Material categories ?

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

Hi, could anyone suggest any new
category to those already gathered
it should be from any "time", so:

Glass
Leather
Metal
Organic
Paper
Plastics
Rubber
Stone
Textile
Wood

Any new category ?

regards,
Jan
34 answers Last reply
More about material categories
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Hi, thanks for replying so quick :)

    Well.. we're using pretty detailed properties but consider this:

    You've found plastic jacket ! (instead of) leather jacket
    You've found leather bottle ! (instead of) glass bottle
    You've found glass eraser ! (instead of) rubber eraser
    You've found rubber shield ! (instead of) plastic shield

    :)))

    Anyways..the Organic should be separated but I've no thought on how to
    do it..

    Flesh
    Bones
    Skin

    but how to include all possible materials from rotten apple to crashed
    bug :))) (ok.. I overreacted :)

    well the properties are:

    Absorption
    Acidity
    Conductivity
    Density
    Flammability
    Hardness
    Melting point
    Nutrition
    Hydration

    So what's your suggestion ?

    regards,
    Jan
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    I forgot to tell you that it has to be existing materials..if I were
    saying all "time" I meant all passed time..but Gem was added :)

    regards,
    Jan
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Those are almost purely realistic settings..(if you imagine the magic
    existing in our world) :))

    It won't be used just for weapons but for every single item in the game
    including wardrobe, clothes and commonly encoutered things.. Those are
    just main categories..there will be tons of items in them :P

    regards,
    Jan
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    lol

    No..but NPC's should be :) and moreover it detemines the properties of
    item significantly. This engine (partially) is about the feeling of
    being settled inside the world. The battles part is as important as
    preparation, gathering resources and interaction. :))

    regards,
    Jan
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Well that should solve our item structure system..item parts (only pure
    materials) are binded together. That's already working well..we have
    just huge database of materials and for our sake in editor we wanted
    better organization. A treeview with 100 materials is getting just
    messy to work with. So we just wanted to classify them to categories.

    To scary you more..every material has it's substances :)

    Well it's just like

    Item -> Item part -> Material -> Substance -> Properties (I've
    described)

    hierarchy..

    Back to categories..I'm aware that there are many kinds of leather but
    I'm not so sure about rubber and glass but I don't know how to sort
    them anyway..The properties will vary a little but most important fact
    is that that's the only way to put what others are calling "prefix".
    The engine doesn't matter how many materials and how the properties are
    varying because it handles them all with the same equations.

    So any suggestions about those categories ?

    best regards,
    Jan
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    At 7 Jul 2005 09:27:47 -0700,
    Jan Drahokoupil wrote:

    > Hi, could anyone suggest any new
    > category to those already gathered
    > it should be from any "time", so:
    >
    > Glass
    > Leather
    > Metal
    > Organic
    > Paper
    > Plastics
    > Rubber
    > Stone
    > Textile
    > Wood
    >
    > Any new category ?

    Hard to tell without knowing what properties of the materials you're using
    in your game. For example, if some things are flammable and others not,
    you might consider distinguishing wood and paper from stone and metals.
    If you want to base the resistance to electricity on the material kind,
    you will need to distinguish metals from stone.

    I can't imagine what properties make you distinguish plastics, rubber,
    leather and glass into separate categories.

    On the other hand, the category 'Organic' would probably be better broken
    into 'flesh', 'bones and shells', etc., bacuse they differ in many aspects
    (and then again, if you don;t use these properties in your game, a single
    material is fine).

    You must us tell which properties of the items are going to be deduced
    form their material.

    --
    Radomir `The Sheep' Dopieralski @**@_
    (><) 3 Ouch!
    . . . ..v.vVvVVvVvv.v.. .
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Jan Drahokoupil wrote:
    > Glass
    > Leather
    > Metal
    > Organic
    > Paper
    > Plastics
    > Rubber
    > Stone
    > Textile
    > Wood
    Gem
    Forcefield
    Aethral
    Neutronium
    ....
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Jan Drahokoupil wrote:
    > Hi, could anyone suggest any new
    > category to those already gathered
    > it should be from any "time", so:

    <skip some materials>

    > Paper
    He he, I just can imagine it...
    Deadly Paper Sword of Death (+10, +15) [Ballpen resistant]
    ...
    Only kidding ;)

    <skip some more materials>

    > Any new category ?
    - Isn't "leather" something between "textile" and "organic"?
    - Maybe in a fantasy setting, you could add "Nature" or "Elements", as
    in: Fire dagger, Ice scythe, Wind javelin, etc...

    >
    > regards,
    > Jan
    --
    Kaleth, writing from a realm deep into the mountains...
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    At 7 Jul 2005 10:58:39 -0700,
    Jan Drahokoupil wrote:

    > lol
    >
    > No..but NPC's should be :) and moreover it detemines the properties of
    > item significantly.

    There ar always problesm with this kind of approach.

    Is a halberd wooden or metal?
    How about whole creatures?

    Does a wooden mace have the same properties as a bunch of wooden
    toothpicks having the same total weight?

    In my opinion, this is a perfect example of overgeneralization.

    --
    Radomir `The Sheep' Dopieralski @**@_
    ($s) 3 Ching!
    . . . ..v.vVvVVvVvv.v.. .
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    At 7 Jul 2005 10:17:03 -0700,
    Jan Drahokoupil wrote:

    > Hi, thanks for replying so quick :)
    >
    > Well.. we're using pretty detailed properties but consider this:
    >
    > You've found plastic jacket ! (instead of) leather jacket

    Well, most of modern 'syntetic leathers' is plastic...

    > You've found leather bottle ! (instead of) glass bottle

    I think leather bootles are called cantines, or something like this.
    Can't see any differences in the way they can be used in a roguelike.

