03 May, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 42nd comment:
I'm not sure what you're trying to say or how it relates to what we were just talking about. Yes, text-based games don't lend themselves well to immersion in the first place. But even given the immersion that you could obtain, fumbling through an item list will break whatever illusion you might have had about interacting with the world naturally.
Perhaps if you simply defined what this immersion you're looking for actually is, this would be easier.
But, on the other hand, as I said it is your prerogative to think that this or that is immersion preserving or breaking, and I have little interest in trying to convince you otherwise, so I'll wander off now.
Perhaps if you simply defined what this immersion you're looking for actually is, this would be easier.
But, on the other hand, as I said it is your prerogative to think that this or that is immersion preserving or breaking, and I have little interest in trying to convince you otherwise, so I'll wander off now.
03 May, 2010, Runter wrote in the 43rd comment:
David Haley said:
I'm not sure what you're trying to say or how it relates to what we were just talking about. Yes, text-based games don't lend themselves well to immersion in the first place. But even given the immersion that you could obtain, fumbling through an item list will break whatever illusion you might have had about interacting with the world naturally.
Perhaps if you simply defined what this immersion you're looking for actually is, this would be easier.
But, on the other hand, as I said it is your prerogative to think that this or that is immersion preserving or breaking, and I have little interest in trying to convince you otherwise, so I'll wander off now.
Perhaps if you simply defined what this immersion you're looking for actually is, this would be easier.
But, on the other hand, as I said it is your prerogative to think that this or that is immersion preserving or breaking, and I have little interest in trying to convince you otherwise, so I'll wander off now.
It relates because, as you said, you don't believe text based games lend themselves to immersion in the slightest. So how can anyone take it seriously when you tell us what is and isn't immersion breaking in a mud? Pretty sure that's why people actually talk about immersion in regards to MUD. You know, a little FYI there since you didn't know why people talk about it. They actually care about it.
03 May, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 44th comment:
Just because something doesn't lend itself well to something else doesn't mean you can't do anything with it or make an attempt. Something is better than nothing. I think you're reading far too much into this and jumping to conclusions. "You know, a little FYI there."
EDIT: I certainly never said that I didn't know why people talk about it at all. That's a pretty clear misrepresentation or at least misunderstanding of what I said.
EDIT: I certainly never said that I didn't know why people talk about it at all. That's a pretty clear misrepresentation or at least misunderstanding of what I said.
03 May, 2010, Runter wrote in the 45th comment:
David Haley said:
Just because something doesn't lend itself well to something else doesn't mean you can't do anything with it or make an attempt. Something is better than nothing. I think you're reading far too much into this and jumping to conclusions. "You know, a little FYI there."
EDIT: I certainly never said that I didn't know why people talk about it at all. That's a pretty clear misrepresentation or at least misunderstanding of what I said.
EDIT: I certainly never said that I didn't know why people talk about it at all. That's a pretty clear misrepresentation or at least misunderstanding of what I said.
Quote
Well, also to be honest, I don't understand why people speak so much about immersion in the first place
No, you just don't understand why they talk about it as much as they do. But it's okay, I told you why.
03 May, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 46th comment:
Umm, ok. :rolleyes: I'm not sure what you're even trying to argue about anymore, but that's ok.
03 May, 2010, Runter wrote in the 47th comment:
David Haley said:
Umm, ok. :rolleyes: I'm not sure what you're even trying to argue about anymore, but that's ok.
*shrug* Anytime I say what I think you then tell me I'm misrepresenting you/building straw men/generating dubious web content and/or killing babies.
03 May, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 48th comment:
Well, maybe you should be careful in drawing conclusions from what you think I mean. Also, are you more interested in what you thought I said and (somehow) proving that what you thought is what I actually meant, or in what I'm trying to tell you I actually mean?
Anyhow, I guess the original issue has been addressed to your satisfaction, considering that you thought this tangent was more useful. Or if the original problem wasn't addressed, maybe we can go back to that, if you care.
Anyhow, I guess the original issue has been addressed to your satisfaction, considering that you thought this tangent was more useful. Or if the original problem wasn't addressed, maybe we can go back to that, if you care.
