Crafting Ideas

Areka

I think it would need some limitations or category tags, otherwise it could be used to get around feasability rulings. "It is a sword made from $material" = glass, silk, wicker, etc.

Rashar

... Why could you not make a cast iron skillet.

Rashar

Someone needs to put me in charge of crafting.

Areka

He can't because 'skillet' isn't an alternative to 'pot', and the primary nouns of designs need to be what you can interact with (IE 'get skillet' 'look skillet', etc). I told him then, and reminded him in PMs, and say again now - if you want an alternative added, post here or shoot Becue a message and ask if it can be done. Becue's p. awesome and been really willing to work on stuff (like adding 'staff' as an alternative to cane for at least RP staves, since we don't have forgeable ones ((YET))).

Rashar

I don't understand really why the tag function can't work into that. I'm not trying to be argumentative here ( and I know I have in the past, with crafting stuff ), but genuinely attempting to understand this.

Why can we not place a tag on something and have that be the noun / interactive word, or one of them?

We have an approval process for a reason - it would be the approving party's responsibility to make sure the tag made sense with the item, so that I didn't make a kitchen table out of a backpack or something absurd, or break the boundaries of crafts (I.e. not making a piece of furniture with tailoring as a back door runaround). But like, at some point the fact that Ishin A) can make a pot, and maybe irrelevant but somewhat amusing can also -forge- metal objects, he should be able to make a damned skillet out of a 'pot'. Just an example.
-
That would deal with -so- many headaches in the entire crafting process, and take work away from Becue and all that other nonsense.

Moirean

The issue is that the template keyword (eg pot, shirt, etc) is what determines what the item's name is, ie what shows up on INFO HERE.

"trousers160578" dun-hued leggings.

Items that are FAIRLY similar and can be reasonable synonyms, eg trousers, pants, slacks, are allowed because your brain can make that logical connection - the idea is that a player who sees an item on QL should be able to then do GET and pick that item up, and it shouldn't take more than 2-3 tries to guess what that is. Something showing as SKILLET but actually being an item called POT is just not logical.

Tagging does nothing for the created item. It's a field that lets you interact with the PATTERN, not the item. It's to help crafters sort out items. The item's name comes from the template.

Now, if there was a way we could change the item type itself via a field we could set, that would be a different story completely. If that existed, they could delete all the crafting templates and just let us set an item type every time we design something. I'm pretty sure that's not how the code works, though.

Rashar

That's exactly what I'm saying, @moirean.

Why can't they make it so when I put a tag on an item, it makes that tag one of the keywords?

Sure it opens it up for abuse, or for people trying to stuff in. But, as I said - there is an approval process for a reason, and people can always get their ability to make things or approve them taken away.

Areka

Tagging lets you DESIGN LIST tag name so you can organize things outside of base pattern type (like outfits, or by organizations, or by who commissioned pieces, or by themes). Tags do not determine if you can interact with the crafted item by that tag.

As it stands with our rules right now, you cannot change the primary noun to something that you cannot interact with.

Tags can also be added/removed regardless of a design's status in the design process. I can add tags and remove tags to things already approved/in use. They are not locked in place like commodities.

Moirean

Rashar said:

That's exactly what I'm saying, @moirean.

Why can't they make it so when I put a tag on an item, it makes that tag one of the keywords?

Sure it opens it up for abuse, or for people trying to stuff in. But, as I said - there is an approval process for a reason, and people can always get their ability to make things or approve them taken away.

Because, like I said, I don't think that's how the CODE works. Items are created based on the template which determines various properties about the item. If the code could be changed, that'd be cool, but it's not as simple as just adding a tag.

Omei

Moirean is correct. What you guys think of as crafting references are what we, on our end, call aliases. Objects are "targetted" in order: first its name field ("trousers12345" would be "trousers"), then all of its aliases ("leggings", "pants", "knickers").

Design tags are, indeed, just a means of sorting. If anything, I am more likely to allow you guys to change the raw name of the item to one of its valid aliases.

Moirean

I would really like that option, at least, since not all of the aliases are intuitive and some are even weird (birdcage for cage, for example).

Rashar

I guess we're sort of arguing in circles towards the same thing here. I understand how the system works now, and I understand that the code doesn't work they way I suggested.

All I was saying was that I was curious as to why they couldn't.. do coder person things to the code and make it so. Much like, I think, Omei is saying. Whether you call it an alias or a tag or a fruit cocktail, the end result, and what I'm suggesting or at least wondering about, is that I can add a word to a list so that if I name my pot a kettle Moirean can grab kettle and that works.

Omei

It's not that we can't do it. It's a matter of effort versus reward, and I personally don't think that rewriting the (very complex) way items in the game are targetted, dealing with the inevitable bugs that will follow, and tweaking unintended behavior, is worth that outcome.

Ishin

Can you add skillet as an allowance to the pot design then, Omei? >.>

Moirean

I feel like we should just have a few more templates for forging: tool, cutlery, pan, poker, cleaver/knife (do these work for dagger?), oh wait I can't forge anyways

Areka

./is trying to get other weapons added to forging too, like staff for 2hand blunt, poleaxe/greataxe for 2hand cutting, cudgel as an alternative for club

Rashar

I just want a spear.

Why can't weapons just be cosmetic, man.

*wants a glowing spear instead of a glowing mace*

Rashar

I might actually give up Syssin and all the skills and artifacts I have for it for the ability to have a glowing spear for RP/PK.

Man. I'd actually give that serious thought.

Aarbrok

You could always get spear proficiency, and then get a rune of transformation and make a glowing spear.
@Rashar‌

I used to have a ylemcrystal dhurive I made with that.

Moirean

Cabalists and Sciomancers can both use spears. And live in Spinesreach. Just saying.

Gwenith

Woah wait, rune of transformation? Could I make my quarterstaff a warhammer?

Rashar

Rune only changes it to the same weapon type, afaik.

Spear proficiency doesn't let me smite people with my holy glowing spear!

Aarbrok

@Rashar you can smite me with your holy glowing spear >.>

Xavin

@moirean Why would a sciomancer ever -want- to use a spear, though? More than likely they're going to use something much faster thrown or just stick to their spike spell <_<.

@Rashar when I was gunning for a venom ability for mages I suggested that the staves be done away with in exchange for charging a one handed weapon with magics and letting us cast through that/use it to venom. We got spike spells instead. But I sympathize with the desire to use a spear.

Moirean

@Xavin: The same reason @Rashar does - to look FABULOUS, duh.

Serrice

Monk staves

Areka

I'm trying, Serrice! Liaisoned it and everything!

Areka

Alas @Serrice, staves have been rejected, though some new two-hand options should come with Carnifex release (report 1718)

Aarbrok

DECANTERS....CARAFES....

HROAGH!

Moirean

Could be an easy synonym to pitcher, perhaps.