    > You've found glass eraser ! (instead of) rubber eraser

    Funny, but I'm using a glass eraser.
    Anyways, the property of an eraser is much better modelled by making
    it a special thing of this item.

    > You've found rubber shield ! (instead of) plastic shield

    It's often very hard to tell whether it's rubber or plastic.

    >:)))
    :)

    > Anyways..the Organic should be separated but I've no thought on how to
    > do it..
    >
    > Flesh
    > Bones
    > Skin
    Fruit

    > but how to include all possible materials from rotten apple to crashed
    > bug :))) (ok.. I overreacted :)
    I think you're already overdoing it, but well, it's your game.

    > well the properties are:
    >
    > Absorption
    > Acidity
    > Conductivity
    > Density
    > Flammability
    > Hardness
    > Melting point
    > Nutrition
    > Hydration

    Ok, so the next step is to think what items you want in your game, which
    of them will have those properties and to what materials you want to
    assign them.

    Are those properties all on/off, or value-based?
    If the are contionous, then you've got trouble.
    You'd need at lest a dozen different materials for food only to have
    enough different nutrition/hydration levels.

    Some of these properties aren't really dependet on the material.
    Take the absorption -- look at a plastic sponge and a plastic ball.

    Density -- here the materials only say what range you can achieve, but not
    the exact value.

    Hardness -- depends on the shape very much. Conductivity will also depend
    on other materials used and the construction.

    You, as always, have also the problem of items consisting of multiple
    materials.

    > So what's your suggestion ?

    My suggestion is to use materials in each class of items separately, with
    a good definition of how the material is used in the given class and how
    it affects the properties.

    For example, have several 'materials' for food:
    - raw meat
    - cooked meat
    - vegetable
    - fruit
    - dough/paste
    And say that the material is the part that makes up the taste.
    So, a loaf of bread would belong to 'dough', but a cherry pie would be
    made mainly of 'fruit'.

    Another example, rings. You can have it in two ways:
    - the rings are made mainly of gems
    - the rings are made mainly of metals
    You've got to decide.

    You need to make this choice for each cathegory, and since the choices
    will be different, so will be the materials and the properties they give
    to the items.

    It's no use to make the books made of paper. All the books are made of
    paper, so such an attribute is irrelevant. Instead, you might say that the
    books is made of what it's cover is made of.

    So you'd have leather books, plastic books, paperbacks, and even
    cloth-covered, wood-covered and metal-covered books.

    See what I mean? (I admit I've been a little chaotic :) ).
    --
    Radomir `The Sheep' Dopieralski @**@_
    (^^) 3 Bee!
    . . . ..v.vVvVVvVvv.v.. .
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    On 7 Jul 2005 10:17:03 -0700, "Jan Drahokoupil"
    <drahokoupil@telpro.cz> wrote:

    >well the properties are:
    >
    >Absorption
    >Acidity
    >Conductivity
    >Density
    >Flammability
    >Hardness
    >Melting point
    >Nutrition
    >Hydration
    >
    >So what's your suggestion ?

    In this case, including density, for example means that "metal",
    "stone" or "wood" is far too broad a category. You'll be looking at
    different types of stones, woods, metals. The question is why are
    doing this? What are you hoping to achieve?

    Also, most items are going to be composed of different materials; any
    attempt at realism-through-materials is going to bog down under the
    complexities of simulation. If there is a game-play purpose, it needs
    to be clearly defined to see if there is a simpler method of achieving
    it.

    --
    R. Dan Henry = danhenry@inreach.com
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Hi, again :))

    First I've to tell..this is just game engine (suprisingly)

    // OK. What is the gameplay enhancement for all these extra materials?
    // It must be pretty serious to warrant all this extra work.

    I don't really know what to tell..the work is already done so..it's
    hard to decide whether it was needed or not..but it seems working fine.

    I'm really excited whenever the explosion hit my PC (even it's
    essentially bad) because what effect it will have on my backpack what
    items will be melted (even to what they will melted) or they just
    vaporize. It's really fun that after being washed over by a water trap
    you almost don't recognize your inventory. Potions are mixed with water
    (thus useless) if they're in improper material bottle (respectively the
    improper plug), metal's are corroded. It keeps you in wise respect to
    what may happen to you and considering the risks. So my vote for
    complex materials :)) This feature was added because of previous
    versions (since 1992 :) were just to primitive and there wasn't much
    space to do these "real" effects :)

    regards,
    Kate
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Greets,

    // In this case, including density, for example means that "metal",
    // "stone" or "wood" is far too broad a category. You'll be looking at
    // different types of stones, woods, metals. The question is why are
    // doing this? What are you hoping to achieve?

    As I said somewhere in this thread (don't really know where :) those
    are just categories..we have already the substances (most of we wanted
    to have but still working on it) and the materials created (actually
    137 of them) we just wanted the categories does that mean I'm going to
    explain the whole engine mechanics ?

    // Also, most items are going to be composed of different materials;
    // any attempt at realism-through-materials is going to bog down under
    // the complexities of simulation. If there is a game-play purpose, it
    // needs to be clearly defined to see if there is a simpler method of
    // achieving it.

    Well..that "complex" simulation is already working (in most aspects)
    because once the basic rules are working you can have how many
    materials with how many substances you want..it doesn't matter..because
    the engine (and I'm saying this again) handles them with the same
    equations.

