ANNOUNCE: HA! 0.1.6 released

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development,rec.games.roguelike.announce,rec.games.roguelike.misc,rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

and there was much rejoicing:

http://www.heroicadventure.com/dev/release/HA_016.zip

(ok perhaps not much rejoicing, but I'm pretty happy about it. It's been
nearly a year since 0.1.5c I think. Told ya it wasn't dead...)

What's new? Skills, Traps, Secret Doors, new monsters, etc.

IMO the game is too hard, but most of that will be mitigated once I add
more magic items and finish the code for missile weapons, wands and
spells. Currently there are no magical weapons or armor, just regular.

I've decided to try adhering to a quarterly release schedule. 0.1.7 should
roll out around the beginning of August (maybe sooner).

Also, HA! now requires the 2.0 .NET Framework. Check the HA! readme file
for a link to the dotnetfx.exe file.

Yes I know... *insert MS related tirade here* but it's my platform of
choice. You can always go MONO (http://www.go-mono.com) if you want. No I
haven't tried HA! on MONO yet, since I don't currently have a Linux box
set up. (I've had a few distros over the years... Mandrake, RedHat and
Knoppix, but I keep going back to Windows... sorry)

Yes I know... HA! looks a fair amount like ADOM. That's because ADOM is my
favorite Roguelike, and I don't see any point in reinventing the wheel if
there's a look and feel I already like.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development,rec.games.roguelike.misc,rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

Heroic Adventure wrote:
> and there was much rejoicing:
>
> http://www.heroicadventure.com/dev/release/HA_016.zip
>
> (ok perhaps not much rejoicing, but I'm pretty happy about it. It's been
> nearly a year since 0.1.5c I think. Told ya it wasn't dead...)
>
> What's new? Skills, Traps, Secret Doors, new monsters, etc.
>
> IMO the game is too hard, but most of that will be mitigated once I add
> more magic items and finish the code for missile weapons, wands and
> spells. Currently there are no magical weapons or armor, just regular.
>
> I've decided to try adhering to a quarterly release schedule. 0.1.7 should
> roll out around the beginning of August (maybe sooner).

Sound interesting.

> Also, HA! now requires the 2.0 .NET Framework.

On second thought...

DIE!

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development,rec.games.roguelike.misc,rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

Twisted One wrote:
>
> Sound interesting.
>
>> Also, HA! now requires the 2.0 .NET Framework.
>
>
> On second thought...
>
> DIE!
>

LOL I expected that from you.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

I could send it to ya on CD w/ the framework installer.

If you're really interested, lemme know.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development,rec.games.roguelike.misc,rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

Uzytkownik "Heroic Adventure" <spambucket@heroicadventure.com> napisal
w wiadomosci news:%zDbe.5337$lf2.1631@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

> Yes I know... *insert MS related tirade here* but it's my platform
> of
> choice. You can always go MONO (http://www.go-mono.com) if you want.

I tested HA on Mono, and it does not work, probably because mono tries
to implement .NET 1.1, not 2.0; sadly, older versions of HA are also
not so hot on running with Mono.
It's your game, so you'll do as you like, but I think switching to
mono runtrime could be a great idea (I do not know just how
time-consuming it would be, but chances are that not much). Right now
there is no obvious gain from using bytecode in HA, it does not make
the game faster, nor portable.

> No I
> haven't tried HA! on MONO yet, since I don't currently have a Linux
> box
> set up. (I've had a few distros over the years... Mandrake, RedHat
> and
> Knoppix, but I keep going back to Windows... sorry)

Mono is multi-platform, it installs on Windows with a double-clik.

regards,
Filip

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development,rec.games.roguelike.misc,rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

Filip Dreger wrote:
> Uzytkownik "Heroic Adventure" <spambucket@heroicadventure.com> napisal
> w wiadomosci news:%zDbe.5337$lf2.1631@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
>
>>Yes I know... *insert MS related tirade here* but it's my platform
>>of
>>choice. You can always go MONO (http://www.go-mono.com) if you want.
>
>
> I tested HA on Mono, and it does not work, probably because mono tries
> to implement .NET 1.1, not 2.0; sadly, older versions of HA are also
> not so hot on running with Mono.
> It's your game, so you'll do as you like, but I think switching to
> mono runtrime could be a great idea (I do not know just how
> time-consuming it would be, but chances are that not much). Right now
> there is no obvious gain from using bytecode in HA, it does not make
> the game faster, nor portable.
>
>
>>No I
>>haven't tried HA! on MONO yet, since I don't currently have a Linux
>>box
>>set up. (I've had a few distros over the years... Mandrake, RedHat
>>and
>>Knoppix, but I keep going back to Windows... sorry)
>
>
> Mono is multi-platform, it installs on Windows with a double-clik.
>

