I know that when I fiddled with places code at one point, a thing I added was so that if you put angle brackets <around something>, that'd end up as a general emit (like if you did +mutter and those things happened to pass through). That way, if it were a setup where you're waving your arms around while talking, doing some elaborate pantomime that a bystander might figure out (but somehow talking quietly enough that it wouldn't leave the place), you could cover that without having to do a 'for everyone else' pose.

I thought it was a charming idea, since it wasn't mandatory and was instead an added little, "If you want to make it a bit more funky" thing; if I recall, nobody used it.

+Phones, I only really like for calling a place, in case you want to get someone in that room, but you don't care who you get (but you also don't want to mass-page everyone to work out who'd answer the phone). Alas, this means folks setting up if their room can be called (EG: Moe's Bar? Yes. Count Dooky's Secret Chapterhouse? Not so much), which few folks want to do.

Yay!

The biggest problem with WORA going down (PS: it might not be fully lost; we're still sending field agents to check, since the server host whoosit wasn't/isn't actually with anyone we know) is that it's so tough to let folks know about updates.

I know that when I fiddled with places code at one point, a thing I added was so that if you put angle brackets <around something>, that'd end up as a general emit (like if you did +mutter and those things happened to pass through). That way, if it were a setup where you're waving your arms around while talking, doing some elaborate pantomime that a bystander might figure out (but somehow talking quietly enough that it wouldn't leave the place), you could cover that without having to do a 'for everyone else' pose.

I thought it was a charming idea, since it wasn't mandatory and was instead an added little, "If you want to make it a bit more funky" thing; if I recall, nobody used it.

+Phones, I only really like for calling a place, in case you want to get someone in that room, but you don't care who you get (but you also don't want to mass-page everyone to work out who'd answer the phone). Alas, this means folks setting up if their room can be called (EG: Moe's Bar? Yes. Count Dooky's Secret Chapterhouse? Not so much), which few folks want to do.

I've done this, before:

LOCKADD-CMD: $+llock/add *=*:@switch/first 0= isdbref(setr(0, locate(%#, secure(%0), eV))), {@pemit %#=GAME> '[secure(%0)]' doesn't seem to be a proper exit. }, or(controls(%#, %q0), match(get(%q0/LOCK-LIST), %#)), {@pemit %#=GAME> You don't control '[name(%q0)]'. }, and(hasattr(%q0, LOCK-LIST), hasattr(%q0, OTHERSIDE), match(lock(%q0), #0&!#0)), {@pemit %#=GAME> [name(%q0)] hasn't been +llocked or is currently unlocked. Please wait 60 seconds without using the exit in any way and try it again. }, isdbref(setr(1, pmatch(secure(%1)))), {@pemit %#=GAME> '[secure(%1)]' doesn't seem to be a player. }, {@pemit %#=GAME> You add [name(%q1)] to the +llock for [name(%q0)] ;&LOCK-LIST [u(%q0/OTHERSIDE)]=setunion(u(%q0/LOCK-LIST), %q1) ;&LOCK-LIST %q0=setunion(u(%q0/LOCK-LIST), %q1) }

LOCKSUB-CMD: $+llock/rem *=*:@switch/first 0= isdbref(setr(0, locate(%#, secure(%0), eV))), {@pemit %#=GAME> '[secure(%0)]' doesn't seem to be a proper exit. }, controls(%#, %q0), {@pemit %#=GAME> You don't control '[name(%q0)]'. }, and(hasattr(%q0, LOCK-LIST), hasattr(%q0, OTHERSIDE), match(lock(%q0), #0&!#0)), {@pemit %#=GAME> [name(%q0)] hasn't been +llocked or is currently unlocked. Please wait 60 seconds without using the exit in any way and try it again. }, isdbref(setr(1, pmatch(secure(%1)))), {@pemit %#=GAME> '[secure(%1)]' doesn't seem to be a player. }, {@pemit %#=GAME> You remove [name(%q1)] from the +llock for [name(%q0)] ;&LOCK-LIST [u(%q0/OTHERSIDE)]=setdiff(u(%q0/LOCK-LIST), %q1) ;&LOCK-LIST %q0=setdiff(u(%q0/LOCK-LIST), %q1) }

LOCKUN-CMD: $+unllock *:@switch/first 0= isdbref(setr(0, locate(%#, secure(%0), eV))), {@pemit %#=GAME> '[secure(%0)]' doesn't seem to be a proper exit. }, controls(%#, %q0), {@pemit %#=GAME> You don't control '[name(%q0)]'. }, and(hasattr(%q0, LOCK-LIST), hasattr(%q0, OTHERSIDE), match(lock(%q0), #0&!#0)), {@pemit %#=GAME> [name(%q0)] hasn't been +llocked or is currently unlocked. Please wait 60 seconds without using the exit in any way and try it again. }, {@halt %q0 ;@halt [u(%q0/OTHERSIDE)] ;@pemit owner(me)=GAME> %n +unllock-ed [name(%q0)] <%q0>. Thus the @halts. ;@pemit %#=GAME> You clear the +llock code off of [name(%q0)]. ;@dolist Afail Asucc Fail Use Ause={@wipe %q0/## ;@wipe [u(%q0/OTHERSIDE)]/## } ;@unlock %q0 ;@unlock [u(%q0/OTHERSIDE)] ;@set %q0=!QUIET !HALTED ;@set [u(%q0/OTHERSIDE)]=!QUIET !HALTED }

