Healing Wounds/Body Damage

[Selveem]

As current code stands, aside from a detached limb your body heals per your con bonus/tick (if I am not mistaken). Unfortunately, if you are at 100% and already have a wound, that wound will not heal. While sometimes this is a very nice opportunity for RP (AKA Goreign getting in trouble _again_ with Gesine for not taking care of himself), it can be slightly annoying and cause limbs to sever prematurely.

What I request is that wounds that are less than mangled (or, even mangled [obviously, not severed]) slowly heal over time. I don't know how difficult this would be to code - if it's too much trouble, it may not even be worth it.

[Selveem]

Is there any chance this feature has been discussed?

[Kelemvor]

If your question relates to Imm or staff discussions on this subject, then no there has been no discussion on the staff forums relating to your suggestion.

[Dalvyn]

Wouldn't a cure light wound spell fix it all?

[Nysan]

Wouldn't a cure light wound spell fix it all?

That requires player interaction or paying one of the 1000 NPC priests. NONSENSE!

[Zilvryn]

Sarcasm anyone?

[Tortus]

A cure light would indeed help, but realistically, people tend not to keep scratches and scrubs forever.

I'm all for encouraging interaction between players, but people tend to meet each other anyways, and asking ICly for bruises to be taken care of would be difficult at least for me. I just couldn't justify it, seeing that it's because of OOC programming that they're still there. This is not an argument for a hard code change though, I don't mind bruises, I just like discussing things.

[Selveem]

I figured with the push to make things a little more realistic, this addition to the code would be welcomed.

Not every character would nurse from the teat of every priest. Those people would still heal, over time. If I remember correctly, Malarites lose favor for receiving healing spells from others. In any case, it's some people's RP to not request healing or even supplemental spells. Yes, with odd RPs there are drawbacks, but an antiquated system of healing seems a far cry from justified.

I don't mind a debate, but justification like 'Oh, well then characters would never meet up' is fairly flawed in my opinion.

I'm aware the coders are busy. I'm not asking for immediate turn-around, but am asking that it be discussed. If declined, a valid reason. If accepted, placed on the to-do list for some time when a coder gets the inspiration.

[Kelemvor]

I'm not asking for immediate turn-around, but am asking that it be discussed.

This thread is the principal point at which discussion takes place.

As an Imm on FK I am very much in favor of player contribution and agreement before taking a discussion to the staff forums.

I don't mind a debate, but justification like 'Oh, well then characters would never meet up' is fairly flawed in my opinion.

Opinion is always welcome and something else that I am very much in favor of. It's important to note though that an open forum means that no one person's opinion is any weightier than another. Please do not cast aside someone else's contribution as 'flawed', even if that is your opinion.

Another poster's opinion failing to match yours or the debate not following the course you envisioned is not necessarily a bad thing. Wider debates are far more useful to the Imm team than narrow discussions reflecting only one or two poster's opinions.

I figured with the push to make things a little more realistic

This seems to be a growing perception in some circles... that the direction of the MUD is to make code and game play reflect some real-life constant.

Yes, reality and the creation of an IC reality within which to play are important aspects of the MUD.

However, a suggestion for change to code to reflect reality is not a given. There is no 'push' to make this so and even if there were it would not be achievable within our current system for discussing and agreeing changes.

Any suggestion or code change request has to be balanced against the impact on players, the impact upon roleplay opportunities, the positives or negatives to game play and enjoyment and a wealth of other concerns. Concerns which do not always/automatically allow for reality and which sometimes rely on 'antiquated' systems.
These being sometimes fluid or intangible to code... balance, fairness and fun for players.

If declined, a valid reason.

If a suggestion fails to progress from the wider forum to staff discussion and/or implementation then the reason might well be that the general weight of player opinon was against the change or not massively in favor of it being a necessary or valuable change.

I'm a little unclear exactly what you mean by 'valid' in this context and I was surprised to see it put so forcefully.
Do you mean that any/every suggestion posted should be commented upon by the Imm team and reasons given for why it was/was not 1)discussed further 2)implemented?


To return to the original suggestion and the debate as it currently stands.
I was not aware that retaining 'bruising' made later injuries to the same area more serious or hazardous to players. This may well bear further investigation.

Though in some respects I might actually find this far more realistic than the 'ping!... time limit up on that injury, it's fixed now' side of the coin.

I am in a fierce fight, I am quite seriously injured.
Over a period of time I recover from my wounds, but since I am loathe to put my trust in the hands of a healer I do this without recourse to healing magic.
Despite feeling fully recovered, that injury is more susceptible in a later fight.

Anyone who has recovered from serious injury, even with the help of physiotherapy and treatment, would go along with the idea that the injured limb/organ/area is rarely as strong as previously.

