But if I had something like "get last.item", all I had to do is:
>get last.blue bag
And have the 99th blue pill - the oldest of them - from the bottom of the stack.
This would help greatly with consumables, as they have a habit of vaporizing in containers, and they tend to stack so that the oldest is at the bottom. Usefulness does not limit to the consumables, as it would ease the burden of getting something out of a container which contains nearly 200 other random items.
I nearly had myself mob-killed due to bag-vaporized gyvels.
(I tested -1, but it only complained about the amount.)
I've suggested that before. The reply was that it should not be so easy to circumnavigate the rotting property of certain consumables. And I somewhat agree with it.
The reply was that it should not be so easy to circumnavigate the rotting property of certain consumables.
There's point with that, but the rotting property will rot anyways, if not eventually used. I had TWO gyvel potions evaporate in my inventory within 12 mins few days ago. Instead of it getting me killed through a complete suprise in the most ackward situation, I was able to react to that before the ackward situation came at hand. The rotting property of certain consumables can be circumnavigated in so many ways, that I don't see how it should be an against-argument here. Hell, even currently I could build a fully automated system to keep track of my consumable-status with (sort of) gags taking care that I don't even notice it happening, and get the status pretty-printed with an alias. With few aliases I could make sure that I have the oldest gyvels in my inventory, and a trigger taking care of replacement, and an automatic warning informing when I'm running low on gyvel potions. If I'd go extreme with building an efficient PK-environment (client-side), I'd do all that. If I had better memory (ADHD does wonders to it), I could circumvent the rotting gyvels completely by planning a specific behavior (which relies on remembering things), which would ensure that the oldest gyvels are always at hand. But all that wouldn't help me the slightest with getting that bloody item from the container containing nearly 200 items. Nor other similar scenarios.
Also, the most simple way to get around the aging with consumables?
>look bag
(20) a consumable
>get 20.consumable bag
With few things related to PK, it's easy. But when you have to do that in a routinely manner with several things (like a Merchant would, damn I hated that), it becomes a chore.
When I started playing a thief, I learned that you don't buy 100 blue pills at once, because you don't have time to consume them all due to rotting. Thus, I had something like 80 of them, and went to refill once I was running low. Before filling my bag with a set of new pills, I moved the old ones aside. After buying new ones, I stacked the old ones back in the bag, having the old ones at top. A way to produce effect similar to "get last.item" regarding consumable aging, but with a lot of pointless hassle.
Thus, I truly hope there's a better argument for why not, if this really cannot be implemented.
(I don't have time to better express the above sentence as I'm running out of time.)
[Edit] Also, sorry if I rant. (I had to cut out over half from my first post.)
Of course there are ways to circumnavigate and slow down rotting. I have my own ways too which are quite efficient (by the way your example with get 20.herbs will not work that well), but still, you have to be the one doing the work. If there is a coded way to easy negate the rotting property of consumables, why have the rot at first place?
Btw pills don't rot, no need to move them around :P
If there is a coded way to easy negate the rotting property of consumables, why have the rot at first place?
I still remember it when Viri added the rotting property to the consumables, due to one guy hording hundreds of healing potions. "Lets all say: THANK YOU CHARACTERNAME!" Somehow like that ended his forum announcement. That's why it's there.
You can't negate the rotting completely by ensuring that you'll always consume the olderst, because those things start rotting if you have them in such a quantities that you don't have the time to use them. You simply can't have hundreds of healing potions, because oldest begin to rot before you hit even the 100th. Unless you're buying them. And if you're buying them, the unability to easily pick the oldest from stack does not matter, like I've stated in my previous reply.
1 hour ago, f0xx said:
Btw pills don't rot, no need to move them around :P
That's nice. :) When this change was made? Also, if this is true, now we're in square one with the point with potions vaporizing, because nearly all potions have equivalent as pills (a lot of **** varying, yes yes). Potions just do/did rot a lot faster.
My calculation may have a very loose accuration, but it should give the idea: If you have 100 pills with spell duration of 24h, and you don't have the time to consume all those 100 pills, we know that certain pills takes 1200 minutes to rot. That's 20 rl hours. If you play 5h/day, it takes 4 rl days for a pill to rot. Some people simply don't see it happening.
[Edit] (I may remember the quantity of 100 wrong.)