Todd Mitchell wrote: > Well...I was planning on writing to the parent map...it would have to be > crossfire writable... Probably a bad idea in general - its always been assumed in the past that you can overwrite the original maps at any time without losing data. > Other players can go to these maps, there is a grounds or yard leading to > the front door, but the front door is locked. You could go and gawk at the > house if you like. Ok. In that case, I would put the maps someplace a bit more generic. I could see an odd case where a deed is transferred (eg, A give it to B), and A then quits, causing the house to get removed - that would be pretty unfriendly. > This is probably the best idea, this is why you get the big bucks! It is > much better than writing to the parent map- the only thing was that I wanted > to have a 'lot for sale - lot 34' message and then update the map to have a > 'Joe's house' message. Maybe I could make a message that reads from a file > to do this? Have to look into that. This would make it easier to recycle > the lot as well - but I haven't given much though to recycling the lots yet > since I wanted to get things working first to try it out. I did think about > being able to sell property, but didn't want to go there yet. Not sure about having context sensitive messages. There are lots of room for improvment for what exits can do (one exmaple would be maps open/closed at certain times of day, payment to activate an exit, and so forth). If you set the unique flag on the exit object, at least in the case, if you do update the exit objects attributes, they will be persistent. It may be possible to have the 'lot for sale messages' as the starting point, and then have a script change it - probably easiest to do it so that when the player with the deed uses the exit, the message gets updated. The script would have to get called everytime someone uses the exit, so would have to do checking for the object each time someone uses it.