LOCKCHK-CMD: $+llock/check *:@switch 0 = isdbref(setr(0, locate(%#, secure(%0), eV))), {@pemit %# = GAME> No such exit.}, or(hasflag(%q0, VISUAL), controls(%#, %q0)), {@pemit %#=GAME> You don't control that exit.}, and(hasattr(%q0, LOCK-LIST), hasattr(%q0, OTHERSIDE), match(lock(%q0), #0&!#0)), {@pemit %#=GAME> [name(%q0)] hasn't been +llocked or is currently unlocked. Please wait 60 seconds without using the exit in any way and try it again. }, {@pemit %#=GAME> [itemize(sort(iter(get(%q0/LOCK-LIST), name(##), %b, |), i, |, |), |)] can open the '[name(%q0)]' exit.} 

+llock <exit name>
+llock/add <exit>=<name>
+llock/rem <exit>=<name>
+llock/check <exit>
+unllock <exit>

These commands can be used to lock a door you OOCly own. The first command sets the code in place. Once set up, your attempting to go through the exit will unlock the door. Going through it will make it wait a RL minute and then re-lock itself (both sides). You only need to set up the code on one 'side' of a door and it'll take care of the other side by itself. If you want to open the door for someone who wants to come in, just try to leave once and that'll unlock it for them. You can also 'use' the exit (EG: 'use out') to unlock it for a minute.
The second and third commands can add or remove other folks from the list of people who will be able to unlock the door. The fourth command checks whom the exit is currently accessible by.

The last command strips the +llock code from an exit (making it unlocked for everyone). Don't forget the weird double 'L' in there. Note that this is -not- the command to let someone through (that'd be either +llock/add if you want them to have access forevermore, or you can just 'use' the exit to unlock it).

@il-volpe

Ah! Ok. That sounds more like a +work thing that I worked up once.

Idea being that if someone wants their character to work at Joe's Garage (or wants to open a second garage and wants to know what PCs are their competition), they can do a thing that officially tags them as working there. In checking what amounts to the +finger for Joe's Garage, you get the names of the folks who've said they +work there, and if you check the +finger of those various folks, you'll see Joe's Garage listed.

It's pretty simple. The downfalls are when folks don't do the paperwork to do the +work/+unwork things when they start/stop working at a place, as well as when folks wax idle and/or are deleted (pretty much the same problems when folks don't update the Position or Age fields in their +fingers, but with the problems throwing spanners into a database).

@il-volpe I've done something along those lines where you have a Hotel building that is mostly hallways with exits that go nowhere. If you try to go through an exit that goes nowhere, it @digs a room to go on the other side with everything set up (and tells you to try it again, now that a room exists). If one of those rooms is ever unclaimed and empty, it just destroys itself and goes back to the way things were.

I know I've done a variant where the rooms are set Chownable upon creation and, if a room/exit combo is owned by a PC, their name ends up on a +tenants list sort of thing.

Shouldn't be too hard for someone to take that and tinker with it to fit your needs?

I have at least two CharGens I wrote in there! Yay!

What sort of hotel code, @il-volpe?

@il-volpe said:

It's a tiny issue, though, because, sheesh, +staff. Probably games should have themed staff names if the creators happen to like them, and not have them if they don't.

I'm a big fan of the 'there's a +staff command ' answer, as well as having staff names get special marking in +who/+where (like, all-caps or an asterisk or something) and a mention in +finger about it.

Mind, I might be biased since I've helped out on a game OOCly for a while before asked to do staff-stuff and didn't want to confuse folks with a name-change, and I also can imagine someone stuck in the situation of they'd like to help as staff, but can't come up with a name that fits the name-theme that they don't hate.

Item 4 is pretty big, too.

Don't just tell your coder, "I want vampire code. You know, so vampires can do stuff" and only say if it does or doesn't fit your vision down the road.

For bonus points, say exactly what you'd like the person to have to type, a mock-up of what it's supposed to look like, and exactly what's supposed to happen (both internally, with it crunching the data and externally, with the output the game'll produce).

Yay!

The biggest problem with WORA going down (PS: it might not be fully lost; we're still sending field agents to check, since the server host whoosit wasn't/isn't actually with anyone we know) is that it's so tough to let folks know about updates.