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

Fri Jan 28 18:38:20 PST 2022

On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 07:29, James Paige <Bob at hamsterrepublic.com> 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...

>
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220129/e402461b/attachment-0001.html>