I don't think I have explored any of your zones Terk, so this is a responsed based only on your post, not any actual zone experience.

That said, if what you mean is having a keyword like "move painting" in a room where typing "look painting" gets "You do not see that here.", well that is just poor design in my opinion. It's just a cheap way to make figuring things out harder, and is wholly unrealistic.

If I misunderstood your post, then disregard this :P

And a general suggestion to zone designers. Instead of relying on obscure keywords, make it so that using clearly wrong keywords actually has a negative effect. Now players can't brute force through a zone, but the logical keyword should be figurable if the players think.

For example if there is a "panel" that players need to figure out how to open, and the keyword is actually "slide panel", and player uses "bash panel", give some out put like "As $player bashes the panel, you see the panel become stuck in place. It's unlikely anyone will be able to open it now" for example, forcing the players to give up for now and come back after a zone reset.

Clarification.

What I meant by that was just having a description.

The painting is slightly wobbly.

But if you typed examine painting you would see, you do not see that here, since examine by definition is looking for an actual object in the game. This painting in writing is an actual object, but is not processed as an object by the game with commands like get and examine.

Don't tell me how to do it; it sickens me.

So what you are saying the new zone creation rules will require me to read every room description carefully, catalog all of the possible objects in the room, and try using actions on each of these objects?

This doesn't seem too unreasonable, but it was certainly true that you used to be able to test immediately if there was a possibility of a keyword with the simple 'get painting' and getting the failure message 'you can't get that', and know that the painting was an object that you had to manipulate.

As long as we know this is a possibility, it's simple to work around it. Just more time consuming.

Education replaces force with reason.

Solving any zone in Arctic is the same regardless of the creator. For me, exploring a zone, it's less about 'what is most realistic to happen' and more, 'what the hell would this creator be thinking now', so it's a ridiculous mind-game, but for me it works quite well. I remember doing a "Terk Zone" like 2 years ago and I think it was the first zone he created. I spent a huge amount of time trying to get a "KW" to work, and I failed utterly to "KW object". It turns out later that the proper way to work it was "KW object KW". That doesn't seem like a big deal, and it's not, but it's a huge leap from conventional zones. And from that one instance I knew Terk would be making all of his zones in this way: --Unconventional-- --Make you think-- --Make you put in way, way more time--. And as I've seen some more of his zones I was right on about it.

In Terk zones you will find:
*Descriptions on virtually EVERYTHING in the zone regardless to if it's related to solving anything.
*The proper way to solving something isn't necessarily going to be on an object you can SEE.
*Totally obscure clues which may or may not tie in together from another zone(s).

So, is that good or bad? Do you have fun in "Terk zones"? That is the point after all. Personally, other than Wistun, I think his zones are quite adorable.

Ok here are some comments on Terk's post, and my opinion about new / revamped zones:

I agree that the old system, where you could just "look in" every item listed in the room description until you find the "real" items, thus knowing which ones you had to manipulate, wasn't very realistic and probably didn't make sense. Also it could (and was) abused by people who were running scripts to get a list of all the "real" items, then trying to manipulate them, sometimes by thesaurus attacks. Besides its weaknesses, however, it established a comfortable, predictable, pattern in zone exploration. Think of this analogy: I see the old keywords system closer to the current graphical game / MMOs pattern, where you can move your cursor over items of interest, and it changes shape indicating you can manipulate them somehow, only richer and better due to its diversity. The NEW system, now, is so much closer to the old Sierra adventure games one, where you had to type in commands... Some people may think that system was better, but, memory lane trip aside, anyone who tries to go back to that system today will realize what a major pain in the ass it is. This is why the new system totally wiped out the old one. At the end of the day, I want to enjoy my time playing arctic (or any game really). Spending 10 hours looking at dozens of keywords, trying to guess which one has to be manipulated in some obscure way, may be realistic and radical, but it's not enjoyable. Shifting the paradigm by itself doesn't mean much to me as a player, what matter is whether the change is for the better or for the worse.

Another problem with this kind of keywords is that they seem to ignore the number of people actually required to run a zone. Weird keywords in solo or tiny group quests are probably ok, but the same keywords in 10man zones are not, for obvious reasons. Balifor underground is a perfect example of a zone in the first category: some nasty keywords , which are nevertheless logical (apart from one that really, really sucks and you should change back to what it used to be before scouts came in), that can be done solo or on two, and loads some badass rewards. The same kind of keywords are marginal for a zone like Thorbardin Caverns. Speaking of which, I'd like to request that in zones like this doing the keywords does not generate a messaging for the entire group, but just for the person doing it. And did I mention that I hate keywords that have only a low chance of working when you do them?

