Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 36 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Sign upownership system? #9555
Comments
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
That's a sound idea. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
smmck
commented
Oct 15, 2014
|
I haven't looked into it yet, but I've been seeing references to area designations like in Dwarf Fortress. Maybe we could use one of those to designate areas that you consider to belong to you. The problem with that is that players could immediately claim any valuable property that they came across (such as grocery stores), but it would be an effective way to let NPCs know what you consider to be 'yours'. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Maybe you could use spray paint to tag a building ;p then that entire overmap tile comes yours. Some NPCs could respect the tags, others not. In any case, this would require a lot of work on NPCs I think. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
this is NPC groundwork... in a way essential, as ownership is essential when more than 1 people are involved. I would think that we need ways to set both area and item ownership along the way. item owneship should take priority though... |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
I really like whole 24x24 zone claiming idea: for player and npcs. We might not even need item ownership with this. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Yea, I'm not a fan of marking individual items as owned by the player, I support the 'posting a sign' option that designates a whole area as To specifically avoid NPCs grabbing thing the player is interacting with, What I'd really like to see is a clear statement of the situations where |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
About how ownership causes problems: The 'honest' NPC's must respect my ownership, as i will respect theirs, while 'thieving' ones could try and take our stuff without the player noticing. As for the how, the problem with "the player isn't present" is that the reality bubble is not here, so nothing happens to the stuff (apart from rot/ferment systems) As i say in the first post, the unclaiming could be done after some time has passed. And of course we'd need a system to prevent the player from claiming too much.. PS. I would like to hear why marking individual items as 'owned' is not a good idea. To me it seems straightforward and clean enough: You pick it up, its yours unless it belonged to another previously. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Pretty sure those houses, gun stores, clothing stores, sporting goods stores, and so on didn't just POOF into existence. (OK, mapgen, but in-world New England wasn't built in a day.) Who's to say that NPC you're accusing of stealing "your" CBMs didn't work at/manage/own the electronics store from which you looted them? "But the store was abandoned!" OK. Evacuation pressures aside, how do I know a place is or is not abandoned? IRL there'd be fresh tracks/trash pile/waste/etc, but that's not available in DDA. Best I can think of is a PE/Survival/Traps roll to detect "hey, someone lives here" on entering a map tile. The idea of various player signs might be interesting, but then you ought to be expected to honor those of others. As for max area-claimable, I'd argue for 3x3 + vehicle at least. You could thus take over a farm. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
I think I was too harsh when suggested stopping player from claiming whole town. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Or perhaps the faction assigns you X area. Factions would be a good way to patrol territory, since they've got personnel to look in on that sort of thing. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
i like the dynamics this may bring into existence....
I also dig this
this seems quite correct.. and factions won't give you much, if at all...
But we can also flag stuff as belonging to NPC's. So if its theirs, its theirs and when i try to pick it up i will get a message ("are you sure you want to steal this?") if i know of their presence, and nothing if i do not.. EDIT (last one) |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
I'm not talking about implementation, I have a problem with a system where Simply ignoring NPC actions outside the reality bubble is short-sighted, In your system, EVERYTHING should be claimed by the pre-cataclysm owners by |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
FWIW this is a valid reason for those old trap-protected stashes... ;-) |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
It is the apocalypse: all bets are off. Most people are dead anyway, and the rest own as much as they can claim, and claim as much as they can scavenge and/or protect.
Ok, this makes sense.
Ah, i get it now. In this light, visible markers like signs make sense. These could be constructable, and then a player could write on them or carve on them something to show the place is his. For such a thing, i could see the area claimed and the time before the claim expires to vary in response to factions:
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Cool I think we're getting somewhere. How this would hook into your concept of lone claims versus faction claims is that the player needs to visit their claims to keep them fresh (but I'm guessing we're talking week+ absences are fine), but the faction could just set a NPC to patrol all the claimed area, which would keep them fresh. Side issue regarding "faction cities", I see no reason to prevent a player from staking a claim (they might not even know the faction is there), the question is whether the faction respects it. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
sounds fine.. nothing more to add...
