Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Rabiat

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
Off-topic (Locked) / Re: The Obscure Games Thread!
« on: May 19, 2013, 12:27:16 AM »
Anyone here play artificial life games/simulations? My partner is a huge fan of AquaZone, what with its surprisingly accurate genetics, but everything since has just been "ooh look at the pretty fishes" without thinking about, you know, biology.

I wasted way too much (cpu) time in the nineties playing Tierra and Core War. Although there's a definite lack of pretty fishes, generating random programs and watching how they evolve is much like a programmer's fish tank. It's not so much about biology as it is about evolution, but it'll make you think.

Traditional Roguelikes (Turn Based) / Re: Kerkerkruip 7
« on: January 02, 2013, 09:59:07 PM »
Mooi stukje werk, Victor! ;) Thanks for announcing your game here. I'm a fan of both RLs and IF, so this is right up my alley. The tactics and replayability remind me of Desktop Dungeons (a Good Thing™).

I suspect I'll be needing a couple hundred runs to finally beat Malygris. Now if only I had a Glulx interpreter for Android, this would make a great time killer on my daily train rides. Has anyone got it to run on Android? I tried compiling the source to Z8 (to play it in ZMPP), but that fails on some Glulx-only extensions. >:(

Also, I appreciate the RL/IF mix, but I find the single text stream a bit unwieldy. I'm typing status, inventory and remember all the time, then having to type look because the room description is off screen. Have you considered displaying game text/status/memory/inventory in separate screen sections?

Programming / Re: Diagonal Hallways.
« on: July 09, 2011, 11:52:24 AM »
Perhaps JayPC's game doesn't allow diagonal movement, so two diagonally connected floor tiles need to be connected horizontally or vertically?

In that case, using NON's example, reducing the increment of y to .5 would work, except for (nearly) 45 degree slopes.

To guarantee orthogonal connections, you could just generate a map with diagonal connections and run the result through a cellular automaton like this:

Code: [Select]
turn .#  into ..  or .#
     #.       #.     ..


Or, you're calculating slope incorrectly. 17/26 = 0.65 after all, not 1.53. To guarantee connected floor tiles, you don't need a lowest common denominator, you need the slope to be <= 1.0.

I'd be willing to spend more on a good roguelike than the average retail price of good games in other genres (>$20). Some RLs would be a bargain at $100, given the hours of gameplay they've offered me.

Problem is that so many RLs are unfinished and gradually developing products. For the price of an average computer game, most people would expect it to be feature complete, tested, and polished.

Other Announcements / Re: Any complex Roguelikes?
« on: July 05, 2011, 06:53:36 PM »
Depending on what you mean by complex, I'd suggest you try NetHack, ADOM, or Incursion.

Not quite sure which solution to pick. Or maybe a hybrid one: regenerating one-level variant, where a down staircase exists - and take you to another random (first) level ... ? What is your opinion?

I think you can safely discard the infinite persistent dungeon. A one-level regenerating dungeon feels too much like scumming for my taste. An infite regenerating dungeon has the advantage that coding it is almost as easy as a one-level regenerating dungeon. All you have to do is change the level counter if the player takes a staircase. Another advantage is that you could raise the difficulty according to the level counter, by dropping more monsters and traps. I always enjoyed the challenge of playing the ID just to see how deep I could get.

It may be unoriginal, but frankly, your game is too much like ADOM to be called original at this stage. Fortunately, originality isn't in The Roguelike Definition™. ;)

But content-wise, who knows? There are so many content-related paths to take, and so little time. Which one is the most pressing? Beings? Items? Quests? Hand-picked maps? More game mechanics (skills, talents, ...) ? Tweaking and tuning base game rules? Experience?

Here's my vote:
1. Experience and levelling (which implies appropriate monsters for higher level characters);
2. Food is implemented, but there is no food clock yet. It should be relatively easy to add hunger, and corpse eating effects (from eating zombies I figured you have that planned);
3. Add some dungeons and/or maps. Adding an ID would make sense after you have added experience levels. (But, despite the fact that I like ADOM's ID, my general advice to any RL developer would be to not over-expand the game world, even though procedural generation makes it tempting to do so);
4. Add some item types (especially potions and scrolls), spells, and quests;
5. Add some physical effects like teleportation, paralysis, poisoning, perhaps mutations and assign those to monsters and spells.

As for skills, their priority depends on how important you think they are for gameplay. If you decide to add them, consider the 'get skilled at what you train' method versus 'pick a skill to train at level-ups' method. Personally I prefer the former.

I personally think that Experience is the first thing to implement; leveling is an important aspect.

I agree.

The problem is that I am not sure what "achieving a new level" should mean; what values should be raised and by what amount... I am mostly a coder, not a game designer :-(

Coders easily beat designers at quantifying stuff. :) I'd say assign an experience value to a monster, and if the PC kills a monster, add that value to the PC's experience points. Then define a function to calculate the experience level from experience points (most likely you'll want exponential growth). When the PC levels, you could raise HP and one stat (chosen randomly, or biased towards racial predisposition).

