CF: Re: artifact corpses and containers

[David Andrew Michael Noelle <>]

Mark Wedel wrote: (Re: CF: corpses and Animate Dead spells)

>  As for weight and nutritional value - I believe both were based on the original
> weight of the creature killed.  So what this probably means is that the zombie
> and hill giant have roughly the same weight.  hill giants should probably be
> made better.

    I always assumed that the zombie corpses were particularly nutritious
because of the artificial preservatives (magic) that previously animated
them.  Zombie corpses are one of the best edible items commonly available,
weighing only about twice as much as a generic "food" but having more than
three times the nutritional value.  It's not quite waybread, but it sure
beats orc chops.


Mark Wedel wrote: (Re: CF: Reality check: artifact containers)
> 
>  Certainly the need for large capacity containers should be reduced some with
> the addition of the apartments.  Before then, there was no private place for
> characters to store their excess loot (some created bank characters - give their
> stuff to that character, and then save it off).
> 
>  That said, some container concepts are still reasonable for cleanliness (like
> quivers - have those 10 types of arrows in one container.)

    No argument there.  If anything, I'd like to see a greater variety of
containers.  Carrying several containers of different, or even the same
type, isn't a problem.  Nesting magical containers is.


>  Does putting one container in another actually work?  At one time, I thought if
> you tried to do that, it would work - it would transfer the contents instead or
> something like that.  But I may be wrong on that.

    It does work, but only if you drop one, then pick it up, while you have
a second container active.  The bit about transferring contents only happens
of you're already holding both, ready and open one of them, then try to drop
the other into it.
    This may be simply an oversight in the pickup code.  I see it as a
confusion of the definition of weight.  In determining the encumberance of a
full container, the total encumberance of the contents are considered as
mass.  In placing one container inside another, they are assumed to have the
same volume regardless of their contents, so it's only the actual
container's "weight" that determines whether it will fit, but the total
"weight" of container and contents are added to the outer container.  That's
how the weight limits get exceeded.
    Ever used icestorm against a bunch of giants, then died helplessly
because you somehow managed to pick up a 9,000 kg icecube and reduce your
speed to something unreasonably close to zero?  Same problem.  If you can
pick up a 15kg icecube, you can pick up any icecube, regardless of how many
300kg boulders it contains.  Seems like a bug to me.


>  That said, I don't see a problem with containers per se.  The issue may instead
> be containers that reduce weight a great amount and the ability to nest
> containers.

    Agreed.  And I don't really think individual containers with too much
weight reduction is the problem.  Luggage is a pretty rare item, and
although it can hold quite a bit (1000 kg), it only reduces the effective
weight in half.  Bags or sacks of holding, which are easier to buy, but no
less rare, hold significantly less and only reduce weight by 60%. 
Theoretically, there do exist bags of "great holding", but I've never seen
one myself.

    The problem is collecting several bags, sacks, and Luggages, and
combining them into super containers.  I can see three solutions to this: 1)
implement weight and volume seperately, 2) don't allow containers to be
placed inside containers, or 3) enforce limits on nested containers.

    With seperate weight and volume, a hard container like Luggage, having
the same volume no matter how full, simply cannot fit inside a container of
the same or lesser volume.  Soft containers like bags might fit inside other
containers only as long as the total volume of their contents doesn't exceed
the outer container's volume.  That would limit the abuse somewhat,
requiring many more containers and a good deal more manipulation to achieve
the effects currently possible.

    Making magical containers reduce the contents of their weight by the
best factor, rather than the product of the factors, when stacked together,
would also limit the potential for abuse, but would still allow players to
carry bags full of *empty* Luggage into the dungeon, removing them one at a
time to fill them up.  This solution would just be a bit more tricky to
implement.

    The simple solution, of course, is to not allow containers to be placed
inside containers, or to be picked up based only on the weight of the
container itself, regardless of its contents.


>  The former is the map makers responsiblity.  The later could be changed in the
> code for magical containers (you put that luggage into the luggage - a
> dimensional rift occurs and both luggages are destroyed!)  Or simply, not allow
> it.

    Destroying artifact containers would be a rather extreme solution,
especially since they can be placed inside each other accidentally, simply
by picking one up while you have another readied.


-- 
            -Dave Noelle,                 
            -the Villa Straylight,  http://www.straylight.org
Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email  ==  http://www.cauce.com

Quote of the Day:
"The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm
 trying.  I'm trying real hard to be a shepherd."  - Jules, "Pulp Fiction"
-
[you can put yourself on the announcement list only or unsubscribe altogether
by sending an email stating your wishes to ]