I just may do that then. I guess I had it in my head that I needed it
to be on a linux box. Thanks.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Heroic Adventure wrote:
> and there was much rejoicing:
>
> http://www.heroicadventure.com/dev/release/HA_016.zip
>
> (ok perhaps not much rejoicing, but I'm pretty happy about it. It's been
> nearly a year since 0.1.5c I think. Told ya it wasn't dead...)
>
> What's new? Skills, Traps, Secret Doors, new monsters, etc.
>
> IMO the game is too hard, but most of that will be mitigated once I add
> more magic items and finish the code for missile weapons, wands and
> spells. Currently there are no magical weapons or armor, just regular.
>
> I've decided to try adhering to a quarterly release schedule. 0.1.7 should
> roll out around the beginning of August (maybe sooner).
>
> Also, HA! now requires the 2.0 .NET Framework. Check the HA! readme file
> for a link to the dotnetfx.exe file.
>
> Yes I know... *insert MS related tirade here* but it's my platform of
> choice. You can always go MONO (http://www.go-mono.com) if you want. No I
> haven't tried HA! on MONO yet, since I don't currently have a Linux box
> set up. (I've had a few distros over the years... Mandrake, RedHat and
> Knoppix, but I keep going back to Windows... sorry)
>
> Yes I know... HA! looks a fair amount like ADOM. That's because ADOM is my
> favorite Roguelike, and I don't see any point in reinventing the wheel if
> there's a look and feel I already like.

24MB download of a dot NET framework ver 2 beta?

Can't risk it right now sorry!

--
ABCGi ---- (abcgi@yahoo.com) ---- http://codemonkey.sunsite.dk
Fun RLs in rgrd that I have tested recently!
DoomRL - DwellerMobile - HWorld - AburaTan - DiabloBand
Heroic Adventure - Tower of Doom - Tendrils - TheTombs

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

chrisgwilliams@gmail.com wrote:

I had wrote;

24MB download of a dot NET framework ver 2 beta?

Can't risk it right now sorry!

> I could send it to ya on CD w/ the framework installer.
>
> If you're really interested, lemme know.

Thanks for the kind offer but I meant I couldn't
risk installing a MS beta product on my computer
right now!!!

--
ABCGi ---- (abcgi@yahoo.com) ---- http://codemonkey.sunsite.dk
Fun RLs in rgrd that I have tested recently!
DoomRL - DwellerMobile - HWorld - AburaTan - DiabloBand
Heroic Adventure - Tower of Doom - Tendrils - TheTombs

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Auric__ wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 05:13:05 +1000, ABCGi <abcgi@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Thanks for the kind offer but I meant I couldn't
>>risk installing a MS beta product on my computer
>>right now!!!
>
> I would *never* risk installing an MS beta on *anything*.

I would. I'd love to install one on R. Dan Henry's computer.

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

ABCGi wrote:
> chrisgwilliams@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I had wrote;
>
> 24MB download of a dot NET framework ver 2 beta?
>
> Can't risk it right now sorry!
>
>> I could send it to ya on CD w/ the framework installer.
>>
>> If you're really interested, lemme know.
>
>
> Thanks for the kind offer but I meant I couldn't
> risk installing a MS beta product on my computer
> right now!!!
>

LOL I did misunderstand...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Auric__ wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 05:13:05 +1000, ABCGi <abcgi@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Thanks for the kind offer but I meant I couldn't
>>risk installing a MS beta product on my computer
>>right now!!!
>
>
> I would *never* risk installing an MS beta on *anything*.

FWIW I've been using the 2.0 Framework for development for some time
now, and haven't had a single problem. YMMV.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

ABCGi wrote:
> chrisgwilliams@gmail.com wrote:
>> I could send it to ya on CD w/ the framework installer.
>> If you're really interested, lemme know.
>
> Thanks for the kind offer but I meant I couldn't
> risk installing a MS beta product on my computer
> right now!!!

As for now, I'm trying get get rid of as much MS from my computer as
possible, not the other way around ;-)
--
At your service,
Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
"If hackers will ever use virtual reality, it would show a bunch
of text terminals floating around them..." -- The Sheep

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Heroic Adventure wrote:
> FWIW I've been using the 2.0 Framework for development for some time
> now, and haven't had a single problem. YMMV.

Feel those weird goosebumps and hair standing on end? That's Bill Gates
toying with the idea of handing over your soul to Satan in exchange for
immortality, instead of handing over his own. You should have read the
fine print in that EULA, buddy...

