Profile for spyderbytes
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Displayed name | spyderbytes |
| Member number | 4180 |
| Title | Shock Trooper |
| Postcount | 200 |
| Homepage | |
| Registered | Wednesday, March 31 2004 08:00 |
Recent posts
Pages
| Author | Recent posts |
|---|---|
| HELP!!! in Blades of Avernum | |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4180
|
written Thursday, April 15 2004 19:56
Profile
Please don't be insulted that I'm asking this. I just think it has to be something quite basic. Do you have something like: at the top of your town script? You have to tell the interpreter what kind of script this is and where the body of the script begins. You might try posting the full script here to see if any of us can spot problems... -spyderbytes EDIT: You solved it while I was typing. Good. :) [ Thursday, April 15, 2004 19:57: Message edited by: spyderbytes ] -------------------- -spyderbytes Posts: 200 | Registered: Wednesday, March 31 2004 08:00 |
| Alternate transportation? in Blades of Avernum Editor | |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4180
|
written Thursday, April 15 2004 19:44
Profile
About the only way I can think to do it that would even come close to being easy is to replace the graphic for either horses or boats... but then you have an unsupported hack with the same old transportation that just has a different picture pasted on it. :) You could probably "fake" it fairly easily by asking the player for a destination, putting up a dialog describing the trip, and then just moving the party to the new town. You'd essentially have no outdoors whatsoever, though, that way (assuming players can use your transportation anytime they please). Off the top of my head, I really can't think of a good way to fake a full-fledged transportation mode in BoA. I'll give it some more thought, though... -spyderbytes -------------------- -spyderbytes Posts: 200 | Registered: Wednesday, March 31 2004 08:00 |
| Alternate transportation? in Blades of Avernum | |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4180
|
written Thursday, April 15 2004 19:44
Profile
About the only way I can think to do it that would even come close to being easy is to replace the graphic for either horses or boats... but then you have an unsupported hack with the same old transportation that just has a different picture pasted on it. :) You could probably "fake" it fairly easily by asking the player for a destination, putting up a dialog describing the trip, and then just moving the party to the new town. You'd essentially have no outdoors whatsoever, though, that way (assuming players can use your transportation anytime they please). Off the top of my head, I really can't think of a good way to fake a full-fledged transportation mode in BoA. I'll give it some more thought, though... -spyderbytes -------------------- -spyderbytes Posts: 200 | Registered: Wednesday, March 31 2004 08:00 |
| HELP!!! in Blades of Avernum Editor | |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4180
|
written Thursday, April 15 2004 19:33
Profile
They covered the obvious, but if you want to make SURE whether your state 10 is ever being called or not, you can always put something like: message_dialog("Yep, it's being called...", ""); as the first line of the state. If you don't see the dialog, it's not making it to your script. -spyderbytes -------------------- -spyderbytes Posts: 200 | Registered: Wednesday, March 31 2004 08:00 |
| HELP!!! in Blades of Avernum | |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4180
|
written Thursday, April 15 2004 19:33
Profile
They covered the obvious, but if you want to make SURE whether your state 10 is ever being called or not, you can always put something like: message_dialog("Yep, it's being called...", ""); as the first line of the state. If you don't see the dialog, it's not making it to your script. -spyderbytes -------------------- -spyderbytes Posts: 200 | Registered: Wednesday, March 31 2004 08:00 |
| 1 Character Party with 4 People In in Blades of Avernum Editor | |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4180
|
written Thursday, April 15 2004 15:00
Profile
Assuming I'm understanding the intended implementation, yes, that should be possible (if somewhat "messy")... the caveat that springs to mind being that you'll eat up your available dialog nodes very quickly if you do too much of that. :) Used sparingly, however, I think it could be quite effective. -spyderbytes -------------------- -spyderbytes Posts: 200 | Registered: Wednesday, March 31 2004 08:00 |
| 1 Character Party with 4 People In in Blades of Avernum | |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4180
|
written Thursday, April 15 2004 15:00
Profile
Assuming I'm understanding the intended implementation, yes, that should be possible (if somewhat "messy")... the caveat that springs to mind being that you'll eat up your available dialog nodes very quickly if you do too much of that. :) Used sparingly, however, I think it could be quite effective. -spyderbytes -------------------- -spyderbytes Posts: 200 | Registered: Wednesday, March 31 2004 08:00 |
| bug, bad docs, or gotcha? in Blades of Avernum Editor | |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4180
|
written Thursday, April 15 2004 01:27
Profile
