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

James Paige Bob at hamsterrepublic.com
Fri Jan 28 10:29:31 PST 2022 

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

Not hard and fast rules, just my rules of thumb :D

On Fri., Jan. 28, 2022, 9:39 a.m. Ralph Versteegen, <teeemcee at gmail.com>
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 <Bob at hamsterrepublic.com> 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 <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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20220128/3e5df50c/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Ohrrpgce mailing list