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

Fri Jan 28 18:47:12 PST 2022

On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 15:38, Ralph Versteegen <teeemcee at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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...
>

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, <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/bf0dcedd/attachment-0001.html>