Feature Allow adventuring in Drunken Stupor (if you try to do so on purpose)

[phreddrickk]

Right now, it is pretty much impossible for an adv1 call to send you to Drunken Stupor. Based on this code, you can adventure while overdrunk if you're holding a wineglass, or if you're going to a location that overrides stupor (e.g., trick-or-treating, tunnel of LOV, etc), or if you're going to Pete's special stupor, or if you're in Spelunky or Batfellow. If there is a way to deliberately adventure in Drunken Stupor via a script, I'd love to hear it--I've done enough research and asked around enough that I'm reasonably confident that you cannot.

Drunkness protections are good, and it's perfectly understandable that adv1 cannot adventure regularly while you're overdrunk. However, I believe that adv1($location[Drunken Stupor], -1, "") should be able to successfully send you to a drunken stupor.

The primary motivation here are wanderers. Digitize, kramco, and other wanderers can be encountered while overdrunk sans-wineglass. They'll occur in the Drunken Stupor zone, sure, but they'll actually show up. I would like for my scripts garbo and freecandydotexe to be able to fight embezzlers while overdrunk without a wineglass, because that would be worth a lot more meat than they currently are. I think that explicitly submitting the location as Drunken Stupor is enough to show intentionality, and prevent users from unintentionally finding themselves in a stupor.

I understand why things are set up the way they are, and if the answer to this boils down to "no one particularly wants to make this happen" or "no, that gets rid of too much drunkness protection", I get it. But I figured I'd float this to see if anyone else thinks this would be useful.

Thank you all so much for all the work you do on this important project.

 

[MCroft]

I'm not keen on the command you're suggesting, since it still might be called accidentally.

However, if we came up with a new command, which was well documented and to be used at your own risk, I could see it having value for those special cases.

Something like drunkventure with appropriate parameters might work.

 

[heeheehee]

How many adventures are you willing to burn in order to get an extra embezzler? (What's the opportunity cost of using those adventures today vs tomorrow? Cost of drum machine? Lost fam wt + offhand + combat from using wineglass?) And, by burning those adventures today, aren't you putting yourself in a position where you wouldn't reach that same digitize wanderer tomorrow?

Can you just visit_url() some adventure.php location even when overdrunk? If that's the case, then I too do not see a compelling reason to add this explicitly, in any form.

 

[the dictator]

How many adventures are you willing to burn in order to get an extra embezzler? (What's the opportunity cost of using those adventures today vs tomorrow? Cost of drum machine? Lost fam wt + offhand + combat from using wineglass?) And, by burning those adventures today, aren't you putting yourself in a position where you wouldn't reach that same digitize wanderer tomorrow?

I'd guess this is for people that are looping, that is, people that are spending their overdrunk adventures before they ascend. So the only opportunity cost is the cost of their nightcap, since the adventures would just go to waste.

Can you just visit_url() some adventure.php location even when overdrunk? If that's the case, then I too do not see a compelling reason to add this explicitly, in any form.

Sure, but you can also visit_url() to barf mountain, so why does adv1 exist at all?

This seems like a perfectly reasonable request: there is already a list of exception locations you can visit while overdrunk, and this should be one of them, since it is a location that you can visit while overdrunk. And if you're going there, clearly you know that you're going there.

 

[phreddrickk]

I'm not keen on the command you're suggesting, since it still might be called accidentally.

However, if we came up with a new command, which was well documented and to be used at your own risk, I could see it having value for those special cases.

Something like drunkventure with appropriate parameters might work.

I personally think that if you list the intended location as "drunken stupor" you're kind of signing up for it, but also I do get that we really don't want people accidentally burning a billion turns in drunken stupor.

How many adventures are you willing to burn in order to get an extra embezzler? (What's the opportunity cost of using those adventures today vs tomorrow? Cost of drum machine? Lost fam wt + offhand + combat from using wineglass?) And, by burning those adventures today, aren't you putting yourself in a position where you wouldn't reach that same digitize wanderer tomorrow?

Can you just visit_url() some adventure.php location even when overdrunk? If that's the case, then I too do not see a compelling reason to add this explicitly, in any form.

You can visitUrl(), but that doesn't play nicely with a lot of things when it comes to adventuring. You'd have to add manual runCombat() calls (or rely on autoattacks), and stuff like that. In general, I would like to take advantage of the many features mafia has to support adventuring, but apply them to a combat that takes place in drunken stupor.