Furry Dragons and Storylines...

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

Tom, Making a serious attempt to be consise says:

In making CHAZM i have a lot of time to think and little time to code.
This is wonderful in that I am making a very well written and well
planned game but.... annoying as hell! Thus i am constantly overwhelmed
with ideas trying to push their way out of my head and into yours. ;) i
mean ... this newsgroup... of course!

I have a question very very related to furry dragons and storylines...
;)

How important is a background. What i mean is like... ADOM. Nethack is
just assumed to be the generic dnd like fantasy with cameras
background.
Angband is... well... Tolkin of course... an already made world. ADOM
is, speaking with no experiance, a constructed world with a fabricated
background... or at least more recently fabricated... by the
author/coder.

Is it important to give my Rl a specific feel by giving a background
that maybe starts the same in each game and can change a little
throughout. Hmm.. i think storyline is missleading. What i mean to say
is: ... "Feel"... "atmosphere" ... "background"... "history". Things
like dwarves and elfs hate eachother. Instead of metalic dragons are
good with physical powers and Chromatic D's are evil with elemental
powers maybe in my game ... *not a serious example* ... Harry dragons
are good and spiky dragons are evil.
The furry, fluffy, silky, dragons are good and the horned, spiked, and
studded dragons are evil or chaoitic... again... bad examples.

Another example. In a game with no story the weighting of items and
powers will drift from version to version whereas its clear in tolkin
myth that rings are rare and powerful while say in nethack they are
common items and magic swords and the like are generally the artifacts!

Maybe in my world magic is rare and feared by the commoners. Mages are
generaly rare outcasts with powerful magic at their fingertips and any
use of even the smallest cantrip inside all but elven cities will have
the gaurds hunt you down.

Maybe magic is commen and even shopkeeps commonly employ magic and
wands
against thiefs (ala nethack!). Maybe the world is dark and the cities
have curfew. Maybe the citizens are scared to leave the towns and orc
raids are commen... or maybe, then again, the world is mostly good and
normal civilians feel free to wander the caverns and groundworld only
carrying a small dagger to ward off mischevous creatures. Maybe
mish-mashes of different creatures roam everywhere (nethack) or maybe
dragons are each to their own cave and skelletons are only found in
crypts. Maybe ______.

I hope you all see where this is headed. I would think that a story is
good and would add depth and control the direction and _FEEL_ of the
game but maybe its too heavy... thoughts for chazm...?

(BTW... chazm will be like nethack in that you are decending a dungeon
.... still trying to develop that story... ;) ... and there will be
cities in large protected caverns ... as you go deeper the generic
human
and kobold cities will become, more often, orc, gnome and dwarf cities,
and even deeper where few adventurers reach... even a dijinii city and
the great Dark-Elf metropolis where a huge chazm has split the city in
half!)

I already have some story developed but i am looking for some opinions
on how far i should develop it and ideas for how (if so :)

!!!

-Thomas
RL: CHAZM
39 answers Last reply
More about furry dragons storylines
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    > you'll probably need some cinematics, lots of intoductory text, and great, great amounts of external material

    True. But what i mean is like adom. It doesent have books ites based on
    and yet it seems to me to be more consistant and possible more fun to
    roleplay bacause of its settings. I dont was a setting taht will force
    the player to roleplay or uncover the truth.. i want a goal that is
    simple like... recover amulate.. or maybe find AN artifact.. gives more
    options. but not cryptic like. find your past.... or uncover the
    mysteries of...___

    These will be discovered and then will be annoying if they are not
    random. Really what i am asking is: should there be trends and changes
    different from "normal" tolkin or dnd fantasy.. like rare magic... or
    odd types of dragons ;)

    -Bisides i like writing and inventing stories... but i dont want to
    write books about the background! cinimatics... maybe! :)

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

    As Ive been developing the characteristics of my RL, Ive realized that
    a good plot isn't an essential, or even desirable, feature. I've been
    playing a few for several months, and Im horrible at them - to the
    point of never seeing past dlvl10. People don't get attached to these
    characters, not just because they're represented with an @, but because
    they're so damn fragile.
    I think you can really separate RLs into two classes: single dungeon
    and multiple dungeon. A Multiple Dungeon game is more likely to have a
    story behind it, but then there's issues of "knowing where you stand"
    on the power spectrum. To a lesser extent, the same is true of Dungeon
    Crawl. Its harder with a game like ToME where you've got multiple
    dungeons to go up against and you're not sure what to expect from the
    next one.
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    At 9 Aug 2005 23:08:32 -0700,
    Thomas wrote:

    > How important is a background.

    Well, it's not THAT important, unless you want to encourage lots of
    roleplaying -- then you'll probably need some cinematics, lots of
    intoductory text, and great, great amounts of external material --
    concept art, stories and novels, etc.
    It's usually best to take an existing setting, with all the novels,
    pictures, etc. and use it in your game.

    On the other hand, if you don't want roleplaying (it really doesn't
    go very well with computer games), all you need is a little bit of
    immersion. You need to be consistent -- whatever theme you choose.

    Note that even NetHack is consistent in it's inconsistency -- it has all
    sorts of things, like dragons, kris-knives, sinks, hawaian shirts,
    katanas, angels, grid bugs, magic markers, quaggas, etc.
    But after you see your first sink, you actually expect all those things.
    It goes well with it's weird, everything included, theme. The dungeon
    is supposed to be surprising and mysterious place.

    There are also other models for dungeons, but few of them make exploration
    as fun.

    On the other hand, the reason why your character is supposed to be in the
    dungeon, and the exact goal become irrelevant, unless you want to tell
    a story.

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

    Interesting...

    But should i try to at least define the standards of my world.... I
    wouldn't ever consider writting a huge story to go with my game or to
    have running plots that are hard coded but the following aspects might
    be good for consistancy and immersion:

    :::Realistic Creatures: each encounter is dangerous and encounters are
    less commen. you will generally face 2-3+ creatures at once and offten
    many summoned minons. Creatures will not be scattered around randomly.
    Dragons are in caves with thousands of GP and gems and rigns and the
    like... not wandering the halls of a dark cave... maybe raiding towns
    ;).... each encounter could yeald precious items or levelup the player!
    Skelletons are in gravyards.... not wandering the streets!

    :::Magic is Feared: Magic is thought of as a mysterious forces of the
    world. Only elves innatly feel comfortable with the art and most
    non-wizard humans fear those who posses magic... (casting spells in
    most towns will be illigal)

    :::Rare Magic: Magic is rare and most items found anywhere will either
    be normal or +1 masterwork.... Few are actually magical. For anyone
    under 5-6th level, a +2 longsword would be quite a find. Rings,
    amulates, bracers, crowns, and mithril items are all reasonably rare
    and while are not coveted innatly are, if magical of course, all a good
    find to be proud of. This will make players much more excited to find
    scrolls, rings, amulates and the like (potions too!). Players wont have
    to ever think as i have: "Oh, a scroll called Hackem Muche... must be
    another scroll of kill everything in sight... HoHum...." ;) not to pick
    on nethack... i love the game but... its just too hack'n slash for me.
    I think an RL with CRPG plots, realism and immersion would be awsome!

    :::Skills: skills are not just to give bonues to cirtain actions...
    they will enable special abilities... a 8 in forge might let you have a
    good chance of melting down your 12 iron chains and turning them into a
    masterwork sword... that could be enchanted?...

    :::Planes: You are not limited to the dungeon... you can beat the game
    by never leaving the dungeon but if you want to get the ring to
    giantsbane then you might need to travel to a distant outer plane where
    there are giant cities of hillgiants where they keep the ring safe and
    out of human hands so that a giant may never again be harmed by it!....
    or you'll maybe just go to the plane of fire or water...

    I think that i could still build an atmosphere without having a
    story... i think that at least a strong atmosphere, as created by the
    above, and maybe a name for the world would make the game much
    better....

    Agree? disagree?

    I would also love feedback on my individual ideas, above! Thoughts?

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

    > I agree with someone who said "release early, release often".

    I see your point... but i subscribe to the release late, release...
    when really updated... POV.

    I think i will release chazm only once I would want to play it. And
    honestly.. as odd as this will sound... programing is always fun... for
    36 hours straight its fun.. playing computer games gets... boring
    often. So this will take a while. I wont insist on everything being
    there at version 1.0.0 but i will not realiease "DEMOnstration"
    versions... only once most of it is there! Besides if you release the
    game 100 times before its done... its not as cool a moment once it
    finally is all there!

    ;)

    but honestly i DO see your point and will keep it in mind... (and its
    not all planning... I am coding at this point and already have 30
    *short* modules and many of the basic objects in place...)

    Other reactions to my ideas for the game?

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

    On 10 Aug 2005 08:29:30 -0700, "Thomas" wrote:

    >True. But what i mean is like adom. It doesent have books ites based on
    >and yet it seems to me to be more consistant and possible more fun to
    >roleplay bacause of its settings. I dont was a setting taht will force
    >the player to roleplay or uncover the truth.. i want a goal that is
    >simple like... recover amulate.. or maybe find AN artifact.. gives more
    >options. but not cryptic like. find your past.... or uncover the
    >mysteries of...___

    >These will be discovered and then will be annoying if they are not
    >random. Really what i am asking is: should there be trends and changes
    >different from "normal" tolkin or dnd fantasy.. like rare magic... or
    >odd types of dragons ;)

    If everything is new, make a story (or ascii pictures, whatever) about
    the things and give a text file with the game or show it in the
    beginning.
    Good AI will also make creatures have more personality. A description
    and the right living environment might be enough for variations of old
    stuff.
    This is fairly important. I couldn't enjoy alphaman or deadcold too
    well as everything was so new and there was not much information.
    (alphaman was supposed to be silly, though, iirc).
    POWDER also has lots of new in it, and new things feel special, but
    lack some depth.

    Of course you can also have mysterios creatures, but they shouldn't be
    called that nor should everything be that. Then it loses its value and
    things are bland again.

    We sure need to create more alternative fantasy creatures and
    environments. Make that lore with your new creatures, or steal
    something from somewhere if it fits the game.

    Caves full of everything and the kitchen sink might work, but there
    could be something better waiting to be found.