One major problem with some of the new quests / revamped zones is that the "clues" to even BEGIN the quest are totally impossible to find, unless you have inside information or being told by people who have inside information. Changing the description of a mob, or an exit description of a room, that has been in the game for 15 years, will not work. Nobody looks at these anyway. Nobody should have to look at these either... or we would be spending our entire day reading descriptions. Adding a new keyword to a word in a an object description in an old zone will obviously not work either. There are really only two reasons to do something like this: add "legitimate" ways for your friends to get new toys, or have the satisfaction that you create something really unsolvable. I don't think either goal helps the game at large. The existence of new quests should be obvious to the players. Add a new mob (which obviously did not exist before... just another Solace citizen with a weird description won't help), a new item, a new exit to an often visited room, have an old mob do some new social, hell even announce it in the news... Make it clear that something new has been added to the game, then it's up to you to create a hard questline... but the initial clue should be there for all to see.

A couple more quick listing of things I dislike in the new zones: The dependency on specific classes, mostly thieves. It blows when you can't do so many zones in the game just because you don't have a thief. Please check the game stats, see how many people play thieves, then check who these thieves are, and you will realize how much you screw the random group by this latest trend to make them necessary for zoning (not just for some book at the end of the zone, but for as much as half the zone). The class / alignment restrictions on many new items are too strict, and the limits seem to be extremely low. Some fights are extremely fraggy... losing half your equip for the off chance that something you want may load is not a very efficient method :) Another new trend, that of the area spam, makes some fights a matter of luck. A luck should be a factor... but not the deciding one. And when you are 2 x prismed / 3 x tentacled there's a good chance a group can be wiped out. I'm not talking about the 7 x fireball that you can at least avoid with some decent prep, but things like tentacles spam were obviously not be considered an option when items / spells / ranks effects were adjusted.

Enough bitching, now to the praises :) The new zones have some great descriptions and supporting storylines. The quests are nice (even though I often miss simple, linear zones and I wish at least SOME of the new ones were like that). I love how many things can be done by small groups, using smart tactics.You must stop changing them the moment you notice someone doing them! It has been a long Arctic tradition that things like this change only when they become too widespread! It is great that all caster classes can be nearly fully spelled up in a group of 4-5. In general, the overall impression is positive. Keep it up, but try to keep an ear to the playerbase too :P

Your backhand accusations of cheating makes reading anything else you have to say completely pointless. If you want to accuse people of cheating for their friends offer up some proof or shut up. You may have good points here, but I wont read them or pretty much anything else you write. You come off as a petty prick in the above paragraph with those comments, and I don't need to waste my time.

Sorry to go offtopic, but this is a perfect example of what I was talking about in the other thread.

This is why I feel all classes should offer a competitive level of damage, if not healing or tanking capability. Thieves being a perfect example of why balancing a class around a "trick" is a bad idea- no group wants more than 1 thief, very few groups even want 1 unless the thief is a very skilled player or is needed for the zone. And even in that case, "needed for zone" often the thief is summoned in to pick the lock or disable the trap and then sent away.

If thieves offered effective damage in addition to tricks- something slightly better than the average warrior, on par with scouts probably... then there would be a reason to bring them in a group other than picking and disable. There might be more thieves, and neutral random players wouldn't be unable to find them to group, especially if they did decent group damage that every group would WANT a thief, not just for some specific lock. The same should be true of all classes IMO.

Sorry for offending you. I have no proof of imms cheating, but personally I wouldn't care less if they did in any case, as long as it doesn't get out of hand and hurts the game like in the past. I wasn't accusing anyone of cheating, I was trying to explain that I can't see why anyone would make such impossible quests if it wasn't either an inside joke for their friends or a the desire to create something extremely hard, which in this case I see as a bad judgment call. There may be other reasons but I can't think of any. I can see now that it was a mistake to post this, with all the cheating accusations of the past, but this is not one. I hope you read beyond that and agree that there at least some valid points to be made in my post. Or at least listen to the other players who are not petty pricks and you'll see that many share the same thoughts.

Treatise on new zones and Aristox's response.

On Terk's Zones: For me the whole issue is to find the right balance between secrecy and "public" access to the new zones. "Secrets in zones" is the part that makes arctic mud different from many other, even with graphics, online games and distinguishes the player base between exceptional, good, average and bad players in terms of knowledge always. How you uncover secrets or keep the secret will of course be the theme of debate. I agree with Sosori's analysis but any new idea and suggestions that are implemented will not be bulletproof either. We would just need to test them and see what happens.

