Posts made by Groth

I've never used jhelp, I've only ever used https://code.google.com/p/anomalyjobs/w/list to find things out.

The code I posted works. I didn't claim I can do this, I did this.

Anomalyjobs is very well documented compared to the code I've been trying to debug lately. I'm sure there are some parts of Anomalyjobs which are huge pains to work with, but the comment filtering is not one of those things.

@Thenomain said:

A complete rewrite of the aJobs system would also be useful, but it's not likely to happen soon.

@Groth, I also mused about changing how the system determines which comments to show, so yeah, preaching and choir et al.

What I asked, tho, is what would be best. I'm guessing you're saying you think this would be the best fix, which is cool and all but I'm kind of guessing.

Rewriting the logic that determines if a comment is shown or not does exactly what you want it to do and is very easy to implement.

If you felt like it, you could even rewrite the logic to add new types of publishing, you could write one type of publishing that hides staff comments, one that shows staff comments, one that only shows comments from members of the same IC group etc etc.

@Thenomain said:

Best tangent yet. I tried to track down when bcc became a thing, but after 20 minutes gave up.

I'm probably going to change how the "is this published?" code works, but there is no optimal way to do it. If you're on 'opened_by', you're published.

Except... No. If on opened_by but not staff? I could add the function to +myjob/add, but even that feels like a kludge.

Where in this mess do you guys think would be the best place to add this functionality? Publishing the entire job is right out.

I posted code that alters +publish so that it no longer displays comments added by staff unless manually published on a by comment basis. As pointed out by Alzie you just alter FIL_PUBLISHED.

Royal bits or anyone else with the see_all power can however get the attributes, which leads to the potential of all sorts of shenanigans even when safer_ufun is turned on.

Just keep in mind your solution means all +myjob/add comments are published which may or may not be desired behaviour. /add comments are unpublished by design and it's not a shitty design, there exist no reason to expect that all comments to a job are readable by all people involved and changing this behaviour makes it useless for certain tasks such as anonymous voting, conflict resolution etc.

The cleanest solution here is most likely to have +myjob/cc publish the job as well as change &FIL_PUBLISHED to not display comments from staff unless they also have the no_inherit flag.

&CMD_MYJOB/CC [v(JOB_GO)]=$+myjob/cc *=*:@switch [not(u(%va/FN_GUEST,%#))][setq(0,u(%va/FN_FIND-JOB,%0))][isdbref(%q0)][or(and(u(%va/IS_PUBLIC,%q0),match(get(%q0/OPENED_BY),%#)),u(%va/FN_MYACCESSCHECK,parent(%q0),%#,%q0),)][not(u(%va/FN_HASATTR,%q0,LOCKED))][setq(1,map(%va/MAP_SOURCE,secure(trim(%1))))][setq(2,member(%q1,#-1))][not(gt(%q2,0))]=0*,@pemit %#=This command is not available to guests.,10*,@pemit %#=That is an invalid job number.,110*,@pemit %#=[name(%q0)] is not yours. You can only modify your own jobs.,1110*,@pemit %#=That job is locked and cannot be changed at this time.,11110*,{@pemit %#='[extract(secure(trim(%1)),%q2,1)]' is not a valid player or jgroup.},{&PUBLISH %q0=1;&opened_by %q0=[setunion(get(%q0/opened_by),%q1)];@pemit %#=You have set job #%0 to have a source of [u(%va/FN_PLAYERLIST,%q0)].;@trigger %va/TRIG_ADD=%q0,Source changed to [u(%va/FN_PLAYERLIST,%q0)].,%#,SRC;@trigger %va/TRIG_BROADCAST=%q0,%#,SRC,%q1}

Used MAIL_ACCESS as the staff check, replace with whatever you feel is appropriate.

&FIL_PUBLISHED [v(JOB_VA)]=or(and(u(%q0/PUBLISH),not(u(%va/MAIL_ACCESS,extract(get(%q0/%0),3,1,|)))),hasflag(%q0/%0,no_inherit),u(%va/FN_MYACCESSCHECK,parent(%q0),%#,%q0),t(member(u(%q0/OPENED_BY),extract(get(%q0/%0),3,1,|))),strmatch(extract(get(%q0/%0),3,1,|),%#))

Tangentially, using the numbers 0-4 as your variable names should count as a crime against humanity.

@Arkandel said:

@Groth I don't know that I like an implementation where one person screwing up could cripple a number of people for that long. It might be more realistic but from a gameplay point of view... a month?

Especially since it could happen by mistake (typo!) or someone could be a newbie to the system or... whatever.

Another scenario: I log on when your coterie is not around, go to your neighbohood and drink to my character's dark heart content. Yummy, and now your pool is depleted for weeks.

A single -1 penalty is hardly crippling. However if you want to deliberately cripple a rivals blood pool by repeatedly draining it for the stacking penalty you can certainly do that. However they can also investigate who drained their blood pool and pay you a visit.