    That's the first thing to take care of when planning for your
    storyline. Then add the story, or randomness, as you wish.
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    At 10 Aug 2005 08:29:30 -0700,
    Thomas wrote:

    >> you'll probably need some cinematics, lots of intoductory text, and great, great amounts of external material

    > True. But what i mean is like adom. It doesent have books ites based on
    > and yet it seems to me to be more consistant and possible more fun to
    > roleplay bacause of its settings.

    Yes, it does have books. Lots of them. It's usually pretty losely based
    on them, but still it uses 'generic fantasy' theme, which is also used
    in 90% of fantasy books (with slight variations, but those spice things
    up).

    > I dont was a setting taht will force
    > the player to roleplay or uncover the truth..

    It's not possible to force anyone to roleplay, either in game or IRL.
    All you can do is encourage it or make it easier. In fact, I'm inclined
    to think that the best you can do about roleplayin is to not get in the
    way.

    > i want a goal that is
    > simple like... recover amulate.. or maybe find AN artifact.. gives more
    > options. but not cryptic like. find your past.... or uncover the
    > mysteries of...___

    I see. So you want your normal game, with exploration and combat, but
    don't want to tell the story. Then I guess you can skip most of the
    'background' stuff, and just either base your game on some easily
    recognizable theme, or think about your own (but be warned that any
    similarities to easily recognizable themes in your own will tend to
    make palyers expect everything is like in that recognized theme).

    > These will be discovered and then will be annoying if they are not
    > random. Really what i am asking is: should there be trends and changes
    > different from "normal" tolkin or dnd fantasy.. like rare magic... or
    > odd types of dragons ;)

    Sure, lots of options. Martian attack, ghost story, ninjas, pirates,
    zombies, western, detectives, spies, terrorists, ancient cultures, etc.

    See <http://roguebasin.t-o-m-e.net/index.php/Theme> for some hints.

    > -Bisides i like writing and inventing stories... but i dont want to
    > write books about the background! cinimatics... maybe! :)

    You don't have to write books! Just take some of already existing ones.
    Add some movies, comic books, maybe legends -- and you're done. ;)

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

    At Wed, 10 Aug 2005 18:28:59 GMT,
    Lauri Vallo wrote:

    > On 10 Aug 2005 08:29:30 -0700, "Thomas" wrote:
    > Good AI will also make creatures have more personality. A description
    > and the right living environment might be enough for variations of old
    > stuff.

    I don't think a 'good AI' is best in this case.

    I think you'd get much better results using a large variety of
    very different AIs, even when they are very simple and dumb.

    Look at Rogue's mosnters. Some are uniqe because of their strenght.
    Some because of the special attack and/or resistances. But monsters
    like ice monster, orc, venus flytrap or nymph are uniqe because of
    their behavior.

    Some very simple examples of varied behaviors:
    - move in the direction of an enemy and attack -- your generic AI
    - stand still and attack -- venus flytrap, ice monster, mimic
    - stand still and shoot
    - move toward nearest treasure, then stand still and attack -- orc
    - attack and teleport -- nymph
    - attack and run away
    - run away -- for monsters with valuable drops
    - run away and when far enough, shoot -- very annoying
    - keep your distance until pc fighting other mosnters, then join them
    - mirror the moves of the pc -- deppelgangers(?)
    - stand still, run away when attacked
    - move about randomly -- bats
    - move along the walls until attacked -- guards
    - stand cast random spells
    - stand and summon monsters
    etc.

    Lots of options if you combine them with the monster's special powers.
    Thementioned algorithms dont require any sophisticated pathfinding,
    weighting possible outcomes, factions, psychology, memory and learning,
    etc. Well, some of them need to remember whether they are attacking or
    running -- but it might as well depend on their inventory (Have I stolen
    something from the player or not yet?).

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

    Thomas wrote:

    > :::Realistic Creatures: each encounter is dangerous and encounters are
    > less commen. you will generally face 2-3+ creatures at once and offten
    > many summoned minons. Creatures will not be scattered around randomly.
    > Dragons are in caves with thousands of GP and gems and rigns and the
    > like... not wandering the halls of a dark cave... maybe raiding towns
    > ;).... each encounter could yeald precious items or levelup the player!
    > Skelletons are in gravyards.... not wandering the streets!

    Agree with monster placements that make sense, disagree with having
    encounters being less common. Higher encounter rates can be just as
    balanced too, if you relax a little on monster difficulty. I'd rather
    be killed by a well-placed, cooperative pack of 16 patrolling orcs than
    a lone demon.

    As an aside to this (and frankly, a little OT), I've thought about
    trying to implement some sort of UI feature that made note of the
    creatures visible. I plan on having quite a few creatures, and they all
    might not be immediately familiar to the player - a white 's' looks
    like another white 's' you saw earlier - but its really a much more
    powerful skeleton. Having a little sub-window that displayed the
    character with the monster name would be more sensible. It just irks me
    sometimes having to 'l'ook at creatures every time they show up on the
    screen just to make sure its not something MORE evil than what I
    expected.

    > :::Magic is Feared: Magic is thought of as a mysterious forces of the
    > world. Only elves innatly feel comfortable with the art and most
    > non-wizard humans fear those who posses magic... (casting spells in
    > most towns will be illigal)

    To each ones own with this one. It depends on the world. As long as you
    make sure there are other abilities besides just hack & slash.

    > :::Rare Magic: Magic is rare and most items found anywhere will either
    > be normal or +1 masterwork.... Few are actually magical. For anyone
    > under 5-6th level, a +2 longsword would be quite a find. Rings,
    > amulates, bracers, crowns, and mithril items are all reasonably rare
    > and while are not coveted innatly are, if magical of course, all a good
    > find to be proud of. This will make players much more excited to find
    > scrolls, rings, amulates and the like (potions too!). Players wont have
    > to ever think as i have: "Oh, a scroll called Hackem Muche... must be
    > another scroll of kill everything in sight... HoHum...." ;) not to pick
    > on nethack... i love the game but... its just too hack'n slash for me.
    > I think an RL with CRPG plots, realism and immersion would be awsome!

    This has more to do with your world design really. As long as you have
    a replacement, you should be fine. Really, what you're doing, is taking
    the magic out of minor bonuses such as +1. I think its a great idea,
    and its something that bothers me about most D&D systems.

    The other thing that bothers me is the numbers. I sometimes feel like
    D&D uses too small a number set. The original system is, of course,
    based on dice, but they're fairly limited in their range unless you're
    using a lot of them (in which case, they progress towards a normal
    distribution). I plan on starting characters out with 100HP in my game,
    and moving up from there. I hope nobody complains too much about this,
    because an attack which does 50% damage is the same in either system...

    > :::Skills: skills are not just to give bonues to cirtain actions...
    > they will enable special abilities... a 8 in forge might let you have a
    > good chance of melting down your 12 iron chains and turning them into a
    > masterwork sword... that could be enchanted?...

    Will every point in every skill enable a special ability? Will ANY give
    bonuses to certain actions? Im a little curious about what skill
    systems you're planning on implementing. We've already discussed
    alchemy, and you're covering smithing now. With magic being rather
    rare.. how will mages work?

    > :::Planes: You are not limited to the dungeon... you can beat the game
    > by never leaving the dungeon but if you want to get the ring to
    > giantsbane then you might need to travel to a distant outer plane where
    > there are giant cities of hillgiants where they keep the ring safe and
    > out of human hands so that a giant may never again be harmed by it!....
    > or you'll maybe just go to the plane of fire or water...

    Im not crazy about this, but if I play your game and it turns out to be
    fun, then you've managed to convince me.

    > I think that i could still build an atmosphere without having a
    > story... i think that at least a strong atmosphere, as created by the
    > above, and maybe a name for the world would make the game much
    > better....

    I agreed with this earlier, I think. RLs shouldn't have epic,
    plot-driven stories. They don't have the character-plot interactions
    that are important to a conventional console RPG. You'll notice almost
    universally, as character customization goes up, story development goes
    down. Its just a HARD task trying to write unique, personal lines for a
    very open-ended character. I think RLs shouldn't strive too much more
    than Diablo or maybe Final Fantasy I or V in story. Focus more on
    atmosphere, theme, basic plot, and making kick-ass dungeons and
    monsters!

    > Agree? disagree?

    See above!
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Also, Thomas, whats your view on persistant dungeon levels? By
    persistent levels, I mean if you go from dlvl n to dlvl n+1, then
    return to dlvl n, would it have the same layout?

    I was thinking, for my RL, since there will be multiple dungeons, I
    think keeping the layout the same might promote the players to explore
    new areas, but maybe Im wrong...
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    On 10 Aug 2005 14:26:21 -0700, "Thomas" wrote:

    >:::Realistic Creatures: each encounter is dangerous and encounters are
    >less commen. you will generally face 2-3+ creatures at once and offten
    [--8<--]
    >:::Rare Magic: Magic is rare and most items found anywhere will either
    >be normal or +1 masterwork.... Few are actually magical. For anyone
    [--8<--]

    >Agree? disagree?

    I agree with someone who said "release early, release often". Too much
    text, too little code. Doomed.

    But if I do comment on something, making magic and battles rare would
    make the game boring and frustrating with permadeath. Unless.. you
    make lots of scenery, and you might need to build some mechanic to
    soften death. But pick what you like the best. Keep the game enjoyable
    even in development. You can then maybe possibly make fights rare and
    so on.
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Alright, here goes a long post!

    > Agree with monster placements that make sense, [and] disagree with having
    >encounters being less common. Higher encounter rates can be just as
    >balanced too, if you relax a little on monster difficulty. I'd rather
    >be killed by a well-placed, cooperative pack of 16 patrolling orcs than
    >a lone demon.

    Sure :).... I really dont mean _rare_.... I just was annoyed when i
    would go down a level on nethack to see 48 (i counted) creatures all in
    sightrange ready to attack.... Patroling orc teams.... graveyards with
    8-15 seletons, a wizard summoning minons... these are all normal. I
    Just dont want swarms of context-independent creatures with no purpose
    roaming everywhere. What i really ment is "bottom line! REALISTIC
    creatures!" thats the key phrase. just not unrealistic swarms. Fewer
    creatures then nethack maybe (per area) but not fewer then normal/what
    is realistic! realistic of course in the bounds of the unrealistic
    fantasy world :).

