|
From: Lincoln P. <sa...@sb...> - 2005-02-08 02:29:35
|
On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 13:34 -0800, Elijah Meeks wrote: > > Now there's an idea I hadn't thought of! Although I > > think that, to be > > realistic, the Corrupted Demon Wizard would have to > > still have some > > thief abilities. > > I'm glad you think it's interesting. I think it's the > only way to have a truly living environment for a > NetHack-ish RPG. (Ya know, I never killed Morgoth, > but I did kill this crazy cleric who stumbled upon the > Unholy Marble of Asmodeus and ended up turning some > town into his own demon-infested land of evil, and I > swear, as soon as I was done killing the last Type VI, > I was going to hunt down Morgoth, but then I heard > some Orc had managed to put together an empire and so, > well, who can resist killing an Orc Warlord?) Sounds like I'll have to actually PLAY Angband one of these days! > > > * occupant affects... > > Baby steps, baby steps. True, but they are important regardless of their size. I don't think you could get your "two-handed sword of eternal destruction +6" to work properly without at least a few of those tables (depending on what the heck a two-handed sword of eternal destruction +6 is). > Just think of what can be > accomplished already: > > 1. You can disguise a magic sword as a normal sword, > by using see-mistake-chance and looks-like. Then you > 'detonate' an identify scroll and it wrecks-type into > an identify spell, which has a 0 see-mistake-chance > for item units (and a 1-turn lifetime). (This implies > the need for a unit property similar to the one we've > been discussing with see-always: (remains-identified > true/false) where when set to true, once the unit is > properly identified, it always is) We can even create > priest units, already, that can recognized cursed > items using this system. Detonating a scroll seems like an awkward solution, but I guess it *is* a solution. > > 2. You can change units upon possession of a new item > and with CxP. I've already been doing this in Knightmare. > > 3. You can cast spells (Build them). I've been working on how to implement a not-quite-so-crude spell system in Knightmare, although I don't have a working version yet. > > So, with that and all the regular game-level stuff > that XConq can do, we already could have a primitive > Angband going. The problems are manifold, of course, > one of which is that the AI would freak out. There > should be an AI call that has it pick up and try out > items, keeping things that make it better (With a > certain bias, so that it doesn't test out the new > dagger it found when it's holding a two-handed sword > of eternal destruction +6). Ever since the Space Civilization project, I've given up on worrying about AI performance when I write games. I find it to be too much of a limiting factor. Some day, we'll have an AI that can adapt to any game we might throw at it, but that day is not in the foreseeable future. > > Once we get the occupant views, I think we should > start it. However, to keep the game honest, I don't > want to try to implement features that require > egregious workarounds. This means no 1000 units when > those units are normal short sword, cursed short > sword, blessed short sword, normal short sword +1, > cursed short sword +1, blessed short sword +1, etc. > The same with level-1-elf-ranger, level-1-elf-wizard, > level-1-elf-cleric. An attribute system is slowly > becoming a glaring necessity (Though, more for > non-Angband clones than anything else). I've been thinking that in Knightmare, if I want to implement knights of multiple races (or simply make it possible to have to fight tougher-than-average orcs), I'd need to write a script to iterate all of the different combinations. I'd certainly prefer to be able to use an attribute system instead! --- Lincoln Peters <sa...@sb...> BOFH excuse #189: SCSI's too wide. |
