posted
I think the closest you can get to that today is to have the link be to a scene, test for the class early in that scene's script, and use GOTO EXIT if the player is not allowed.
This will no doubt make a bunch of screen flashing and such.
So far, I have not allowed a 'token required' option in the link editor, but clearly I have opened my mind a little in this regard (token requirements for spells and items) so can token-locked links be far behind?
But the "only checks the host's tokens" business is fundamental to the game and a cool thing, honest. I think it would be neat to take 'visitors' to the klingon home world.
Now, for tokens, it would be a nightmare to try to do something like "take everyone in the party who also has the token" but for classes it would only be difficult.
So a party COULD remain unfractured if it was all of the same class. In theory, I mean.
Which probably means that the syntax of the SEVER PARTY command will indicate whether you want to boot EVERYONE, or just people of the wrong class.
OR... come to think of it, I probably COULD have aoption to 'sever everyone without token X' (or with token X, I suppose), and it would be evaluated by the individual players (rather than the host having to know all tokens owned by everyone).
Yes... I think that's the right way to do that...
SEVER <rules for severing>
I guess I need a positive expression though... so I could use the standard 'IF' conditionals.
SPLIT_UNLESS "C3+V40+T23-T12"
That sort of thing. I would send the rule string to the clients, they would locally evaluate their own class, level, tokens, items, etc. and then politely leave the party as needed.
posted
I intend to (This is made possible due to your new Item-Token Relationships! Yay!), make it so that people can visit the opposing storylines (and play them, if they want), but only if they group with a person of that world (intentionally letting the group-check stuff drop). This would only be doable after completing your initial storyline.
posted
As it stands right now, for me, I only need the SEVER to cut out people of the wrong class. I have a lot of sstuff that's class specific in my world, and a lot of it can be easily surmounted through the use of parties. BUT I can see the use of severing everyone regardless to make it hard for a character, a test of strength if you will.
Posts: 1043 | From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
another thing i was wondering was about having guild links (say for a guild hall or something) where you have to be in a certain guild to get into the link. just wondering if it would be something possible to do.
-JOSpamurai
Posts: 21 | From: U.S. alaska | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
As of now thats impossible, but you never know... allthough it sounds like a waste to me-- what if the guild goes inactive or defunkt, etc. etc.?
posted
also, it sort of implies a world map with a particular guild built into it. I mean, if you're willing to make an entire world, just so your guild can have a guild hall... and then convince people to play in your world...
I think what might be more reasonable is to have a map-flag for 'guild halls OK' and then a way to 'camp' with a guild lock on your camp.
Or something like that, in any case.
But having permanent guild halls (which were visible even when no members of that guild were present) would be problematic, except in the forementioned case of a custom designed world which supported halls for only a handful of guilds.
------
Having said that... I did add a couple guild-related map flags (which I never really finished to the point of making truly useful), but it might be possible to have a map link which everyone saw, and when you went through it, everyone saw the same "city-map" on the far side, BUT, it was guild-sensitive to the degree that you would only actually see/interact with other players in the same guild as yourself.
So, one guild hall portal taking you to the guild hall (map) with auto-muting and invisiblizing of people not in your own guild. Sort of a parallel dimensions kind of deal.
I think I can sort of half-support that right now, to the point of the map being 'private chat' relative to the rest of the world (so no eavesdropping across map barriers in that case).
Printer-friendly view of this topic
