On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 15:38, Ralph Versteegen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 07:29, James Paige <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I used to keep branches short because I was afraid of merge conflicts. >> >> But now it is a habit drilled into me by work. >> >> If a branch isn't ready to merge in 48 hours, I probably have a scope >> creep problem >> >> If a branch isn't ready to merge in a week or two I shouldn't have even >> bothered creating it, because it isn't likely to land ever >> > > Hahah, I have so many branches that are many years old but I haven't given > up on, I do actually finish one from time to time. The one I'm working on > now was started over 2 years ago. Some of the major ones I try to rebase > onto wip every year or two. I probably have close to 100 which I intend to > eventually finish and merge. Some are actually finished, just not tested. > Others... for example this cleanup of Game and Custom's startup code I did > 9 years ago can't realistically be merged, but looks nice, I might want to > take some ideas and code from it. And this 6+ year old branch of > innumerable misc changes I just tried to rebase conflicted in 50 different > files!!! I try to split things up better these days... > Oh, turns out that it was on David's original git-svn import, which I redid yonks ago. It actually only conflicts in 7 files. Unfortunately my script error reporting overhaul hasn't been rebased in over 4 years and is badly conflicted again. > > >> >> Not hard and fast rules, just my rules of thumb :D >> >> On Fri., Jan. 28, 2022, 9:39 a.m. Ralph Versteegen, <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I really wish I could be like that! I really want reduce the number of >>> branches of unfinished features I have. I have a number in mind after >>> Ichorescent. >>> I've finished with battle system changes for the moment, if you want to >>> do anything. >>> >>> >>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 at 16:53, James Paige <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> No, I don't have any un-pushed code right now, so you are free to make >>>> changes without worrying about conflicts. >>>> I keep my branches short and merge to main often :D >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 7:40 PM Ralph Versteegen <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 at 09:52, James Paige <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu., Jan. 27, 2022, 8:40 a.m. Ralph Versteegen, < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Haha! I cannot question the perspicacity of this suggestion! >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James, have you already started adding these bits? Because I was >>>>> cleaning up some other code and realised I needed an is_foe function, >>>>> which >>>>> I was going to pull out of get_valid_targs. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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
