pigpen

I'm no expert, but it seems like the real problem with implementing something like this is that it adds nothing meaningful to the game. You can already harvest anything in the game that you want to. It takes very little time and effort to learn at least one place you can find each type. It doesn't allow you to harvest something you couldn't already, so what does it really do? All this adds is a place where you can harvest any *combination* of items with no significant travel in between. That basically only has one use, which is to level alchemy and potion skills with no rest or travel. People keep mentioning "you're limited by food", but they seem to forget that by its definition the "harvester's heaven" also has fruit and vegetables all about. So the question comes down to whether you really need a place, which most people will never see, that has the sole purpose of saving an alchemist the trouble of walking to 2 or 3 different harvesting points before making a hundred essenses or bars or whatever. Sure it would be nice if that happens to be exactly what you need, but for anyone else, it would be of no use at all.

Wow am I really the only one who has this problem, or did I just explain it so perfectly that nobody has anything to add?

The item images displayed in your inventory have a tiny problem that's probably easily fixed. I assume they must all be stored in single image, all arranged in a grid (which is what most games probably do), and then that grid is sliced up into one square for each item. Well it looks like that slicing is happening in the wrong place for some items. If you look at the images for several of the furs (wolf comes to mind, but I know there are a couple others), you can see a small sliver of the next fur on the right side of the image. Also the left side of the fur in those images is chopped off, presumably showing up in the right side of some other fur's icon. Also, some images (not not all) look like they're shifted a couple pixels too far to the left, which is probably part of the same problem. The fix is to adjust the slicing to be closer to the image arrangement on that source grid. But it's also possible that some of the images simply crowd too much, and in that case, it might be a good idea to add spacing between each icon in the grid. I had a similar problem with storing all glyphs in a font on a single source grid and using OpenGL texture coords to pluck out the right images. Spacing them out took a little extra code, but worked great and wasted hardly any space. Just FYI.

I'm sure I'm not the first one to have a lot of trouble starting fights with creatures that move a *lot* in all directions, especially in forests or between large rocks, etc. There are 2 separate problems that I see, and 2 different things that could be done to fix them: #1 Clicking a target for attack will usually give you a "you're too far" message, even if you're not all that far away. So you have to click *near* the target (not on it, or you'll accomplish nothing), to move closer, then wait until you stop moving in order to click the target again. If you don't wait until you stop, you'll usually end up moving again, which takes longer, and all the while your target is probably moving too fix: When clicking a target to attack, move the character toward the target position just as if using the 'move' action. Then either a.) follow the target if necessary and start combat when the character reaches it, or b.) simply walk to the point that was clicked and start combat if the target is still nearby when the character gets there. #2 When clicking a point or a target that is behind an object (like a tree or a rock), the character usually walks toward the base of that object. If it's a tree, this can be a lot of walking in the wrong direction. It's also common for things to endup behind one tree, and rotating the camera simply puts it behind another tree. This makes it very difficult to walk (and extremely difficult to fight) in areas with a lot of trees, rocks, walls, etc. fix: Treat objects like rocks, walls, and trees as transparent to mouse clicks. This means the mouse cursor should change according to what's on the ground behind the tree, and clicks should always act on the ground/objects behind the tree. This is only for objects that can't be interacted with. Buildings and other things with doorways, and character models should still be treated as they are. But objects that are only there for scenery, should be transparent to mouse events. That way clicking the top of a tree won't cause you to turn around and walk to the bottom of the tree, but will cause you to walk to the point *behind* the tree that you clicked. You'd also be able to start fights near trees without having to spend several minutes playing with the camera to get a clear line of sight for the click... assuming your target doesn't move behind another tree while you're doing that

Seems to me that food isn't nearly as much an issue as the ingredients. When you've used up your ingredients, you're done. When you run out of food points, you're done. The only proposed difference is whether you have to click for every item.

It might also be easier to add an 'alias' command. In most text-based muds, they get imped because people want shortcut commands of their own. If the usage was similar to those, it would look something like this: #alias greet #gm Hey! (typing 'greet' executes '#gm Hey!') #alias greet (displays what 'greet' is currently aliased to) #alias (shows all aliases) #unalias greet (removes the 'greet' shortcut that was created) That command may or may not be better than arbitrary keybindings, but it would have the advantage of being unlimited.