A time limit on injuries would undoubtedly have some realism and would be fair and player-friendly to all. As such, I am not against the idea.

However, encouraging solo play or taking away from clerical roleplay are negatives that should not be just discounted.

[Selveem]

It's important to note though that an open forum means that no one person's opinion is any weightier than another. Please do not cast aside someone else's contribution as 'flawed', even if that is your opinion.

How can the belief that players will never meet up be flawed? Even when I feel particularly anti-social, I meet people. It doesn't seem to matter where I go or what I do. So, in my experience, yes it is flawed.

Another poster's opinion failing to match yours or the debate not following the course you envisioned is not necessarily a bad thing. Wider debates are far more useful to the Imm team than narrow discussions reflecting only one or two poster's opinions.

Forgive my being human. When a sarcastic response is issued on something I feel is particularly important to the game, I take offense.

This seems to be a growing perception in some circles... that the direction of the MUD is to make code and game play reflect some real-life constant.

I really don't see how it can be seen as anything different. Previously, weight could be shifted to horses, mules, etc. The use of saddlebags and bags that attached to saddles were able to be carried by these animals via 'bug.' The containers, now, also seem to carry far less (with the exception of 'special' containers - like spell pouches).

If a suggestion fails to progress from the wider forum to staff discussion and/or implementation then the reason might well be that the general weight of player opinion was against the change or not massively in favor of it being a necessary or valuable change.

I can't think of a polite way to respond to this.. I find this is simply untrue. I've seen a heavy number of changes made at the whim (with good intentions, certainly...) without consultation of the player base nor discussion of pros/cons in a public manner to include the player base.. One very obvious one was the miniaturization of Dwarves. With most of the realm in 3rd edition, this backwards change was made without notice.

I'm a little unclear exactly what you mean by 'valid' in this context and I was surprised to see it put so forcefully. Do you mean that any/every suggestion posted should be commented upon by the Imm team and reasons given for why it was/was not 1)discussed further 2)implemented?

I'll be honest with you. I'm getting old and less diplomatic. Not only that, but with the new time constraints imposed, I don't have time to think of a witty way to sugar up the medicine, so please excuse some of my curt responses.

What I mean here by 'valid' is not just 'Declined - Imm decision.'

I would like not just more player response, but also more 'Imm' response. There are so many great ideas on these forums that just sit in a dead zone. They are awarded no flag for possible implementation that players see, much less a priority for implementation.

There are really good ideas that I believe are at least worth a response such as the config +/- Climb post suggested by Horace. Things that benefit the entire MUD as a whole and do not suddenly over-encumber players with the sudden inability to do things they once did.

I was not aware that retaining 'bruising' made later injuries to the same area more serious or hazardous to players. This may well bear further investigation.

In Killmode Spar it doesn't. But in any real fight - killmode kill, etc.. It definately does.

Though in some respects I might actually find this far more realistic than the 'ping!... time limit up on that injury, it's fixed now' side of the coin.

Maybe it could give healing echoes? 'Your wound has closed, but the pain has not subsided.'

However, encouraging solo play or taking away from clerical roleplay are negatives that should not be just discounted.

Clerical roleplay, in my envisioned fix, would not be taken away. It would just not be as necessary for those people who logged off forgetting to feed their characters only to end up with a shredded abdomen upon logging back in. As it stands it is possible to kill a few mobs alone, but adventuring into dangerous places the way those dangerous places are currently set up by our builders, you will still die.

The only way I could really see a character able to solo a complete area alone would be a very powerful Priest or Priestess of Mask - with the skills to detrap/pick locks/hide/sneak/invisible themselves.. Heal themselves and a properly armored one with available potions.. Anyhow, I digress.. Just food for thought.

[Gwain]

Some things to consider:

For the most part imms and admins have worked closely and do work closely with players and their characters. This means that they take into account all ideas and discussion items as best as they can. As it is a volunteer based game things will take time, months or weeks, but they get done, they do get discussed. However they are often discussed in threads open to groups that specialize in that field of development. This means that it will often be awhile before some discussion is introduced back into the general threads. This does not mean that everything is being discussed in private, some things are left floating, but if elements are popular they are usually addressed or acknowledged.

What does this mean? It means that if you put something up in the forum, an idea or a bug or something similar it will be discussed but that discussion can vary based on the general public, the need and the means. Not everything is codeable, not everything feasible but putting it forward means that you did your best, you just have to wait. If it takes a few months or longer you may have to do a reminder, but regardless this is not the old days, posts are not being locked, ideas are not mocked or removed. Things just take time.

One last thing to point out, the dwarven size issue is quite old, it was completed before February 2006, this means that the current admins have taken steps since then to be more transparent and vocal in explaining and developing ideas over the past year and a half. I think coders and builders have taken to heart the opinions and concerns of the playerbase by recruiting and expanding councils and creating an environment where everyone has a chance and the freedom to express opinions for good or for bad and be apart of the process.

