[CF-Devel] /share/settings addition, _destroy_items_variable?=

[crossfire-devel at archives.real-time.com]

Todd Mitchell wrote:
>
     
      Previously....
     
     
>
     
      I think you are overstating the problem, first even if there are some
     
     >
     
      items that should be indestructable but are not, it is a _very_ small
     
     >
     
      subset of the items which should be destructable. If there are objects
     
     >
     
      vital to a quest that are not purposefully destructable then that can be
     
     >
     
      reported and fixed as a map bug/enhancement by setting hte material type
     
     >
     
      properly (many archetype items like keys are set to do this by default
     
     >
     
      as well for easy map making)  But making ALL items invunerable is really
     
     >
     
      an huge overkill.  It goes against the material system and overrides all
     
     >
     
      objects that are supposed to be destructable.
     
     
  I agree.  One could also argue from some point that even some quest items 
should never be indestructible.

  EG, if the quest is to recover a book, is there any reason that book should be 
indestructible?  Not really.

  I'd almost state that having important items get destroyed might be a better 
way to curtail spell use than covering a map with no magic areas.

  That said, if a creature (and not player) is likely to destroy an item, then 
perhaps it should be made invulnerable.

  Also, there is nothing preventing players from selling important items 
(without a flag or the like, there is no way to prevent that.  I suppose you 
could make them zero value, but unless you also prevent players from dropping 
them, they could still sell it just by dropping all the loot the got quickly).

  Likewise, they aren't immune to alchemy.  Or for that matter, just not picking 
them up and leaving them behind.

  I personally do see reason to fix maps where it may not be the player that 
destroys the item.  But I don't see a whole bunch of reason to insulate the 
player from potentially doing something harmful (where does it stop?)

>
     
      If this patch does what I think it does and prevents all items from
     
     >
     
      being destroyed by exiting from the save throw check, it will break a
     
     >
     
      lot of maps that depend on items getting destroyed to function
     
     >
     
      correctly. (item gets burnt up releasing a button for example).
     
     

  I hadn't even thought of that.  That reason right there is good enough reason 
to reject this patch.  OTherwise, I'm sure we'll be seeing other bug reports 
'map XYZ is broken - I can't open the gate and I followed all the steps'.


>
     
       It also
     
     >
     
      takes away one of largest intentionally negative issues with destructive
     
     >
     
      spells so that the spells become much more usable without the bad side
     
     >
     
      effects of burning up books and other treasure.
     
     
  True also.  The value of some spells is that they don't destroy items.


>
     
      I can't think of any good reason to ever do this when you can simply set
     
     >
     
      an objects material type to 256 (or leave it out) on those items that
     
     >
     
      need it.
     
     
  That is the correct approach if some items should be indestructible.  I agree 
that these are map bugs, and adding such code will actually create new bugs as 
mentioned above.




_______________________________________________
crossfire-devel mailing list
     
     crossfire-devel at lists.real-time.com
     
     
     https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/crossfire-devel