Trading protected items

[ThinkSome]

Rationale:

• item protection is quite a bit of an annoyance when I want to transfer gear between two characters on two separate accounts. But, on the other hand, I don't want to accidentally drop anything.

• Item protection is also an annoyance when rolling options in ML. TMW-only players can probably use the tulimshar items NPC in nivalis as an example of "submitting to NPC", however it is not a daily annoyance. But, even if not, the NPC will ask if you are sure.

Your vote decides if this gets merged or not: https://git.themanaworld.org/mana/plus/ ... quests/173

[Hello=)]

My opinion...

• Its been me behind this feature who suggested it to 4144. Its why I bother to reply here.
• Similar feature been spotted in other, pro-made MMORPG. I've "translated" it to TMW terms and explained 4144 how it meant to work.
• IMO 4144 implemented it right. Its what I liked about him and his project management, btw.
• Goal of feature is to prevent loss of valuable items stupid ways - being effective at this - not something else.
• Mentioned change IMO defeats feature purpose, so regression in my book. What you think happens if someone submits their banshee or bull -> e.g. TMW's lab? Yes, you can submit items here. (Warning! No refunds! You WILL lose submitted items!).
• Can I honestly say usecases you mentioned as justification are ... IMO exotic/niche?
• This change can add extra load on staff, since it introduces new venues to lose valuable items.

So TL;DR ... if I use what I call "multifactor compound evaluation" how feature could possibly fare... seems overall I do not like it: introduces venues to lose allegedly-protected items. Sorry if this not a feedback you wanted.

[ThinkSome]

Thanks, any feedback is good feedback!

Do you speak of item protection in general or just in trade/NPC context? Protection from dropping and using is good, undisputed here and will stay as-is.

Don't other, "pro-made MMORPGs" forbid multiple accounts? In that case protecting items from trade does make sense, but it does not in TMW's case. Most of us do have multiple accounts here and we do trade equipment between them. Items are kind of already protected during trading, and three times so: first when adding them, second when proposing and third when agreeing.

It might also be possible to skip protection checks only among your own accounts/characters

What you think happens if someone submits their banshee or bull

I just checked: The NPC in question asks you to confirm the action AND the confirmation option is not the first one (thus, difficult to accidentally double click). I agree that this is niche in TMW context, but in ML we are submitting armor items to NPC several times a day..

Can I honestly say usecases you mentioned as justification are ... IMO exotic/niche?

It might feel that way to you, since you (apparently) have only one player account. You could make another one with a dark mage character in it and you would feel the item protections getting in the way

[Hello=)]

I speak about particular feature: player-configured item protection. This IMO really meant to protect valuable item - not to do something else. Halting potential unsafe cases leading to item loss. In this context, I can imagine allowing trades of these with "friendly" players can be okay per se - but only as long as they marked as such.

I just checked: The NPC in question asks you to confirm the action AND the confirmation option is not the first one

This makes selected item exposed to ARBITRARY SCRIPT CODE! Whenther particular code does something destructive is really up to server's scripter and um, how do you even foresee what they could/would do in future? This feature not meant to depend on what server side does, "prototype" also been 100% client-local thing.

As for other pro made MMORPG... in real world players DO use >1 account. Even if this formally prohibited in some places, enforcement is laxed unless it causes measurable problems, like someone lacking common sense and e.g. using heal bots, getting unfair advantage over others. Ofc like this GMs would kick in and try to resolve situation, but other than that... why more populated server or potentially more money are something bad?

You could make another one with a dark mage character in it and you would feel the item protections getting in the way

Would rather try to get resonable items on that char to not bother with all that shuffling. Once in a while I can even manually confirm some operations. Not a huge tragedy for something I do once in a months. I.e. I would optimize frequently used cases, this not going to be "frequent action" on my side regardless of # of accounts.

P.s. on funny note, do you know you can in principle bulk-store and bulk-retrieve items (storage <-> inv) even w/o coding this in client, by rather dumb script sending chat commands via IPC? Funny thing about M+ is: quite many actions - even those in menus - are in fact "chat commands". And thus one can have quite decent automation for "exotic" cases via IPC.

[ThinkSome]

As said, items are already protected by the proposal/agreement system; I don't know why they need double protection. But the public has decided, this patch stays in my local branch only.

server's scripter and um, how do you even foresee what they could/would do in future?

This is our client, and I don't think we should be accounting for our own loss of sanity

Not a huge tragedy for something I do once in a months.

It'd be an annoyance, still, trust me. Particularly as it takes time before you mark such items as protected once again (causing a window when they are not protected against e.g. dropping). At least, that is my own experience.

bulk-store and bulk-retrieve items (storage <-> inv) even w/o coding this in client,

Yes, I even made a local patch to add item IDs to these commands, as indices were unreliable. But I never used the IPC interface, only autoclicker text input.