A less traditional way to go about it is to define a linear experience level function, and lower the experience points gained from killing monsters as the player levels up. If I'm not mistaken, Angband does this.

Strange. Are you sure it was the exact moster type? For instance, you killed a bat, but the blacksmith might have requested killing a "giant bat" (those are two distinct monsters). The same for rats, "rat" and "giant rat" being different.

You're right, I may have mixed those up.

Cool. Also note that the 'q'uest log should use different text style to indicate a quest that is completed (but not yet rewarded).

Thanks, I now noticed how it works.

Another strange thing happened with the blacksmith quest though. I took the quest, killed the objective (a hobgoblin) in the Generic Dungeon, and went back to the blacksmith to get the reward. Then the quest disappeared from the quest list as expected. After that, I returned to the Generic Dungeon to scum a bit more, and when I killed a rat (not a giant one), I got an unexpected 'quest completed' dialog, returned to the blacksmith, and got another reward in the same game. So somehow the quest is silently re-assigned with a random objective.

Actually, one day, this might happen to be true :) Until then, I will add some "this will end the game!" alert, okay? :)

That depends on how you'd like your new players to think of you. One of the aspects of ADOM that somehow grew on me is how harshly it can treat you if you do something noobish.

A wilderness map with more dungeons would be cool though. ;)

Yes, it is. The disadvantage of having a one-level-only dungeon is balanced by the fact it is regenerated every time you enter it. My goal was not to emulate the Infinite Dungeon: there are some memory and storage issues in Javascript, which is why I do not exactly want the player to store huge amounts of (visited) levels in memory and/or savegames. Yet.

That seems contradictory. An infinitely deep dungeon with regenerated levels requires as much storage as a one-level dungeon which is persistent. I think the ID in ADOM needs to have regenerating levels because TB wanted to put that (+255, 32d128) Game Breaking Hammer of Maxint somewhere really safe. ;)

I'm curious where you will be taking this game. Both content-wise and as a technical challenge against browser/js limitations.

The first time the blacksmith quest failed to complete was when I killed the objective (a bat) somewhere in the Maze. There was no 'quest completed' dialog. The blacksmith quest worked properly on Maze#2 for a goblin. Then, it did not work on Maze#3 for a rat (again, with no dialog). I played a human warrior every time.

The healer's quest did work this time. I got the 'quest completed' dialog as soon as I found the objective. I half expected to finish the quest after I returned the item to the healer. The healer did have a reward when I returned though, so the quest seems to be fixed.

I have to say though, the perfect maze levels are very aggravating. There's far too many dead ends or long twisting tunnels with only two exits, and the location of the down stairs is predictable. Worse, there's often no way around an opponent you can't beat (bears are much beefier than ogres, for instance).

Thanks for adding the confirmation dialog to the up stairs in the village. The message doesn't say what actually happens though. Leaving the village could be understood as 'entering a huge wilderness map', especially since the game looks so much like ADOM.

The village elder quest seems to work fine. I got a 'quest completed dialog' and the elder gave me a proper response when I went back to him.

Is the Generic dungeon supposed to be only one level deep? I can't seem to find the down stairs even if I leave and return.

Hi Ondras,

Just tried your js roguelike and enjoyed it. It's very reminiscent of ADOM. Nice job.

I don't know if this is a bug, but I was unable to finish the village healer's quest and the blacksmith's quest, despite having met the objectives. After receiving both quests I entered the dungeon in the northwest, cleared it, got the village healer's objective, went back to the surface, then went back to the healer, but I was unable to give the item to him. Dropping it, or chatting with the healer didn't work. Also, on the way down, I did what the blacksmith told me, but he just told me to keep trying when I went back to chat to him. Perhaps it doesn't count if you meet the objective somewhere else than the dungeon he tells you about? Or am I doing something wrong? (Using FF 4.0.1. btw)

Also, I would've liked to know beforehand what the upward staircase in the village does. I know, it should be obvious. ;) Being able to confirm that action would be nice though.

Oh, and the ogres in your game are complete wusses compared to their relatives in other RLs. ;)

Other Announcements / Re: Is anyone here blind or semi-blind?
« on: June 02, 2011, 01:21:17 PM »
DoomRL has had a 'blind mode' option for ages. It's supposed to make the game playable with a screen reader, although it doesn't make the game look different to me. I'm guessing that Kornel added that option for a particular blind player. Perhaps you should ask on the Chaosforge forums.

Personally I think roguelikes are still too graphical to be very suitable for blind players. Unless there are commands to describe visible monsters and items (like DoomRL's "x"/"X" commands), autotravel (as in DCSS), and fight monsters with having to know their location/direction. Interactive fiction (with a braille reader or text-to-speech) would be easier to play for blind people.