03 May, 2010, quixadhal wrote in the 49th comment:
Crat food…
03 May, 2010, Tyche wrote in the 50th comment:
Scandum said:
Items being pushed to either the front or the back of the list is a big interface issue, modern MUDs tend to push it to the end of the list, most older MUDs use a singly linked list and add it to the front. All things considered adding new items to the end of the list is the best approach as it doesn't mess up the player's idea of what their inventory looks like, though there's an argument to be made for players without a long term memory, I'd say screw them.
The approach I'm taking is not having an inventory, and requiring players to rummage through containers for any extra gear they are packing. Insertion at the head of the list makes sense because the last item in a container ought to be on top. If you couple that with adding time to retrieve an item based on how deeply it's buried in a container, that ought to mess with them enough. I also thought of jumbling the contents of containers like sacks and bags every so often, with the heaviest items migrating to the bottom, just to keep them on their toes.
03 May, 2010, Runter wrote in the 51st comment:
David Haley said:
Well, maybe you should be careful in drawing conclusions from what you think I mean. Also, are you more interested in what you thought I said and (somehow) proving that what you thought is what I actually meant, or in what I'm trying to tell you I actually mean?
Anyhow, I guess the original issue has been addressed to your satisfaction, considering that you thought this tangent was more useful. Or if the original problem wasn't addressed, maybe we can go back to that, if you care.
Anyhow, I guess the original issue has been addressed to your satisfaction, considering that you thought this tangent was more useful. Or if the original problem wasn't addressed, maybe we can go back to that, if you care.
Quote
It relates because, as you said, you don't believe text based games lend themselves to immersion in the slightest. So how can anyone take it seriously when you tell us what is and isn't immersion breaking in a mud? Pretty sure that's why people actually talk about immersion in regards to MUD. You know, a little FYI there since you didn't know why people talk about it. They actually care about it.
That's exactly what I think. If you don't like it, dunno what to say. It's relevant. It's not a straw man, you said it. You may not think others legitimate views have a place in the forum, but unfortunately I don't think there's a Haley Approved rule yet.
03 May, 2010, KaVir wrote in the 52nd comment:
Tyche said:
I also thought of jumbling the contents of containers like sacks and bags every so often, with the heaviest items migrating to the bottom, just to keep them on their toes.
Don't forget to apply the weight of heavier items on fragile things below them:
Bubba says, 'Anyone got one of those rare sanct potions for sale?'
Boffo says, 'Sure, I've been saving one, it's hidden away with my priceless spellbook and an ancient treasure map.'
Boffo gets a steel breastplate from his large sack.
Boffo gets an iron helmet from his large sack.
Boffo gets a stone figurine from his large sack.
Boffo gets a squashed and soggy loaf of bread from his large sack.
Boffo gets a broken potion bottle from his large sack.
Boffo gets a crushed and soaking wet spellbook from his large sack.
Boffo gets the mushy remains of an ancient map from his large sack.
Boffo bursts into tears.
03 May, 2010, Runter wrote in the 53rd comment:
Quote
Don't forget to apply the weight of heavier items on fragile things below them:
And the world's collective QQ can already be heard.
03 May, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 54th comment:
Runter said:
That's exactly what I think. If you don't like it, dunno what to say. It's relevant. It's not a straw man, you said it. You may not think others legitimate views have a place in the forum, but unfortunately I don't think there's a Haley Approved rule yet.
I'm sorry, was that in reference to returning to the original question, or has it indeed been addressed to your satisfaction?
03 May, 2010, Runter wrote in the 55th comment:
David Haley said:
I'm sorry, was that in reference to returning to the original question, or has it indeed been addressed to your satisfaction?
Runter said:
That's exactly what I think. If you don't like it, dunno what to say. It's relevant. It's not a straw man, you said it. You may not think others legitimate views have a place in the forum, but unfortunately I don't think there's a Haley Approved rule yet.
I'm sorry, was that in reference to returning to the original question, or has it indeed been addressed to your satisfaction?