I've been an admin/coder on a couple muds, and taken a lot of player suggestions for those, and I've come to expect a ton of 2 types of comments: 1. Asking for a feature that doesn't actually make the game any better, just easier for the person making the suggestion. 2. Attacking an idea because it's not what's already being done. #2 I think we can all see happening a few times on this topic. This feature seems to have the same the same benefit for all players (unlike the ones that say 'we need more spells/equipment/quests for my level/race/shoe size'). So I don't see #1 happening on this topic. In my (limited) experience, that means we're likely looking at a decent idea, so why not give it a closer look? Requiring player interaction instead of automation usually only has one valid reason: to prevent cheating. So the question is, would automation allow a player to cheat, or would it allow a player to gain an unfair advantage. Secondary to that is this: would it remove an important part of the game? Obviously a feature that automates scouting and fighting would take something away from the game. But what does this feature take away? Clicks. That's it. A click is not a game, it's not a side-quest, and it's not a puzzle. It's a finger twitch. The feature doesn't remove the need for food, ingredients, and whatever else. It only removes some of the clicks. Sounds to me like a clear case of a good idea that does nothing but improve the interface. It has no effect at all on the game itself, so in-game arguments about what the feature might 'lead to' shouldn't stop it from being imped.

Instead of tracking who acquired each item, why not just add certain high-level items that require multiple PCs to craft together? That's not exactly easy to implement either, but instead of modifying objects to remember who found them, you would only have to extend crafting a bit. One example is that when you craft one of these extra-tough items that requires multiple people, clicking the mix button would require you to choose a player to assist you (much like spells that target other players). If the player has enough of the appropriate skill, he'd probably have to do give some kind of confirmation (which might be tricky to do in an intuitive way). If the assistant doesn't have enough skill or doesn't agree, the mix would fail.

One of the most difficult parts of encouraging trade between players is that it's usally pretty difficult for sellers and buyers to meet up at just the right time, and that's assuming they know who has what they're looking for. The market forum is a good step toward making that easier, but I think it would still be an improvement to build a feature specifically for players selling items to other players. I've only personally seen this done in one game (FF Online), but I've heard that several other games have some form of the same idea, so you'll probably recognize what I'm describing. The feature allows a player to mark some of the items in his inventory as "for sale" for a particular price. In FFXI, players with items marked for sale had an icon appear by their name to let other players know that they could browse that player's list. Basically the player becomes a walking merchant, and people he happens to pass by can take a look at his wares and decide if they want to buy any of it. I realize it's no small change, and I don't suggest it just because some other game does it, but because I imagine it would greatly improve inter-player commerce. The most noticeable improvement would be that complete strangers can make an a deal on the spot, without the seller having to spam the area asking if anyone wants what he's got This is what would be required to imp it: 1. A "merchandise" window (FFXI calls theirs a 'bazaar') which shows which items in your inventory are allowed to be sold. 2. Some method in that window to select items and set prices on them, and remove items from the merchandise list. 3. Some indication on the player's model or name that shows he has merchandise. 4. A new action to browse a player's wares (this can be the default action when clicking PCs with merchandise, which might be enough to satisfy #3) 5. A window similar to regular shop windows, which allows the player to buy whatever items are on the list 6. A message to the seller when someone buys something from him. (Those are in terms of EL as I understand it, not so much based on FFXI, which I haven't seen for about a year now) It's also possible that items in the player's inventory that are marked for sale would be unavailable to use, sell at shops, or possibly even drop, until the items are removed from the player's merchandise list. That might mean that you'd need some way to mark them in the inventory window (faded colors, big red X, etc). It all depends on which is more intuitive, and which is easier to implement. In many ways it makes sense to still be able to use items you have put up for sale, since nothing stops a merchant from dipping into his own stock now and then Another decision that has to be made is whether only part of a stack is allowed to be put on sale. If so, it requires sometimes having to split a stack of items into two stacks: one stack for sale, and one not for sale. That would make the player's merchandise window a little more intricate, but it would also be more flexible than requiring only whole stacks to be put on sale. I don't know how those stacks are stored internally, but I suspect it would be kind of an inconvenience to allow multiple stacks of the same item in inventories. Like I said, it's no small thing to implement, but it can make buying and selling between players much easier and more intuitive for most situations. For two people who make a plan for some trade in the forum, the regular trading method works great. But the 'merchandise' method works best when someone has stuff for sale, doesn't care who buys it, and knows *someone* probably wants it, but has no idea who. Plus it's fun to buy things on impulse when you come across a good deal, and it's a fun surprise to see that some guy you've never seen before has just funded your next round of crafting efforts