Deprecated: Function bp_core_get_user_domain is deprecated since version 12.0.0! Use bp_members_get_user_url() instead. in /home/lotj/www/wordpress/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6170
Deprecated: Function seems_utf8 is deprecated since version 6.9.0! Use wp_is_valid_utf8() instead. in /home/lotj/www/wordpress/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6170
Deprecated: Function seems_utf8 is deprecated since version 6.9.0! Use wp_is_valid_utf8() instead. in /home/lotj/www/wordpress/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6170
-
-
August 24, 2009 at 12:45 am #11019
K.I.S.S. is the whole point of the idea. Buying 1000 items 5 times is far simpler than buying 20 items 250 times to achieve the same thing. Giving stuff to your droid in order to keep it simple? -1 for idiocy.
-
August 24, 2009 at 6:47 am #11052"Johnson":28n9ftg2 wrote:-1 for idiocy.[/quote:28n9ftg2]
-1 for not playing nicely with the other children.
Anyway… I like the idea of upping the buy limit. Especially since 20 seems like such a arbitrary number. As far as not being able to carry the weight is concerned, the strength limit’s there for a reason. If you can’t carry everything you want then get a droid. …Or a friend.
-
August 24, 2009 at 4:56 pm #11059"Johnson":iet9htcp wrote:K.I.S.S. is the whole point of the idea. Buying 1000 items 5 times is far simpler than buying 20 items 250 times to achieve the same thing. Giving stuff to your droid in order to keep it simple? -1 for idiocy.[/quote:iet9htcp]
Before I even get into the e-penis contest, you should’ve noticed what I was actually commenting on: not the actual buying limit, but the fact that you can give items to your droid–a far more "roleplayed" task–instead of bitching about the coders putting in functionality for that to be done without you having to bother to type "give bag droid."
-
August 24, 2009 at 8:58 pm #11062"Ranmyaku":1vkt3fu3 wrote:"K.I.S.S"? (Keep it simple?)[/quote:1vkt3fu3]
Keep It Stupidly Simple. Close.
-
September 1, 2009 at 1:48 pm #11196"Ilyena":8h8drrhg wrote:"Ranmyaku":8h8drrhg wrote:"K.I.S.S"? (Keep it simple?)[/quote:8h8drrhg]
Keep It Stupidly Simple. Close.[/quote:8h8drrhg]
I always thought it was "Keep it simple, Stupid"
-
September 1, 2009 at 6:00 pm #11197"Anastasius":1tfzj23w wrote:"Ilyena":1tfzj23w wrote:"Ranmyaku":1tfzj23w wrote:"K.I.S.S"? (Keep it simple?)[/quote:1tfzj23w]
Keep It Stupidly Simple. Close.[/quote:1tfzj23w]
I always thought it was "Keep it simple, Stupid"[/quote:1tfzj23w]
You’re correct, Anastasius.
-
September 2, 2009 at 11:22 am #11210"RenegadeJedi":l71fubk0 wrote:"Anastasius":l71fubk0 wrote:"Ilyena":l71fubk0 wrote:Keep It Stupidly Simple. Close.[/quote:l71fubk0]
I always thought it was "Keep it simple, Stupid"[/quote:l71fubk0]
You’re correct, Anastasius.[/quote:l71fubk0]No, you’re not. ;-p
It’s both. I prefer my version, because it doesn’t sound like a child said it.
Always people have to derail threads, and then I look like the one that caused it.
-
September 2, 2009 at 12:11 pm #11211
The 20/bag code was in place, if memory serves, when Orion and I took over. We had the chance to change it, and decided against it. Here’s why: We didn’t want those bags you get from the stores to be better containers than your premium backpacks. We didn’t want people walking around with dozens of little green bags carrying a +100 count of your personal items in, in place of a backpack, which carries maybe 50 items.
We didn’t want to provide the player with that much carrying capacity from a free container that you get at every shop.
We didn’t like that shopping bags should carry 100 Items, as it seemed illogical.We can’t change some items to sell in small bags and other items to sell in large bags (ie: ship hull). The time and energy that would have to go into doing that right doesn’t justify the ends anyway.
We decided that the player can just spam ‘buy 20 hull’ 5 times, and that it would be okay. Better then them stuffing 1000 little grenades in their ‘large item’ shopping bags and walking around looking mundane.
So that’s the why.
-
September 2, 2009 at 2:51 pm #11212
I don’t think those bags will actually hold that much once the items are taken out. If memory serves, they’re actually pretty bad… it’s just that the MUD generates the set number of items in the bag, which stretches the amount it can hold. Once they’re taken out, the bags are useless. Pretty sure I tested this a while ago by buying 20 of a big item, then taking them out and trying to put them back in… they wouldn’t fit. But again, I might be wrong.
-
September 2, 2009 at 6:23 pm #11213"Avanga":2shd7yus wrote:I don’t think those bags will actually hold that much once the items are taken out. If memory serves, they’re actually pretty bad… it’s just that the MUD generates the set number of items in the bag, which stretches the amount it can hold. Once they’re taken out, the bags are useless. Pretty sure I tested this a while ago by buying 20 of a big item, then taking them out and trying to put them back in… they wouldn’t fit. But again, I might be wrong.[/quote:2shd7yus]
Ive tested as well and what Anna said is true. Bags are not a set size but adjust to the items being bought. If you buy 20 of a very large item then the bag is pretty damn big. If you buy 20 of a small item its a small bag. Increasing the 20 limit would make very very large bags like she said. Personally I would change the bag code. Since we no longer have the 20 item limit in our inventory why not do away with bags all together. When you buy 50 of something its dumped straight into your inventory… Or add a check if you buy 60 of something get 3 bags.
-
September 2, 2009 at 10:59 pm #11217
No, I like the bag system. You can’t make a mistake and accidentally buy 1000 of something that you meant to only buy 100 of. We don’t have the imm staff to handle refund-demand that I think will pop up when people accidentally clean out their credits in one slip of the finger. And if you’re thinking that we should tell these victims-of-their-own-stupidity that it’s tough luck, then I’m sorry to tell you… that’s not my style.
-
September 3, 2009 at 3:01 pm #11219"Ilyena":1w9kv41j wrote:"RenegadeJedi":1w9kv41j wrote:"Anastasius":1w9kv41j wrote:I always thought it was "Keep it simple, Stupid"[/quote:1w9kv41j]
You’re correct, Anastasius.[/quote:1w9kv41j]No, you’re not. ;-p
It’s both. I prefer my version, because it doesn’t sound like a child said it.
Always people have to derail threads, and then I look like the one that caused it.[/quote:1w9kv41j]
<!– m –><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle</a><!– m –>
<!– m –><a class="postlink" href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=k.i.s.s">http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=k.i.s.s</a><!– m –>.
I can keep going with those, if you’d like.
In fact, the only source I could find that references the "keep it stupidly simple" iteration is acronymfinder.com ([url:1w9kv41j]http://www.acronymfinder.com/KISS.html[/url:1w9kv41j]); even then, "keep it simple, stupid" is a far more accurate response (shown by the stars).
</pointless argument>
-
September 4, 2009 at 12:34 am #11220
I like my version best: Shut up, stupid.
I don’t think there is anything left to discuss here.
-