| Issue Type: |
Status: |
Priority: |
Date Submitted: |
Votes: |
| Enhancement |
Open |
High |
Fri 14th Dec 2012 |
4 votes
 |
| |
| Found in version: |
Last Updated: |
Completed in version: |
Date Completed: |
Track Changes: |
| 5.0.26 |
Fri 12th Apr 2013 |
|
|
Log In |
| |
| campbell | | Fri 14th Dec 2012 11:00 |
| Objects should be able to be marked as Out of Reach. This would stop normal actions such as push/pull from being able to be carried out on the object without a suitable error. |
| |
| Lazzah | | Fri 14th Dec 2012 17:20 |
| Surely all one needs to do is create a property "Object is out of reach" and add a restriction in the normal general task "Referenced object must not have property Object is out of reach" with an appropriate completion message? Any object that is "out of reach" just needs then to have the property ticked. |
| |
| campbell | | Fri 14th Dec 2012 17:23 |
| Yep, pretty much. I want to add this to the standard library. |
| |
| Lazzah | | Fri 14th Dec 2012 19:07 |
| OK, understood. What WOULD be great is if we could have a restriction that checks for the presence of a dynamic object in an adjacent location to the current location of the PC. At present, if we want to manipulate an object that is in a location next to the PC's current one, we have to create a static object which is present in the PC's current location with the same name as the dynamic one in the next location. I hope I have explained that OK? |
| |
| campbell | | Mon 17th Dec 2012 15:52 |
| Yes. Although, your idea of having a static object in the room(s) nearby, and marking it as "out of reach" would be a pretty good solution in this case. |
| |
| Lazzah | | Fri 12th Apr 2013 11:17 |
| The problem with this is that we often end up with too many objects with the same noun and this can lead to confusion. Any solution which reduces the number of static/dynamic objects with the same noun has to be beneficial! |
Out of reach objects