Matched (or not) attire

[jerc]

Had a showerthought this morning that I had to write down before it's forgotten.

I think it would be useful for both aesthetic and quality-of-life purposes if some articles of clothing had the ability to form a "set" such that if you were to look at someone, rather than seeing every piece, you'd see a summary of the set as a whole. You could then LOOK AT <PERSON>'S <SET> to get the individual item breakdown.

For example, without set grouping:

He is wearing a bronze brachelyr-scale helmet, a scarlet brachelyr-scale gorget, a white sinew neckerchief, a hooded stygian wool cloak draped over a scarlet brachelyr-scale cuirass, a white wool formal shirt, some scarlet brachelyr-scale vambraces (scuffed), some scarlet brachelyr-scale gloves, some bronze brachelyr-scale greaves, some fine charcoal-gray wool trousers bound by a bone-trimmed black leather belt (with a bone-clasped hard black leather case (closed), a soft leather coin purse (closed), and a rust-red wool drawstring pouch (closed) attached), a fine leather thigh sheath, and some bronze brachelyr-scale boots.

vs with:

He is wearing a white sinew neckerchief, a hooded stygian wool cloak draped over a white wool formal shirt, some mismatched brachelyr-scale armor (scuffed), some fine charcoal-gray wool trousers bound by a bone-trimmed black leather belt (with a bone-clasped hard black leather case (closed), a soft leather coin purse (closed), and a rust-red wool drawstring pouch (closed) attached), and a fine leather thigh sheath.

And then looking at the set specifically:

Person's mismatched brachelyr-scale armor (scuffed) consists of:
a bronze brachelyr-scale helmet, a scarlet brachelyr-scale gorget, a scarlet brachelyr-scale cuirass, some scarlet brachelyr-scale vambraces (scuffed), some scarlet brachelyr-scale gloves, some bronze brachelyr-scale greaves, and some bronze brachelyr-scale boots.

Whether or not an item is hidden behind the set could be a MODIFY option. So you could hold the item and MODIFY SET to have it shown or hidden in the overall character's description. The set itself would still show the item if looked at directly, and it would still be included for the purposes of figuring out the set's short description. You'd need at least two pieces to constitute a "set," otherwise things would simply display as they are today, with the addition of the LOOK <PERSON>'S <SET> still being possible for consistency.

For the short description, it would attempt to find all of the attributes of the set pieces that match, and include those in the description. For example, if you were wearing all padded cloth armor except for cloth brigandine vitals, and each piece was made of wool and dyed red, the short description might be "some mismatched red wool armor." You'd only get to lose the "mismatched" prefix if you actually have a full matching set. Or maybe if matching sets are actually rare or undesirable enough, that could be inverted so that you'd get a "matching" prefix if everything matches, and no prefix if mismatched.

Apart from armor sets, the only other thing I can think of that might make sense to make into a "set" are suits, e.g. longcoat, overcoat, vest, pants, trousers, etc. Could even have two-piece or three-piece variants. Probably other types of sets that I'm not thinking of right now, but these are top of mind since they're what my characters generally wear.

[Gorth]

Am I mistaken in asuming this comes from a wish to lower verbosity of descriptions? I agree with this, personally. I think this 'set' idea is a neat one, but one that might end up a little finicky both to code and to use properly.

I tend to wear outfits with specific pieces that are all (or mostly all) meant to convey something, and be important in there own right.

Maya wore full armor at most times she was armored, but usually a mixed set of them because I hate Brigandine Pants so I used greaves, and I dislike Brigandine Coif, so I was going to use a helmet, and I was wearing knee-high boots to convey riding boots.

Because I had a lot of armor pieces (though I barely wore any actual clothing) I made sure nothing, except really important things, displayed as fine quality. Especially considering every piece of armor was dyed, it made thigns much more readible.

Obviously this solution isn't for everyone, and some people liek to wear a lot of things, so if, perhaps, we could make it a two keyword set? Such as Bronze and Scarlet Scale armor?

[jerc]

Am I mistaken in asuming this comes from a wish to lower verbosity of descriptions?

Nope, 100% correct. A bit more specifically, a desire for a higher signal-to-noise ratio.

I tend to wear outfits with specific pieces that are all (or mostly all) meant to convey something, and be important in there own right.

This too. This is why I think it's important to be able to omit things from getting lumped into the set. Like if you had a really special cuirass that you want to show off, you could set it so that it doesn't get hidden by the set in your overall "wearing" description, while the other pieces that are really just there for covering get to fade into the background.

I made sure nothing, except really important things, displayed as fine quality.

I do the same thing

make it a two keyword set? Such as Bronze and Scarlet Scale armor?

I considered that as well, but that would further complicate an already finnicky imaginary system. Would be nice though, especially if you're intentionally sticking to a two-color/material scheme.

[Gorth]

Bumping this to perhaps inspire some discussion, as usual.

armor is the main place I see this mattering, but oh lord does it matter. Lets take a written description I've come up with:

He is wearing a fine fiery-crimson ridgeleather helmet (bloody), a fine fiery-crimson ridgeleather gorget (bloody), a fine heavy light-crimson leather backpack (closed), a fine hooded red oilcloth cloak draped over a fine fiery-crimson ridgeleather breastplate (bloody) worn over a fine crimson wool formal shirt, some fine fiery-crimson ridgeleather vambraces, some fiery-crimson ridgeleather gauntlets (bloody), a fine pair of denom-blue wool pants bound by a fine leather belt with a fine red leather scabbard attached, some fine fiery-crimson ridgeleather greaves, and some fine fiery-crimson ridgeleather boots.

I like heavy light-crimson, it's funny. Also, I think torso armor should be worn over shirts and stuff, and conflict with vests or something, but that's just me. anyway, that's a lot of words, huh? What if it was just:

he is wearing a heavy light-crimson leather backpack (closed), a hooded red oilcloth cloak draped over a set of fine fiery-crimson ridgeleather armor (bloody) worn over a crimson wool formal shirt, and a pair of denom-blue wool pants bound by a leather belt with a red leather scabbard attached.

There are a lot of people, me included, who dye everything, and would like to wear as many things as possible so that we can have a unique looking character. This description could certainly be cut down by not using the 'fine' tag on items,, which I do, but I not a lot of peopel really like to show off that way, too. Either way I think this would be a relatively simple algorithm to do, just matching half/majority keywords. The reason that the bloody tag shows up in my second example is because half of the set is bloody tagged, and i think for something like that it should be noted.

Anyway that's just my two cents after thinking over it a while and adding to things. Thoughts? as usual it's kind of rough to spend time writing out plans that just don't fit the feel of the game or the vision of the developers. That isn't to say that suggestions need to be added, of course. Just food for the thinker.

P.S. I think the armor set should display in a set place of the inventory depending on if it has a piece that would end up in a stack, as demonstrated above, otherwise at the top because it would probably be most noticeable.