On Aristox: Aristox this one refers straight to you. In this forum you have a chance to listen and read people's opinions under the hat of a very important arctic administrator. Listening is also a skill like any other and its potency is greatly reduced when you lash out undeservingly and defensively to people.

Before you say that anyone is a prick, you should look their history and their current status in arctic. Because a prick in arctic is defined as someone whose gaming style is depended so much on finding elite eq, that somehow feels dispossessed when some other eq freak knows a kw that they don't, so they accuse immortals that they gave their enemies hints and clues that they never had. This is the only accusation you can make, as you know nothing of them in real life although chances are that they are probably very weird to the people around them.

Let me tell everyone that our three major clans have successfully recruited most of the freaks and pricks of this game. They are by far the most knowledgeable and able players of this game, an elite that hasn't changed for a while and includes many immortals in its ranks. Leaders in these clans try to manage greed and ambition, distribute eq and fight wars against each other. Great, this is how you win the game.

BUT not everyone is like that, notable exceptions being Maza and Kos. It should not be a surprise that these clans still exist after all these wipes when other clans just change names, people etc. Your prick, Aristox, is in one of these clans and does not fit any of the above definitions. As he has been playing as far back as you have, listening is the only constructive way to do things.

That being said, the arguments around what constitutes cheating and how this is used is a very large one, which, if you cared to listen, can provide fruitful insights in the "culture' of this game. However, asking for proof on how people obtain information (what you called in your post cheating, when Sosori did not) would at least require methods of surveillance that are not known to me.

Nostramazos.

Try signing with 50 characters Aris..

Or simply word of mouth that a private email to Aristox, or any of the other leads that can be investigated via logs.

But then again, that may be too straight forward.

Walking the Dark Path Alone

I've always wanted to see a zone designed and balanced around "risk" rather than "keyword difficulty." I think if you compare the knowledge bases of the various large clans, you will find they're strikingly similar if not exactly the same. A long time ago, the Shriners won some important fights because they were the only ones who knew how to get prism wands (that weren't restricted by class back then). You won't see that today. Balancing zones around difficult keywords currently, I suspect will do nothing except confer massive disadvantages to the player/small clan who tries to figure out keywords by themselves. So what do I mean by balancing by "risk." Imagine a zone that is entirely no-recall, no-port, and no-summon. The only ways to get in and out are by walking. The zone itself might not be very difficult. But a group that does the zone puts themselves at substantial risk of getting attacked by other players while doing it. A logon trap while the current top clan is running it, could be disastrous and might result in the top clan not being the top anymore. In this way peaceful and perhaps smaller clans and groups get the more favorable risk:reward ratio. Then you can add rewards within the zone that normally are placed in more difficult zones. This is a reversal of the current trend in which big clans steamroll elite zones with very little risk. Also if your group is attacked while running such a zone, if it's decided to retreat, each person needs to know the layout of the zone and its features in order to survive. Conversely if your group is attacking another group, each person needs to know the zone in order to chase people. By increasing the risk of encountering PK in certain zones, you can make zoning far more interesting. If I'm derailing this thread sorry, but I do feel there's a way to design the challenges of a zone other than hard fights and hard to guess keywords.

I like nol's idea.

In general I hate keyword-based zones because of how stupidly unrealistic most keywords are.

For example a keyword might be "shift altar", and instead I type "move altar" or "push altar" and they don't work- that is just annoying.

Think about in a pen&paper rps (which I haven't played in years), if you said you try to move the altar and your GM says doesn't work and other player says they "push" the altar and he says "ahh you push the altar and move it revealing a secret door opens, you would want to punch your GM because he is being an idiot. So why would it be different in a MUD?

In my mind, the "puzzle" is figuring out that there is a secret behind the whatever. Once you know it's there, it should be very easy to figure out the keyword. It's no longer a puzzle you try to figure out when you already know exactly what needs to be done- you just don't know the obscure synonym for "move" that the zone designer used. Maybe I'm in the minority, but if I wanted to play that sort of wordgame I'd be playing scrabble online or something, not arctic.

I hated most of the old sierra games because they are similarly unrealistic and stupid. I remember in one of the kings quests there was a snake you had to throw a rock at or something to get past it. The stupid thing was in every other room in the game there were rocks sitting on the ground, but no- you couldn't pick *those* rocks up, you had to get a special rock that was put in some totally random place because that is the rock the designer intended you to use. Just dumb design.