Not meant as a rant, but to just reflect the general freedom and inclusiveness that I feel has grown in the past two years

[Selveem]

For the most part imms and admins have worked closely and do work closely with players and their characters.

Understandable, but also remember that discussing ideas only with a specific group of players (including Imms - Imms are players IMO) gives a very limited spectrum of personalities and are likely to be skewed towards a specific (and sometimes self-serving) interest.

Also, I may not know the coding aspect of the game, but I know that there are a good number of players who may be nice RPers but are fairly ignorant of the intricacies of the game or some of the more difficult combat and how many different aspects play into surviving those.

The reason I suggested _some_ form of response was that I (and perhaps I am the only one) feel sometimes that great ideas are ignored or 'forgotten.' When people feel like that, they are less inclined to make those valued suggestions the staff speaks of and less likely to aid in game development.


**Edited to include: Also, I'm aware the size of Dwarves were decreased by the previous administration. I intentionally used that as an example so as not to offend the current administration. If necessary, to defend my example, I can provide a number of changes that were made to the detriment of players (and not all specifically coding).

[Lathander]

No were made "to the detriment of players." All imm decisions are carefully considered for balance to the game as a whole. Yes, we do occassionally take something away from a class/race/faith etc and add to another but it is ALWAYS with balance in mind. To suggest that we do otherwise is to imply that imms choose to favor one class/race/faith over another. Our goal has always been and will always be, balance.

[Selveem]

Some changes are made to the detriment of players when the players affected by the changes are not forewarned and end up unable to even move a single room without dropping what they own (and possibly cannot replace).

I, personally, don't mind most changes. While I may not agree with some, I obviously still play so it did not impact my enjoyment enough for anything otherwise.

However, if those same players had've been warned 'Hey, this has been in discussion and will probably take place on <insert date here>. Please make arrangements for your equipment to be stored in the new storage system or in your player houses.'

Those are the type of changes I'm referring to. The changes that are intentional and "have been discussed" but the bulk percentage or "layfolk" are unaware of.

I'm in no way intentionally bashing anyone. I just think the process is flawed. Perhaps this needs its own thread? I don't know. In any case, that's all I was referring to.

[Kelemvor]

Let's just clarify this flawed discussion and the detrimental impact on players.

I'll assume that we're referring to the problems experienced around carry weights.

There was no discussion around this and no forewarning received because it resulted from the fixing of a bug.

I am no coder, but experience tells me that this is not unusual - the finding and fixing of one piece of troublesome code often unmasks other hidden problems.

It's therefore a little harsh to spotlight something that could not have been foreseen and use it as an argument to question other change processes.

That the bug had been in existence for a long time and had led to players being able to store inordinate amounts of gear on pets without regard to carry weight was what became detrimental not the decision to fix the original bug.

Personally, I find some of the often misinformed posts of late to be negative and offering little encouragement to a small volunteer admin team which has tried hard to promote the growth of the MUD.

[Nysan]

As a dwarf player, I felt the weight change rather hard... having lost 100 or so lbs worth of carrying weight during a time where I logged him out almost full prior to the change with ore and such. However, it was a bug fixed and the weight change was unexpected. Cannot fault coders for unexpected reactions of bugs. They are unpredictable at times. There is a vast difference between intended change and bug backlashes. Negative reaction to bug backlash does no one good since it is no one's fault.



And sarcasm happens, roll with the punches.

[Selveem]

I put more stock into our coders than to assume that the result is on accident. It doesn't take a genius to understand that if you are fixing a bug that is currently giving unlimited carry weight to mobiles that it will affect people's horses, mules, etc.

My post wasn't uninformed. Please don't assume it so to discredit my statements. It isn't appreciated.

I'm just saying that things like these could be communicated to the players so that the negative impact is minimized.

[Mask]

This thread isn't going anywhere constructive. Every change in the game has side-affects, some of which are expected, some of which aren't. It takes time to then go through those side-affects and determine which ones are sufficiently negative that they need to be fixed. Your patience while we go through this process is appreciated.

When making suggestions for the game, please bear in mind also that we have limited time to discuss suggestions, let alone actually implement them. At least one member of the code council will read every suggestion and they have the ability to log a change request which will then go into my task to-do list, which I then empty at some later date. All of this takes time, which is a very limited resource scattered across many on-going projects and discussions. Again, your patience and understanding is appreciated.

[Selveem]

Understandable, Mask.

Also, please understand I wasn't criticizing you for the fix. I was criticizing the process which would help the players and minimize impact.

[Selveem]

Perhaps this could make those bandages useful. Currently, I don't think they even have a use. Perhaps, when used while at 100% hp, it can improve the state of one of those 'lingering wounds?'