    Chazm will use a Difficulty system that will mark all non character
    (character being anyone pc or not with a class: wiz, Ftr, rog, etc)
    creatures with a difficulty level that is equivilent to 1/10th
    (probably...) of a character's level. Eg a kobold might be 2 or 3. a
    rat might be 1. a skelleton might be 15. but a creature with a dlevel
    of 20 would be like fighting a level 2 human fighter. about. So if an
    orc is of dlevel maybe... 6. then a level 3 fighter might be good to
    run into around four orcs and win. but yeah... maybe a character would
    occationaly fight a hard fought battle against 8 or so creatures!
    Realistic is the goal not rare. Sorry for using the wrong word eh.

    >As an aside to this (and frankly, a little OT), I've thought about
    >trying to implement some sort of UI feature that made note of the
    >creatures visible. I plan on having quite a few creatures, and they all
    >might not be immediately familiar to the player - a white 's' looks
    >like another white 's' you saw earlier - but its really a much more
    >powerful skeleton. Having a little sub-window that displayed the
    >character with the monster name would be more sensible. It just irks me
    >sometimes having to 'l'ook at creatures every time they show up on the
    >screen just to make sure its not something MORE evil than what I
    >expected.

    Great idea! i am sure its not entirly original. I have been reading all
    the old posts (am back to like 2001 now!) and this has come up once or
    twice. If done well it would be good. I think i will have an examin
    command that will tell you a lot more but will cost moves and is
    improved by the spot skill. I hope to also improve the system by
    including something like this. How could this by implemented such that
    the player does not always have to stare at a list of all creatues and
    objects but could easily see what they are. What if you could closely
    examine an object (to see writing or to appraise value) as an action
    but could "spot" an object or creature from a distance as a free action
    (not costing moves). The best way to do this, in my opinon, would be to
    have a large box tooltip style (transparent?) box appear with the spot
    text (basic info on race/description?) next to your cursor whenever
    you mouseover the creature. I am using a windoz form that emulates a
    dos like screen to make my game. There will be a subtle cross hairs
    mouse you can use to select creatures to fire your bow and spells at
    instead of typing coordinates... unless you want to type
    coordinates....

    >To each ones own with this one. It depends on the world. As long as you
    >make sure there are other abilities besides just hack & slash.

    Yeah :)
    My point is really to reduce the hack 'n slash. I think it can be fun
    to just plow through a horde of orcs but it is usually more fun to fire
    your bow and retreat and then cast fireball down the hall and close the
    door so they cant as easily follow you.

    >This has more to do with your world design really. As long as you have
    >a replacement, you should be fine. Really, what you're doing, is taking
    >the magic out of minor bonuses such as +1. I think its a great idea,
    >and its something that bothers me about most D&D systems.

    Yeah. Only masterwork weapons can be enchanted to become magical. There
    will be more weapons then just "sword with bonus from magic". for a
    character's first few levels i want them worying more about how good a
    sword is vs a mace or flail. Not what is the magic bonus. Oh better
    trash this +8 flail for my +11 long sword.... ;|>

    >The other thing that bothers me is the numbers. I sometimes feel like
    >D&D uses too small a number set. The original system is, of course,
    >based on dice, but they're fairly limited in their range unless you're
    >using a lot of them (in which case, they progress towards a normal
    >distribution). I plan on starting characters out with 100HP in my game,
    >and moving up from there. I hope nobody complains too much about this,
    >because an attack which does 50% damage is the same in either system...

    Meh.. I doubt anyone will care much. Honestly its just your preference.
    If i just scaled up the system 10x then i would probably just do things
    in 10x intervles. My ToHit role will probably be inflated but the math
    there is hidden.
    I think the idea of 100 hp a level is pointless but not bad. Go ahead.
    it wont hurt. but in my opinion it is unnessessary. Maybe if all +2's
    become +20's then it might be nice to have a +25 (2.5) but then just
    inflate 2x. 10x seems excessive. howabout 20 hp a level for
    fighters...?

    >Will every point in every skill enable a special ability? Will ANY give
    >bonuses to certain actions? Im a little curious about what skill
    >systems you're planning on implementing. We've already discussed
    >alchemy, and you're covering smithing now.

    Ok. here is the idea. each class gets a base skill points per level.
    barbarian:1
    fighter:2
    cleric:3
    druid:4
    rogue:6
    mage:3

    the the races modify.

    halforc:-1
    human:+1
    elf:+2
    dwarf:+1
    gnome:+1
    halfling:+0
    (tenative...)

    and then you get your intelligence bonus
    so a dwarven fighter with a 15 intellegence would get

    2+1+2(int) = 5 sp

    at every levelup (unless the int goes up).

    skill points will also occationaly be awarded for practicing a skill or
    reading books though they will not be commen and only EVER 1 per source
    (so no scumming. read,read,read,read,...)

    You can at any point apply these points to a skill by training a skill
    which costs 1skillpoint for each point you want to train the skill + a
    lot of time per point.

    special rules:

    *some skills like swimming can be performed without any points on the
    skill and the skill just modifies, however many cannot be performed
    without a skill. you cant make a sword *period* with a forge weapon
    skill of 0. maybe a 1-10 points in forge weapon will give you a
    (10+4*points)% chance of building the weapon and a 11-30 will give you
    another (points)% chance of making a masterwork +1 weapin if you succed
    the first roll. then maybe you could also get a points/5-30 % chance of
    making a masterwork +2 weapon for every rank above 30.... These are
    just ideas....
    *some skills require that you are trained to get your first point. You
    start with 0 in alchemy and just because you have the ability you can
    self-learn alchmy and not risk wasting 100gp to blow yourself up... So
    you pay a trainer to teach you and then you get your first point and
    can then practice (train like normal...) for every further point.

    I am also considering having skill catagories that you can put points
    on that will to a lesser extent help all of their childrens rolls. ie:
    Craft: 5
    Forge: 10
    Forge Weapon 5 (+ 10/3) (+ (5/3)/3)
    Forge Armor 0 (+ 10/3) (+ (5/3)/3)
    Fletch arrow 0 (+ 10/3) (+ (5/3)/3)
    Apraise: 0
    Gems 3 (+0/3) (+ (5/3)/3)
    Weapons 1 (+ 0/3) (+ (5/3)/3)

    etc.

    I am still thinking about this. Ideas. Could the children then also
    effect the parent or catagory skills?...

    >With magic being rather
    >rare.. how will mages work?

    Hah. Nono. I didn't mean that you couln't use a mage. Magic would be
    normal for the PC. It would just be assumed that the pc is a select
    few.

    effects: not many npc mages. Magic banned in many cities/ ie illigal.
    Like in BG2.

    >[SNIP]: Me Talking about my planes implementation
    >Im not crazy about this, but if I play your game and it turns out to be
    >fun, then you've managed to convince me.

    Yeah. It would not be implemented after the rest mostly as interest. I
    think it would open up the world and make it wide an explorable inside
    the standard dungeon world. It would also be hard to get to and add
    divercity to the layout. It wont be the major part of the game. You
    will see, i think you'll like it ;).

    >I agreed with this earlier, I think. RLs shouldn't have epic,
    >plot-driven stories. They don't have the character-plot interactions
    >that are important to a conventional console RPG. You'll notice almost
    >universally, as character customization goes up, story development goes
    >down. Its just a HARD task trying to write unique, personal lines for a
    >very open-ended character. I think RLs shouldn't strive too much more
    >than Diablo or maybe Final Fantasy I or V in story. Focus more on
    >atmosphere, theme, basic plot, and making kick-ass dungeons and
    >monsters!

    Absolutly to everything. I will focus on the engine and then the
    immersion. I know that it is hard. Then again. Chazm may be the first
    to *fully* pull it off. I want to go for a BG1-2 style conversation
    system. The conversations will be dynamicaly created from templates. I
    am sure i will bring this up as a topic at some point! :)

    >Also, Thomas, whats your view on persistant dungeon levels? By
    >persistent levels, I mean if you go from dlvl n to dlvl n+1, then
    >return to dlvl n, would it have the same layout?

    YES. Consistancy goes down the drain w/o set levels. random but then
    set. In chazm the game is build entirly at the start and then run level
    by level ala nethack. When level are not in use they are heavily
    compressed in memory to save space. I think i have a good system for
    this. my only worry is that the generating map loading with take a
    while. Even minutes~!! Is it a good plan to get the game fully working
    and fully featured.. well with a lot at least! and then work on
    optimizations... or is this just too unacceptable to even include in
    early versions? Thoughts?

    >I was thinking, for my RL, since there will be multiple dungeons, I
    >think keeping the layout the same might promote the players to explore
    >new areas, but maybe Im wrong...

    Yeah. and consistantcy!

    Final question:
    If i build the game as planned and then i am never able to optimize the
    speed without hurting the level gens terriably is this ok. If the game
    is really great and awsome and fun as heck with the average RLer be
    willing to get a cup of coffee for 2-3 min while the game builds? I
    know how terriable this sounds... i just hope this is an exaggeration!

    And no. Building the levels as you decend wont really work for my
    game... i might consider it later...but the system just wont allow it.
    I would need to RW to get that to work. Besides... i personally would
    rather wait 3or even 10 min at load to play a great dynamic and
    interconnected game then to have a fast loading game where each level
    seems like a whole other disconnected world without any relation to the
    above of below levels. Besides my save game compression depends on this
    generation method... sorry. Thoughts on this?

    Thanks for your interest in my game! it is great that i can not only
    make this game for myself and my friends and for the fun of it but i
    can make it for an enthusiastic community! Thanks so much for your
    support and GL on your own projects!

    Awsome!

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

    Thomas wrote:
    > Great idea! i am sure its not entirly original. I have been reading all
    > the old posts (am back to like 2001 now!) and this has come up once or
    > twice. If done well it would be good. I think i will have an examin
    > command that will tell you a lot more but will cost moves and is
    > improved by the spot skill. I hope to also improve the system by
    > including something like this. How could this by implemented such that
    > the player does not always have to stare at a list of all creatues and
    > objects but could easily see what they are. What if you could closely
    > examine an object (to see writing or to appraise value) as an action
    > but could "spot" an object or creature from a distance as a free action
    > (not costing moves). The best way to do this, in my opinon, would be to
    > have a large box tooltip style (transparent?) box appear with the spot
    > text (basic info on race/description?) next to your cursor whenever
    > you mouseover the creature.