Agreed, Drakefyre. It's not that there are that many times I end up iterating the group (mostly when I'm just being fiddly about where they are for a cutscene and such--in a neat little row starting from a particular loc). I probably wouldn't have discovered this at all if I hadn't been working on a, well, I guess you'd call it a trap, that has some rather, well, I guess you'd call it odd, behavior. :D I was testing what happens if players are both stupid and unlucky, and all but one of the characters ended up dying... before the trap was going through a final iteration to turn the thumbscrews a bit more. :eek: :eek: I'm toning the worst case down a tad... -spyderbytes -------------------- -spyderbytes Posts: 200 | Registered: Wednesday, March 31 2004 08:00 |
| bug, bad docs, or gotcha? in Blades of Avernum | |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4180
|
written Thursday, April 15 2004 01:27
Profile
Agreed, Drakefyre. It's not that there are that many times I end up iterating the group (mostly when I'm just being fiddly about where they are for a cutscene and such--in a neat little row starting from a particular loc). I probably wouldn't have discovered this at all if I hadn't been working on a, well, I guess you'd call it a trap, that has some rather, well, I guess you'd call it odd, behavior. :D I was testing what happens if players are both stupid and unlucky, and all but one of the characters ended up dying... before the trap was going through a final iteration to turn the thumbscrews a bit more. :eek: :eek: I'm toning the worst case down a tad... -spyderbytes -------------------- -spyderbytes Posts: 200 | Registered: Wednesday, March 31 2004 08:00 |
| bug, bad docs, or gotcha? in Blades of Avernum Editor | |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4180
|
written Thursday, April 15 2004 01:10
Profile
I may well just not be thinking of something, but I don't really see how the current behavior of party_size() would be more advantageous than the behavior I expected (that is, seems better to me to know total size of party, not just learn how many are alive and kicking). Not that we're talking a massive number of cycles either way, but I would think a single call to a party_size() (or equivalent that returned what I expected) would certainly incur less overhead than the unnecessary iterations through a loop (which is why I was querying party_size() in the first place :) ). -spyderbytes -------------------- -spyderbytes Posts: 200 | Registered: Wednesday, March 31 2004 08:00 |
| bug, bad docs, or gotcha? in Blades of Avernum | |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4180
|
written Thursday, April 15 2004 01:10
Profile
I may well just not be thinking of something, but I don't really see how the current behavior of party_size() would be more advantageous than the behavior I expected (that is, seems better to me to know total size of party, not just learn how many are alive and kicking). Not that we're talking a massive number of cycles either way, but I would think a single call to a party_size() (or equivalent that returned what I expected) would certainly incur less overhead than the unnecessary iterations through a loop (which is why I was querying party_size() in the first place :) ). -spyderbytes -------------------- -spyderbytes Posts: 200 | Registered: Wednesday, March 31 2004 08:00 |
| bug, bad docs, or gotcha? in Blades of Avernum Editor | |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4180
|
written Thursday, April 15 2004 00:38
Profile
The docs for party_size() simply say "Returns the number of characters in the party." Based on that, and since I can't really be sure of how big a party was brought into my scenario, I've taken to doing something like this: However, say you have a 4-character party, but all of them except, say, character 2 is dead. In that case, party_size() returns 1 (when I expected 4, based on the docs). So my loop runs through once, with character 0, who is dead, and nothing happens. I suppose it's easy enough to work around by always doing: (Or at least I'm presuming char_ok() will return FALSE on a non-existant character... anyone know for sure?) -spyderbytes EDIT: typo in 2nd code block [ Thursday, April 15, 2004 00:42: Message edited by: spyderbytes ] -------------------- -spyderbytes Posts: 200 | Registered: Wednesday, March 31 2004 08:00 |
| bug, bad docs, or gotcha? in Blades of Avernum | |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4180
|
written Thursday, April 15 2004 00:38
Profile
The docs for party_size() simply say "Returns the number of characters in the party." Based on that, and since I can't really be sure of how big a party was brought into my scenario, I've taken to doing something like this: However, say you have a 4-character party, but all of them except, say, character 2 is dead. In that case, party_size() returns 1 (when I expected 4, based on the docs). So my loop runs through once, with character 0, who is dead, and nothing happens. I suppose it's easy enough to work around by always doing: (Or at least I'm presuming char_ok() will return FALSE on a non-existant character... anyone know for sure?) -spyderbytes EDIT: typo in 2nd code block [ Thursday, April 15, 2004 00:42: Message edited by: spyderbytes ] -------------------- -spyderbytes Posts: 200 | Registered: Wednesday, March 31 2004 08:00 |
| Really Minor Bugs in Blades of Avernum | |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4180
|
written Wednesday, April 14 2004 17:45
Profile
Yes, it is possible to succeed at picking a lock without lockpicks, if the difficulty is low enough (in relation to your skill). I've done it... and also had my non-existant lockpicks break. :) -spyderbytes -------------------- -spyderbytes Posts: 200 | Registered: Wednesday, March 31 2004 08:00 |
