Are you really that anal about sheathing?

Nope I am anal about useless commands….(and I still think he does not get the point, if he prevents removing shield while fighting, he should still sheat it automatically as if you do not drop it, you still have to put it somewhere that is not in your hands…)
Should have talked about autosacrificing corpses or stuff like that…Oh well…
25 May, 2011, Ssolvarain wrote in the 28th comment:
Votes: 0
I was only kidding. You never specifically said WHERE the weapon was sheathed, so…

It would make more sense to drop it, provided you had some sort of ownership tag (or if your items are throw-away).
25 May, 2011, KaVir wrote in the 29th comment:
Votes: 0
plamzi said:
To most MUD devs who've been at it for much longer than I have, I believe it means a game drawing lessons from other MUD's before it and trying to 1) not be stock, 2) show die-hard MUD players something they've never seen before.

It doesn't need to be revolutionary, and "different" isn't synonymous with "better", but if the mud only offers standard features that have been available in stock codebases for the last 10-20 years, then I wouldn't consider it a "modern" mud. I would also consider it rather a waste of effort for someone who was building a codebase from the ground up, if all they produced was a clone of something created a couple of decades ago.

Rarva.Riendf said:
Nope I am anal about useless commands….(and I still think he does not get the point, if he prevents removing shield while fighting, he should still sheat it automatically as if you do not drop it, you still have to put it somewhere that is not in your hands…)

It isn't possible to sheathe it automatically, because there's no way to know when the player might wish to sheathe it (if ever). The commands are there to allow players to rearrange their weapons during combat - perhaps you need to sheathe your shield to draw another weapon, because you've just had your primarily hand chopped off. Maybe you just want to blow caution to the wind and get a two-handed grip on your sword. Perhaps you need to free up both your hands to draw your bow, so that you can pick off that fleeing target…
26 May, 2011, donky wrote in the 30th comment:
Votes: 0
plamzi said:
The fundamental difference between these two definitions is obviously that one is going after the whole population of "modern" players (including oodles of idiot kids), while the other is after a select few who've already been playing MUDs for years and have reached a "modern" height in acquired/special taste and overall jadedness.
Reading your responses to this thread, I can't help but feel you have at least twice establish two choices as being mutually exclusive. In another post, the choice of enjoyable and believable. In this post, the casual approach and the status quo approach.

I say that any assumption that these choices are mutually exclusive is simply that. That it is possible to have a combination of both. I am a big fan of making the game less arcane and more approachable, as I hope my past posts on my newbie experiences indicate. Why don't you start another thread that goes into your ideas on this?
26 May, 2011, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 31st comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
perhaps you need to sheathe your shield to draw another weapon,

not a good example:if you wear something sompleplace that is already used, it replaces the thing automatically.

Quote
because you've just had your primarily hand chopped off.

huh ? then automatically the weapon AND the hand is on the ground….

Quote
Maybe you just want to blow caution to the wind and get a two-handed grip on your sword.

remove command

Quote
Perhaps you need to free up both your hands to draw your bow, so that you can pick off that fleeing target…

Same as first, wearing a bow will remove both your hands automatically…

Unless you give me something more specific, I still maintain that you force people to type useless commands.


Oh and I am also pretty confident than too realistic and enjoyable is mutually exclusive.
Try everything entertaining…if you had any hero go to the toilet, spend half an hour to eat..sleep etc for the actual duration of the action you would give up the movie/book/whaetever pretty fast. Hell even transportation from one place to another is mostly instant most of the time. (Unless it is a chase)
Suspension of disbelief is what you need to achieve. Make it too realistic and then problem will arise because if you make shortcut in a field, and not in antnother it will become bloody obvious and you lose this suspension of disbelief.
In a magical world, having the abilities to change of armor set during fight is not that unrelaistic.
After all, it could be a simple automatic spell every goddam hero learn….
They have container that automatically reduce every items and their weight so they can carry lots of stuff, so why not that.
26 May, 2011, KaVir wrote in the 32nd comment:
Votes: 0
Rarva.Riendf said:
Quote
perhaps you need to sheathe your shield to draw another weapon,

not a good example:if you wear something sompleplace that is already used, it replaces the thing automatically.

