Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Furry Dragons and Storylines...

Tags:
  • Development
  • Games
  • Video Games
Last response: in Video Games
Share
August 10, 2005 3:08:32 AM

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

More about : furry dragons storylines

August 10, 2005 12:29:30 PM

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
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 2:58:40 PM

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.
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 5:23:57 PM

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.. .
August 10, 2005 6:26:21 PM

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?...

:::p lanes: 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
August 10, 2005 7:32:10 PM

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
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 10:28:59 PM

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.
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 11:05:02 PM

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&gt; 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.. .
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 11:22:27 PM

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.. .
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 12:00:55 AM

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?

> :::p lanes: 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!
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 12:51:27 AM

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...
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 2:05:19 AM

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.
August 11, 2005 4:14:30 AM

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
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 6:01:55 AM

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!!!
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 1:23:56 PM

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.
August 11, 2005 1:35:17 PM

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
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 2:06:34 PM

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?
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 3:07:06 PM

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.. .
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 3:27:23 PM

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.. .
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 3:35:02 PM

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.. .
August 11, 2005 4:14:06 PM

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
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 4:14:46 PM

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
>
August 11, 2005 6:56:53 PM

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
August 11, 2005 7:02:48 PM

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
August 11, 2005 7:03:15 PM

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
August 11, 2005 7:03:58 PM

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
August 11, 2005 7:16:47 PM

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
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 7:28:20 PM

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.
August 11, 2005 9:12:00 PM

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
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 10:49:35 PM

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.. .
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 11:39:37 PM

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.. .
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 11:42:49 PM

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.. .
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 1:33:52 AM

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
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 2:40:56 AM

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...;
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.. .
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 2:55:46 AM

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.. .
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 4:22:24 AM

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 :) 
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 2:25:55 PM

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
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 4:02:58 PM

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
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 4:02:59 PM

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
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 5:24:44 PM

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)
!