Feedback and Typos

[jastey]

I want to give the player the real feeling. There is just no "going outside the house" with small kids without at least one toy, a bottle of water, and an additional jacket, making every excursion seem like we are going for a camping trip.

Only via dialogue would have the disadvantage that the player has to imagine all this. (Bug reports of the sort "there were no items in my inventory" included.)

[Kulyok]

Yes, I think I understand. I remember, Kelsey has a very sweet flirt with a wedding ring, which varies if you've got the ring on your finger, in your inventory, or not at all, and it looks a very thoughtful gesture.

 

Then, I guess, it's PartyHasItem() all the way.

[jastey]

Thank you for the idea, though.

I am still hoping.

[Miloch]

Isn't there a timer on their whining anyway? So whether the items are on the ground or in inventory, what difference does it make? The PC still has at least a few seconds to dump some stuff, pick up the kid stuff and give it, right?

 

Also, I'm wondering how Daulmakan sold the stuff if he already gave it. What'd you do, pick the kids' pockets? Classy .

[jastey]

Also, I'm wondering how Daulmakan sold the stuff if he already gave it. What'd you do, pick the kids' pockets? Classy .

No, he didn't gave it in the first, since the code does not check whether the items are really in the inventory. They were laying on the ground all along.

[Miloch]

Oh, I see. What's wrong with having a PartyHasItem() check on the dialogue then?

 

You could also do a !HasItem("sweets","sarah") or whatever after the dialogue and make her whine to the effect of "Wah! You said you were giving me sweets and you didn't!" and only shut up once she actually gets it, but that seems like a more intensive solution, since you'd have to invent more dialogue for every object.

[jastey]

since you'd have to invent more dialogue for every object.

If going for "PartyHasItem()", I have to include more dialogue anyway: More looping concerning "we want to have our...", and "I would like to give you your bottles, but I have to pick them up first."

 

I am considering putting all items inside a bag (that would just be a bag), thus only occupying one inventory slot. The PC would have to pick it up for giving the sweets, after that, it should be in the inventory, I assume, so I wouldn't need any extra dialogue for the bottles.

 

It would just not be the same... Andthe bag would at least weight 10 pounds

[Daulmakan]

Also, I'm wondering how Daulmakan sold the stuff if he already gave it. What'd you do, pick the kids' pockets? Classy .

Well, I was a Neutral Evil thief after all.

 

As Jastey said, they were on the ground when the dialog option came up (hence the 'managed' line).

[jastey]

I like my idea with one bag more and more. The PC will have to lift it from the ground when it comes to the first items. After that, he can also get the things out if it lies on the floor. And if the mother doesn't collect it again, well, it wouldn't be the first mother in a hurry that forgot some stuff.

[Daulmakan]

I know it's a suboptimal solution, but you could always leave the current way as it is. The toys and candy BAMs fit nicely with the quest storyline, and it's not like this is a terribly exploitable bug. I just kept them around to see what came out of it this time, but 150 gold pieces (IIRC) are hardly worth it. Seeing as how I've way too much money with that party now, I probably won't even bother with selling them on my next run (as a side question, can the items be made non-sellable?).

[Kulyok]

Ah, I wanted to offer something of the sort, too, but didn't, because of balance issues. Good idea.

[jastey]

I know it's a suboptimal solution, but you could always leave the current way as it is. The toys and candy BAMs fit nicely with the quest storyline, and it's not like this is a terribly exploitable bug. I just kept them around to see what came out of it this time, but 150 gold pieces (IIRC) are hardly worth it. Seeing as how I've way too much money with that party now, I probably won't even bother with selling them on my next run (as a side question, can the items be made non-sellable?).

Well, it bugs me that the kids think they have the stuff but actually it was laying on the ground... it's a pride thing. Of course, I have no problem with sparing the extra work, not at all.

 

What would you say if the items disappear if the PC picks them up after the quest was finished. At least the sweets should disappear, as they were actually eaten. The bottles, toys and the coat could have been forgotten or dropped by the kids themselves. (hoping)

 

Kulyok: Comparing the posting time you are referring to my idea with the bag? What would be your opinion about the disappearing sweets?

[Kulyok]

Yes, I meant the bag idea, and, yes, I think disappearing sweets make sense.

 

With the bag(if you want it to disappear, that is), you could do it a-la the Underdark(drow items): if the party still has the bag after the quest is complete, and they are in the master area(exited the house), the bag disappears.

[jastey]

With the bag(if you want it to disappear, that is), you could do it a-la the Underdark(drow items): if the party still has the bag after the quest is complete, and they are in the master area(exited the house), the bag disappears.

Problem is, that the bag 8or, if I leave it original) all items lay on the ground, can be seen, and picked up, and would then disappear.

 

I guess I will think about it some more, but currently I tend to prefer the "let the sweets disappear if they are in the inventory after the quest", since it would be so much less work (lazy me).

[Daulmakan]

What would you say if the items disappear if the PC picks them up after the quest was finished. At least the sweets should disappear, as they were actually eaten. The bottles, toys and the coat could have been forgotten or dropped by the kids themselves. (hoping)

That sounds perfectly acceptable (I assume they'd still vanish in the first place if they were in the inventory slots?).