Re: new(?) ownership concept

• Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 04:53:56 PDT
• From:
  Kipp the Kidd <mcmudge@mailbox.syr.edu>
• Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 10:08 PM 10/7/96 PDT, James R O'Kane wrote:
>so...while i'm still thinking this through...who wants to be first to
>point out reasons not to do this? and what is wrong with it like you guys
>do about everything else i suggest to the list ;)

Paradigm had something similar.. not quite TAKING something tho.

If an event you triggered caused the creation of an object, it's yours.
You'd be suprised how many objects this gets you to own.
 -- Killing an NPC.  The stuff they are carrying is cloned and moved to it's
corpse.  The NPC reappears after about 1/2 an hour.
 -- Buying something "unlimited".  The unlimited item is cloned.
Also, paradigm had some funky sort of multiple-object handling.  Each object
had an identity and amount property.  If the identities of two objects were
equal, they were merged (DestObj.amount=SourceObj.amount+DestObj.amount)...
When you pick up a merged object, you own the new object that is created.

Usually nobody gave away their stuff after one of events, so .contents
almost matched .owned_objects  It came in handy...  Don't ask me why or how.
It just was... didn't put so much of a load on a lambda-like DM/GM with a
gazillion owned objects.  Could be useful in proving who killed what, who
picked up what and who bought what.

Hmm, this isn't really reasons not to do this, it's just a different view or
something.

- Kipp
"I see no day," I heard him say,
"So grey is the face of every mortal!"

• Prev: new(?) ownership concept
• Next: Non-overridable verbs.
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows