On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, Laurens Holst wrote:
> And a very good day to you, too :-)
>
> >No, both drop and atck have as a parameter the amount of energie to use.
>
> Ehm... not yet :-) ATCK is only specified with the direction in which to
> attack as parameter. For DROP, no direction is specified - I assumed that
> DROP would drop the energy on the position of the robot. When a robot
> would MOVE to a square which contains an energy packet, it would be scooped
> up automagically.
>
> So: what do we do? Take a fixed amount of energy for attacking or define
> an extra parameter for it? Is the DROP as I specified now ok, or should a
> parameter be included for the direction?
>
> ::I say let's drop it on the current square. Is logical...
> ::Unless, ofcourse, those robots can throw...
This sounds logical, but we would need an extra command: pick
up. Until now, I thought picking up was done by standing on the
square, but this is not possible if you drop on the square you're
standing on. Unless, of course, you would pick up by moving onto the
square, but I don't think that this is a good idea. It would be too
hard to pick up energie you just dropped (accidentily, eg. because of
problems with communication).
> ::And another thing, give it a parameter whih determines the amount of
> ::energy to drop/attack with... Requires more thinking, thus more fun.
I agree.
> > This is the amount you lose. Attacking an empty square would cost you
> > energie. My idea is to drop this energie on the neighboring square.
>
> I'd say the energy is used by yourself for the attack and will thus
> disappear.
> The fact that there's no robot at the other side to receive the damage
> caused
> by your attack is a matter of bad luck and lousy programming :-)
>
> ::I fully agree.
You're right, this would be better.
> [ATCK = DROP?]
> > This is true, but here I think (since you cannot drop on a robot and you
> > cannot attack an empty square) this is not a problem. Perhaps the name of
> > the command should be changed to use,
>
> Hm, USE instead of ATCK is something I could imagine, but DROP and USE
> sound too different to me...
>
> ::Nah...
> ::Besides, DROP drops on the current square, ATCK attacks one of
> ::the neigbour-squares...
> ::Hey, idea!!!
> ::What about making MOVEing onto another robot equal to ATCK???
ehm.... no. When you are moving, you specify a direction. When you
attack, you should also specify the amount of energy you use for it
(imo). You could ignore this when moving, but that would be
confusing.
> ::Or should the 'user interface' take care of that...
> ::Translating move onto an enemy to attack...
> ::Well, dunno... Let me hear your opinion.
>
> > or both names should be valid for the same command...
>
> NO!!!! Giving one and the same thing two or more different names, is the
> fastest path to confusion...
>
> :: I agree.
Ok, relax. It was just a thought. (It wasn't a good thought, ok, but
you don't have to start yelling...)
Bye,
shevek
****
MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put
in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the
quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
****
