Currently we can be more specific when trying to do something with similar objects, and have 1st, 2nd, and so on. Could we get 'my' implemented as specifying something in your inventory only?
|-||JMo||12s||A hungry man is an angry man.|
|-||Supermarket||3m||Chute her! Chute heeeer!|
|-||RheaGhe||51s||Something about butts.|
|-||Marioanius||1m||Hamilton wrote, the other 51!|
|-||Kisaki||2h||Don't Stop Music...|
|a||Cerberus||15m||Head Builder & GM when I need to|
|And 35 more hiding and/or disguised|
I'm not sure why it's needed. Can you guys run me through some scenarios?
Why is 'use first v-202' not an option? The first object will always be what's on you if there are 10 of the same objects split in the room and in your inventory. If there are five on you, then the 6th is the first one in the room? Scan?
When you know that '1st' is the same as 'my', then it definitely isn't needed as much. However, it's still pretty unintuitive and confusing, especially to people that don't know about it (like me. I literally just found out it's the same from this post.)
An example of where it would get confusing would be when looking at all of item X in a room. Player A has 1 of item X, and the room has 5 of item X. If he wants to interact with the first item X in the room, he has to type '2nd', since the '1st' is his. In order to interact with the 5th item X in the room, he has to type '6th', etc.
Confusing. Switching it around to use 'my' instead, and '1st'-'xth' for everything else would be better, I think.
That would involve changing the fundamental structure of the way interacting with objects works. I don't see it happening.
However, that's not to say there is not room for improvement. Perhaps a tutorial in @tutorials for interacting with objects both on your person and in the room?
If one of you wants to check out the scripting section (xhelp if you aren't able to access it) and write a tutorial script detailing the use 1st/first, 2nd/second etc in relation to yourself, objects on you and objects in the room -- that would be great and I'd be happy to put that in as a new tutorial!
There may even be a partly done object interaction tutorial already in the scripting section that you can use as a base...
Tutorials are great, and I love the idea of allowing the players to create them. But tutorials are still only as effective as the player that wants to take the time to go through them. And the same kind of player that will take his or her time with a tutorial is the kind of player that won't be as affected by unintuitive design.
Not that I'm wanting to make the 1st/2nd/my thing into a big problem, it's just one of those, "Man, it'd be super cool if it was like this" -- kind of thing. If it's such a large undertaking to change something this small though, then it's not worth it.
So many other things out there that better deserve the staff's time and attention :p