[Ohrrpgce] SVN: james/12694 New enemy bitset "Controlled by Player"

James Paige Bob at hamsterrepublic.com
Thu Jan 27 19:53:28 PST 2022 

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 <teeemcee at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 at 09:52, James Paige <Bob at hamsterrepublic.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu., Jan. 27, 2022, 8:40 a.m. Ralph Versteegen, <teeemcee at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 at 01:07, James Paige <Bob at hamsterrepublic.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu., Jan. 27, 2022, 4:34 a.m. Ralph Versteegen, <teeemcee at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 at 14:56, James Paige <Bob at hamsterrepublic.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 6:49 PM Ralph Versteegen <teeemcee at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 at 13:49, James Paige <Bob at hamsterrepublic.com>
>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>> teeemcee at gmail.com> 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, <subversion at hamsterrepublic.com>
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>> ohrrpgce at lists.motherhamster.org
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Ohrrpgce mailing list
>>>>>>>>> ohrrpgce at lists.motherhamster.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Ohrrpgce mailing list
>>>>>>>> ohrrpgce at lists.motherhamster.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Ohrrpgce mailing list
>>>>>>> ohrrpgce at lists.motherhamster.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Ohrrpgce mailing list
>>>>>> ohrrpgce at lists.motherhamster.org
>>>>>> http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Ohrrpgce mailing list
>>>>> ohrrpgce at lists.motherhamster.org
>>>>> http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Ohrrpgce mailing list
>>>> ohrrpgce at lists.motherhamster.org
>>>> http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ohrrpgce mailing list
>>> ohrrpgce at lists.motherhamster.org
>>> http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ohrrpgce mailing list
>> ohrrpgce at lists.motherhamster.org
>> http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Ohrrpgce mailing list
> ohrrpgce at lists.motherhamster.org
> http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.motherhamster.org/pipermail/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org/attachments/20220127/108838dd/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Ohrrpgce mailing list