    About the composition..ofcourse there are almost only composites but
    those are word "MATERIAL" for me..To explain it little further..Let's
    imagine this situation:

    Substances:

    Gold:

    Absorption - 0.0
    Acidity - 0.0
    Conductivity - 301.0 W/m-°C
    Density - 19.32 g/cm^3
    Flammability - 0.0
    Hardness - 25 (Vickers)
    Melting - 1064.43 °C
    Nutrition - 0.0
    Hydration - 0.0
    State - Solid
    Units - gram

    Silver:

    Absorption - 0.0
    Acidity - 0.0
    Conductivity - 419.0 W/m-°C
    Density - 10.491 g/cm^3
    Flammability - 0.0
    Hardness - 25 (Vickers)
    Melting - 961.93 °C
    Nutrition - 0.0
    Hydration - 0.0
    State - Solid
    Units - gram

    so we combine it to material:

    Amalgam (category:Metal):

    68% - Silver
    32% - Gold

    There's currently 437 substances and 137 materials composed of them
    sorted in 11 categories.

    All I get from this thread was "Gem" category and maybe some organic
    categories..which is fine :) it's just for our (and potential editor
    user's) sake :))

    I hope I shed some light on definition of materials :P

    regards,
    Jan
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Ave,

    I was not saying that there's no possibility to have plastic jacket or
    leather bottle..I just wanted to show you (marked with "instead of")
    that those are different not the same. In middleage you'll probably use
    leather jacket instead of plastic and in modern vice-versa.

    // Ok, so the next step is to think what items you want in your game,
    // which of them will have those properties and to what materials you
    // want to assign them.

    I guess it's (almost) too late for this :)

    // Are those properties all on/off, or value-based? If the are
    // contionous, then you've got trouble.

    No, they're optional (when possible to apply) and they're ranged value
    based:

    Min/Max/Avg/Optimum

    // You'd need at lest a dozen different materials for food only to have
    // enough different nutrition/hydration levels.

    It's exactly as you said..

    // Some of these properties aren't really dependet on the material.
    // Take the absorption -- look at a plastic sponge and a plastic ball.

    There's no such material as plastic..it's just category, then sponge
    and ball will be made from different materials (plastics) if they'll
    ever be added :)))

    // Density -- here the materials only say what range you can achieve,
    // but not the exact value.

    As I said we have ranged values..Density is almost reserved for volume
    calculations (inventory and cell space).

    // Hardness -- depends on the shape very much. Conductivity will also
    // depend on other materials used and the construction.

    The hardness is mainly applied as a durability in pressure actions..and
    some other calculations as well..

    // You, as always, have also the problem of items
    // consisting of multiple materials.

    Again as I said materials are compounds of substances..there aren't
    just those ten "materials" those are categories.. Imagine tree the base
    level is

    Category (Metal,Plastic,etc.)
    |- Material A (Gold,Silver,etc.)
    | |- Substance 1 (Au,Ag,etc.)
    | \- Substance 2
    \- Material B
    |- Substance 3
    \- Substance 4

    // My suggestion is to use materials in each
    // class of items separately, with a good definition of how
    // the material is used in the given class and how
    // it affects the properties.

    // For example, have several 'materials' for food:
    // - raw meat
    // - cooked meat
    // - vegetable
    // - fruit
    // - dough/paste
    // And say that the material is the part that makes up the taste.

    // So, a loaf of bread would belong to 'dough', but a cherry
    // pie would be made mainly of 'fruit'.

    I guess I'm even one level bellow this schema :)) I just wanted overall
    categories for already existing materials:

    Let's say you have no categories then you got this material "Gold" so
    you'll create new category "Metal" and then continue..but suddenly you
    step over the "Pine wood" so you have to create next category "Wood"
    and so on..That's what I originally wanted..Andreas added the "Gem"
    category so we're going to move our gems (actually in "Stone" category)
    to separate category because there is twenty or so of them. Did I made
    myself clear ? (I had problems with that especially in english)

    // Another example, rings. You can have it in two ways:
    //- the rings are made mainly of gems
    //- the rings are made mainly of metals
    //You've got to decide.

    Not exactly it's much more like:

    Item:Ring
    |-Subitem:Ring Circle
    | \-Category:Metal -> Material:Gold (may vary)
    |-Subitem:Sapphire
    \-Category:Gem -> Material:Sapphire

    And subitems has their binding:

    Subitem: Ring Circle <- bindEMBED <- Subitem:Sapphire

    where Ring Circle is the basal subitem and also posses of one equip
    slot: equipFINGER

    // You need to make this choice for each cathegory, and since the
    // choices will be different, so will be the materials and the
    // properties they give to the items.

    // It's no use to make the books made of paper. All the books
    // are made of paper, so such an attribute is irrelevant. instead,
    // you might say that the books is made of what it's cover is
    // made of.

    // So you'd have leather books, plastic books,
    // paperbacks, and even cloth-covered, wood-covered and
    // metal-covered books.

    I hope I covered this above :))

    // See what I mean? (I admit I've been a little chaotic :) ).

    I'm mostly chaotic too :)))

    best regards,
    Jan

    Btw: I guess only Kornel will understand me :)) Hail to perfectionists
    :)
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    "Jan Drahokoupil" <drahokoupil@telpro.cz> wrote in message
    news:1120756942.653099.14180@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > Those are almost purely realistic settings..(if you imagine the magic
    > existing in our world) :))
    >
    > It won't be used just for weapons but for every single item in the
    > game
    > including wardrobe, clothes and commonly encoutered things.. Those are
    > just main categories..there will be tons of items in them :P
    >

    But...but...why?!?
    Is the PC a seamstress?

    --
    Glen
    L:Pyt E+++ T-- R+ P+++ D+ G+ F:*band !RL RLA-
    W:AF Q+++ AI++ GFX++ SFX-- RN++++ PO--- !Hp Re-- S+
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Jan Drahokoupil wrote:
    > Hi, again :))
    >
    > First I've to tell..this is just game engine (suprisingly)

    Not at all. You are putting off doing the hard part as long as
    possible. Common tactic here. If writing a roguelike game engine was
    the hard part about writing a roguelike, we'd be awash with roguelikes.