| 1 Character Party with 4 People In in Blades of Avernum Editor | |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4180
|
written Wednesday, April 14 2004 17:32
Profile
Jeff has said he'll be adding some more advanced string management utility (see this thread). That won't address pronouns, but they can often be sidestepped (even if grammatically uncorrect) with 'them'. If that's too awkward, you could always ask the player for genders at the beginning of the scenario and stuff them into SDFs. I think it's unlikely we'll see changes to character management. That being the case, I personally think your option A, Octavo, is the best approach, especially now that we will soon be able to single party members out by name. And yes, I think your original post covers the available options quite well, unless there's something else I just haven't thought of yet. :) -spyderbytes -------------------- -spyderbytes Posts: 200 | Registered: Wednesday, March 31 2004 08:00 |
| 1 Character Party with 4 People In in Blades of Avernum | |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4180
|
written Wednesday, April 14 2004 17:32
Profile
Jeff has said he'll be adding some more advanced string management utility (see this thread). That won't address pronouns, but they can often be sidestepped (even if grammatically uncorrect) with 'them'. If that's too awkward, you could always ask the player for genders at the beginning of the scenario and stuff them into SDFs. I think it's unlikely we'll see changes to character management. That being the case, I personally think your option A, Octavo, is the best approach, especially now that we will soon be able to single party members out by name. And yes, I think your original post covers the available options quite well, unless there's something else I just haven't thought of yet. :) -spyderbytes -------------------- -spyderbytes Posts: 200 | Registered: Wednesday, March 31 2004 08:00 |
| Upcoming System Changes in Blades of Avernum Editor | |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4180
|
written Wednesday, April 14 2004 15:10
Profile
As we say here in the South *clears throat*, YEEEEEEEEEHAWWWW! :D I'm especially looking forward to the string manipulation calls. In addition to the intended purpose, I've wished for the capability append_number() will give to simplify debugging. ;) And I think I've made my views on the need for append_char_name() clear already. :rolleyes: -spyderybtes -------------------- -spyderbytes Posts: 200 | Registered: Wednesday, March 31 2004 08:00 |
| Upcoming System Changes in Blades of Avernum | |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4180
|
written Wednesday, April 14 2004 15:10
Profile
As we say here in the South *clears throat*, YEEEEEEEEEHAWWWW! :D I'm especially looking forward to the string manipulation calls. In addition to the intended purpose, I've wished for the capability append_number() will give to simplify debugging. ;) And I think I've made my views on the need for append_char_name() clear already. :rolleyes: -spyderybtes -------------------- -spyderbytes Posts: 200 | Registered: Wednesday, March 31 2004 08:00 |
| make npc visible after death? in Blades of Avernum Editor | |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4180
|
written Tuesday, April 13 2004 20:49
Profile
Just off the top of my head... the first thing I'd probably try is to call set_terrain() from the creature's DEAD_STATE to draw a normal wall where it was (if I'm understanding what you're doing). I'm almost positive DEAD_STATE is called (just) before the dead creature disappears. -spyderbytes -------------------- -spyderbytes Posts: 200 | Registered: Wednesday, March 31 2004 08:00 |
| make npc visible after death? in Blades of Avernum | |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4180
|
written Tuesday, April 13 2004 20:49
Profile
Just off the top of my head... the first thing I'd probably try is to call set_terrain() from the creature's DEAD_STATE to draw a normal wall where it was (if I'm understanding what you're doing). I'm almost positive DEAD_STATE is called (just) before the dead creature disappears. -spyderbytes -------------------- -spyderbytes Posts: 200 | Registered: Wednesday, March 31 2004 08:00 |
| containers: bug or intended? in Blades of Avernum Editor | |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4180
|
written Tuesday, April 13 2004 13:39
Profile
Hmmm.... I'll do some more checking on my end to make sure there's not just some stupid error lurking in my code. But I can tell you this: if I comment out the te_special_property = 40; // container line in the definition of the original terrain, my code behaves exactly the way I want (except my item is not contained, of course ;) ). When I uncomment it, the party can't move into the square after the set_terrain() call. -spyderbytes EDIT: Harrumph! I decided to try it in 1.0 to see if that made a difference, and lo and behold!, it worked as it should with the original terrain being a container. So I figure, OK, it just got broken somehow in 1.0.1. But then I go back to verify in 1.0.1, and it's working THERE now. :( I haven't changed a line of code since it didn't work, I posted here (after hours of isolating it), then switching to 1.0 and back to 1.0.1. Go figure... [ Tuesday, April 13, 2004 14:10: Message edited by: spyderbytes ] -------------------- -spyderbytes Posts: 200 | Registered: Wednesday, March 31 2004 08:00 |
