"has been [attack_verb]ed" or "has [attack_verb]ed" ?

[phil235]

Currently the attack messages in the code uses both "X has been [attack_verb]ed by Y" and "Y has [attack_verb]ed X". I really think we could use a standard format for all, because when you get a wall of attack texts, knowing the attacker is at one side and the victim at the other greatly helps the readability.

So, which format should we keep and which one should we remove?

I personnally am in favor of "X has been [attack_verb]ed by Y"

[kosmos]

Why not use present tense, ""Y [attack_verb]s X""? Aren't most other things in the game in present tense, "airlock resists" etc.

[Remie Richards]

Why not use present tense, ""Y [attack_verb]s X""? Aren't most other things in the game in present tense, "airlock resists" etc.

"Y punchs X"

Since "Y has punched X" and "X has been punched by Y" both use "punch" as the short term, you get this incorrect spelling of punches.

[Cheridan]

Why not use present tense, ""Y [attack_verb]s X""? Aren't most other things in the game in present tense, "airlock resists" etc.

In-game chat logs are a representation of something that has just happened, hence the present tense. These are attack logs, which are always viewed after something has happened. They don't have to be past tense, but it makes sense that they are.

As for the two options, "Y has [attack_verb]ed X" is probably better. It's shorter, which is better for both simplicity of reading and to keep to size of the log files down. Yeah, it's only like 8 characters, but 8 multiplied by the amount of logged actions per round (thousands?)... It can easily add up.

[paprika]

The only case in which things shouldn't be past tense is during do_after messages like "X begins putting [item] on Y"

[MisterPerson]

I think the real question is, who needs to appear first, the attacker or victim?

[paprika]

That's a hard question to answer, but I think it should be like interacting with objects, 'x begins to deconstruct the y' so the attacker would come first.