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

Sat Jan 29 06:30:41 PST 2022

On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 9:47 PM Ralph Versteegen <teeemcee at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>

I am kinda amazed and impressed that you can actually keep working on such
long branches. That's a superpower :D
Still, I am happy to see any of them merge sooner rather than later :D

>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/f88441c2/attachment-0001.html>