I would say you're off the mark, yes.

My zones, as can be attested, are balanced much more around risk than "keyword difficulty". As I stated originally the difficulty of my keywords is mostly considered to be in "concepts". The vast majority of these concepts tend to get people killed, until they figure it out.

It's hard to explain without giving details, but a zone like caverns of thorbardin(CoT) is EXACTLY the kind of zone you are asking for. Except I decided to not make it no_recall; I fear nobody would explore it EVER, if it was no recall.

Don't tell me how to do it; it sickens me.

Here is how i see it. There are very few active true exploreres left in arctic. i think the idea of making good rewards for those people is outstanding. I like nothing more then to find a new secret. I do not agree that keywords are the best way. The guys that get the keywords are generally people who do have alot of imm friends or an imm, or they have a script. I'm not going to accuse anyone of cheating, i dont know, and honestly that part doesn't bug me. What does is sitting at a zone for 5 hours legitamately figuring out the keyword. That may be exagerating, but it is frustrating. Then in a few months, the zone is done regularly and everyone knows the keywords. Take deep mines for instance, that place is insane with the amount of keywords there are. Yet, it's common knowledge now. Thats not anything any imm can do anything about. Thats what the players decided the way to go was. For instance it use to be elite to have a level 30. Now, people that can't get from pal to kal have one. So i agree with what nol said, that zones should be based on skill.

I really like the idea of letting the explorers and knowledge seekers have a bit of a buff. God knows it would be nice to find a zone that a skilled player can do easily, that an average player could not at all, without frustrating keywords, lots of dt's and insane mobs. 10 years ago it use to be worth deleteting your best character with all its eq to learn a new zone, because then you could run it with your guys, and get the eq there. Now its easier to tag along to the 100 a day trips to luni/dko/knights/thiewars/drac's tower/etc. Atleast ancient and mystic are still relativly hard.

I'd like to see a zone where the mob gets harder with the number of people you bring in. I would like to see a zone where you have multi options, wether to fight, or to use kw's. I would like very much to see the rewards of these zones scaleable. It would be nice to see a zone that had things such as duels or single player fights, where gear isn't that big of an isure. I think heal quest and regen quest where EXCELENT examples of this. A skilled player could do heal quest as soon as he got the slot and be in and out. A poor player need's to hit 24-25 and it takes forever. Make fights you have to think. Make it so maybie the better players, that arn't running with a 10 man group to slaughter everything before you can type assist, to get comperable rewards. You guys seemed to change ALOT of things that the skilled players used in both pk and zoning.

But in all honesty, if all it takes to get big beefy treasure, my insticnts say write a kw script with an item veriable, and be done with it. Then it becomes who is the best programer, and who gives there friends the script. I guess for me i am sick of looking at a hole, where the room desc and the short desc say it would be fun to jump in the pool and get treasure, and having to spend an hour at thsourus.com to to find out the kw is eject sparkling.springwater. It doesn't make a hell of alot of sense to me. Even if there are several alternatives. Hell if you want a kw zone, make the keywords change every time it pops up, make it so it cannot be ran without an explorer and then load it with nice eq. It would be nice to see people dting and dieing to learn a new zone instead of reading some clans logs, and then spaming it with a 10 man of level 25's.

You won't accuse anyone of cheating, yet you imply that the only reason why people figure out keywords are because they're an immortal, or have good immortal friends.

Just shut up with the insinuations, they're baseless.

Walking the Dark Path Alone

This is why we have people review the idea logfile. If you think an alternate keyword needs to be added (so you can push the altar, instead of just shoving it, making both push and shove work) then idea it. . . If the creator agrees that an alternate keyword is a good idea, they'll change it . . . I've already added several additional keywords based on player suggestions.

~Rorc

~Rorc

Who could make these suggestions with the idea command? The people who know the current absurd keyword? If they know the keyword, it is to their advantage to keep it unknown, so they have no incentive to suggest an easier keyword. If it's the people the don't know the current keyword... well, you will get a lot of false suggestions if people start suggesting keywords for items that aren't even supposed to be intractable.

Why not? Unless you have a great reason, I'd say I couldn't disagree with you more. Everything in room you can interact with should be a visible object, and hell a "get all" command, if it exists in the game, should actually do what it says.

In a p&p game, if a players says "I want to try to move everything in the room" he can do it. The gm might ask him, "are you sure?", and then when the player confirms tell him "you try to move the altar and you spring a trap in the wall and suddenly the door slams shut and the room starts filling with some highly corrosive liquid, probably acid".