I think I still haven't found an acceptable answer, no. Although I am using ID numbers. How I expose them to players is something of great concern to me, so whether or not people will actually use them is up in the air. So the problem still remains. As far as processing ambiguity I'd prefer something like:
>junk steel
[ A] a steel sword
[ B] a steel helme
Did you mean one of these? [A/B]>A
You destroy a steel sword.
I know it's still a bit slow, but it could be configured for particularly dangerous operations to use it of people had a real issue with that for their game.
04 May, 2010, Idealiad wrote in the 56th comment:
Thinking about this some more, I think the disambiguation approach is the best solution. If a player is worried about access speed, they should be worried about controlling their inventory as well, whether in containers, vaults, or what have you.
04 May, 2010, Scandum wrote in the 57th comment:
KaVir said:
Don't forget to apply the weight of heavier items on fragile things below them
Tyche said:
I also thought of jumbling the contents of containers like sacks and bags every so often, with the heaviest items migrating to the bottom, just to keep them on their toes.
Don't forget to apply the weight of heavier items on fragile things below them
There would also be line of sight involved, so to find something you may have to empty half your container, or stir it up and hope something will be tossed back to the top. Your average lazy player will end up emptying a container on the ground in order to sort through it, which in turn will save you the trouble of having to implement a steal command.
04 May, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 58th comment:
Idealiad said:
Thinking about this some more, I think the disambiguation approach is the best solution. If a player is worried about access speed, they should be worried about controlling their inventory as well, whether in containers, vaults, or what have you.
I think that this approach is pretty clearly the best for everybody except for power-users – or at the very least, for new players. I think it's reasonable to have a bunch of stuff with you and still want to quickly designate certain items. Then again, these people are also less likely to be worried about immersion, because they want special syntax to work around descriptive properties.
04 May, 2010, Tyche wrote in the 59th comment:
KaVir said:
Don't forget to apply the weight of heavier items on fragile things below them:
Bubba says, 'Anyone got one of those rare sanct potions for sale?'
Boffo says, 'Sure, I've been saving one, it's hidden away with my priceless spellbook and an ancient treasure map.'
Boffo gets a steel breastplate from his large sack.
Boffo gets an iron helmet from his large sack.
Boffo gets a stone figurine from his large sack.
Boffo gets a squashed and soggy loaf of bread from his large sack.
Boffo gets a broken potion bottle from his large sack.
Boffo gets a crushed and soaking wet spellbook from his large sack.
Boffo gets the mushy remains of an ancient map from his large sack.
Boffo bursts into tears.
Bubba says, 'Anyone got one of those rare sanct potions for sale?'
Boffo says, 'Sure, I've been saving one, it's hidden away with my priceless spellbook and an ancient treasure map.'
Boffo gets a steel breastplate from his large sack.
Boffo gets an iron helmet from his large sack.
Boffo gets a stone figurine from his large sack.
Boffo gets a squashed and soggy loaf of bread from his large sack.
Boffo gets a broken potion bottle from his large sack.
Boffo gets a crushed and soaking wet spellbook from his large sack.
Boffo gets the mushy remains of an ancient map from his large sack.
Boffo bursts into tears.
Yes! Breakage in combat and falling damage. Of course breaking multiple potions ought to often cause a reaction similar to white phosphorus burning, or worse.
That'll learn players to pack their important gear in proper containers.
04 May, 2010, Scandum wrote in the 60th comment:
It's also important to implement that containers can get damaged in combat and spill their content, not to mention that no one in their right mind would stuff something sharp into a container.
Once these changes are implemented the average player won't be carrying enough trash around to require unique ID numbers. Problem solved.
Once these changes are implemented the average player won't be carrying enough trash around to require unique ID numbers. Problem solved.
Random Picks
In real life, when looking at things in front of you, you don't have to fumble through some arbitrary ordering, you can simply point to the thing you want or describe it by its defining characteristics (the big one, the small one, the one on the left, etc.). In a text-based game it's far harder to do all that and we must use syntax to get around it. I don't see how anybody could possibly argue that having to deal with some occasionally clumsy syntax is possibly immersion-preserving compared to how we normally operate.
I think this is actually your position:
Or maybe I'm building a straw man with things you've actually said.