    > It's really fun that after being washed over by a water trap
    > you almost don't recognize your inventory. Potions are mixed with water
    > (thus useless) if they're in improper material bottle (respectively the
    > improper plug),

    You mean, a type of bottle which can contain the potion while I march
    down a dungeon. And yet not keep out water?

    > metal's are corroded.

    I accidentally dropped my keys in a puddle on the way home. The
    differing metals formed a battery cell and instantly turned the keys
    into a formless mast of rust. I can't open my house's door now.
    --
    Jeff Lait
    (POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Hi,

    // Not at all. You are putting off doing the hard part as long as
    // possible. Common tactic here. If writing a roguelike game engine
    // was the hard part about writing a roguelike,
    // we'd be awash with roguelikes.

    Let's say..maybe :))) Maybe the reason we're doing such a complex
    engine is that we don't want to rewrite it again and we expect that in
    the end it'll solve most of our problems creating a game..Because
    especially I don't like all those IFs. If the PC done this and this and
    is carrying this sword of whatever then he shell pass into the towers
    of final doom otherwise say hello :))))

    // You mean, a type of bottle which can contain the potion while I
    // march down a dungeon. And yet not keep out water?

    Yeah it is possbile the potion has different density (viscosity) and
    the plug should have enough absorption to keep it but not enough to
    keep water from coming in..But generally it was just something strange
    what occured while testing :) Let's say unexpected effects
    (unprogrammed) and I like those.

    // I accidentally dropped my keys in a puddle on the way home.
    // The differing metals formed a battery cell
    // and instantly turned the keys into a
    // formless mast of rust. I can't open my
    // house's door now.

    That's pity :)) Seriously..we're fighting the perfectionist temptations
    everyday..don't make fun out of it :))))

    regards,
    Jan
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    At 8 Jul 2005 01:27:31 -0700,
    Jan Drahokoupil wrote:

    > Let's say you have no categories then you got this material "Gold" so
    > you'll create new category "Metal" and then continue..but suddenly you
    > step over the "Pine wood" so you have to create next category "Wood"
    > and so on..That's what I originally wanted..Andreas added the "Gem"
    > category so we're going to move our gems (actually in "Stone" category)
    > to separate category because there is twenty or so of them. Did I made
    > myself clear ? (I had problems with that especially in english)

    In this case I'd look at what substances are used mainly in what kind of
    items, and then group them using this information -- you know, if it's for
    indexing purposes, then let the index be optimised for the kind of
    operation you're going to do on it the most.

    For example, the 'organic' cathegory would be split into 'food' and
    'body', because some materials are used mainly in food items, and some
    mainly in monster bodies.

    > Btw: I guess only Kornel will understand me :)) Hail to perfectionists
    >:)

    Been there already. Moved along. Stagnation is a sign of death.
    I must admit that moving away from 'simulations' made me an author of at
    least one released roguelike -- I can now claim I do more than just
    empty ideas -- even when I don't :)

    --
    Radomir `The Sheep' Dopieralski @**@_
    (==) 3 Yawn?
    . . . ..v.vVvVVvVvv.v.. .
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    I'm not against the moment of suprise but against the predefined moment
    of suprise. Take a look at ADOM..Surely it's one of (if not) the best
    roguelikes ever made.But my kind of player (I don't have any label for
    it) will play this once and if I'll fail (which should happen very soon
    - killed by lightning) I'm starting to dislike the routine to go to
    nearest city, talk to elder and so on..I know I should start it
    otherwise but this is simply the most safe way to get myself armoured
    against the odds of RNG (doesn't apply to lightning and GODs anger). I
    doesn't care if this decreased flexibility appears let's say in DoomRL
    where this is expected and it's fast action anyway..but I want more
    complex behaviour of the world..non-predictable not in the way of
    life-threatning on every single move.That's why I also decided put away
    the statistics, that will shift the game to make it tough and making it
    easier to survive in general. And that's also the reason I'm working on
    AI system so hard..because I don't want to know that every time when I
    start the game that shopkeeper in the city two moves away from a
    starting position will have 5-8 iron rations.I take ADOM as the most
    complex RL but I still want more..so what should I do ? I started more
    complex RL..I don't care if it'll be ever released or finished..After
    all I'm programmer..and I enjoy programming..As you said maybe if I'll
    take off my perfectionism a bit that I should be able to release some
    game.But then there will be the phase of stagnation. I decided to
    rather make one game as complex and as long time spend on it as it
    would take all the finished games I'd make in that time. Because if I'm
    perfecting the game I'm also perfecting my skills..Actually the TER is
    written in managed .NET with DirectX 9.0c (April 2005 edition) and
    Delphi 2005 update #3 which is what I like to test new technology..and
    this what I found finally (after FreePascal who disappointed me with
    2.0 not being properly released for go32) so I was willing to convert
    it to .NET and now nothing can stop me..all the technologies are
    present..Reflections (built-in compilation and realtime access to and
    creation of properties)..

    So simply put..it's about enjoying the programming something I
    like..not about releasing the game..which is still on the second place
    but it's not the primary objective :)

    regards,
    Jan
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Finally some thoughts after the massacre of my engine-system..

    Good one..I'll maybe refine it to two sections..but this was the reason
    I put the question in here..because for example this (I really can't
    explain why) never occured to me. Now it's so evident :)) I guess
    there'll be more space for ex-organic category..Any more ? :))))

    regards,
    Jan
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    In the game i am working on i will have materials which can be more or
    less sucepptable to damage types.

    like, a paper scroll is very suceptable to fire and takes 5.5X damage
    from it while it is slightly resistant to bludgining damage (hitting
    it) and takes .8 damage.. etc

    A leather bound spell book might take 2x damage from fire and a Metal
    item may rust...

    I may employ a system of having multiple materials assigned to one item
    like a paper spellbook bound by wood would have the materials
    (WOOD,PAPER) and thus might average a 6X damage from fire of paper and
    a 2X damage from fire from wood to make the total item take 4X damage
    from fire....