    The mouseover thing is fine, except I was thinking of something more
    integral to the UI. It doesn't have to be much, just a sidebar that
    says

    "s Kobold Skeleton
    J Brown Snake
    ..."

    My original intent was to go for pure text-mode, but I think I can get
    better graphical output out of using a simple windows interface with a
    truetype monospaced font. I like the fairly simple ASCII feel, but it
    would also be a nice stepping stone for eventually leading into a fully
    graphical interface. It means I'll probably lose out on some
    portability, but that's something I can work through later.

    > Yeah. Only masterwork weapons can be enchanted to become magical. There
    > will be more weapons then just "sword with bonus from magic". for a
    > character's first few levels i want them worying more about how good a
    > sword is vs a mace or flail. Not what is the magic bonus. Oh better
    > trash this +8 flail for my +11 long sword.... ;|>

    good point!

    > Meh.. I doubt anyone will care much. Honestly its just your preference.
    > If i just scaled up the system 10x then i would probably just do things
    > in 10x intervles. My ToHit role will probably be inflated but the math
    > there is hidden.
    > I think the idea of 100 hp a level is pointless but not bad. Go ahead.
    > it wont hurt. but in my opinion it is unnessessary. Maybe if all +2's
    > become +20's then it might be nice to have a +25 (2.5) but then just
    > inflate 2x. 10x seems excessive. howabout 20 hp a level for
    > fighters...?

    All the +2's would become +20 or 25, or whatever, and that's fine and
    not terribly important. Another UI issue I'm going to try working on is
    the inventory screens. I think it would be convenient to just type 'e'
    to go to the equipment screen and equip/unequip the items that you want
    by highlighting them with the cursor and pressing Enter, which brings
    up the available equipment options for that slot, and shows the +/-
    effects on each stat, as well as other special effects.

    > Ok. here is the idea. each class gets a base skill points per level.
    > barbarian:1
    > fighter:2
    > cleric:3
    > druid:4
    > rogue:6
    > mage:3

    Is there any reason for short-changing certain classes, and giving
    rogues a bigger amount of skills?

    > Absolutly to everything. I will focus on the engine and then the
    > immersion. I know that it is hard. Then again. Chazm may be the first
    > to *fully* pull it off. I want to go for a BG1-2 style conversation
    > system. The conversations will be dynamicaly created from templates. I
    > am sure i will bring this up as a topic at some point! :)

    My scripting engine is going to be based off of a program called MadLib
    (http://toykeeper.net/programs/mad/). I've varied the syntax a bit to
    make it less verbose, and added an additional set of primatives that
    represent program variables, and are used to tell the program to follow
    specific actions at that point in the text (like having a disgruntled
    apprentice mage cast a cantrip on you after yelling "go away!").
    Essentially I've divided the text into several categories:

    random townspeak - general gossip any townsperson may mention to you.
    regional speak - something only someone from region X might tell you.
    person speak - these are phrases from a specific individual.
    monster speak - phrases reserved for specific monster categories


    > [SNIP] When level are not in use they are heavily
    > compressed in memory to save space. [SNIP]
    > Even minutes~!! Is it a good plan to get the game fully working
    > and fully featured.. well with a lot at least! and then work on
    > optimizations... or is this just too unacceptable to even include in
    > early versions? Thoughts?

    That sounds like a long delay. Might be excessive. Are you willing to
    share your design to see if we can't improve it as a community? Is it
    viable to just store the RNG seed for each dungeon?

    > Final question:
    > If i build the game as planned and then i am never able to optimize the
    > speed without hurting the level gens terriably is this ok. If the game
    > is really great and awsome and fun as heck with the average RLer be
    > willing to get a cup of coffee for 2-3 min while the game builds? I
    > know how terriable this sounds... i just hope this is an exaggeration!
    >
    > And no. Building the levels as you decend wont really work for my
    > game... i might consider it later...but the system just wont allow it.
    > I would need to RW to get that to work. Besides... i personally would
    > rather wait 3or even 10 min at load to play a great dynamic and
    > interconnected game then to have a fast loading game where each level
    > seems like a whole other disconnected world without any relation to the
    > above of below levels. Besides my save game compression depends on this
    > generation method... sorry. Thoughts on this?

    I don't think you necessarily need to wait that long to create a unique
    and interconnected environment. There's an algo that you can use to
    generate an arbitrarily long maze level by level and still explore the
    entire space of possible n by m by l mazes. The algo is technically for
    2D perfect mazes, but its a small change to create a 3D (2D levels with
    a dungeon depth dimension) variant, and a moderate (or difficult?)
    change to suppliment perfect mazes for dungeon mazes of your devising.
    The algo is called Eller's Algorith, and the only online info I can
    find on it is from Think Labyrinth
    (http://www.astrolog.org/labyrnth/daedalus.htm) which is some software
    that NO RL Developer should be without IMO. Essentially, you focus on
    each level at a time, and just keep track of which portions of the
    level are connected to one another. You don't NEED any information When
    you reach the last level you want, just make sure every unconnected
    piece is connected. You can even modify the algorithm to (more
    frequently than normal). As long as you have a solid single-level
    generator, its a good algorithm to employ. For save game compression,
    just store each level as an RNG seed + items + monsters + random stuff
    (if you're saving everything besides the room/corridor dimensions), and
    if it isn't the last level, you'll need to store the deepest level's
    connectivity grid as well.

    > Thanks for your interest in my game! it is great that i can not only
    > make this game for myself and my friends and for the fun of it but i
    > can make it for an enthusiastic community! Thanks so much for your
    > support and GL on your own projects!

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

    The Sheep wrote:

    > Well, there was some text-mode, dungeon-exploring, randomized-map game
    > (but not a roguelike) I once played (it was even split-screen
    > multiplayer), whcih used approach like this:
    >
    > ######### 1: a goblin (5/10)
    > #.......# 2: a wolf (7/7)
    > +.@..2..# 3: a golbin (10/10)
    > #.......#
    > #..1..3.#
    > ####+####
    >
    > You could get used to it, especially when the game only displayed a room
    > at a time, but it's not very convenient -- having to check the references
    > all the time.

    What about something like this:


    ######### g goblin (2)
    #.......# w wolf (1)
    +.@..w..#
    #.......#
    #..g..g.#
    ####+####

    if you see two brown g's on the screen, but don't know what it is, you
    can look at the sidebar to see that, oh, its a goblin. Later in the
    game, you spot another brown g, so you glance up and see that its
    really a goblin shaman - a much tougher brand of goblin that requires
    other tactics.
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Good. Those were interesting posts. I think i should address now my
    strange saving loading method.

    The save game only includes a rng seed and then a list of all the
    commands the player has input into the game. The dungeon is re
    generated and then, covered by a loading bar, the game up until the
    point of the save is excecuted with the creatures acting on the rng and
    the player responding with the saved commands. My thoughts on this are
    that it is a really cool idea... and from my tests i can see that with
    in i can create arbitrarily huge dungeons and then save them into a
    15kb file.

    I have given this countless hours (seriously) of thought and just dont
    think that i can make chazm if every object has to have an overloaded
    save destructor and an overloaded load constructor. I am not just going
    to have items, creatures, and terrain. There will be acting spells,
    tiles, poisons that attach themsleves to a creatures object and
    continually hurt them. There are going to be huge numbers of objects
    and the saving will just be rediculous. And then we'd have to face the
    problem of file size. In my tests: even compressing similar tiles into
    just locations and a reference so they take up very little space i
    would still have my 235MB(!!!!!) file compressed to 5-6 MB. Its just
    too large. I am not saying most RLs cant save but that mine cant. CHAZM
    will be an awsome game. it will be large, connected, very immersive and
    have conversations that are built from templates. The monsters and
    players are absolutly no different. If you come upon an evil 5 level
    wizard you have to fight and your a 5th level wizard and you have all
    the same stuff the the ONLY difference is that you are feeding the
    commands to your player and an AI object is building string commands
    exactly like yours and feeding them to its character. Yes. The ai will
    be no different then you in its capabilities. In this way you can
    posses your opponets and play their turn with magic (feeding them
    commands) or your opponent could do the same!

    It very flexable and powerful and i think well worth a lot of work and
    in the end i figured that a longer loading wait would be worth it...
    even if the idea of it replaying to load is almost laughable in some
    ways. I think it is at the very least a cool idea.

    Also, if i used that system of saving all your commands i could have a
    magic device that allows you to only ever once, use it to go back like
    30 turns or something
    not to avoid a conflict altoether maybe that you are in but... enough
    to replay a few bad moves ;).

    Thoughts.

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

    Thomas wrote:
    > Good. Those were interesting posts. I think i should address now my
    > strange saving loading method.
    >
    > The save game only includes a rng seed and then a list of all the
    > commands the player has input into the game. The dungeon is re
    > generated and then, covered by a loading bar, the game up until the
    > point of the save is excecuted with the creatures acting on the rng and
    > the player responding with the saved commands. My thoughts on this are
    > that it is a really cool idea... and from my tests i can see that with
    > in i can create arbitrarily huge dungeons and then save them into a
    > 15kb file.

    Why save every command ever? Why re-act the game at every save point?
    Aside from your magical device idea below (I'll get to that), you'll
    have to spend a hugenormous amount of time processing each action again
    (which, you're obviously doing).
    A much more flexible and resource-conscientious method would be to
    store RNG seeds for every dungeon/level, store the locations and states
    of any objects needed, and maybe the last 100~1000 turns or so for that
    magical device. This should keep down on both the file size and loading
    time.

    > [SNIP] ... absolutly no different. If you come upon an evil 5 level
    > wizard you have to fight and your a 5th level wizard and you have all
    > the same stuff the the ONLY difference is that you are feeding the
    > commands to your player and an AI object is building string commands
    > exactly like yours and feeding them to its character. Yes. The ai will
    > be no different then you in its capabilities. In this way you can
    > posses your opponets and play their turn with magic (feeding them
    > commands) or your opponent could do the same!

