On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 at 01:07, James Paige <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Thu., Jan. 27, 2022, 4:34 a.m. Ralph Versteegen, <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 at 14:56, James Paige <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 6:49 PM Ralph Versteegen <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 at 13:49, James Paige <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> So I do have a few other changes related to this one planned. >>>>> * An option to make heroes controlled by (random) AI >>>>> * A concept of "traitor" which will affect targeting classes when an >>>>> attacker is targeting >>>>> * A concept of "turncoat" which will affect targetting classes when an >>>>> target is being targeted >>>>> * Attacks that can turn these effects on and off or set-to-default >>>>> >>>>> So an enemy with all 3 of Controllable, Traitor, and Turncoat would >>>>> function as a hero for that one battle. >>>>> >>>>> To simulate a classic "Confuse" status, you would have an attack that >>>>> turns Controllable off, and traitor on, but don't touch turncoat. Then to >>>>> end that status, use an attack that sets Controllable and Turncoat back to >>>>> default. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I was hoping this meant you were going down this direction :) >>>> >>>> I'm not sure whether "Traitor" is proposed to swap foes and allies of a >>>> target, or just makes everyone count as a foe. Those are two different ways >>>> that you might want a Confused status to work, and it seems that these bits >>>> would only allow one or the other. >>>> >>>> What I was thinking was to give each combatant a team (default 1 for >>>> heroes, 2 for enemies) and an "acting" team. A target is considered an ally >>>> by an attacker if their team is the same as the attacker's acting team, >>>> else they're a foe. Also team 0 could mean "independent", with no allies. >>>> You probably wouldn't use more than a third team, for "Nature", say when a >>>> clan of hyenas opportunistically attack while you're fighting someone >>>> else). >>>> >>>> So Confuse to make someone attack anyone indiscriminately would change >>>> their acting team to 0 (so two confused targets still hit each other), and >>>> to swap sides you'd change their acting team (although now I realise that >>>> means the attack would need to be specific to use by heroes or enemies, >>>> unless there was an attack bit like "swap target's acting team" that just >>>> set it to the attacker's). >>>> >>>> Maybe I've overcomplicated it again, while still not adding all that >>>> much utility/flexibility (really should work on allowing script hooks for >>>> things like this) vs just adding a third Independent bit. >>>> >>> >>> Yeah, I think teams will overcomplicate it for now-- and yes, having >>> scripting hooks so people can customize this behavior will be the best way >>> to get advanced fancy effects >>> >> >>> I do kinda like the idea of being able to make a confused enemy target >>> all, rather than only the opposite side, but I'll have to think if there is >>> a nice simple way to do that. >>> >> >> Going down the route of bitsets then I don't really see another option >> but adding another bitset to make everyone an enemy. >> >> Now, I'm not pushing for the team IDs idea, but I just wanted to write >> something about complexity. Say you add a third bit, or even a fourth ("Foe >> to all"). I think that arguably two integer-valued settings are simpler >> than 3 bits, because 3 bits is 8 possible combinations, a lot to think >> about. And even an 8-way setting could be simpler to reason about than 3 >> bits if you don't have to think about any interactions. Complexity of >> implementation is usually also secondary. >> But in fact after looking at the new version of get_valid_targs I >> realised team IDs would actually have been simpler in implementation too. >> The bitsets are more complex... in fact I see some mistakes in the code, >> which I'll fix: "Dead-ally (hero only)" and "Dead foe (enemy only)" were >> meant to be informative only, to warn that those settings didn't make sense >> for enemies/heroes, but not to intentionally restrict the targets. >> > > I was actually considering two more bit states-- "Indiscriminate Attacker" > to attack both sides, and "Tergiversate Target" to be targeted by both sides > Maybe we need to make more frequent releases so that you can outlet your penchant for lexical obscureness elsewise :) > > >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Or a classic Berzerk could be implemented with Controllable=Off and >>>>> could end with controllable set to default (this would work for heroes, >>>>> but >>>>> wouldn't do anything meaningful on an enemy) >>>>> >>>>> This should allow a lot of possibilities, and is all pretty easy to >>>>> implement. >>>>> >>>>> And yes, someone could totally fake 5 or 6 heroes in the party with >>>>> this, by using an instead-of-battle script, and adding hero enemies to the >>>>> formation with a script before the battle starts. Definitely not ideal, >>>>> but >>>>> fine if people want to try it. >>>>> >>>>> Actually increasing the size of the active party > 4 and increasing >>>>> the number of enemies in a formation > 8 is something I definite;ly want >>>>> to >>>>> do, but it will require lots and lots of cleanup, which is outside of the >>>>> scope of what I am trying to do right now. In particular, there are tons >>>>> of >>>>> places where the ID range within the bslot() array defines what a >>>>> BattleSprite Instance does, so the first step of that cleanup will >>>>> probably >>>>> be to convert all access to bslot() to a set of accessor functions for >>>>> heroes, enemies, attack sprites, and weapon sprites. Then those different >>>>> ranges can be split apart into different arrays, which can be dynamically >>>>> sized when you load a battle formation with 15 enemies in it, or something >>>>> like that. But that is for later. I want to keep the scope of what I am >>>>> working on broken down into bite-sized baby-steps to mix a metaphor :D >>>>> >>>> >>>> I don't think we would want to split bslot() into separate arrays for >>>> heroes and enemies: being able to index across all of them with a bslot() >>>> index is very useful and widely used (eg. targeting) so it would be a lot >>>> of work to remove that. Why not just add is_hero and is_enemy attributes. >>>> There's a lot of lines of code to change, but each would then be an easy >>>> change. Could also start using polymorphism. >>>> >>> >>> Yes, you are right. is_hero and is_enemy attributes are much better than >>> what I was thinking of with the accessor functions for bslot. Glad you said >>> it :) >>> >>> >>> >>>> On the other hand, I do want to remove attacks and weapons from bslot() >>>> and was considering doing it soonish. Almost all of the BattleSprite data >>>> is irrelevant for them, and nearly all of the advantages of having them in >>>> bslot are (or will be) gone now that battles are converted to slices. >>>> >>> >>> Ah, right! Those only get used in animations, so the slice is all that >>> really matters :) >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Fortunately I think the current features I am adding will not make any >>>>> of that later work harder, and might even lead to a little helpful >>>>> cleanup. >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 8:22 AM Ralph Versteegen <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Wow! That's not a feature I was expecting to see for a long time. A >>>>>> nice surprise! >>>>>> >>>>>> I suppose this is particularly useful for giving the player extra >>>>>> actions they can perform in battle. People are going to inevitable think >>>>>> to >>>>>> use it to get around the 4 hero limit, but it seems really problematic >>>>>> for >>>>>> that. Or is time to add team numbers to battles, so you can define which >>>>>> combatants are "foe" or "ally"? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 at 14:01, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> james >>>>>>> 2022-01-16 17:01:32 -0800 (Sun, 16 Jan 2022) >>>>>>> 39 >>>>>>> New enemy bitset "Controlled by Player" >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> U wip/bmodsubs.bas >>>>>>> U wip/enemyedit.bas >>>>>>> U wip/loading.rbas >>>>>>> U wip/udts.bi >>>>>>> U wip/whatsnew.txt >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Ohrrpgce mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Ohrrpgce mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Ohrrpgce mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Ohrrpgce mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ohrrpgce mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ohrrpgce mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org >> > _______________________________________________ > Ohrrpgce mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org >
_______________________________________________ Ohrrpgce mailing list [email protected] http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org