    I might do that and i mostly agree with you about materials and
    interesting details like that is what has made games like nethack so
    great... the little things...

    dont you think that interior substances is a little much though... it
    seems that you are going overboard on this...

    just my opinion.

    -Thomas
    RL: CHAZM
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    "Jan Drahokoupil" <drahokoupil@telpro.cz> wrote in message
    news:1120759119.650057.277060@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > lol
    >
    > No..but NPC's should be :) and moreover it detemines the properties of
    > item significantly. This engine (partially) is about the feeling of
    > being settled inside the world. The battles part is as important as
    > preparation, gathering resources and interaction. :))
    >

    OK. What is the gameplay enhancement for all these extra materials?
    It must be pretty serious to warrant all this extra work.

    If it's only to increase immersion, then I'm sorry but all you're
    going to do is overload the players' brain and make them confused.
    Concentrate on theme, storytelling, emergent behaviour in easy to learn
    game mechanics, AI, level design ...

    --
    Glen
    L:Pyt E+++ T-- R+ P+++ D+ G+ F:*band !RL RLA-
    W:AF Q+++ AI++ GFX++ SFX-- RN++++ PO--- !Hp Re-- S+
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    // I'm not telling you what you do. I'm not even
    // critcising your game/engine nor your way of doing it.

    I'm aware of that :)) I'd like to hear any notes on anything about RL.
    I'm doing it same way..just describing my feeling about gameplay.. As I
    see we have slightly different oppinions about gameplay..but why not
    :)) we're two different persons :P

    I'm still willing to complete this project because I guess it should be
    fun (not even for me programming it) to play. So far the experience
    (from testing on predefined environments) is "hell..this I call
    freedom..and can I do for example...this..yep!"

    I still think you got it wrong to some point (I'm aware of the fact
    that sometimes my english twists me into completely different
    interpretations of what I'm trying to say) when you speaking about the
    scroll of light example.

    My approach is much more like having situation like this one:

    You've found the scroll of light.
    You've cast the spell from scroll of light.
    You've succeeded in lighting surroundings a bit.

    This will be same for me except you'll light the surroundings
    dependently on scroll parameters..(ignoring the fact that there are no
    scrolls in my engine or whatever it is :)))

    Maybe this is not a good example I'll try more precise one:

    Because you don't see any 3d4 statistics (or any other) you'll just
    pick up the sword..you can determine (under some conditions) what
    materials and some other properties (the rest at weaponsmith or
    somebody who simply knows it) you're forced to used it and determine
    it's usefulness by just using it..if it kills some monsters better than
    it's probably good or it's just good on this type of monsters..

    instead of knowing the attack and damage values versus opponents
    protection and defense values..it's easy job than, to determine the
    level of threat..

    I guess that's my point..you only see if their limbs are going rip off
    or if they scream or something..I consider this more realistic :)))

    regards,
    Jan
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    --------

    "In the game i am working on i will have materials which can be more or

    less sucepptable to damage types.


    like, a paper scroll is very suceptable to fire and takes 5.5X damage
    from it while it is slightly resistant to bludgining damage (hitting
    it) and takes .8 damage.. etc


    A leather bound spell book might take 2x damage from fire and a Metal
    item may rust...


    I may employ a system of having multiple materials assigned to one item

    like a paper spellbook bound by wood would have the materials
    (WOOD,PAPER) and thus might average a 6X damage from fire of paper and
    a 2X damage from fire from wood to make the total item take 4X damage
    from fire....


    I might do that and i mostly agree with you about materials and
    interesting details like that is what has made games like nethack so
    great... the little things..."

    -------

    Hi, that's good to hear :)

    Those substances were not included in the blueprints but were added
    after we found out that to only possibility to get real values of their
    properties is easier for simple elements. For the compounds (aka
    Materials) it's only easy to find out of what percentage of those
    elements are combined. Example is simple which was the first in our
    minds:

    Bronze:

    10-40% Copper
    60-90% Zinc

    We found (and not only we)out that by combining those (let's say) few
    elements we can generate very precise materials and many of them.

    Anyway.. I'd like to see your results..it'll be fun to have some
    existing game from next generation RL :)))

    regards,
    Jan
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    At 8 Jul 2005 08:38:51 -0700,
    Jan Drahokoupil wrote:

    > // Not at all. You are putting off doing the hard part as long as
    > // possible. Common tactic here. If writing a roguelike game engine
    > // was the hard part about writing a roguelike,
    > // we'd be awash with roguelikes.
    >
    > Let's say..maybe :))) Maybe the reason we're doing such a complex
    > engine is that we don't want to rewrite it again and we expect that in
    > the end it'll solve most of our problems creating a game..Because
    > especially I don't like all those IFs. If the PC done this and this and
    > is carrying this sword of whatever then he shell pass into the towers
    > of final doom otherwise say hello :))))

    Unfortunately, it's what makes the game content -- the special cases.

    If program a few special cases in your game, and the player stumbles upon
    them, he'll go "Wow! I didn't expect I could do this! Cool!".

    On the other hand, if you make a "physical world" engine, with consistent
    rules made so that the same things that were preprogrammed before can
    happen, then the player will just say "Yeah, right, it's the same as thing
    that happened to me before, only slightly different." and yawn.

    Even if the latter requires uncomparable amount of work, the effect is
    poor.

    --
    Radomir `The Sheep' Dopieralski @**@_
    (^^) 3 Bee!
    . . . ..v.vVvVVvVvv.v.. .
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    At 8 Jul 2005 09:42:17 -0700,
    Jan Drahokoupil wrote:

    <snip>
    > So simply put..it's about enjoying the programming something I
    > like..not about releasing the game..which is still on the second place
    > but it's not the primary objective :)

    I'm not telling you what you do. I'm not even critcising your game/engine
    nor your way of doing it.