    Just make sure you're being careful with your AI construction. You
    don't have years of masters/phd-level AI development behind you like a
    computer chess AI might, so more than likely the 5th lvl wizard player
    will completely annihilate the 5th lvl wizard enemy. Im not saying its
    not a good idea, even with that in mind, but just keep it in mind.

    > Thoughts.

    Honestly? I think your save sysetem needs some work. I won't go make
    coffee for 5 minutes every time I load the game. Maybe I'm missing out
    on something, but thats just too long. What kind of machine is that
    time quoted for?
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    At 10 Aug 2005 15:32:10 -0700,
    Thomas wrote:

    > Other reactions to my ideas for the game?

    Well, you need a game in your game. I mean, you need to give the player
    something to do.

    You say magic is rare. Is it common enough to be even worth implementing
    in the game? Why bother if 90% of characters will die on dlv 3 without even
    seeing the simpliest scroll of light?

    Will there be enough weapons to make it interesting without the pluses?
    Will it be as easy to compare them? You know, the pluses doesn;t have to
    be magical.

    I mean it's a common approach to only have a bunch of different weapons,
    all of them having different properties like speed, damage span, various
    modifiers (blunt, piercing), different effectivness against different
    sizes of enemies, etc., and then add the variety in to_hit and damage by
    use of pluses and brands.

    Another place where magic comes in handy are monsters and their attacks.
    You want them to confuse, stun, put to sleep, cause fear, blind, burn,
    destroy armor, disarm, steal gold and items, teleport, drain hp, weaken,
    drain stats, drain experience, and so on. Again, some of the effects could
    be described as 'natural', but with magic you just put them into one bag
    and don't worry about it.

    About forbiding casting spells in towns -- well, you could also forbid
    wielding your weapon in town -- it's a little annoying (unless done
    automatically), but makes sense. It would make any town combat much more
    dangerous and interesting.

    As for the monsters themselves -- you need to pick them carefuly. First,
    they should fit your theme -- which isn't as hard as it looks. Second,
    they should differ in behavior and properties -- ideally, any two
    different monster species on a level should require different tactic from
    the player. Also, adding new monster kind on given depth should change
    the player's tactics -- the sole possibility of encountering this monster
    should be enough.

    For example, in Rogue, on dlv 1 you've got some kestrels, snakes, emus,
    hobgoblins, etc. -- all of them are safe to engage in h2h combat (well,
    you probably want to shoot at hobgoblins, because they are strong, but
    shooting at kestrels has small sense -- they are too quick). But on dlv 2
    you start encountering ice monsters. Their attacks will freeze you for
    a while -- which isn't dangerous when you're only fighting an ice monster,
    but can be lethal when there are other monsters around. This way, adding
    this monsters makes you change your tactics on this level totally -- you
    no longer attack everything in sight.

    When you're choosing yor monsters, it's also important that the monster's
    name suggests it's special powers. It's better to have a fire-breathing
    'salamander' than a fire-breathing 'spotted lizard'. If the effects aren't
    obvious, or what's worse, the names are misleading, well, good bye
    immersion.

    It's similar with items and dungeon features. And you have similar rules
    for choosing them -- no need to have 20 different swords (sabers,
    falchions, scimitars, rapiers, machettes, etc.) when all the difference is
    the name and damage, wchich can be adjusted with enchanting anyways.

    Oh, and one more advice -- start small, grow bigger gradually -- start
    with a rat-slaying game on dlv 1 and add mosnters and items gradually,
    making sure every level is interesting.

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

    At 10 Aug 2005 20:00:55 -0700,
    Wildhalcyon wrote:

    > Thomas wrote:

    > As an aside to this (and frankly, a little OT), I've thought about
    > trying to implement some sort of UI feature that made note of the
    > creatures visible. I plan on having quite a few creatures, and they all
    > might not be immediately familiar to the player - a white 's' looks
    > like another white 's' you saw earlier - but its really a much more
    > powerful skeleton. Having a little sub-window that displayed the
    > character with the monster name would be more sensible. It just irks me
    > sometimes having to 'l'ook at creatures every time they show up on the
    > screen just to make sure its not something MORE evil than what I
    > expected.

    Well, there was some text-mode, dungeon-exploring, randomized-map game
    (but not a roguelike) I once played (it was even split-screen
    multiplayer), whcih used approach like this:

    ######### 1: a goblin (5/10)
    #.......# 2: a wolf (7/7)
    +.@..2..# 3: a golbin (10/10)
    #.......#
    #..1..3.#
    ####+####

    You could get used to it, especially when the game only displayed a room
    at a time, but it's not very convenient -- having to check the references
    all the time.

    P.S. Anybody remembers this game and it's title?

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

    At 11 Aug 2005 00:14:30 -0700,
    Thomas wrote:

    > My point is really to reduce the hack 'n slash. I think it can be fun
    > to just plow through a horde of orcs but it is usually more fun to fire
    > your bow and retreat and then cast fireball down the hall and close the
    > door so they cant as easily follow you.

    Well, it might not be as fun when you do it for the 102nd time.
    Hack'n'slash has an advantage -- you don't have to be focused all the
    time. People tend to have short attention spans -- especially when they
    play a game, where they expect some entertainment.

    Turn-based games have the advantage that you can stop at any moment, take
    a break, think a while, etc. -- so the problem with staying focused all
    the time is less an issue.

    But still, you need to have 'easy' areas intermixed with 'hard' areas.

    And don't forget to put something interesting and fun in the place of
    hack'n'slash, when you remove it -- otherwise the most interesting
    activity in your game will be munchkinism.

    > Final question:
    > If i build the game as planned and then i am never able to optimize the
    > speed without hurting the level gens terriably is this ok. If the game
    > is really great and awsome and fun as heck with the average RLer be
    > willing to get a cup of coffee for 2-3 min while the game builds? I
    > know how terriable this sounds... i just hope this is an exaggeration!

    You can always optimize it laters. Besides, contemporary computers (wink)
    really have some power under the hood.

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

    I am responding to the key and colors tangent to this thread:

    I am using 24bit true color rgb for chazm and thus can have millions of
    colors. There is still a problem however. If i use 60 colors for G then
    i will have 3-4 different shades of a yellow 'G'. 1 or two ok. three is
    pushing it. four is just wrong. I can see a dull yellow vs a bright
    yellow but nomatter if your using curses' 16 colors or truecolor you
    will have a problem. I cant probably use more then 25 colors per letter
    but still thats 26 x 2 x 25. Thats 1300 different creatures. I could
    probably push that two 2000 with more colors and special symbols but
    why? I would probably only ever need 50 to maybe 250. 500 would be a
    lot of creatures! why!

    I think in chazm that every creature would be different to look at in
    some way. (unless they could poly or change apperence) and then i will
    allow a tool tip description on top. Why are you even thinking you'll
    need more.

    instead of a white 's' skelleton and a white 's' master serpent... make
    the master serpent a light gray! make the serpent a white 'S' i
    understand your concern but you really should just make them all
    different and then if you ever HAVE to make them the same as another
    then just cross that bridge when you come to it.

    My only problem is that all characters (all creatures, includeing the
    player, with a class) will look like a white @. I think that the tool
    tip is a good enough solution to know who is the begger and who is the
    shopkeeper.

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

    Thomas a écrit :
    > Ok. here is the idea. each class gets a base skill points per level.
    > barbarian:1
    > fighter:2
    > cleric:3
    > druid:4
    > rogue:6
    > mage:3
    >
    > the the races modify.
    >
    > halforc:-1
    > human:+1
    > elf:+2
    > dwarf:+1
    > gnome:+1
    > halfling:+0
    > (tenative...)
    >
    > and then you get your intelligence bonus
    > so a dwarven fighter with a 15 intellegence would get
    >
    > 2+1+2(int) = 5 sp
    >
    > at every levelup (unless the int goes up).

    If halforcs already have an INT malus, it seems harsh and overdone to
    give them another skill malus after that. In D&D 3rd edition, the only
    race that changes the skill points at level up is human : you get 1 more
    skill point per level. Then other races affect skill points at level up
    by changing the base INT only. Humans are supposed to be quick to learn
    so that explains the bonus skill point and the bonus feat at level 1.

    > skill points will also occationaly be awarded for practicing a skill or
    > reading books though they will not be commen and only EVER 1 per source
    > (so no scumming. read,read,read,read,...)
    >
    > You can at any point apply these points to a skill by training a skill
    > which costs 1skillpoint for each point you want to train the skill + a
    > lot of time per point.
    >
    > special rules:
    >
    > *some skills like swimming can be performed without any points on the
    > skill and the skill just modifies, however many cannot be performed
    > without a skill. you cant make a sword *period* with a forge weapon
    > skill of 0. maybe a 1-10 points in forge weapon will give you a
    > (10+4*points)% chance of building the weapon and a 11-30 will give you
    > another (points)% chance of making a masterwork +1 weapin if you succed
    > the first roll. then maybe you could also get a points/5-30 % chance of
    > making a masterwork +2 weapon for every rank above 30.... These are
    > just ideas....

    I'm sure someone with 0 skill points in swimming can't swim at all :) A
    better example would have been some skill used to spot hidden things.
    Even at level 0 you can look for hidden things, it's not something you
    need a special training to do.

    > *some skills require that you are trained to get your first point. You
    > start with 0 in alchemy and just because you have the ability you can
    > self-learn alchmy and not risk wasting 100gp to blow yourself up... So
    > you pay a trainer to teach you and then you get your first point and
    > can then practice (train like normal...) for every further point.
    >
    > I am also considering having skill catagories that you can put points
    > on that will to a lesser extent help all of their childrens rolls. ie:
    > Craft: 5
    > Forge: 10
    > Forge Weapon 5 (+ 10/3) (+ (5/3)/3)
    > Forge Armor 0 (+ 10/3) (+ (5/3)/3)
    > Fletch arrow 0 (+ 10/3) (+ (5/3)/3)
    > Apraise: 0
    > Gems 3 (+0/3) (+ (5/3)/3)
    > Weapons 1 (+ 0/3) (+ (5/3)/3)

    I guess it's an important part of a skill system and one that takes a
    *lot* of tuning to get right. You'll note here that Forge is useless if
    it doesn't give you other bonuses than those you've written here. It
    costs the same to put points evenly on the Forge subskills than on the
    forge main skill.

