[Xconq-general] Re: XCAngband

[Elijah M. <eli...@ya...>]

> Sounds like I'll have to actually PLAY Angband one
> of these days!

I never have--but I'm a Nethack addict and you've seen
one rogue-like, you've seen them all, I've heard.

> 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).

Absolutely.  The detonate command, for instance, makes
useful stop-gap until a 'use' command is implemented
(With all the complexity it'll bring).  Now, I don't
expect all the tables you've listed to make it into
the next update, I'll settle for the first half...  In
all seriousness, I think we're going to need a new
feature request category so that we can start filling
it with XCAngband features (Though if we're going to
use a different name for this aspect of XConq, I'd
like to call it GRUE, for Generic Reprogrammable
Universe Engine, just because I always thought that'd
make a good name for a system, and because I'm a
Zork-addict, as well).   

What I like about doing this in XConq (And what makes
it more than just an idle project showing XConq's
malleability) is that you can have different levels of
interaction.  Instead of just wandering around
adventuring, you could conceivably become king,
ordering around armies of units to conquer other
towns.  You could be an adventurer, a general or a
king and have different gameplay with each (Or be
each, at different times, in the same game).  There'd
need to be an adds-control-range unit-property for the
king's throne, so that if he chooses to go off and
adventure he has to leave his kingdom in the control
of his vizier (Oh my, I suppose it could also be his
dastardly brother who, along with an evil sheriff,
squeeze the local townspeople until the kingdom is in
dire straits.)

> 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.

I've got a pretty crude one in Opal.  The AI hates it,
but it's got Power Word Kill, Divinations of various
types, Charm spells, all sorts of stuff.

> 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.

Acknowledged.  I still try various tricks, but the
poor AI just doesn't know which way is up in a lot of
these games.  That's not a knock against the AI, it's
just that games like Knightmare and Opal are so much
more complex and feature-rich than the Standard Game.

> 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!

I've gone through phases of aversion with jillions of
almost identical units.  Right now, I don't have the
juice to do it (Though scripting would help
immensely).  I have experimented with an interesting
attribute workaround that you can see in opal-rules.g.
 I define groups as Weak-Attack-Units,
Weak-Defense-Units, Strong-Attack-Units, etc. and this
gives them a semblance of attributes (Damage is
mitigated against high-armor units,
powerful-attack-units have higher hit-chances against
lesser units, that kind of thing).  I even have
cold-resistant and death-resistant groups that take no
damage from cold-spell-types or death-spell-types. 
It's a workaround, but it allows you to define
general, attribute-like principles.



		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! 
http://my.yahoo.com