    I'm only pointing out some things that I think are true and might come in
    handy.

    You're talking about hard-coded plots, npcs, items -- a predefined world.
    I agree it doesn't bring much to the game, maybe a tad better immersion.

    What I was talking about when saying 'preprogrammed behaviour', I meant
    rather the rules that, for example, will make a scroll of light cast the
    spell of light.

    It just so happends that the human players take it better when those rules
    are non-continous.

    It's better to have a scroll of light that casts the spell of light when
    there's one kind of such scroll in the game. Once you've got a small
    scroll of light, a slightly-bigger scroll of light, etc. and in addition
    you've got scrolls of 40% light and 60% detect monsters, a heavy scroll of
    light that's slighlty better weapon i h2h combat than the ordinary one,
    and a thick scroll of light that is a slightly better armor when worn,
    then you've got it all blurred and uninteresting, even when you actually
    added complexity and gameplay options, not to mention your programming
    effort.

    Again, I'm not attacking your approach. I'm not telling you to discard
    what you've already got. Just an advice you could find interesting when
    adding content to your game.

    --
    Radomir `The Sheep' Dopieralski @**@_
    (..) 3 Bee!
    . . . ..v.vVvVVvVvv.v.. .
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    "Jan Drahokoupil" <drahokoupil@telpro.cz> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    news:1120753667.506947.46620@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > Hi, could anyone suggest any new
    > category to those already gathered
    > it should be from any "time", so:
    >
    > Glass
    > Leather
    > Metal
    > Organic
    > Paper
    > Plastics
    > Rubber
    > Stone
    > Textile
    > Wood
    >
    > Any new category ?
    >

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

    Hi Glen,

    I think you're exaggerating a bit..and I'd guess you know it :) The
    question is why you're doing it in a manner that should make the ENGINE
    unusable. I also think you're juding based on few examples I gave but
    that's too little to take a bigger picture, isn't it ? Don't tell me
    that you're thinking that we're hardly working on something which is
    totally useless and saying "this will be ultimate fun for everyone", do
    you ? Believe me if the results wasn't so promising I wouldn't do it
    any other second..

    I still think you got it wrong..The "simulation" (hardly to call it
    this way) is pretty underlaying and hidden..You'd be suprised how
    ordinary the RL looks like but the strength is in its complexity. In
    "What can be done".

    In ADOM which you probably don't like nor consider funny (because of
    water traps rusting your inventory, explosions at doors destroying most
    of your inventory and much more) this is proven to be a game element
    like any other..Simply it makes it more complex..

    I don't know what are you trying to say by "not running away when they
    spit at me" ? Is this real ? Do you think the game will be directed in
    this way ? I don't believe that..To make things right always think to
    yourself: "They're not crazy..to include this!" then you'll calm down
    and maybe you'll get the idea how the thing really looks and feels
    like.

    regards,
    Jan
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Jan Drahokoupil wrote:
    >
    > In ADOM which you probably don't like nor consider funny (because of
    > water traps rusting your inventory, explosions at doors destroying most
    > of your inventory and much more) this is proven to be a game element
    > like any other..Simply it makes it more complex..

    I find it funny you keep bringing up ADOM. The development of ADOM is
    one that best shows the tension between item destruction "realism" and
    gameplay.

    The insane rates of destruction in early versions led to everyone using
    only artifact weapons or equipment. Anything else would be wiped out
    by a falling door trap so couldn't be trusted. One version decided it
    would be a good idea to have fire spells destroy things on the squares
    they hit. Sounds fun, until you play a wizard whose starting spell is
    firebolt. Wizards get increased generation of scrolls and spellbooks
    as they need these things. Of course, my wizard was seeing them go up
    in smoke faster than I could retrieve them. These things are not
    game-design neutral!

    If your goal is a game engine, your goal should be to provide tools for
    game designers to build their worlds. If they don't want paper scrolls
    to burn up, they shouldn't have to remove all sources of fire from the
    world, or make scrolls out of asbestos.

    The right level of abstraction, IMHO, is a mere burnability flag to
    govern whether things burn up in a standard dose of fire or not. Easy
    for the player to understand, easy to implement, and, most importantly,
    easy to do the data entry for.

    I use a material based system for POWDER. The material is used as the
    cross reference to determine stuff like digestibility, whether it
    dissolves in acid, etc. Of course, exceptions exist - any item that
    grants acid resistance will not dissolve in acid, for example.

    To bring things back on topic, the materials I currently have defined
    are:

    None
    Ethereal
    Cloth
    Leather
    Paper
    Wood
    Iron
    Glass
    Silver
    Stone
    Gold
    Mithril
    Flesh

    Rings and jewelry is categorized by the metal, not the jewel. I make
    no attempt to deal with multi-material substances - I just pick the
    "bset" material. Silver is separated from Iron due to the existence of
    silver-hating monsters.

    The properties of materials is very basic at the moment:

    DEFINE MATERIAL
    {
    CST name "non-material"
    BOOL soluble false
    }

    Mind you, I'm not a fan of item-destruction as a game mechanic. If I
    were, there'd likely be "corrodable" and "burnable" listed in there.

    Roguelikes live in a tension between the general case and the specific
    exception.

    > I don't know what are you trying to say by "not running away when they
    > spit at me" ? Is this real ? Do you think the game will be directed in
    > this way ? I don't believe that..To make things right always think to
    > yourself: "They're not crazy..to include this!" then you'll calm down
    > and maybe you'll get the idea how the thing really looks and feels
    > like.

    The question in my mind is how the game designer can ensure players
    don't run at the thought of being spit on. This requires the game
    designer easily control the effectiveness of spit as a weapon. If the
    effect of spit is governed by the interrelationship of dozens of
    variables buried deep in the engine, the designer may just have to
    concede that in their world water cannons would be the most effective
    weapon.