I am not suggesting that deathtraps be added to every false keyword in the game, but creators should take a reality check when designing zones, if the item that should be manipulated would normally be visible and there isn't a good reason to hide it, don't hide it.

One thing that confused me a lot as a newer player was the "invisible" chest. When I first started playing, I noticed several chests in the game, which you can see in room, but can't pickup. Then one day I was grouping with a player and I saw him open a chest and get loot out of it when there was apparently no chest in the room. I was a little confused, but eventually I realized that *this* particular chest was arbitrarily not visible in the room. It pissed me off a little, but in the end I just started looking for chests in rooms even if they aren't naturally visible. I guess players like Xyril think this is good, because it means the "more skilled players" or "better explorers" get rewarded with these hidden chests. In my opinion it's a bad thing to have arbitrary design. You start the lowbie zones with visible chests, then you arbitrarily make some of them non-visible in the mid and high level zones. It just confuses new players. If chests were non-visible across the board in every zone, there wouldn't be any confusion.

"Almost", heh. I can guarantee several immortals disagree or did disagree in the past, because I know several keywords that were CHANGED over the years. Even if a keyword is supposedly changed to an easier keyword, the old harder keyword should be left as an option. It's just annoying coming back to a zone I knew years ago and seeing all the keywords are different.

Pretty much what I said earlier, so no arguments here.

Well, I know you have your own ideas about "game balance" and paper and pencil and all that, but remember that I don't agree with all of them. Even though we are playing a, by definition, highly abstracted text based game, I think sometimes we should shoot for a bit of realism if it doesn't detract from gameplay. If someone wants a secret to be obvious, "A giant portal on wheels takes up half the room... you see a portal behind it," then definitely make it a big ass object. If somebody wants to be more subtle, "The patterns on the well seem to cleverly disguise some sort of secret panel," then I feel it should be up to the creator whether or not he follow's Drakantus' rule, and makes an ansi-color-coded object, "A hidden panel is here, cleverly hidden in the wall."

As to why I think its good for the game? Well, I think variety is game play can be a good thing, and luckily a decent amount of staff also feels that way. So if you want to be able to pick a mindless grind zone where the main issue is collective damage, and the key words are obvious, I think you should have that. And if you want zones that are more subtle, where every key word object doesn't necessary SCREAM "I'm an object!" at you, then there should be a few options as well. And if you want to have an obvious grind zone, with obvious key words for the big, group fight, with a few well disguised secrets, then that's even better.

I like how earlier, you or someone else made a straw man of King's Quest or some other adventure game, because of some stupid scenario where amongst a pile of rocks, only one tiny rock would work. Indeed, very stupid game design, but like all poor rhetorical technique, it really failed to make the case. What would be wrong, after all, in a graphical game that wasn't so incredibly poorly written? You see a pile of rocks, see something a rock could be used for, and can pick up any rock to do so? Meanwhile, there's a candlelabra and some mushrooms in the room, too.

You know, I had the same problem. I kept seeing these big water containers everywhere that I tried to pick up, but it wouldn't let me. I had to waste precious coins buying waterskins. (This was long before the guild reequip.)

"More skilled players," "better explorers," hehe so basically, any Arctic skill that falls outside the definition of, "The ability to load and maintain a "dps improving set" of equipment," doesn't count for anything right? :P

The thing is Drakantus, pretty much every player I know can find those "invisible chests." Just like, well, every other bump on the learning curve, there will be a slight moment of confusion, followed by a moment of revelation. For me it was, "Hey, this guy loaded a key, wonder what the heck its used for... hey, the room description mentions a key!"

I think consistency is one of those general principles that's nice in itself, but should almost always be superceded by other, more pressing situational imperatives. For example, lowbie zones are meant to be easier to give them the opportunity to learn the game a bit at a time. Most newbie zones have no mob memory--if they get in trouble, they can flee and usually not worry about the big squirrel coming back for round two. The first time they encounter a mob with memory, or worse yet, an outright aggressive mob, I suppose the "inconsistency" of it all might be a bit of a shocker to them, but I feel that it's ultimately better for the learning process to give them baby steps.

The day the newbie realizes he can't just flee and rest in the room he ended up in (not safely anyway) is probably a more confusing and painful day than when he realizes chests won't always be highlighted a different color (assuming, of course, that a newbie is already using opt ansi). The day he realizes that he can't simply walk into certain zones and explore without risking a violent death, or that certain, seemingly peaceful mobs, can not only take care of themselves, but can yell for a bunch of friends to run train on you, probably another moment of frustration and confusion. (i.e., it pissed him off a little at first, but then he just learned to carry a recall, and scan before rushing headlong into a room).