| containers: bug or intended? in Blades of Avernum | |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4180
|
written Tuesday, April 13 2004 13:39
Profile
Hmmm.... I'll do some more checking on my end to make sure there's not just some stupid error lurking in my code. But I can tell you this: if I comment out the te_special_property = 40; // container line in the definition of the original terrain, my code behaves exactly the way I want (except my item is not contained, of course ;) ). When I uncomment it, the party can't move into the square after the set_terrain() call. -spyderbytes EDIT: Harrumph! I decided to try it in 1.0 to see if that made a difference, and lo and behold!, it worked as it should with the original terrain being a container. So I figure, OK, it just got broken somehow in 1.0.1. But then I go back to verify in 1.0.1, and it's working THERE now. :( I haven't changed a line of code since it didn't work, I posted here (after hours of isolating it), then switching to 1.0 and back to 1.0.1. Go figure... [ Tuesday, April 13, 2004 14:10: Message edited by: spyderbytes ] -------------------- -spyderbytes Posts: 200 | Registered: Wednesday, March 31 2004 08:00 |
| containers: bug or intended? in Blades of Avernum Editor | |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4180
|
written Tuesday, April 13 2004 12:56
Profile
This is a bit complicated to explain, so bear with me. :) I've created a custom terrain that's a "container" (in that it hides something else in its location). To simplify things (and keep from giving away too much of my plot), let's say that the very act of searching this container destroys it and turns it into a different type of (non-container) terrain. If I simplify this a bit more and make the original terrain NOT a container, I can get the basic behavior I want: I can block the party from entering the square until after they search it, then call set_terrain to swap to what I want there after the container is gone. After that, the party can freely walk through the space (as long as my terrain script says they can). However, as soon as I make the original terrain a container, the party can't enter the square after the set_terrain call replaces it with a non-container, even if the script explicitly calls block_entry(0) to let them. IOW, once you place a container in a square, that square is apparently blocked to entry by the party forever and eternity after that, even if you change the terrain on the square to NOT a container and specifically grant access to the square in a script. I can script around it (by leaving the original terrain not a container and just putting the item I wanted it to contain in inventory when the party searches the square), but it doesn't seem like correct behavior, to me. -spyderbytes -------------------- -spyderbytes Posts: 200 | Registered: Wednesday, March 31 2004 08:00 |
| containers: bug or intended? in Blades of Avernum | |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4180
|
written Tuesday, April 13 2004 12:56
Profile
This is a bit complicated to explain, so bear with me. :) I've created a custom terrain that's a "container" (in that it hides something else in its location). To simplify things (and keep from giving away too much of my plot), let's say that the very act of searching this container destroys it and turns it into a different type of (non-container) terrain. If I simplify this a bit more and make the original terrain NOT a container, I can get the basic behavior I want: I can block the party from entering the square until after they search it, then call set_terrain to swap to what I want there after the container is gone. After that, the party can freely walk through the space (as long as my terrain script says they can). However, as soon as I make the original terrain a container, the party can't enter the square after the set_terrain call replaces it with a non-container, even if the script explicitly calls block_entry(0) to let them. IOW, once you place a container in a square, that square is apparently blocked to entry by the party forever and eternity after that, even if you change the terrain on the square to NOT a container and specifically grant access to the square in a script. I can script around it (by leaving the original terrain not a container and just putting the item I wanted it to contain in inventory when the party searches the square), but it doesn't seem like correct behavior, to me. -spyderbytes -------------------- -spyderbytes Posts: 200 | Registered: Wednesday, March 31 2004 08:00 |
| 1 Character Party with 4 People In in Blades of Avernum Editor | |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4180
|
written Monday, April 12 2004 23:12
Profile
quote:One final point, and then I really will hush and work on my own scenario (which I've been avoiding because I haven't come up with a good enough puzzle for the spot I'm at ;) ): That's not generally what I do, especially if there's an easy way to get a new character to the recommended level (as in the built-in character editor in BoA :) ). I create a brand-spanking new character/party that, from what I know (based on reading the designer's description and Read Me), fits into the scenario's premise. I just want to be able to choose name, race and gender when I do. As a player, that doesn't seem too much to ask for my end of the contract of trusting you, as a designer, to provide me with adequate enjoyment for the hours' of attention I give your scenario. :) -spyderbytes -------------------- -spyderbytes Posts: 200 | Registered: Wednesday, March 31 2004 08:00 |