    Good luck with your engine.
    --
    Jeff Lait
    (POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    "Jan Drahokoupil" <drahokoupil@telpro.cz> wrote in message
    news:1120811250.986799.253750@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > [..]
    > Btw: I guess only Kornel will understand me :)) Hail to perfectionists
    > :)
    >

    Errr. You should add a disclaimer: Warning to would-be designers!
    This is not perfection! Proceed at your own risk! :)

    --
    Glen
    L:Pyt E+++ T-- R+ P+++ D+ G+ F:*band !RL RLA-
    W:AF Q+++ AI++ GFX++ SFX-- RN++++ PO--- !Hp Re-- S+
  31. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    "Jan Drahokoupil" <drahokoupil@telpro.cz> wrote in message
    news:1120837131.293656.259770@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > Hi,
    >
    > // Not at all. You are putting off doing the hard part as long as
    > // possible. Common tactic here. If writing a roguelike game engine
    > // was the hard part about writing a roguelike,
    > // we'd be awash with roguelikes.
    >
    > Let's say..maybe :))) Maybe the reason we're doing such a complex
    > engine is that we don't want to rewrite it again and we expect that in
    > the end it'll solve most of our problems creating a game..Because
    > especially I don't like all those IFs. If the PC done this and this
    > and
    > is carrying this sword of whatever then he shell pass into the towers
    > of final doom otherwise say hello :))))
    >

    You seem to (in a later post) have some opinions on how games should
    play. But you aren't actually writing a game. Even though it may look
    to you, coding the engine, that the game could be written that really
    isn't certain. It may not be fun, most importantly, and then what is
    the point of the engine? Specifically, all this simulation makes the
    ``having fun'' part (in case you haven't noticed this is mostly due to
    escaping from reality) impossible.

    > // You mean, a type of bottle which can contain the potion while I
    > // march down a dungeon. And yet not keep out water?
    >
    > Yeah it is possbile the potion has different density (viscosity) and
    > the plug should have enough absorption to keep it but not enough to
    > keep water from coming in..But generally it was just something strange
    > what occured while testing :) Let's say unexpected effects
    > (unprogrammed) and I like those.
    >

    That doesn't make any sense at all. Potions have liquid in them which
    is potentially acidic, toxic, turn the player into a frog, etc. They
    are going to be tightly sealed.
    Regardless, think about it in terms of the game. Is it fun to replace
    your entire inventory because you became wet? I'd prefer to think of my
    PC slinging around in the mud valiantly slaying all kinds of mud-folk,
    not running away when they spit at me.

    > // I accidentally dropped my keys in a puddle on the way home.
    > // The differing metals formed a battery cell
    > // and instantly turned the keys into a
    > // formless mast of rust. I can't open my
    > // house's door now.
    >
    > That's pity :)) Seriously..we're fighting the perfectionist
    > temptations
    > everyday..don't make fun out of it :))))
    >

    As I inferred earlier...I think your definition of perfection needs
    work...

    --
    Glen
    L:Pyt E+++ T-- R+ P+++ D+ G+ F:*band !RL RLA-
    W:AF Q+++ AI++ GFX++ SFX-- RN++++ PO--- !Hp Re-- S+
  32. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    "Jan Drahokoupil" <drahokoupil@telpro.cz> wrote in message
    news:1120990284.191056.110830@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
    > Hi Glen,
    >
    > I think you're exaggerating a bit..and I'd guess you know it :)
    > [..]

    Ah yes, I am of course. You seem to be pretty confident, and that is
    certainly a good thing.

    I await a release, not of the engine but of the eventual game! Do you
    have any tentative dates?

    --
    Glen
    L:Pyt E+++ T-- R+ P+++ D+ G+ F:*band !RL RLA-
    W:AF Q+++ AI++ GFX++ SFX-- RN++++ PO--- !Hp Re-- S+
  33. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Actually..release dates for game are not planned yet :( but first
    screenshots of editor (and in action) are prepared for 1.9.2005 :)))
    release of engine is planned for 1.6.2006 but may shift a bit (as
    usualy)
  34. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Jeff Lait wrote:
    > Jan Drahokoupil wrote:
    > >
    > > In ADOM which you probably don't like nor consider funny (because of
    > > water traps rusting your inventory, explosions at doors destroying most
    > > of your inventory and much more) this is proven to be a game element
    > > like any other..Simply it makes it more complex..
    >
    > I find it funny you keep bringing up ADOM. The development of ADOM is
    > one that best shows the tension between item destruction "realism" and
    > gameplay.
    >
    > The insane rates of destruction in early versions led to everyone using
    > only artifact weapons or equipment. Anything else would be wiped out
    > by a falling door trap so couldn't be trusted. One version decided it
    > would be a good idea to have fire spells destroy things on the squares
    > they hit. Sounds fun, until you play a wizard whose starting spell is
    > firebolt. Wizards get increased generation of scrolls and spellbooks
    > as they need these things. Of course, my wizard was seeing them go up
    > in smoke faster than I could retrieve them. These things are not
    > game-design neutral!

    So I guess it's just prove it's a question of the balance and not the
    question of excluding this feature.

    > If your goal is a game engine, your goal should be to provide tools for
    > game designers to build their worlds. If they don't want paper scrolls
    > to burn up, they shouldn't have to remove all sources of fire from the
    > world, or make scrolls out of asbestos.

    Surely, there's external editor and there's more levels of disabling
    these features. Starting with setting flag to indestructible over
    decreased flammability (or zero) or increased boiling point (i.e.
    liquid -> gas) to removing all sources of fire :))

    > The right level of abstraction, IMHO, is a mere burnability flag to
    > govern whether things burn up in a standard dose of fire or not. Easy
    > for the player to understand, easy to implement, and, most importantly,
    > easy to do the data entry for.