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:00:06 -0400, Heroic Adventure
<spambucket@heroicadventure.com> wrote:

>Auric__ wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 05:13:05 +1000, ABCGi <abcgi@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Thanks for the kind offer but I meant I couldn't
>>>risk installing a MS beta product on my computer
>>>right now!!!
>>
>>
>> I would *never* risk installing an MS beta on *anything*.
>
>FWIW I've been using the 2.0 Framework for development for some time
>now, and haven't had a single problem. YMMV.

I don't do .Net either. [shrug]
--
auric underscore underscore at hotmail dot com
*****
I hope you get hit by a garbage truck.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Twisted One wrote:
> Heroic Adventure wrote:
>
>> FWIW I've been using the 2.0 Framework for development for some time
>> now, and haven't had a single problem. YMMV.
>
>
> Feel those weird goosebumps and hair standing on end? That's Bill Gates
> toying with the idea of handing over your soul to Satan in exchange for
> immortality, instead of handing over his own. You should have read the
> fine print in that EULA, buddy...
>

You're talking to an agnostic. Satan doesn't exist, nor does
immortality. Life is what you get. Why worry about it? I'm never going
to sell HA! so who cares?

Try it or not, your choice. I'm not really interested in reasons why
people don't want to. I'm just interested in feedback from those who
actually play the game.

C.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Auric__ wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:00:06 -0400, Heroic Adventure
> <spambucket@heroicadventure.com> wrote:
>
>>Auric__ wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 05:13:05 +1000, ABCGi <abcgi@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Thanks for the kind offer but I meant I couldn't
>>>>risk installing a MS beta product on my computer
>>>>right now!!!
>>>
>>>I would *never* risk installing an MS beta on *anything*.
>>
>>FWIW I've been using the 2.0 Framework for development for some time
>>now, and haven't had a single problem. YMMV.
>
> I don't do .Net either. [shrug]

If the O.P. thinks anyone's going to download ~30 megs over a modem just
to play one crummy roguelike, he's dreaming. What a lot of bloat!

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Twisted One wrote:
>
> If the O.P. thinks anyone's going to download ~30 megs over a modem just
> to play one crummy roguelike, he's dreaming. What a lot of bloat!
>

Actually, no I'm not dreaming. You do what you do, I do what I do. If
you try it, great. If not, that's cool too.

You're right though, 30 megs is a lot *just* for a Roguelike (crummy or
otherwise), but I know plenty of folks who already have the Framework.
I'm just letting folks know there's a new version of HA! (and what it
requires) to play with.

Try it or don't, your choice.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:21:42 -0400, Heroic Adventure
<spambucket@heroicadventure.com> wrote:

>Twisted One wrote:
>>
>> If the O.P. thinks anyone's going to download ~30 megs over a modem just
>> to play one crummy roguelike, he's dreaming. What a lot of bloat!
>>
>
>Actually, no I'm not dreaming. You do what you do, I do what I do. If
>you try it, great. If not, that's cool too.
>
>You're right though, 30 megs is a lot *just* for a Roguelike (crummy or
>otherwise), but I know plenty of folks who already have the Framework.
>I'm just letting folks know there's a new version of HA! (and what it
>requires) to play with.
>
>Try it or don't, your choice.

Just want to add that I have nothing against .Net, in the same sense
that I have nothing against Java. .Net was a better idea when I first
heard about it, but the implementation seems to leave something to be
desired.
--
auric underscore underscore at hotmail dot com
*****
When talking nonsense try not to be serious.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Huge is relative... 16K was a lot once. Try and catch up to the rest of
us.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Heroic Adventure wrote:
> ABCGi wrote:
>
>> chrisgwilliams@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> I had wrote;
>>
>> 24MB download of a dot NET framework ver 2 beta?
>>
>> Can't risk it right now sorry!
>>
>>> I could send it to ya on CD w/ the framework installer.
>>>
>>> If you're really interested, lemme know.
>>
>> Thanks for the kind offer but I meant I couldn't
>> risk installing a MS beta product on my computer
>> right now!!!
>
> LOL I did misunderstand...

heh When framework 2.0 comes out of beta perhaps

--
ABCGi ---- (abcgi@yahoo.com) ---- http://codemonkey.sunsite.dk
Fun RLs in rgrd that I have tested recently!
DoomRL - DwellerMobile - HWorld - AburaTan - DiabloBand
Heroic Adventure - Tower of Doom - Tendrils - TheTombs

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

twisted0n3@gmail.invalid wrote:
>Feel those weird goosebumps and hair standing on end? That's Bill Gates
>toying with the idea of handing over your soul to Satan in exchange for
>immortality, instead of handing over his own. You should have read the
>fine print in that EULA, buddy...

