[CF-Devel] Technical Object Questions

Thu Aug 2 03:57:20 CDT 2001

On Wed, 1 Aug 2001 11:01:54 -0700 (PDT), Mark Wedel wrote:
>

     On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Nils Lohner wrote:

     >>

      - daggers aren't throwable

     >>

      ...find throwing daggers :)

     >

     >

      You can actually throw anything (chairs, swords, etc).  However, items

     >

     that are specially throwable throw a lot better.

     >

     >

      To be honest, I don't think many people actually use the throwing feature

     >

     of crossfire - I think this to some extent is because it is hard to get enough

     >

     throwable items to make it worth the bother to use this (and using bows

     >

     is more effective).

Well, I find a lot of daggers (doesn't take me long to have a good
amount of them) and I wouldn't mind being able to throw them effectively
at shorter ranges.  Should be quicker than firing a bow too, IMO.  But
since there are specifically throwing daggers, this is OK.  It's a waste
of ammo though :)

>>

      - chairs and tables are classed as 'weapons'

     >>

      item name chair

     >>

      item type 15

     >>

      0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000

     >>

      ...and chairs (if weapons :) should at least be throwable as well.

     >>

      ...should/could a type 'FURNITURE' be created for them?

     >

     >

      I think they should be throwable (as said, I believe everything is

     >

     throwable).  Now it may be that they are not the first thing to be chosen.

My main problem is with them being WEAPON... that's a misclassification
in my opinion.  I have a pickup mode of ALLWEAPONS, and only realized
that this was a bad idea after walking around with a complete collection
of a Church's chairs... :)

So throwable means 'effectively throwable' in the flags, but anything can be
thrown?

>>

      - looking at food (generic food)

     >>

      FOOD

     >>

      item name==NULL food

     >>

      item type 6

     >>

      0 [31] 0010 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 1100 [0]

     >>

      1 [63] 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 [32]

     >>

      2 [95] 0000 0000 0000 0001 0000 0000 0000 0000 [64]

     >>

      3 [127] 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 [96]

     >>

      ...the flag[2] is #define FLAG_CAN_USE_SKILL      79 /* The monster can use 

     >

     skills */

     >>

      ...is this normal??!??

     >

     >

      If I read your table above, would that entry actually be 80?

     >

     That one is FLAG_BEEN_APPLIED, which meant the player has applied

     >

     (eaten) at least one of the food objects.

Right you are.  I added the [##] prints afterwards, and at the time I
was counting from the wrong end.

>>

      Otherwise, I have a good idea of how I want it to work, how to integrate

     >>

      it with the existing one, and how to finish it.  Suggestions for other

     >>

      autopickup classes welcome.

     >>

     >>

      two more to add:

     >>

      LITERATURE books, scrolls

     >>

      DRINKS drinks

     >>

      POTIONS

     >

     >

      Most people use value density pickup, which covers things like potions

     >

     and scrolls and leaves the heavier stuff alone.  But having more choices

     >

     is never bad.

How possible/easy would it be to split WEAPON into subclasses?  Armor is
split into shield, helmet, gloves, boots, etc.

I'd propose splitting WEAPON into
SWORD (long, short, broad, etc.)
KNIFE (knives and daggers etc.)
POLE (pole arms, lances, etc.) /* question: do these give you a longer
attack range, i.e. one or two squares?  IMO they sh/could...)
OTHER (axes, maces, clubs, etc.) /* better name for these? */

The armor is very detailed, weapon only has bow/arrow split out atm.
THis would make the definitions more consistent.  And easier to
implement for autopickup :)

>>

      Maybe even get more detailed, but at that point the functionality should

     >>

      come from search-items since that takes game-time.  Just grabbing one

     >>

      type of thing shouldn't take time, sorting for something should.

     >

     >

      Really, this is a matter of playability and fun.  In theory, any amount

     >

     of choosing on any criteria should take time.  IF there is a pile of 20

     >

     items, and you only want to pick up 5 of those, it should realistically

     >

     take some time to pick those out.  And while many items group together

     >

     into large sums, in reality, they would probably be scattered apart - that

     >

     500 gp wouldn't be a nice pile, but rather scattered all over the area in

     >

     single coin pieces in most cases.

I agree with this, but seeign a big pile of stuff and jsut grabbing
arrows and money is pretty quick.  When you get to types of arrows or
specific coins or gems, then it should take time.  I think this is a
good general rule that I'll stick to for the autopickup.

>>

      Also, can I get read-only CVS access on SF?  I don't need write, I don't

     >>

      know how much I'll contribute, and I can submit a lot as patches if

     >>

      someone's willing to apply them.

     >

     >

      Look at the notes on sourceforge - it has directions on setting up

     >

     your CVS stuff (anyone who wants it gets read-only access to all sourceforge

     >

     stuff, because everything is set up that way).

     ...
I'll look through the docs.  The thing is I need :ext: cvs read-only
because I'm firewalled and the pserver port is blocked.

Thanks,
Nils.