[CF-Devel] CF object structure (was RE: brief introduction)
Tim Rightnour
root at garbled.net
Sat Oct 6 01:23:24 CDT 2001
On 05-Oct-01 Andreas Vogl wrote:
>
Well, I know: Probably most of you will now think that's crazy
>
because it's way too much work. But if it is - Then maybe we should
>
just stick to what we've got and try to make the best out of it?
Personally.. all I want is a Class/Subclass *field* in the objects that I can
use to categorize them. I don't fully comprehend what Mark really wants, or
what the benefit for it is, but I'm just trying to throw this out and get a
feel for what people want with it.
I guess my point is this. Mark's idea seems logical, from a structure point of
view, your idea does as well, but involves c++, which I have an inherent hatred
for ;) What I don't really see, is what the payoff is for either. Basically,
all I want to be able to do is classify items better.. so.. my vision is this:
Item Type: Food, Furniture, Ring, Amulet, Armor, Weapon
Class: Sword, Axe, Dagger, polearm, couch, chair, fountain, etc
Subclass: slash/bash/stab
Flags: Drinkable, two-handed, throwable, sittable(?), giant-only, dwarf-only,
etc
I don't need a whole inheratance structure.. all I want to do is be able to
specify with more precision what an object is. For example, if a fountain was
marked: Furniture, fountain, drinkable. Then it wouldn't be difficult to make
drinkable fountains, or reusable chests.
I'll admit, both your and Mark's idea might make the code a bit easier to read,
but looks like it will be a significant rewrite of the engine. I think new
fields could be added without much pain, and made optional, as the archetypes
were caught up. My way isn't ideal, but gets me the functionality I want,
without rewriting half the engine. (rototill usually means more bugs too)
---
Tim Rightnour <
root at garbled.net
>
NetBSD: Free multi-architecture OS
http://www.netbsd.org/
NetBSD supported hardware database:
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/cgi-bin/hw.cgi
More information about the crossfire
mailing list