[crossfire] use_skill change proposal

[Mark Wedel]

Nicolas Weeger wrote:
>>   I'm presuming you are saying that the same skill, like now, has multiple
>> ways to be used, and different commands should be used.
> 
> I'm talking about alchemy-like spells, actually.
> The proposed change is for those skills to only do alchemy and not 
> identification, and add a new 'identify' *global* command which will identify 
> based on all skills at once.
> This avoids the need to add a 'bind use_skill thaumaturgy ; use_skill 
> alchemy ; use_skill woodsman' and change it for each skill :)

  Ok - in a sense, it is somewhat acting as a predefined binding, but also using 
an alternative use for the skills.

  Are there any skills out there that only identify objects?


>>   I'm quite sure how to do it, but one could click on the skill name in the
>> client and it would to the appropriate action (or if a skill has multiple
>> ways to be used, bring up a menu asking them how they want to use it).  The
>> hard part for that right now would be communicating to the client what
>> skills have what actions (it wouldn't be too hard to hard code in values,
>> but that is sure to break down the road).
> 
> I'd even go as far as saying to have the available options for any item - 
> drop, apply, and such. Though it could restrain creativity - who would think 
> of applying a key [which when applied spawns a strange monster asking for a 
> riddle and rewarding you if you reply corrctly]?

  I often thought that bringing up a context menu for objects in a players 
inventory (lock, unlock, drop, mark, etc) would make more sense than having to 
hit arcane shift/control/mouseclick operations.

  In terms of your apply example, it really depends on what the client knows - 
at some level, it probably shouldn't know all what an item can and can not do. 
Right now, the client will let the player apply any item they want (and send 
that request to the server).  In that menu, I'd think the options would 
basically have to be the same for all objects, since the client doesn't know any 
better.


>>   If we are going to keep in those commands that players need to issue, I'd
>> prefer for them to have some semblance to natural english language.
>>
>>   For example, 'cast fireball' or 'use_skill smithery' seem, while a bit
>> verbose, seem somewhat natural.  'identify smithery' would seem to suggest
>> something different from a pure language perspective.
> 
> I'd just go with 'identify' and the server would use all available skills.
> It's pretty rare imo to want to only use one skill for identification 
> purposes.

  I could think of some rare cases where it may be useful (since the ability to 
identify is based on the skill level, one could see that trading items might 
improve the odds of being identified).  But as noted, that would probably be a 
pretty rare case, and that one could still be worked around by 
dropping/transferring the objects before using the skill.

  But like Otto, I'm not sure I like the name identify since it is used other 
places, and in those other places, is sure to say what the items are.

  I wonder if 'analyze' might be better?  It sort of describes the act (with the 
characters various skills, they are analyzing the items trying to figure out 
what they do).