    That's why the complexity..it allows better organization and wider
    freedom in settings but still easily maintainable by our engine. We've
    reached this complexity when constructing the blueprints.. And somebody
    suggested "what if I want to use this material (feature,item,etc.)" and
    when it wasn't completely crazy idea at 4am after smoking weed we
    changed the structure to allow this (and usually many more additive
    settings).

    > I use a material based system for POWDER. The material is used as the
    > cross reference to determine stuff like digestibility, whether it
    > dissolves in acid, etc. Of course, exceptions exist - any item that
    > grants acid resistance will not dissolve in acid, for example.

    > To bring things back on topic, the materials I currently have defined
    > are:
    >
    > None
    > Ethereal
    > Cloth
    > Leather
    > Paper
    > Wood
    > Iron
    > Glass
    > Silver
    > Stone
    > Gold
    > Mithril
    > Flesh
    >
    > Rings and jewelry is categorized by the metal, not the jewel. I make
    > no attempt to deal with multi-material substances - I just pick the
    > "bset" material. Silver is separated from Iron due to the existence of
    > silver-hating monsters.
    >
    > The properties of materials is very basic at the moment:
    >
    > DEFINE MATERIAL
    > {
    > CST name "non-material"
    > BOOL soluble false
    > }

    That would work well when your doing game or specifically oriented
    engine..but we're implementing pure data-driven engine (at least we're
    trying :) so none of the data are fixed in the sources of the engine
    (including constants,enumerations,classes and everything). Thanks to
    ..NET Reflection everything is accessible and modifiable in runtime so
    we're loading it from data sources. Now consider this situation:

    a) common way:

    (Black,White,Red,Green) - enumeration fixed in program

    case Color of
    Black:{do stuff}
    White:{do some different stuff}
    Red:{do nothing}
    Green:{do completely random stuff}
    end;

    but what about when you add Yellow ? It isn't supported by case
    statement so you have to implement it (thus rebuild your project). This
    should be partially solved with SDK and wrapper classes but again it
    isn't quite funny for mod-maker.

    b) wrapper way:

    define class
    OnColor1 do OnColor1DoStuff
    OnColor2 do OnColor2DoStuff
    OnColor3 do OnColor3DoStuff
    OnColor4 do OnColor4DoStuff
    ..
    end

    then loading custom "plugin" to wrapper class

    OnColor1=Black -> OnColor1DoStuff=custom "Black" statement
    OnColor2=White -> OnColor2DoStuff=custom "White" statement
    OnColor3=Red -> OnColor3DoStuff=custom "Red" statement
    OnColor4=Green -> OnColor4DoStuff=custom "Green" statement

    but again what if you defined just OnColor5 as maximum and the
    mod-maker wants six colors -> rebuild -> new version ?

    c) pure data-driven way:

    define class
    include properties allowing to proceed "Black" statement
    include properties allowing to proceed "White" statement
    include properties allowing to proceed "Red" statement
    include properties allowing to proceed "Green" statement
    end

    Shortly the class of summed properties for any possible color (common
    properties).

    Thus those complex materials (also every other class in game) will
    appear. It had one big advantage you don't have to define "Color"
    statements because engine will handle them based on properties
    (mod-maker had less work). No rebuilding because you've covered (to
    someone this should appear and actually it did) even the crazy
    combinations but those wouldn't have to be used (by they still may,
    even the spitting if someone would be so crazy to implement) so there's
    much more freedom and the engine would handle them with ease because
    it's based on many little properties which are strictly defined and
    usually clear enough to answer (like substance density, hardness,.. for
    example)

    > Mind you, I'm not a fan of item-destruction as a game mechanic. If I
    > were, there'd likely be "corrodable" and "burnable" listed in there.

    That's fine..they needn't to be. It depends on author of the game. We
    are all fans of RL for a very long time but we're more or less just
    (even pretty good ones) programmers and personally I admire the fantasy
    of the creators of existing RLs. We're just trying to deliver the tool
    to those who aren't into the programming so much but they have also
    their vision but they're stopped by their programming skills. This is
    frustrating to them and also to us (because less games are made) or
    sometimes they don't simple want to build the whole game-system from
    the scratch. So they're trying to change existing open-source games to
    their dream plot and settings. All we're trying to do is to provide
    them with tool created for purpose of somebody else. To concentrate
    them on what they're doing better then us.. creating new fantasy
    worlds.. We've also our vision and surely we'll try to make it true
    with this tool (if it ever be done :P) but we're weak at this point. I
    hope that somebody else will unleash his/her fantasy :))

    > Roguelikes live in a tension between the general case and the specific
    > exception.
    >
    > > I don't know what are you trying to say by "not running away when they
    > > spit at me" ? Is this real ? Do you think the game will be directed in
    > > this way ? I don't believe that..To make things right always think to
    > > yourself: "They're not crazy..to include this!" then you'll calm down
    > > and maybe you'll get the idea how the thing really looks and feels
    > > like.
    >
    > The question in my mind is how the game designer can ensure players
    > don't run at the thought of being spit on. This requires the game
    > designer easily control the effectiveness of spit as a weapon. If the
    > effect of spit is governed by the interrelationship of dozens of
    > variables buried deep in the engine, the designer may just have to
    > concede that in their world water cannons would be the most effective
    > weapon.

    I hope I covered that in above..we're just trying to implement the
    properties of every single way in the game to cover even the crazy
    ideas the game-creators should have. Due the fact we're trying to have
    the widest possibilites the work on engine is simply longer.

    > Good luck with your engine.

    Thanks, the same to you in whatever you do :)

    > --
    > Jeff Lait
    > (POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)

    regards,
    Jan
Ask a new question

Read More

Development Games Video Games