    > I am still thinking about this. Ideas. Could the children then also
    > effect the parent or catagory skills?...

    Myself I would go instead for some kind of synergy skill system.
    Something like you can only put points in leaf skills and node skills
    have an automatic computed value according to the skill points in their
    child skills. Then, the synergy bonus applies.

    For example, put 10 points on Forge Weapon and you get Forge skill of
    10. Then, those 10 points give back a synergy bonus of say 20% The final
    skill score for Forge weapons is then 12 ( 10 + 0.2 * 10 ) and all other
    Forge skills get also a +2 bonus. On the other hand, since it's a bonus
    it doesn't allow you to use them because you can't Forge Armor without
    learning that before :) Also, if you want some unlocking rules, you can
    also apply then to the base skill value. That way, if you want to build
    an armour requiring 4 skill points in the "Forge Armour" skill, it isn't
    enouth to put 2 points there and use the +2 bonus.

    > Final question:
    > If i build the game as planned and then i am never able to optimize the
    > speed without hurting the level gens terriably is this ok. If the game
    > is really great and awsome and fun as heck with the average RLer be
    > willing to get a cup of coffee for 2-3 min while the game builds? I
    > know how terriable this sounds... i just hope this is an exaggeration!
    >
    > And no. Building the levels as you decend wont really work for my
    > game... i might consider it later...but the system just wont allow it.
    > I would need to RW to get that to work. Besides... i personally would
    > rather wait 3or even 10 min at load to play a great dynamic and
    > interconnected game then to have a fast loading game where each level
    > seems like a whole other disconnected world without any relation to the
    > above of below levels. Besides my save game compression depends on this
    > generation method... sorry. Thoughts on this?

    You level generation seems really strange. It takes a lot of time to
    build. You must build all at once or none and the compression algorith
    it tightly coupled to the generation method.

    Anyway, I'm sure you can do a few things to optimise all that anyway.
    For example, if you look at it, you don't really need to generate the
    complete floor plan of that big tower other there until the player gets
    close to it. You can just store in the save the seed used to generate it
    and build that only at the time the player tries to enter it. Then, if
    you want, you can save it on the disk but that way, you save some time
    on the initial start of the game. Also, if you want a tightly
    interconnected game world, it doesn't mean you need a complete knowledge
    of the different game features. You can have in memory a graph which
    says dungeon A is used to connect town B to town C. You don't really
    need to know how it does it until the player enters it.

    Another completly different trick for you : you can have a low priority
    thread in the background generating the next game. That way, when the
    player starts a new game all of it is ready to go.

    If you really need the 3 minutes to create a new game, I feel you'll get
    mad before you finish debugging your game world generation code ;)

    > Thanks for your interest in my game! it is great that i can not only
    > make this game for myself and my friends and for the fun of it but i
    > can make it for an enthusiastic community! Thanks so much for your
    > support and GL on your own projects!
    >
    > Awsome!
    >
    > -Thomas
    > RL: CHAZM
    >
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    > Why? Didn't you just say to give them different colors?

    I shall. I guess i always assumed they would all be white. I will
    likely have a class (role) called commener and they will be white, and
    a class called shopkeeper and they will be Lgray... and a class called
    guard and the will be Dgray and a class called begger...

    these will be alongside fighter, wizard, druid, rogue.. cleric... etc
    for the pc. They will however also be much weaker. Guards will be like
    weak first level fighters... but 8 of them.... :-).

    I think this is how it will work.

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

    Wow this is enlightening. Your right. I always thought of it as being a
    setback... an unfortunate consequense. I think that loading and saving
    is what i will have to do.

    First of all 200+ MB was only if I had everything unpacked. 90-96% of
    these objects/mostly tiles and terrain. Can be packed into .1% of what
    they are.


    100 stone wall objects that have been untouched sence the begining of
    the game can be packed from 100 heavy objects with lots of properties
    and functions into 1 heavy object and 100 locations where it exists. If
    i do a save game, this is what i would do. Also this is what i will do
    in memory to all unused levels. It will take a second or two pause
    between levels... but this could just represent going down the
    stairs... :) i always did think it was odd you could go down stairs as
    fast as you could move 5'.

    really my main problem is that here is a glimps at just part of my
    class structure. How to get from the world to the ai object.

    world hold a pointer to map which holds a Map<> of layers (levels) this
    holds a map of tiles. tiles hold a vector of objects first Terrain,
    then items the ground and then creature(s) (only one creature will
    probably be allowed per square) a given creature (lets say its a
    halforc barbarian) will have a vector of poisons that are acting on it,
    a pointer to an inventory object that handles all of its items and very
    possibly items like bags with inventories of items themselfs, and about
    50 properties like level, class, race, stats(16-20 of em), modifyers,
    skills! AHH. It all works if its in RAM but that would be a puzzle to
    output to file!

    I also have command handling objects, a weave object that will handle
    the spell objects.... apperance objects holding char and color data for
    an item, creature, spell! And once i finish the basic engine i want to
    have BGI style animations that will play. In nethack they have red
    lines for fire, and use characters for gas spores. I want Spells in my
    game to graphically appear. It will be simple. Mostly just fading
    colored lines and circles. Maybe a few more complicated ones. Not
    flashing bitmaps.. dont worry. But as i was saying Animations objects,
    I will have bitmap objects to hold some pictures i will use to spice up
    the display. I will likely have a parent child skill system with skill
    objects that hold other skills!

    And then lets pretend i write those all to file .Lets pretend the ideal
    case! THEN if i want to add another element to the game... lets say...
    mounts and horses or multiple creatures on a tile! and what if i need
    more objects for that. I'll end up spending 8 hours adding the code and
    then 50 hours getting it to save!! I am sure i could come up with a
    good system.

    Back when i was planning on doing this, i came up with an idea so that
    you could construct an object with the constructor but overlaod it to
    take an FStream object* and load itself from file. This would be the
    best OO way to do it. And then i would somehow dynamicly link them. I
    could list number for the objects and then use those numbers to get the
    inventories to point to them....AHHH.

    I could nest the objects. If an inventory is pointed to inside a
    creature then while outputing the creature just indent and start with
    the inventory! but what if there is an object sharred between two other
    objects! and even if there isn't...! its would STILL be very confusing.
    Now i cant imagine EITHER solution (saving or regenerating) working!!!

    Please rgrdev HELP! i know you'll have some great ideas. I just done
    know. And please dont say i should start small. I know i should start
    small. I did start small 5 times and got nowhere... QB. then i tried C
    and made two simple ones! I am ready to now think big. Chazm is my real
    thing. I will work in stages though. Before adding spells, skills, or
    AI or conversations... i will have a simple character walking around
    picking up a couple items and fighting nothing but orcs and kobolds in
    one large room. I will do that. But right now i am planning big as a
    write small.

    By the way. I have often 3-4 hours a day to think about Chazm and about
    3-4 hours a WEEK to code. This is why i am so far ahead of myself. Next
    week my job is over and i will have one week to code before i am off to
    see family. I will work hard to get a simple engine going in that
    time... but honestly if i am going to have a saving system i want the
    first engine to include it. I cant imagin adding it early let alone
    waiting until i am done with the game to add a save feature. I know
    people who do this. And on a really simple game many go through a month
    a hell trying to get a simple save to work. Thanks, but I'll start
    implementing that, right away. Thanks soo much for all your help. And
    please rush in with those ideas and suggestions. I really want to do my
    game as above so prefferably if there is a solution not inlcuding
    "first... do really simple game... then saving is easy!". I dont mean
    to sound like your advice of starting small is bad advice. I know first
    hand how good advice that is. However i already have. If i am ever to
    do a full game and not just a guy walking around. Now is the time!
    Thanks!

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

    > Why? Didn't you just say to give them different colors?

    I shall. I guess i always assumed they would all be white. I will
    likely have a class (role) called commener and they will be white, and
    a class called shopkeeper and they will be Lgray... and a class called
    guard and the will be Dgray and a class called begger...

    these will be alongside fighter, wizard, druid, rogue.. cleric... etc
    for the pc. They will however also be much weaker. Guards will be like
    weak first level fighters... but 8 of them.... :-).

    I think this is how it will work.

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

    Wow this is enlightening. Your right. I always thought of it as being a
    setback... an unfortunate consequense. I think that loading and saving
    is what i will have to do.

    First of all 200+ MB was only if I had everything unpacked. 90-96% of
    these objects/mostly tiles and terrain. Can be packed into .1% of what
    they are.


    100 stone wall objects that have been untouched sence the begining of
    the game can be packed from 100 heavy objects with lots of properties
    and functions into 1 heavy object and 100 locations where it exists. If
    i do a save game, this is what i would do. Also this is what i will do
    in memory to all unused levels. It will take a second or two pause
    between levels... but this could just represent going down the
    stairs... :) i always did think it was odd you could go down stairs as
    fast as you could move 5'.

    really my main problem is that here is a glimps at just part of my
    class structure. How to get from the world to the ai object.

    world hold a pointer to map which holds a Map<> of layers (levels) this
    holds a map of tiles. tiles hold a vector of objects first Terrain,
    then items the ground and then creature(s) (only one creature will
    probably be allowed per square) a given creature (lets say its a
    halforc barbarian) will have a vector of poisons that are acting on it,
    a pointer to an inventory object that handles all of its items and very
    possibly items like bags with inventories of items themselfs, and about
    50 properties like level, class, race, stats(16-20 of em), modifyers,
    skills! AHH. It all works if its in RAM but that would be a puzzle to
    output to file!

    I also have command handling objects, a weave object that will handle
    the spell objects.... apperance objects holding char and color data for
    an item, creature, spell! And once i finish the basic engine i want to
    have BGI style animations that will play. In nethack they have red
    lines for fire, and use characters for gas spores. I want Spells in my
    game to graphically appear. It will be simple. Mostly just fading
    colored lines and circles. Maybe a few more complicated ones. Not
    flashing bitmaps.. dont worry. But as i was saying Animations objects,
    I will have bitmap objects to hold some pictures i will use to spice up
    the display. I will likely have a parent child skill system with skill
    objects that hold other skills!

    And then lets pretend i write those all to file .Lets pretend the ideal
    case! THEN if i want to add another element to the game... lets say...
    mounts and horses or multiple creatures on a tile! and what if i need
    more objects for that. I'll end up spending 8 hours adding the code and
    then 50 hours getting it to save!! I am sure i could come up with a
    good system.