The solution to that is to take a little walk to the edge of town, and
see the tall handsome man in a dusty black coat. As an added bonus to
healing your soul, he'll rekindle all the dreams it took you a lifetime
to destroy.

(Now I just need to write a roguelike with a town so I can implement
him.)
--
Martin Read - my opinions are my own. share them if you wish.
My roguelike games page (including my BSD-licenced roguelike) can be found at:
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~mpread/roguelikes.html
Everyone expected the Bavarian Inquisition.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On 28 Apr 2005 07:43:15 -0700, "chrisgwilliams@gmail.com"
<chrisgwilliams@gmail.com> wrote:

>Huge is relative... 16K was a lot once. Try and catch up to the rest of
>us.

30MB is pretty damn big for the folks on dial-up.

IMHO, there's no excuse for unnecessarily large programs. If I can write
a program that compiles to, say, 13k (the average size of my apps in my
language of choice, and yes, they're Windows apps), why would I want it
to require a 30MB runtime? (For the record, my apps require no runtime
files at all; everything's built into the final .exe file.) I can
transport all of my compiled apps (and most of the source code, wile
we're at it) on a single floppy; the .Net runtime would require a Zip
disk (or similar) at the very least.

OTOH, in exchange for the small file size and lack of runtimes, my apps
are very definitely Windows-only. In theory (I'm not going to test it)
one could take an app written for .Net and run it on Mono, which is (or
should be) cross-platform. If I wanted cross-platform, I'd have to do a
complete rewrite.
--
auric underscore underscore at hotmail dot com
*****
EAT FLAMING POP-TART DEATH!

 

[john]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On 2005-04-28, Auric__ <not.my.real@email.address> wrote:
> IMHO, there's no excuse for unnecessarily large programs. If I can write
> a program that compiles to, say, 13k (the average size of my apps in my
> language of choice, and yes, they're Windows apps), why would I want it
> to require a 30MB runtime? (For the record, my apps require no runtime
> files at all; everything's built into the final .exe file.) I can
> transport all of my compiled apps (and most of the source code, wile
> we're at it) on a single floppy; the .Net runtime would require a Zip
> disk (or similar) at the very least.

You take your 13k app and run it on a new Windows installation with no
additional software installed. Oh yeah, you can't.

..NET is freaking huge. Don't act like your app is only 13k in size. It
isn't.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

John wrote:
> On 2005-04-28, Auric__ <not.my.real@email.address> wrote:
>
>> IMHO, there's no excuse for unnecessarily large programs. If I can write
>> a program that compiles to, say, 13k (the average size of my apps in my
>> language of choice, and yes, they're Windows apps), why would I want it
>> to require a 30MB runtime? (For the record, my apps require no runtime
>> files at all; everything's built into the final .exe file.) I can
>> transport all of my compiled apps (and most of the source code, wile
>> we're at it) on a single floppy; the .Net runtime would require a Zip
>> disk (or similar) at the very least.
>
>
> You take your 13k app and run it on a new Windows installation with no
> additional software installed. Oh yeah, you can't.
>
> .NET is freaking huge. Don't act like your app is only 13k in size. It
> isn't.

I think you got your threads crossed... he isn't using .NET, I am.

Besides, I never said anything about my app being small. My position has
ALWAYS been "if you've got mono or the .NET Framework, feel free to give
HA! a try..." I've been saying that for two years. Feel free to check
the archives.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:59:09 GMT, John <E3uJGqQX@mailinator.com> wrote:

>On 2005-04-28, Auric__ <not.my.real@email.address> wrote:
>> IMHO, there's no excuse for unnecessarily large programs. If I can write
>> a program that compiles to, say, 13k (the average size of my apps in my
>> language of choice, and yes, they're Windows apps), why would I want it
>> to require a 30MB runtime? (For the record, my apps require no runtime
>> files at all; everything's built into the final .exe file.) I can
>> transport all of my compiled apps (and most of the source code, wile
>> we're at it) on a single floppy; the .Net runtime would require a Zip
>> disk (or similar) at the very least.
>
>You take your 13k app and run it on a new Windows installation with no
>additional software installed. Oh yeah, you can't.

Oh yeah, I can. My language of choice is Powerbasic. I can run my apps
on any - *ANY* - 32-bit version of Windows. Clean install, nothing
additional needed. No runtimes *AT ALL*. A simple hack might even let my
stuff run on WinNT 3.

>.NET is freaking huge. Don't act like your app is only 13k in size. It
>isn't.

You missed the point - *I* don't use .Net.
--
auric underscore underscore at hotmail dot com
*****
Linux is like a wigwam: no windows and apache inside.