Programming / Re: Modern Hitman/Spy RL
« on: April 27, 2011, 03:05:42 PM »
Hi Draconis.

I once tried to make a stealth-based RL, but abandoned it because I came to the conclusion my design was fundamentally flawed. I still think a stealth-based RL is a great idea, but I think anyone trying to make one should consider the following problems.

- Sneakers like Thief or Hitman are realtime, while most roguelikes are traditionally turn-based. In turn-based gameplay, the suspense of time-critical decisions is lost.

- Line of sight or field of view in roguelikes is usually symmetric: if you can see something, it can see you. You'll almost certainly have to find ways around this (for instance, the option for the player character to hide in shadows). Also, restricted FOV ('cones') may seem a great idea in theory, but in practice, it can be very annoying.

- Related to this are light sources; if you want tactics to include visibility/light/darkness, there will have to be dynamic light sources.

- Sneakers use sound to convey information. The player can hear guards approach, or give away his location by firing a weapon, for example. Most roguelikes don't have sound support, so noise is ignored altogether, or it is represented visually.

- (Almost?) all roguelikes are grid-based. The grid's coarseness represents a challenge in itself. Something is either in view, or it isn't. It's very hard to represent something partially visible. Also, it's impossible to represent something being between two tiles.

- Related to this are directions. Although it's very well possible to have things point or move in precise angles (i.e. more than just cardinal/ordinal directions), I've never figured out how to represent them nicely. For example, how is the game going to inform the player that a guard moving or looking in a certain direction?

I found that covering or ruling out these problems was a far greater challenge than writing the engine/game itself.

Quote from: Vanguard
Just FYI though, an intelligent AI is very difficult to write.  It might be best to have small ambitions in that department for your first project.

(Most) games don't require 'intelligent' AI, they need an AI that makes the NPCs appear to behave intelligently. Except for pathfinding (graph search), you'll hardly ever come across non-deterministic problems, let alone anything requiring pattern recognition, uncertain reasoning or machine learning. Don't get me wrong, it is a lot of work to design/implement/balance a game AI, but it's not terribly difficult.

Off-topic (Locked) / Re: Digital Rights and Economics
« on: March 28, 2011, 09:11:49 AM »
The modern meaning of 'piracy' was invented specifically to defame (unauthorized) duplication or (unlicensed) broadcasting. It is not synonymous to theft, as duplication doesn't actually deprive another of the thing that was taken. The problem exists because it concerns things that are perfectly duplicable with no damage to the original.

Despite that, I think unauthorized copying of a paid product is (morally) wrong. I agree with the opinion that as a user, you should be paying for a license to use the product. It is right for the people that made the product, to be paid for making it.

My personal opinions are probably easily falsified from an educated point of view on law or economics, of which I have no clue whatsoever. With that as a disclaimer, I think the digital rights lobby and the entertainment industry (not the creators of the product, but those solely involved with law and marketing) are no strangers to shady practices themselves.

For example (AFAIK this applies to at least Western Europe):

  • If you're buying storage media (like a hard drive, a blank DVD or USB flash drives) part of the price is charged as a compensation for the predicted loss of digital rights owners. Although you might use these media exclusively to store backups of your personal files, you're paying for others' unauthorized copying.
  • You may not be in the position to choose whether or not to purchase a product. If you're buying a new PC, for example, you may not be able to opt out of a pre-installed version of Windows, even though you might already have a valid Windows license, and you're scrapping your old system.
  • As a paying consumer, you may still be subjected to preventive DRM measures, without having done anything illegal. I remember Starforce, which secretly installed a device driver for optical drives, with no uninstall option. This comes dangerously close to malware.

These, to me, are plainly unjust and should be as unlawful as what they call 'piracy'.

No. Light by itself doesn't cause permanent damage to the eyes, unless the intensity is extreme (like a laser, or magnified sunlight), or your eyes are extremely susceptible (for lack of pigment or an existing eye condition).

Don't get me wrong, UV and HEV light are known to damage the retina (and it's even possible for the surface of the eyes to get sunburnt), but your eyes will involuntarily prevent overexposure by contracting the pupils and squinting, and any damage will heal over time.

If you're looking for a trustworthy answer though, don't take my word for it, let a doctor have a look at your eyes.

Sorry about that, I'm not a native speaker. I meant to say it's not unusual for it to happen to older people.

Staring at the sunset won't make you go blind or cause permanent black spots. It's normal to see black specks or white circles after overexposure to sunlight, but those should disappear after a couple of minutes.

You should still avoid staring at the sunset though. The eye strain makes you tired, and the brightness makes it harder for your eyes to adjust quickly, which can be dangerous if you're driving. Perhaps keep a pair of sunglasses in the glove compartment.

If you do start seeing black spots permanently, those are usually caused by a shrinking/detaching vitreous (normal in older people) or an inner eye infection (which is dangerous and can lead to blindness), but not by sunlight.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6