Traders Contract System for Persistent Chests?

MicoPopenay · Post by **MicoPopenay** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 12:37 pm

Not sure this is the best place and I don't know how much sense I will make... But here goes...

Would it be possible to add a script to a persistent chest that will let chars put stuff in it but not take stuff out?

I ask this as I want to set up some kind of contract system for PC's so they can deliver raw materials like they do with Robert in the Mikona AAAA.

The key holder for this chest is the only person that can take items out.

Hopefully it will be able to pay contract holders for dropping their stuff off maybe from an amount of gold that is present in the chest.

What do you think?

Lafferty · Post by **Lafferty** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 12:42 pm

if the key holder onyl is the person who can take things out then who is someone supposed to things in when it is closed?

Why not make an unlocked chest (indestructible)

and all that gets put into it will appear in another box for which you need a key but works like a regular chest (for game mechanics it would be like a teleport chest but it can be rpd to be like a postal container).

Also important would be to store data who has provided how many pieces of what.

MicoPopenay · Post by **MicoPopenay** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 12:53 pm

Lafferty wrote:if the key holder onyl is the person who can take things out then who is someone supposed to things in when it is closed?

Any one can open it but you must have a key to take stuff out.

Lafferty wrote: Why not make an unlocked chest (indestructible)

and all that gets put into it will appear in another box for which you need a key but works like a regular chest (for game mechanics it would be like a teleport chest but it can be rpd to be like a postal container).

This is a good idea but I know nothing of scripting and I dont know how much it would cost IC to get something like this done.

Lafferty wrote: Also important would be to store data who has provided how many pieces of what.

If it was like a Bioware merchant that you can't buy from it wouldn't need to keep track of who put what in there. It would give the char so many gold per item put in.

Anyone got any idea how I would further this concept either OOC or IC?

Drakuul · Post by **Drakuul** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 2:40 pm

Well, unless this idea is for a guild it won't be approved (See Vanors posts in Housing prices) and if it is for a guild then it still may not be approved

Dirk Cutlass · Post by **Dirk Cutlass** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 2:52 pm

Drakuul wrote:Well, unless this idea is for a guild it won't be approved (See Vanors posts in Housing prices) and if it is for a guild then it still may not be approved

I've started the ball rolling on getting a merchants, traders & businesspersons guild going. One of the key topics will be what to do with storage.

I think at this stage it is OK to brainstorm the ideas though, so keep them coming. However, as Drakuul says we have to stick within whatever guidelines, rules & resources the team will allow us.

MicoPopenay · Post by **MicoPopenay** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 2:57 pm

Maybe this kind of thing will be included in the Merchants, Traders and Businesses Guildhouse as and when it gets built

Dirk?

EDIT: Damn you posted just before I did!

Nightface · Post by **Nightface** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 9:08 pm

Lafferty wrote:if the key holder onyl is the person who can take things out then who is someone supposed to things in when it is closed?

Well, the 4A uses a chest system that works like this:

You open the chest, put stuff in, and close it. The items in the chest are destroyed, and their tags are copied to the database.

To remove items, you open the chest, then close it while still empty. This starts a conversation that allows you to withdraw items.

Seems to me that you would simply need to add a conditional to the chest's conversation that checks for the key, and only shows the items in the chest if that key is present. No key? All you get is the end-conversation option.

For a guild, this might be allowed, but I'm not sure if adding a new conversation like this would violate the team's No-New-Scripts policy, especially since it's only a slight variation on an existing conversation.

MicoPopenay · Post by **MicoPopenay** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 9:26 pm

Nightface: Thanks

Vanor / Team: If this ever became a reality do you think this slight change would be allowed?