No, it doesn't. And as I said before, you can't wear something while fighting. If you wish to have a backup weapon you need to wear it (sheathed) before the fight, and accept the associated encumbrance penalty.

Rarva.Riendf said:
Quote
because you've just had your primarily hand chopped off.

huh ? then automatically the weapon AND the hand is on the ground….

And your other hand is holding a shield. So you sling the shield across your back, and draw another weapon to carry on fighting.

Rarva.Riendf said:
Quote
Maybe you just want to blow caution to the wind and get a two-handed grip on your sword.

remove command

Which doesn't work during combat.

Rarva.Riendf said:
Quote
Perhaps you need to free up both your hands to draw your bow, so that you can pick off that fleeing target…

Same as first, wearing a bow will remove both your hands automatically…

No, it doesn't. And as I said before, you can't wear something while fighting.

Rarva.Riendf said:
Unless you give me something more specific, I still maintain that you force people to type useless commands.

You appear unable to think outside of the box labelled "stock DikuMUD". Not every mud is the same. The solution for one mud won't be appropriate for all muds.

Rarva.Riendf said:
Oh and I am also pretty confident than too realistic and enjoyable is mutually exclusive.

Sometimes your design will need to favour one over the other, but generally speaking "realistic" and "enjoyable" are not mutually exclusive. That's usually just an excuse given by people who try to justify unrealistic features.

Rarva.Riendf said:
Try everything entertaining…if you had any hero go to the toilet, spend half an hour to eat..sleep etc for the actual duration of the action you would give up the movie/book/whaetever pretty fast.

That's a straw man argument. There is usually no reason to describe those things, but that doesn't mean they don't happen - they are just implied. If the hero is trapped in an empty room for a month, I would certainly expect to be told how he'd managed to avoid starvation or dehydration.

Rarva.Riendf said:
In a magical world, having the abilities to change of armor set during fight is not that unrelaistic.
After all, it could be a simple automatic spell every goddam hero learn….

If everyone in the world has such a spell then just add it to your backstory. However my issue isn't one of realism, but of gameplay. I don't like forcing players to fill their inventory with multiple sets of gear in order to remain competitive - I long ago had my fill of muds with "leveling gear" and "training gear", etc. It's very boring micromanagement that results in more triggers and less strategic planning. It's a prime example of "unrealistic" also being "unenjoyable".
26 May, 2011, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 33rd comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
No, it doesn't. And as I said before, you can't wear something while fighting.

Because you coded so wear and wield and sheath and remove have different context use. While you perfectly now in what context they are used anyway….
It is your fault for adding a command instead of coding the cases in remove and wear.
In all the cases you provided I proved you that you could automatically choose what the player can do.

Quote
If you wish to have a backup weapon you need to wear it (sheathed) before the fight, and accept the associated encumbrance penalty.

Yeah basically removing a weapon you still have to put it somewhere.
If you do not put it in a container, it wont hold magically on you (so you need to huh…SHEAT it…anyway)


Quote
And your other hand is holding a shield. So you sling the shield across your back, and draw another weapon to carry on fighting.

Wear weapon….you only have one hand, so the shield need to go somewhere (hint hint….SHEATED…) and the weapon will be draw from your inventory…

Quote
remove command Which doesn't work during combat.

Because you coded so instead of expanding it !


Quote
You appear unable to think outside of the box labelled "stock DikuMUD". Not every mud is the same. The solution for one mud won't be appropriate for all muds.

I am feeling you are the one unable to think outside the box and expand existing basic commands.