I feel the same way about key words. Druid's Nook, for example, is a fairly doable, key word based quest for the lower player to whet his zone exploration teeth on--it has key words, key items, necessity of utility, a big mob, etc. Red Thorn Guild is a great example of an introductory large group--fight the aggro mobs, find the keys, kill the boss, collect the reward, and if you're so inclined you can use it as a great introduction to grouping. It would be idiotic to assume that the specific 'tricks' to doing these zones are all you need to solve, for example, Huma's or Storm's, but they do test and develop the general principles you need to work on solving harder quests for yourself.

Looking for the less than obvious chests is a pretty simple step in building zoning skills. Sure, during the period where you first leave the 'nest' of help areas low, when you expect things to be straightforward, you might miss a few free recalls or some treasure because you're not paying attention to the room description (this period of learning might last much, much longer for some players than others). But really, if a new player can't adapt to the "hidden" item (which, by the way, is only hidden if you use opt brief) paradigm, how's he going to adapt to certain quests that involve temporary charmies or other mob interactions, hidden flags, time dependencies, etc? How will he shift his mindset from, "I'm injured and getting bashed, recall recall recall!" to, "I have a healer, I have to trust him to do his job"? (Okay, to be fair, some players seem to take a long time, and kill off a decent number of people before they learn this.)

I have no problem not being on top. I accept that the clans who play more than me will continue to have better gear, I accept that the individuals who explored more/better than me will be able to do some fun quests I can't do, since I can't/won't devote that much time and attention to mud. I don't expect to be able to lead Cyan just because I can handle the rest of Silvi, nor do I expect to every possess something like a dragon orb, even if I have the ability to get to where one or two load. So I think a newbie can also accept that Haven Forest might take less thought than Bandit's Swamp. A newbie shouldn't expect everything to always be handed to them on a silver platter, highlighted item-color, with a sign pointed to it, also highlighted item color, but at the same time, why do we have to throw everything at them at once? I mean, being able to swat a dingo in the face, run away when you realize he could kill you in two rounds, and not ever having to worry about him coming back while you're resting, that's NOTHING like a real zone, but I'd rather not throw the vengeful and aggressive mobs at a newbie, while he's still reading the help files. By your logic, we should be encouraging players who run around nailing newbies with call light, or summon killing them, because it's
"inconsistent" that they can be a bit careless about wearing their nosummons as newbies, but suddenly be expected to stay on their guard all the time when they break a certain level.

We still teach Newtonian physics even though it's not perfectly consistent with special relativity, because the math is a bit too much for kids, but the "incomplete" knowledge is still enough to build a decent understanding of the world and a solid foundation upon which they can learn more.

I think, once again, you are underestimating the intelligence and adaptability of our player base. There are many games out there where the advanced game is basically the game for newbies, only with more damage, more hp, and bigger groups. Advanced Arctic isn't newbie Arctic, only with higher numbers. It's competitive in a way the newbie game is not. It's political. It's complex--while a newbie is basically doing every zone he can find and survive, while learning his class and the game, and leveling up, the advanced player usually tries to find some role to excel at, the loyal clan officer, the rank and file fodder, the enterprising solo explorer, the mercenary neutral, etc.

I have explored a number of Terk's zones, and by and large I think they are wonderful. My only objection is that with the new keywords being used on non_objects, I was stumped for a long time in one of your zones because I had an object in my equipment/inventory with the same name. So when i tried kw on what I was trying to figure out, it would not work unless i removed the item from my inventory and put it in a chest. Is this still a problem with the new zone concept?

Riche

Yes, it is an unfortunate aspect in a few circumstances.

Don't tell me how to do it; it sickens me.

If you use the command fiddle chest in room, it won't check your inventory. I believe this works even if the chest kw is not related to an object, but I'm not 100% positive.

My pet peeve with keywords is when there is an object required to activate the keyword and the keyword only works if the object is held, but doesn't work if it is just in inventory, and vice versa. It can become very confusing because you think you've tried the keyword already.

This is a legitimate concern. I think I will be happy to fix this issue. If a command is required to have a wielded object, I want there to at least be a fail message related to the wielding of the object, if the object is not wielded. It is hard to find all of these, so suggestions are good.

Don't tell me how to do it; it sickens me.