    Back when i was planning on doing this, i came up with an idea so that
    you could construct an object with the constructor but overlaod it to
    take an FStream object* and load itself from file. This would be the
    best OO way to do it. And then i would somehow dynamicly link them. I
    could list number for the objects and then use those numbers to get the
    inventories to point to them....AHHH.

    I could nest the objects. If an inventory is pointed to inside a
    creature then while outputing the creature just indent and start with
    the inventory! but what if there is an object sharred between two other
    objects! and even if there isn't...! its would STILL be very confusing.
    Now i cant imagine EITHER solution (saving or regenerating) working!!!

    Please rgrdev HELP! i know you'll have some great ideas. I just done
    know. And please dont say i should start small. I know i should start
    small. I did start small 5 times and got nowhere... QB. then i tried C
    and made two simple ones! I am ready to now think big. Chazm is my real
    thing. I will work in stages though. Before adding spells, skills, or
    AI or conversations... i will have a simple character walking around
    picking up a couple items and fighting nothing but orcs and kobolds in
    one large room. I will do that. But right now i am planning big as a
    write small.

    By the way. I have often 3-4 hours a day to think about Chazm and about
    3-4 hours a WEEK to code. This is why i am so far ahead of myself. Next
    week my job is over and i will have one week to code before i am off to
    see family. I will work hard to get a simple engine going in that
    time... but honestly if i am going to have a saving system i want the
    first engine to include it. I cant imagin adding it early let alone
    waiting until i am done with the game to add a save feature. I know
    people who do this. And on a really simple game many go through a month
    a hell trying to get a simple save to work. Thanks, but I'll start
    implementing that, right away. Thanks soo much for all your help. And
    please rush in with those ideas and suggestions. I really want to do my
    game as above so prefferably if there is a solution not inlcuding
    "first... do really simple game... then saving is easy!". I dont mean
    to sound like your advice of starting small is bad advice. I know first
    hand how good advice that is. However i already have. If i am ever to
    do a full game and not just a guy walking around. Now is the time!
    Thanks!

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

    Um. Thats odd. Sorry for the double post. I have no clue why it
    would've done that...

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

    Starting small isn't enough. You also need to build up in small steps
    too. You've already got a guy walking around? Great! Now you need to
    add everything else too. You can still have something unique thats not
    very big. Work on getting monsters with a viable AI, THEN add their
    inventory. Work on a basic dungeon generator/saver THEN add something
    more sophisticated.

    I hate to say it, but campy martial art masters are right - you must
    bend like bamboo, not be rigid like.. umm.. rigid wood.
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    OT:

    I'm Sorry... I just spent 30 min writing a really long post clarifying
    everything and i lost it to my own stupidity. because another program
    closed it!!

    I'm soo mad. RRR.

    I am too tired to deal with that again... and now also very busy. I
    will write back explaining from home in a few hours if i can. :(...

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

    At 11 Aug 2005 09:23:56 -0700,
    Wildhalcyon wrote:

    > The Sheep wrote:

    > What about something like this:
    > ######### g goblin (2)
    > #.......# w wolf (1)
    > +.@..w..#
    > #.......#
    > #..g..g.#
    > ####+####
    > if you see two brown g's on the screen, but don't know what it is, you
    > can look at the sidebar to see that, oh, its a goblin. Later in the
    > game, you spot another brown g, so you glance up and see that its
    > really a goblin shaman - a much tougher brand of goblin that requires
    > other tactics.

    But what with tis situation?

    ######### g goblin (1)
    #.......# w wolf (1)
    +.@..w..# g goblin shaman(1)
    #.......#
    #..g..g.#
    ####+####

    Why would you need more than 15 different kinds of goblins anyways?
    If you need as many of them that you're out of colors, you should
    seriously consider giving them an additional letter, like 'G' maybe.

    As for making it just a hint what combination of character and color means
    which monster species, I think the screen estate is too precious to waste
    it like this.

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

    At 11 Aug 2005 09:35:17 -0700,
    Thomas wrote:

    > I have given this countless hours (seriously) of thought and just dont

    Woudn't it be much better to spend this time (or even much less than that)
    actually implementing this, and seeing what kind of problems it may cause?

    Why don't you write a smallish, simplified rogue clone, with static
    levels, one kind of monster and several items, and use it to test your
    ideas in small scale until they go into your design doc?

    > And then we'd have to face the
    > problem of file size. In my tests: even compressing similar tiles into
    > just locations and a reference so they take up very little space i
    > would still have my 235MB(!!!!!) file compressed to 5-6 MB. Its just
    > too large. I am not saying most RLs cant save but that mine cant.

    What you're saying is that you want your game to take 235 megs of memory
    at runtime? I'd strongly advice to rethink some decissions that led to
    such an enormous size.

    > CHAZM
    > will be an awsome game. it will be large, connected, very immersive and
    > have conversations that are built from templates. The monsters and
    > players are absolutly no different. If you come upon an evil 5 level
    > wizard you have to fight and your a 5th level wizard and you have all
    > the same stuff the the ONLY difference is that you are feeding the
    > commands to your player and an AI object is building string commands
    > exactly like yours and feeding them to its character. Yes. The ai will
    > be no different then you in its capabilities. In this way you can
    > posses your opponets and play their turn with magic (feeding them
    > commands) or your opponent could do the same!

    So, you're saying that if I want an orc to attack the player with his
    saber, I must first generate the saber, tell the orc to pick it up, check
    into which inventory slot it gone, tell him to equip it, check whether it
    suceeded, and then walk toward the player?

    > It very flexable and powerful and i think well worth a lot of work and
    > in the end i figured that a longer loading wait would be worth it...

    The truth is that the only difference the player will notice is the longer
    loading time.

    > even if the idea of it replaying to load is almost laughable in some
    > ways. I think it is at the very least a cool idea.

    It's pretty good idea and it's pretty old too :)

    It should work alright provided that:
    a) You've got some stable RNG that will produce the same random sequence
    from the seed on every platform (ie. it doesn't relly on some strange
    stuff).
    b) You don't use many computionally expensive algorithms every turn (like
    calculating FOV for every creature every turn).

    You can reduce the loading time essentially by using 'checkpoints', at
    which the most of the game's state is reset, so you can record the moves
    from the last checkpoint only.

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

    At 11 Aug 2005 12:14:06 -0700,
    Thomas wrote:

    > My only problem is that all characters (all creatures, includeing the
    > player, with a class) will look like a white @. I think that the tool
    > tip is a good enough solution to know who is the begger and who is the
    > shopkeeper.

    Why? Didn't you just say to give them different colors?

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

    "Thomas" <comments@foresightsagas.com> writes:
    > The save game only includes a rng seed and then a list of all the
    > commands the player has input into the game. The dungeon is re
    > generated and then, covered by a loading bar, the game up until the
    > point of the save is excecuted with the creatures acting on the rng and
    > the player responding with the saved commands. My thoughts on this are
    > that it is a really cool idea... and from my tests i can see that with
    > in i can create arbitrarily huge dungeons and then save them into a
    > 15kb file.

    In theory, it's a good idea. The problem is loading time. Say an
    average turn takes 0.01 seconds [1] to process everything *except* IO.

    A typical number of turns needed to complete a traditional roguelike [2]
    seems to be ~100,000-~1,000,000. Multiply this by 0.01 and we get a
    1000-10000 second loading time when reloading a game near the end. So
    between 20 minutes and 3 hours to reload the game.

    In the early- and mid-game, of course, this really isn't a problem.

    If you can get your time/turn down to maybe 0.0001 seconds then it
    starts to become more reasonable, with 2 minutes being the upper
    boundary on loading time. Similarly if the number of turns/game is
    generally low it's not a problem (but that makes 'arbitrarily huge' a
    bit pointless)

    [1] I consider myself to be doing well if I can get it as low as 0.1
    seconds, but this is on a 100MHz machine with a slow-ish language. On
    the other hand I'm not going for quite as many features as you.
    [2] I'm basing this mainly off ADoM/Crawl VPs. Angband-sized dungeons
    might be a bit more than this (I gave up on Angband after my most
    successful character died on level 5 - it wasn't that they'd died,
    it's that it had taken ~100,000 turns to get that far. I can *beat*
    ADoM, on a non-speed run, in that many turns...)


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

    At 11 Aug 2005 15:02:48 -0700,
    Thomas wrote:

    > First of all 200+ MB was only if I had everything unpacked. 90-96% of
    > these objects/mostly tiles and terrain. Can be packed into .1% of what
    > they are.

    But you don't want to keep it in RAM compressed, do you?

    > 100 stone wall objects that have been untouched sence the begining of
    > the game can be packed from 100 heavy objects with lots of properties
    > and functions into 1 heavy object and 100 locations where it exists.

    Well, you could have only one 'wall object' to begin with, and just use it
    whenever you want a wall. If the wall gets modified, you just 'copy on
    modify' -- make a copy of your generic wall object, put it in place of the
    original one and then modify. Then only the walls that were somehow
    modified take space (well, the object references take space too,
    unfortunately).

    > Please rgrdev HELP! i know you'll have some great ideas. I just done
    > know. And please dont say i should start small.

    Why store all that data if the player will never be able to even see it,
    not to mention modyfying it? You can generate most of the object's
    attributes the in a 'lazy' way, exactly at the moment they are needed --
    just use an addidiotan value for them, like 'undefined'.
    If you use some your rng seeded with some hash function of the object's
    position and kind, you can even skip storing the generated values --
    because you can always generate them again. This way you only store what's
    been changed -- and it's really not much, usually.

    Also, you might want to rethink your data structures -- n-dimensional
    array of objects is rarely the best choice. Read my article at
    <http://roguebasin.t-o-m-e.net/index.php/Data_structures_for_the_map>
    and think what kind of operations you will need to optimise.

    We've got a hard case of overengineering here -- not everything is
    supposed to be an object, and not everyting must be flexible.