no problem with this too, but i guess someone making claims inside faction territory may also negatively affect relations with the faction (even have them go hostile), but this could be dependent on the faction. I mean there could be peaceful laid-back factions that tolerate claims inside faction territory, so long as the player is not claiming something already belonging to someone else, Either way, 'faction cities' imply two kinds of claims: Faction territory may contain multiple individual claims from faction (even non-faction?) members. Without the second kind of claims, how will the faction know what they have/ where to patrol? This second kind of claim could be subject to expiration only if the faction cannot patrol it regularly (i.e. hasn't got the manpower to protect their claims) |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
I mean, if a faction is violent, I would expect them to display the corpses of interlopers. This is a pretty hard to miss territorial sign and also the "freshness" of the corpses gives an indication of the last time the faction was around. Maybe the player could do this too, but only the Cannibal and Psychopath can do it without suffering morale penalties. So, "territorial markers" could be constructed with bodies of slain foes (head on a stick, or whatever) to mark an area as well as using spray paint (for the less violent). Unintelligent creatures might leave freshly slain and fed upon corpses or large piles of dung littered with bones and fur/hair that mark their "territory" or even scent markers (which may or may not be apparent to most characters). |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Depends on the corpse. Wax Mistah J and I'd be surprised if people didn't put If you wouldn't reasonably take morale penalties for butchering it, you shouldn't take penalties for displaying it. Hulks are pretty clearly no-longer-human IMO. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
SilverDragonLord
commented
Oct 25, 2014
|
The timestamping sounds interesting, one way we might be able to keep some NPCs out as well is if we could lock containers/doors, though this might not keep them out entirely would at least slow them down and maby discourage most if they have to break down a reinforced metal door to get to your stuff, would also keep our buddy NPCs from stealing all our good stuff, as for claiming territory in a faction area maby one could set it up so they will allow us to claim a part of there territory for some tribute every now and then (food/ammo/cash card) though likely only if we have worked with them to the point they trust us (Gotta work hard for safety). |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Dunkhan
commented
May 30, 2015
|
We have zones now where you can designate a zone and say auto pickup should be disabled. Why not just extend this mechanic to allow marking a home zone. This could help with NPCs overburdening themselves as well. Behaviour: While in home zone friendly/following NPC will sleep without being told, will drop things they dont currently need, and will not pick up things unless they need them. e.g. if he has a bow and there are arrows on the ground he will grab them, but he will not pick up leather patches and string. The zone mechanic is not hard but the NPC AI integration might be more complex, I don't know if they have a concept of 'need' and 'want' edit: Might be nice to let them sleep there automatically as well. It can get frustrating when you tell them to go to sleep and then two hours later they wake you up to complain about being tired |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Yea, they already don't pick things up unless they think they need them, so
that doesn't help much.
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Dunkhan
commented
Jun 2, 2015
|
I just read through the need function in the npc.ccp file and something else is happening. One thing that they will always pick up is thread. I could not work out why. Additionally they never pick up food. My companions all seem to die eventually as well although it may not necessarily be starvation. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
May be infection. I don't think they understand how to fix their infected wounds at the moment. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This issue was closed as it appears inactive.Reducing open issues to those which are (or will) be actively worked upon helps us focus our efforts. This issue has not been deleted - it still appears in searches and if it contains relevant information you are encouraged to continue to link to it. If this issue was a bugIt should be reopened if it can be reproduced in the current build. You can obtain the most recent copy here. Please check there is not a more recent report of this bug before doing so. If no more recent report exists you should continue the discussion in this issue. If this was a feature requestIf the consensus was that the idea was good you could consider submitting an implementation via a PR. If you want to comment further please do so here as opposed to opening a new issue. Before posting check nobody has already made the same point and consider whether your comments are likely to lead to an implementation. If you have doubts about either consider instead voting for the issue If you want to work on this issueThen either assign it to yourself or if you are unable to do so claim it via adding a comment. Please don't assign others or make a general request for action. |
jcd000 commentedOct 15, 2014
inspired by this post: http://smf.cataclysmdda.com/index.php?topic=8022.0
we have currently no way to know to whom items belong.
what if items had also an ownership attribute?
how this helps:
perceived problems:
-> maybe solved with ownership expiring if outdoors and enough time has passed
all in all, it should be helpful as we are building up npc's and factions.
Want to back this issue? Post a bounty on it! We accept bounties via Bountysource.