On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 07:29, James Paige <[email protected]> wrote:
> I used to keep branches short because I was afraid of merge conflicts. > > But now it is a habit drilled into me by work. > > If a branch isn't ready to merge in 48 hours, I probably have a scope > creep problem > > If a branch isn't ready to merge in a week or two I shouldn't have even > bothered creating it, because it isn't likely to land ever > Hahah, I have so many branches that are many years old but I haven't given up on, I do actually finish one from time to time. The one I'm working on now was started over 2 years ago. Some of the major ones I try to rebase onto wip every year or two. I probably have close to 100 which I intend to eventually finish and merge. Some are actually finished, just not tested. Others... for example this cleanup of Game and Custom's startup code I did 9 years ago can't realistically be merged, but looks nice, I might want to take some ideas and code from it. And this 6+ year old branch of innumerable misc changes I just tried to rebase conflicted in 50 different files!!! I try to split things up better these days... > > Not hard and fast rules, just my rules of thumb :D > > On Fri., Jan. 28, 2022, 9:39 a.m. Ralph Versteegen, <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I really wish I could be like that! I really want reduce the number of >> branches of unfinished features I have. I have a number in mind after >> Ichorescent. >> I've finished with battle system changes for the moment, if you want to >> do anything. >> >> >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 at 16:53, James Paige <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> No, I don't have any un-pushed code right now, so you are free to make >>> changes without worrying about conflicts. >>> I keep my branches short and merge to main often :D >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 7:40 PM Ralph Versteegen <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 at 09:52, James Paige <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu., Jan. 27, 2022, 8:40 a.m. Ralph Versteegen, < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 at 01:07, James Paige <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu., Jan. 27, 2022, 4:34 a.m. Ralph Versteegen, < >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 at 14:56, James Paige <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 6:49 PM Ralph Versteegen < >>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 at 13:49, James Paige < >>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So I do have a few other changes related to this one planned. >>>>>>>>>>> * An option to make heroes controlled by (random) AI >>>>>>>>>>> * A concept of "traitor" which will affect targeting classes >>>>>>>>>>> when an attacker is targeting >>>>>>>>>>> * A concept of "turncoat" which will affect targetting classes >>>>>>>>>>> when an target is being targeted >>>>>>>>>>> * Attacks that can turn these effects on and off or >>>>>>>>>>> set-to-default >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So an enemy with all 3 of Controllable, Traitor, and Turncoat >>>>>>>>>>> would function as a hero for that one battle. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> To simulate a classic "Confuse" status, you would have an attack >>>>>>>>>>> that turns Controllable off, and traitor on, but don't touch >>>>>>>>>>> turncoat. Then >>>>>>>>>>> to end that status, use an attack that sets Controllable and >>>>>>>>>>> Turncoat back >>>>>>>>>>> to default. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I was hoping this meant you were going down this direction :) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure whether "Traitor" is proposed to swap foes and >>>>>>>>>> allies of a target, or just makes everyone count as a foe. Those are >>>>>>>>>> two >>>>>>>>>> different ways that you might want a Confused status to work, and it >>>>>>>>>> seems >>>>>>>>>> that these bits would only allow one or the other. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What I was thinking was to give each combatant a team (default 1 >>>>>>>>>> for heroes, 2 for enemies) and an "acting" team. A target is >>>>>>>>>> considered an >>>>>>>>>> ally by an attacker if their team is the same as the attacker's >>>>>>>>>> acting >>>>>>>>>> team, else they're a foe. Also team 0 could mean "independent", with >>>>>>>>>> no >>>>>>>>>> allies. You probably wouldn't use more than a third team, for >>>>>>>>>> "Nature", say >>>>>>>>>> when a clan of hyenas opportunistically attack while you're fighting >>>>>>>>>> someone else). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So Confuse to make someone attack anyone indiscriminately would >>>>>>>>>> change their acting team to 0 (so two confused targets still hit each >>>>>>>>>> other), and to swap sides you'd change their acting team (although >>>>>>>>>> now I >>>>>>>>>> realise that means the attack would need to be specific to use by >>>>>>>>>> heroes or >>>>>>>>>> enemies, unless there was an attack bit like "swap target's acting >>>>>>>>>> team" >>>>>>>>>> that just set it to the attacker's). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Maybe I've overcomplicated it again, while still not adding all >>>>>>>>>> that much utility/flexibility (really should work on allowing script >>>>>>>>>> hooks >>>>>>>>>> for things like this) vs just adding a third Independent bit. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yeah, I think teams will overcomplicate it for now-- and yes, >>>>>>>>> having scripting hooks so people can customize this behavior will be >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> best way to get advanced fancy effects >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I do kinda like the idea of being able to make a confused enemy >>>>>>>>> target all, rather than only the opposite side, but I'll have to >>>>>>>>> think if >>>>>>>>> there is a nice simple way to do that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Going down the route of bitsets then I don't really see another >>>>>>>> option but adding another bitset to make everyone an enemy. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now, I'm not pushing for the team IDs idea, but I just wanted to >>>>>>>> write something about complexity. Say you add a third bit, or even a >>>>>>>> fourth >>>>>>>> ("Foe to all"). I think that arguably two integer-valued settings are >>>>>>>> simpler than 3 bits, because 3 bits is 8 possible combinations, a lot >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> think about. And even an 8-way setting could be simpler to reason about >>>>>>>> than 3 bits if you don't have to think about any interactions. >>>>>>>> Complexity >>>>>>>> of implementation is usually also secondary. >>>>>>>> But in fact after looking at the new version of get_valid_targs I >>>>>>>> realised team IDs would actually have been simpler in implementation >>>>>>>> too. >>>>>>>> The bitsets are more complex... in fact I see some mistakes in the >>>>>>>> code, >>>>>>>> which I'll fix: "Dead-ally (hero only)" and "Dead foe (enemy only)" >>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>> meant to be informative only, to warn that those settings didn't make >>>>>>>> sense >>>>>>>> for enemies/heroes, but not to intentionally restrict the targets. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I was actually considering two more bit states-- "Indiscriminate >>>>>>> Attacker" to attack both sides, and "Tergiversate Target" to be >>>>>>> targeted by >>>>>>> both sides >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Maybe we need to make more frequent releases so that you can outlet >>>>>> your penchant for lexical obscureness elsewise :) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Haha! I cannot question the perspicacity of this suggestion! >>>>> >>>> >>>> James, have you already started adding these bits? Because I was >>>> cleaning up some other code and realised I needed an is_foe function, which >>>> I was going to pull out of get_valid_targs. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Or a classic Berzerk could be implemented with Controllable=Off >>>>>>>>>>> and could end with controllable set to default (this would work for >>>>>>>>>>> heroes, >>>>>>>>>>> but wouldn't do anything meaningful on an enemy) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This should allow a lot of possibilities, and is all pretty easy >>>>>>>>>>> to implement. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And yes, someone could totally fake 5 or 6 heroes in the party >>>>>>>>>>> with this, by using an instead-of-battle script, and adding hero >>>>>>>>>>> enemies to >>>>>>>>>>> the formation with a script before the battle starts. Definitely >>>>>>>>>>> not ideal, >>>>>>>>>>> but fine if people want to try it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Actually increasing the size of the active party > 4 and >>>>>>>>>>> increasing the number of enemies in a formation > 8 is something I >>>>>>>>>>> definite;ly want to do, but it will require lots and lots of >>>>>>>>>>> cleanup, which >>>>>>>>>>> is outside of the scope of what I am trying to do right now. In >>>>>>>>>>> particular, >>>>>>>>>>> there are tons of places where the ID range within the bslot() array >>>>>>>>>>> defines what a BattleSprite Instance does, so the first step of that >>>>>>>>>>> cleanup will probably be to convert all access to bslot() to a set >>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>> accessor functions for heroes, enemies, attack sprites, and weapon >>>>>>>>>>> sprites. >>>>>>>>>>> Then those different ranges can be split apart into different >>>>>>>>>>> arrays, which >>>>>>>>>>> can be dynamically sized when you load a battle formation with 15 >>>>>>>>>>> enemies >>>>>>>>>>> in it, or something like that. But that is for later. I want to >>>>>>>>>>> keep the >>>>>>>>>>> scope of what I am working on broken down into bite-sized >>>>>>>>>>> baby-steps to mix >>>>>>>>>>> a metaphor :D >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I don't think we would want to split bslot() into separate arrays >>>>>>>>>> for heroes and enemies: being able to index across all of them with a >>>>>>>>>> bslot() index is very useful and widely used (eg. targeting) so it >>>>>>>>>> would be >>>>>>>>>> a lot of work to remove that. Why not just add is_hero and is_enemy >>>>>>>>>> attributes. There's a lot of lines of code to change, but each would >>>>>>>>>> then >>>>>>>>>> be an easy change. Could also start using polymorphism. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, you are right. is_hero and is_enemy attributes are much >>>>>>>>> better than what I was thinking of with the accessor functions for >>>>>>>>> bslot. >>>>>>>>> Glad you said it :) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, I do want to remove attacks and weapons from >>>>>>>>>> bslot() and was considering doing it soonish. Almost all of the >>>>>>>>>> BattleSprite data is irrelevant for them, and nearly all of the >>>>>>>>>> advantages >>>>>>>>>> of having them in bslot are (or will be) gone now that battles are >>>>>>>>>> converted to slices. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ah, right! Those only get used in animations, so the slice is all >>>>>>>>> that really matters :) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Fortunately I think the current features I am adding will not >>>>>>>>>>> make any of that later work harder, and might even lead to a little >>>>>>>>>>> helpful >>>>>>>>>>> cleanup. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 8:22 AM Ralph Versteegen < >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Wow! That's not a feature I was expecting to see for a long >>>>>>>>>>>> time. A nice surprise! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I suppose this is particularly useful for giving the player >>>>>>>>>>>> extra actions they can perform in battle. People are going to >>>>>>>>>>>> inevitable >>>>>>>>>>>> think to use it to get around the 4 hero limit, but it seems really >>>>>>>>>>>> problematic for that. Or is time to add team numbers to battles, >>>>>>>>>>>> so you can >>>>>>>>>>>> define which combatants are "foe" or "ally"? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 at 14:01, <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> james >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2022-01-16 17:01:32 -0800 (Sun, 16 Jan 2022) >>>>>>>>>>>>> 39 >>>>>>>>>>>>> New enemy bitset "Controlled by Player" >>>>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>>>> U wip/bmodsubs.bas >>>>>>>>>>>>> U wip/enemyedit.bas >>>>>>>>>>>>> U wip/loading.rbas >>>>>>>>>>>>> U wip/udts.bi >>>>>>>>>>>>> U wip/whatsnew.txt >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ohrrpgce mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> Ohrrpgce mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> Ohrrpgce mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> Ohrrpgce mailing list >>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Ohrrpgce mailing list >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Ohrrpgce mailing list >>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Ohrrpgce mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Ohrrpgce mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Ohrrpgce mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Ohrrpgce mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ohrrpgce mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ohrrpgce mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org >> > _______________________________________________ > Ohrrpgce mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org >
_______________________________________________ Ohrrpgce mailing list [email protected] http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org