Limit the availability of vitae but tie its pools to areas on the grid from which different amounts can be drawn safely, thus heavily encouraging PCs to exert influence over said areas. Having to maintain, defend or expand them holds some appeal and can likely generate decent RP. I'd also give a little freebie 'maintenance' nightly allowance per character too, something like 1-2 vitae acquired automatically, so that if the average person doesn't care to participate in the system they don't have to, but if they're burning through vitae faster than that they would.

But the +hunt command, no. In my opinion it's useless.

That is exactly how it works on Requiem for Kingsmouth. Each area on the grid has its own blood pool that are sized 4-20 and generate 1-5 vitae per day. If the pool is emptied it generates a penalty for a month, if someone dramatically fails or feeds for more then 4 vitae it generates a job. PCs are encouraged to take care of the pools they've managed to claim, if someone doesn't want to rely on hunting they can get the Herd merit which generates 2 vitae per week per dot.

I think that for Vampire, the resource management is a huge part of what makes Vampire feel like Vampire. The limited supply of easily accessible blood is a great driver of in-character conflict and narrative and requiring players to type +hunt every few days is a small price to pay for that.

@Alzie said:

@Groth Contested presents its own problem, mainly that your target gets to roll against you each turn and if you get less successes you don't accrue any towards the TN. Additionally, increasing your time for each roll means they have that much time in between to find you, another problem with contested If they know they're being targeted.

@ThatOneDude You can combine themes to create rituals by base rules.

The thing about Contested Blood Sorcery is that if you're both maxed out, the sorcerer will be throwing 20 dice to the victims 10. (There are very few ways to boost the Resolve+Blood Potency pool).

I'm way to lazy to do the exact math, but in any contested roll there are 4 basic scenarios.
Ritualist rolls low, Victim rolls low: Ritualist gains successes and it's as if the roll wasn't contested at all.
Ritualist rolls low, Victim rolls high: Ritualist doesn't gain successes but because he rolled low in the first place, it doesn't really hurt her compared to not being contested at all.
Ritialist rolls high, Victims rolls low: Ritualist gains successes and it's as if the roll wasn't contested at all.
Ritualist rolls high, Victim rolls high: Ritualist gains successes and it's as if the roll wasn't contested at all.

When the die pools are this skewed, the only scenario where the Ritualist is actually hurt is those rare cases where the Victim rolls extraordinarily high and the Ritualist makes a mediocre to high roll however even those cases just forces the Ritualist to make one more roll.

Knowing that you are targeted is not a feature of Contested Blood Sorcery, it's a feature of all Blood Sorcery Resisted or Contested. This makes it a terrible idea to target the combat monsters with Blood Sorcery in general unless they're asleep (Nothing prevents you from staying awake during the day in order to use your Blood Sorcery).

@Alzie said:

I would just like to address something. Specifically, the idea of 'telenuking' with blood sorcery. Allow me, if you will, to regale you with how this actually works based on the rules in the Blood Sorcery book. Let us define our situation.

So basically, the point of this is:

1. Telenuking with blood sorcery is stupid and takes a lot of successes
2. Only stupid STs let it happen
3. It requires a huge investment
4. Only stupid STs let it happen
5. For the love of all that is holy limit potency in some way
   Edit: 6) Actually, limit all the factors in some way for sanity, even mage has some limits on their rituals

Well, what you've managed to show is why Destruction as written in Blood Sorcery is largely useless. However when we're talking about telenuking, why use Destruction when Transmutation exists? Transmutation 5 reads
"The fifth dot of Transmutation allows the ritualist to transform any object or creature into any other, transferring and changing characteristics as she sees fit"

So now I decide I want to turn you from a Vampire to a pig or whatever. Since that's not a scaling effect, it's potency 0 so you need 9 less successes then with the Aggravated nuke. And oh look, because it's a binary effect it's Contested rather then Resisted so you get to roll more dice. Contested is always better then resisted for a strong Ritualist since whenever they roll a non-trivial amount of successes, they will practically never fail.

Then we have the die pool, it's not 13 dice. Without stacking specialities or accounting for Blood Sympathy, you can do Attribute 5 + Skill 5 + Speciality 1 + Elaborate Sacrifice 3 + (Meditation/Extra Vitae) 3 + Library 3 = 20 dice for Theban while Cruac can do teamwork with their Altar.

Basically the ST really needs to be on the ball to not let people do things with Blood Sorcery just because the Blood Sorcery book claims it's possible because that way lies madness.

Having someone turn your character into a ghoul is something that could theoretically happen if you're labelled under the 'Political' playstyle and you're a human.

However being under the 'Political' playstyle as a human makes no sense as the only benefit to being Political is that you're allowed to hold positions of power in kindred society and humans can't hold positions of power in kindred society. There are no human political players and I don't think there ever will be. Everyone that isn't a Political player gets to have a say in anything that would permanently alter the direction of their character (Template changes, blood bonds etc).

If you're curious about the specifics about how RfK handles consent, the rules are here:
http://kingsmouth.info/wiki/Rules_and_Policies