Quote
That's a straw man argument. There is usually no reason to describe those things, but that doesn't mean they don't happen - they are just implied. If the hero is trapped in an empty room for a month, I would certainly expect to be told how he'd managed to avoid starvation or dehydration.

Exactly IMPLIED, like sheating and drawing weapons you know….
26 May, 2011, KaVir wrote in the 34th comment:
Votes: 0
Rarva.Riendf said:
In all the cases you provided I proved you that you could automatically choose what the player can do.

Perhaps it's a language issue, but clearly you have trouble understanding my implementation. I can however assure you that you're wrong - it is simply not possible to automate draw/sheathe in my mud without losing valuable functionality.

Rarva.Riendf said:
Quote
That's a straw man argument. There is usually no reason to describe those things, but that doesn't mean they don't happen - they are just implied. If the hero is trapped in an empty room for a month, I would certainly expect to be told how he'd managed to avoid starvation or dehydration.

Exactly IMPLIED, like sheating and drawing weapons you know….

No. You "imply" things that are generally irrelevant, not options that are specifically designed to add tactical choices to the gameplay.
26 May, 2011, Vigud wrote in the 35th comment:
Votes: 0
I can't understand you as well. Please be more specific if you want us understand your point. So far it seems to me that Rarva is right about you producing unnecessary, additional commands where only one command could easily work differently (or not work at all), depending on the context.
26 May, 2011, KaVir wrote in the 36th comment:
Votes: 0
Vigud said:
I can't understand you as well. Please be more specific if you want us understand your point. So far it seems to me that Rarva is right about you producing unnecessary, additional commands where only one command could easily work differently (or not work at all), depending on the context.

I'm not sure how much more specific I can get. What part of the following don't you understand?

KaVir said:
sheathing moves something from being held to being worn. If a player uses the "sheathe" command to sling their target shield across their back, it still counts towards their encumbrance, and it will protect them from blows that target the back (in the same way as armour). The item is not removed.


KaVir said:
It isn't possible to sheathe it automatically, because there's no way to know when the player might wish to sheathe it (if ever). The commands are there to allow players to rearrange their weapons during combat
26 May, 2011, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 37th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
sheathing moves something from being held to being worn. If a player uses the "sheathe" command to sling their target shield across their back, it still counts towards their encumbrance, and it will protect them from blows that target the back (in the same way as armour). The item is not removed.

Ok..so when you are not in fight, let say you remove your shield (you are allowed to do that right…)….where the hell does it go…
26 May, 2011, KaVir wrote in the 38th comment:
Votes: 0
Rarva.Riendf said:
KaVir said:
sheathing moves something from being held to being worn. If a player uses the "sheathe" command to sling their target shield across their back, it still counts towards their encumbrance, and it will protect them from blows that target the back (in the same way as armour). The item is not removed.

Ok..so when you are not in fight, let say you remove your shield (you are allowed to do that right…)….where the hell does it go…

Into your inventory. Like every other item, the shield can be either:

1) Held in your hand (you can use it to bash, block and provide cover).
2) Worn on your back (your shield provides passive protection to your back).
3) In your inventory (a pocket dimension where the encumbrance doesn't apply).

You move items between those three locations with the following commands:

The sheathe command: held -> worn (sheathable items only)
The draw command: worn -> held (sheathable items only)
The remove command: held/worn -> inventory
The wear command: inventory -> worn
The wield command: inventory -> held
26 May, 2011, Vigud wrote in the 39th comment:
Votes: 0
What's the practical difference between sheathing your weapon and removing it? Can you sheathe a hammer?

If sheathing your shield gives you protection, does it have any impact on your balance or speed?

Why would a player prefer to remove an item that he's allowed to sheathe during the fight?
26 May, 2011, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 40th comment:
Votes: 0
Well, till yet, I provide exactly the same funcitonalities with only wear remove and switch…maybe you have something else than need it…
Anyway I expect a modern mud to not make me type unnecessary commands.
That is why even stock ROM has things like autoloot, autosac etc..
20.0/80