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

    At 11 Aug 2005 15:28:20 -0700,
    Wildhalcyon wrote:

    > Starting small isn't enough. You also need to build up in small steps
    > too. You've already got a guy walking around? Great! Now you need to
    > add everything else too. You can still have something unique thats not
    > very big. Work on getting monsters with a viable AI, THEN add their
    > inventory. Work on a basic dungeon generator/saver THEN add something
    > more sophisticated.
    >
    > I hate to say it, but campy martial art masters are right - you must
    > bend like bamboo, not be rigid like.. umm.. rigid wood.

    I'm sorry guys, it's addressed to all of you using the google grups.
    Could you please quote the pieces of articles you're responding to?

    It's really hard to understand when you only see a message like this, and
    it's even worse when the references are bad -- provided anybody even
    bothers to download the article you're responding to from the server only
    to check what you're talking about.

    You only need to click 'reply' under the right article...
    --
    Radomir `The Sheep' Dopieralski @**@_
    (Xx) 3 ...
    . . . ..v.vVvVVvVvv.v.. .
  35. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Thomas wrote:

    > Wow this is enlightening. Your right. I always thought of it as being a
    > setback... an unfortunate consequense. I think that loading and saving
    > is what i will have to do.
    >
    > First of all 200+ MB was only if I had everything unpacked. 90-96% of
    > these objects/mostly tiles and terrain. Can be packed into .1% of what
    > they are.
    >
    >
    > 100 stone wall objects that have been untouched sence the begining of
    > the game can be packed from 100 heavy objects with lots of properties
    > and functions into 1 heavy object and 100 locations where it exists. If
    > i do a save game, this is what i would do. Also this is what i will do
    > in memory to all unused levels. It will take a second or two pause
    > between levels... but this could just represent going down the
    > stairs... :) i always did think it was odd you could go down stairs as
    > fast as you could move 5'.
    >
    > really my main problem is that here is a glimps at just part of my
    > class structure. How to get from the world to the ai object.
    >
    > world hold a pointer to map which holds a Map<> of layers (levels) this
    > holds a map of tiles. tiles hold a vector of objects first Terrain,
    > then items the ground and then creature(s) (only one creature will
    > probably be allowed per square) a given creature (lets say its a
    > halforc barbarian) will have a vector of poisons that are acting on it,
    > a pointer to an inventory object that handles all of its items and very
    > possibly items like bags with inventories of items themselfs, and about
    > 50 properties like level, class, race, stats(16-20 of em), modifyers,
    > skills! AHH. It all works if its in RAM but that would be a puzzle to
    > output to file!
    >
    > I also have command handling objects, a weave object that will handle
    > the spell objects.... apperance objects holding char and color data for
    > an item, creature, spell! And once i finish the basic engine i want to
    > have BGI style animations that will play. In nethack they have red
    > lines for fire, and use characters for gas spores. I want Spells in my
    > game to graphically appear. It will be simple. Mostly just fading
    > colored lines and circles. Maybe a few more complicated ones. Not
    > flashing bitmaps.. dont worry. But as i was saying Animations objects,
    > I will have bitmap objects to hold some pictures i will use to spice up
    > the display. I will likely have a parent child skill system with skill
    > objects that hold other skills!
    >
    > And then lets pretend i write those all to file .Lets pretend the ideal
    > case! THEN if i want to add another element to the game... lets say...
    > mounts and horses or multiple creatures on a tile! and what if i need
    > more objects for that. I'll end up spending 8 hours adding the code and
    > then 50 hours getting it to save!! I am sure i could come up with a
    > good system.
    >
    > Back when i was planning on doing this, i came up with an idea so that
    > you could construct an object with the constructor but overlaod it to
    > take an FStream object* and load itself from file. This would be the
    > best OO way to do it. And then i would somehow dynamicly link them. I
    > could list number for the objects and then use those numbers to get the
    > inventories to point to them....AHHH.

    The best OO way to do that is to have one single argumentless constructor
    and override post constructor methods. A few of them will be used to create
    the object from code and one of them to create the object from the stream.
    Unmarshalling an object is an operation that can fail in so many ways it
    isn't a good idea to put it in the constructor. C++ doesn't like it too
    much when a constructor fails.

    > I could nest the objects. If an inventory is pointed to inside a
    > creature then while outputing the creature just indent and start with
    > the inventory! but what if there is an object sharred between two other
    > objects! and even if there isn't...! its would STILL be very confusing.
    > Now i cant imagine EITHER solution (saving or regenerating) working!!!
    >
    > Please rgrdev HELP! i know you'll have some great ideas. I just done
    > know. And please dont say i should start small. I know i should start
    > small. I did start small 5 times and got nowhere... QB. then i tried C
    > and made two simple ones! I am ready to now think big. Chazm is my real
    > thing. I will work in stages though. Before adding spells, skills, or
    > AI or conversations... i will have a simple character walking around
    > picking up a couple items and fighting nothing but orcs and kobolds in
    > one large room. I will do that. But right now i am planning big as a
    > write small.
    >
    > By the way. I have often 3-4 hours a day to think about Chazm and about
    > 3-4 hours a WEEK to code. This is why i am so far ahead of myself. Next
    > week my job is over and i will have one week to code before i am off to
    > see family. I will work hard to get a simple engine going in that
    > time... but honestly if i am going to have a saving system i want the
    > first engine to include it. I cant imagin adding it early let alone
    > waiting until i am done with the game to add a save feature. I know
    > people who do this. And on a really simple game many go through a month
    > a hell trying to get a simple save to work. Thanks, but I'll start
    > implementing that, right away. Thanks soo much for all your help. And
    > please rush in with those ideas and suggestions. I really want to do my
    > game as above so prefferably if there is a solution not inlcuding
    > "first... do really simple game... then saving is easy!". I dont mean
    > to sound like your advice of starting small is bad advice. I know first
    > hand how good advice that is. However i already have. If i am ever to
    > do a full game and not just a guy walking around. Now is the time!
    > Thanks!
    >
    > -Thomas
    > RL: CHAZM

    I think you are worring too much and at the same time, you are planning too
    much. All I can say is that you should really consider doing a small
    roguelike with no ambitious features just so that you can get the hang of
    the basics. That way, you'll get a better idea of what serialisation means
    for example. Don't over OO it if possible. You could try a 1 day roguelike
    or a one week roguelike for example :)
  36. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Christophe Cavalaria <chris.cavalaria@free.fr> schrieb:
    > The best OO way to do that is to have one single argumentless
    > constructor and override post constructor methods. A few of them will
    > be used to create the object from code and one of them to create the
    > object from the stream. Unmarshalling an object is an operation that
    > can fail in so many ways it isn't a good idea to put it in the
    > constructor. C++ doesn't like it too much when a constructor fails.

    Do you recommend using static or non-static methods for the
    unserialization/unmarshalling?

    --
    Jim Strathmeyer
  37. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:23:57 +0000 (UTC), The Sheep <thesheep@
    sheep.prv.pl> wrote:

    >Note that even NetHack is consistent in it's inconsistency -- it has all
    >sorts of things, like dragons, kris-knives, sinks, hawaian shirts,
    >katanas, angels, grid bugs, magic markers, quaggas, etc.

    Well, the theme of NetHack isn't in its contents, but in how they
    interact. It is in no way a believable mix of creatures and items, but
    the theme of "the dev-team thought of everything" means the players who
    take to the game are too busy thinking about how the elements interact
    to worry much about why they're all there.

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

    On 9 Aug 2005 23:08:32 -0700, "Thomas" <comments@foresightsagas.com>
    wrote:

    >How important is a background.

    Well, after you have your game, it is nice to come up with a bit of
    background to explain things, because some people will want "in-game"
    explanations of things. Also, it's good to have a paragraph or so to
    explain why you are seeking the Omnipotent McGuffin or trying to kill
    Baddie McBadd or whatever the goal of the game is supposed to be.
    Something like:

    You are in love with Fenavar the Fair, but prophesy says that the one to
    marry Fenavar will come bearing the Orb of Destiny, so you set out
    through the Forest of Dread to the Castle of Peril where the Orb of
    Destiny lies.

    >The furry, fluffy, silky, dragons are good and the horned, spiked, and
    >studded dragons are evil or chaoitic... again... bad examples.

    Maybe not great, but far better than thoughtlessly cloning *D&D.

    Of course, from your other posts, it is clear you're mixing up
    background and flavor detail. You certainly do want flavor details. You
    don't need to why there are fluffy dragons or where studded dragons come
    from, but you really ought to offer a good description of what a silken*
    dragon looks like and maybe bias their treasure generation to be heavy
    on fabrics. Something called a "horned dragon" probably should get (a)
    horn attack(s) and a spiked dragon may be dangerous to hit, especially
    unarmed.

    But the thing about your flavor details and much of the game detail
    should be added as needed. Admittedly, sometimes you might need to go
    back and rewrite some existing details to fit in the new -- if you add
    grotto trolls and describe them as the bitter enemies of the crystal
    gnomes, you may well want to revise the crystal gnome description to
    include their fighting with grotto trolls. But there's no point in
    including that until grotto trolls get added, so planning ahead really
    gains you nothing here.

    *- "Silken" seems more dignified and draconic than "silky" to me.

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

    R. Dan Henry wrote:
    > On 9 Aug 2005 23:08:32 -0700, "Thomas" <comments@foresightsagas.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >How important is a background.
    >
    > Well, after you have your game, it is nice to come up with a bit of
    > background to explain things, because some people will want "in-game"
    > explanations of things. Also, it's good to have a paragraph or so to
    > explain why you are seeking the Omnipotent McGuffin or trying to kill
    > Baddie McBadd or whatever the goal of the game is supposed to be.

    I'm not sure it is all that important to say *why* you are seeking the
    Omnipotent McGuffin. I do think it is important to at least tell the
    player *what* the Omnipotent McGuffin is.

    I also found it is useful to give people some idea of how far they have
    to go. Are there 20 levels? 100 levels? 1000 levels?

    The intro I use for POWDER is optimized to fit on one screen of the
    GBA:

    Welcome to POWDER!

    Your goal is simple: dive to level 30 of the dungeon to reach
    Baezl'bub,
    slay him, and return to the surface with his black heart. Plenty of
    nasty monsters stand in your way, however. Fortunately, the dungeon
    is littered with useful equipment.

    Check for updates at www.zincland.com/powder.
    --
    Jeff Lait
    (POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)
Ask a new question

Read More

Development Games Video Games