Reset Password
Existing players used to logging in with their character name and moo password must signup for a website account.
- GrimButterCat 14s
- DeLiSe 7s
- Sulfurado 12s
- deskoft 13m
- Dystopia2102 46s
- BigLammo 24s
- Atheran 41s
- Melonly 17s
- NoShame 7m
- Grig 2s
- JohnWilliams 2s
- sukebug 1m
- Veleth 1m
- Hivemind 20m
- Baguette 5s bitchmade
- RedProtokoll 32s
- CookieJarvis 4s
- SoulTune 2m
- BCingyou 5s
- Wonderland 1m
- Slyter 57m
- MrJDucky2 3h
a Mench 36m Doing a bit of everything.
- asdronin 13h
- ReeferMadness 9h May the bridges I burn light the way.
And 21 more hiding and/or disguised
Connect to Sindome @ or just Play Now

Check clothing coverage at markets
So you actially know what you're buying

Please let people check the coverage and maybe messages as well when appraising items in the market-- or even in stores. This will help make life so much easier thanks.

Either use a different command maybe or just tag it below the normal appraise message (envisioning kind of like the @review-cloth messages).

I would *kill* to have an @check equivalent for clothing in markets, whether that be for tailored items or premade clothing items (which always have weird coverages).

I often find that items will have a neutral @describe, but have very specific @worn messages for the person who used to wear the item - which requires the item to be retailored.

There's a feature that achieves something close to this in an entirely IC way restricted to upper-crust stores, rather than printing a message similar to an @-command.

I think that can be used as a baseline for how much less "fancy" you should expect markets to be. Which isn't me saying I think you should be -unable- to check coverage in markets, because you should, but perhaps it would be best done in a simple and crude, but IC, message, rather than something like printing the @check.

Not sure what you mean by "expect markets to be less fancy." Are you saying buyer-beware because markets are sketchy?

Anything at all can be in a market - fancy items or shabby ones. Not being able to know what it will look like when worn is really not, in my opinion, something that should be explained away ICly, it's something that should be fixed (per the original idea).

It doesn't have to be an OOC @ command. It could just be an update to what the IC 'appraise' does.

Yes, that's along the lines of what I mean. A fairly lightweight addition to appraise, perhaps at its lightest the coverage (written up in an IC manner).

The @worn message is a bit weirder because... again, there is an IC feature meant to provide this... at appropriate venues. Specifically, seeing the item -worn-. The market doesn't have that, so it's understandable to me that you would get the item's -description- when looked at in your hands, instead.

I still absolutely agree that coverage should be divulged, though.

> app trench

leather trenchcoat

A normal looking trenchcoat made of leather.

You think this will cover your shoulders, back and arms.

I honestly feel like you could stick this sort of message to -every- clothing description. What do you guys think?