[CF-Devel] New armour case

[dnh]

This I to would also like, but looking through the code, your idea would
be very hard to do compared to mine. If you want to do that.. I would be
most happy, OTOH I will add the new case if you don't. My major concern is
if people have a real problem with this.

dnh

On Tue, 22 May 2001, Mark Wedel wrote:

>
     
      On Wed, 23 May 2001, dnh wrote:
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
      > Is there any major objections to me making a new case light_armour and
     
     >
     
      > moving bracers and girdles into it. Then allowing ruggilli and Q's to
     
     >
     
      > wear light armour only. The only real gains are, up to 50% acid resistance
     
     >
     
      > or +1 magic, +2 str and con and for ruggilli plus an extra 30 to fire
     
     >
     
      > (which it doesn't really need).
     
     >
     
      >
     
     >
     
      > I feel looking at the body shape of the Q that is is both acceptable and
     
     >
     
      > fun. The beholders and fireborn would not be able to wear any of this
     
     >
     
      > though.
     
     >
     
      >
     
     >
     
      > It has also been mentioned that some races, in particular beholders,
     
     >
     
      > should be able to wear more than two rings. I put that up to
     
     >
     
      > consideration.
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
       Rather than make another general case, I would much rather there be
     
     >
     
      specific yes/no case for item types, and not just general objects.
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
       For example, being able to give the can_use_shield as a specific
     
     >
     
      granularity would be nice (I would think that if Q's can use swords,
     
     >
     
      they should have this).
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
       Likewise with can_use_bracers, can_use_boots, ... and so on.
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
       I would rather go this specific (1 item type) case than go for a
     
     >
     
      sort of general approach which we'll probably say pretty quickly
     
     >
     
      still isn't good enough.
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
       I don't want to get into particular races at this point - I'm more interested
     
     >
     
      in getting an implementation that we will be happy with for a long time.
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
       Which, if we take the above a bit further, perhaps a more general approach
     
     >
     
      could be called for (instead of using 20 can_use flags), have item_allowed and
     
     >
     
      item_denied fields, ie, for a Q:
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
      item_allowed	all
     
     >
     
      item_denied	armor, boots, helmet, rings
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
       Where as something like the fireborn may have something like:
     
     >
     
      item_allowed	ring,scroll,wand,potion,rod
     
     >
     
      item_denied	all
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
       Fortunately, players don't equip/unequip stuff all that often, so parsing
     
     >
     
      such a form shouldn't be too costly (and if really desired, it could be made
     
     >
     
      so that it is only parse at load up or in major changes, and we just have a
     
     >
     
      bit field for all the object types, with 1/0 values if the player can use the
     
     >
     
      item or not).
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
       This method is a bit more work, although I'm not precisely how hard, but
     
     >
     
      has the advantage that it allows as much flexibility as we want - if new
     
     >
     
      item type is added in the future, don't need to worry about the can_use
     
     >
     
      flag - just need to update the parsing routine which will almost
     
     >
     
      certainly be easier (and plus, with the default cases, may not even
     
     >
     
      need to modify monsters/players much).
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
       Note having item_denied by the default (since it makes sense for most
     
     >
     
      monsters) works out best, but most players would have item_allowed all.
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
       Just my not so random thoughts.
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
      _______________________________________________
     
     >
     
      crossfire-devel mailing list
     
     >
     
     
      crossfire-devel at lists.real-time.com
      
      
     >
     
     
      https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/crossfire-devel
      
      
     >