13 Jul, 2007, Darmond wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
ok first off greetings and salutations I know I dont talk much lol mostly buisy with my fiance but she wanted me to start work on the mud. any ways as the title says I am trying to reverse the scale of how armour works basacoly make it so -100 sucks and is bad and 100 is good and so that when you wear armour it adds to your score instead of subtracts it. any ways problem here is I managed to change that it was simpole just changed the - in the wear armour fucntcion to a + and did the opposit in remove armour. ok that worked BUT whenever someone loggs off there armour LOWERS normaly to about 0 or 1 when they log back on which causes there AC to go even lower when they remove there EQ this in general is bad I find but dont have a clue where to start looking I dont know why its even doing this I have tryed to find it but can not I will be happy if anybody can help even just giveing me a place to look for the problem because this one realy baffles me
13 Jul, 2007, Zeno wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
You could just change it so AC is displayed positive, but it is still the exact same code. Then you won't run into any problems.
13 Jul, 2007, mann_jess wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
Zeno said:
You could just change it so AC is displayed positive, but it is still the exact same code. Then you won't run into any problems.

But then that'll make the code confusing… Try one of two things:
* One, take a look into when the player logs off… debug there by placing checks at various points to see when the player's ac drops, and then correct the "problem" there.
* Two, take a look into when the player logs in… there it would be easy to simply re-calculate and apply the armor from the equipment they're wearing, if it's not being done already. If it is, debug it to find out why it's not working.

Best of Luck,
-Jess
13 Jul, 2007, Zeno wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
I don't see how it would make the code confusing. You wouldn't change any of the code. Just write a new function to take the current AC and change it so it displays the way you want. Then simply find places AC is displayed to players and call the function there. Write a few comments so you know what it's doing.
13 Jul, 2007, kiasyn wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
That would make the code confusing, having it displayed different from hwo it actually is.
13 Jul, 2007, KaVir wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
Darmond said:
any ways as the title says I am trying to reverse the scale of how armour works basacoly make it so -100 sucks and is bad and 100 is good and so that when you wear armour it adds to your score instead of subtracts it.


Why, out of interest? You realise it'll be counter-intuitive to anyone from a D&D or Diku background, and will likely confuse a lot of players?
13 Jul, 2007, Hades_Kane wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
It might be counter intiutive from someone from a Diku background, but not necessarily a D&D background. In my experience, most people familiar with D&D are now more familiar with positive AC being better.

Despite that, however, I would recommend changing the name of "AC" if you decide to change it to a positive or to display it as a positive, for the reasons KaVir mentioned. Since AC in Diku is effectively evade, call it evade, evasion, defense, etc. and then that will be less confusing overall. Higher Evade = better evade chance… very simple.
13 Jul, 2007, Darmond wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
ok first to answer zeno's part I cant just rename it because I have already altered my battle function to work on a posative scale *something I wanted to do* so now I have to make armour fallow that trend cant just have it as a negative

as for makeing it confuseing thats not likely as Kane pointed out I also am not catering to the normal D&D or Diku crowed in fact I am moveing away from D&D and makeing my own game lol I will possaboly be renameing AC later but as it stands now it actualy dose function as armour cas I have edited it already in the fighting code to do as such ;) but it has the wierd glitch I mentioned with AC lowering any ways thanks for your input so far its been very helpfull I wont turn down more imput on this subject because I might very well need it but for now I got to run off to work and serve about 1000 more people food and try not to go crazy and beat them to death with a spachala


Sincerly
Darmond the master alchamist
and crazy spachala wielding teryakie cook
13 Jul, 2007, kiasyn wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
having it negative will be counter-intuitive to WoW players, etc :)
13 Jul, 2007, Hades_Kane wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
Darmond said:
I will possaboly be renameing AC later but as it stands now it actualy dose function as armour cas I have edited it already in the fighting code to do as such ;)


Seeing as how stock Diku treats Armor Class as evade, and D&D treats Armor Class as evade… it was already set in the fighting code to actually function as armor class. So, I suppose I'm not really seeing your meaning here…
13 Jul, 2007, KaVir wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
kiasyn said:
having it negative will be counter-intuitive to WoW players, etc :)


But he's not running a WoW derivative, nor will many of the players connecting to his game expect it to work like WoW.

Don't get me wrong, I really dislike the way armour works in Diku and D&D - and I can certainly understand someone wanting to improve it. It's just that I don't see how this proposal adds anything, other than being different for the sake of being different (and in a way that may cause confusion).
13 Jul, 2007, Conner wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
Hades_Kane said:
It might be counter intiutive from someone from a Diku background, but not necessarily a D&D background. In my experience, most people familiar with D&D are now more familiar with positive AC being better.


Only those D&D players who have only played 3rd edition. :tongue:

kiasyn said:
having it negative will be counter-intuitive to WoW players, etc :)


Now there's a useless & irrelevant argument. :rolleyes:

KaVir said:
Don't get me wrong, I really dislike the way armour works in Diku and D&D - and I can certainly understand someone wanting to improve it. It's just that I don't see how this proposal adds anything, other than being different for the sake of being different (and in a way that may cause confusion).


I'd argue that it's his game and if he wants to change it to a form that makes more sense to him, more power to him.
With that said, I'd agree that just changing AC to being reversed from the default rather than actually changing it in a substantial way really doesn't seem to serve much purpose and will probably be confusing to anyone who recogonizes the codebase as diku derived and expects it to function as other diku derived muds do.

Darmond said:
ok first off greetings and salutations I know I dont talk much lol mostly buisy with my fiance but she wanted me to start work on the mud. any ways as the title says I am trying to reverse the scale of how armour works basacoly make it so -100 sucks and is bad and 100 is good and so that when you wear armour it adds to your score instead of subtracts it. any ways problem here is I managed to change that it was simpole just changed the - in the wear armour fucntcion to a + and did the opposit in remove armour. ok that worked BUT whenever someone loggs off there armour LOWERS normaly to about 0 or 1 when they log back on which causes there AC to go even lower when they remove there EQ this in general is bad I find but dont have a clue where to start looking I dont know why its even doing this I have tryed to find it but can not I will be happy if anybody can help even just giveing me a place to look for the problem because this one realy baffles me


Have you looked at the fix_char code in handler.c yet?
13 Jul, 2007, kiasyn wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
Conner said:
kiasyn said:
having it negative will be counter-intuitive to WoW players, etc :)


Now there's a useless & irrelevant argument. :rolleyes:


almost anyone who has mudded these days has also played wow.
13 Jul, 2007, Conner wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
kiasyn said:
Conner said:
kiasyn said:
having it negative will be counter-intuitive to WoW players, etc :)


Now there's a useless & irrelevant argument. :rolleyes:


almost anyone who has mudded these days has also played wow.


If you say so. I know of quite a few people who've played muds that still haven't played WoW, or EQ, or … including myself. Besides, among those who do play MMORPGs, they usually like to tout that their MMORPGs are not the same as MUDs and therefore they shouldn't be expecting a mud to match what they're used to at their favorite mmo. :tongue:
13 Jul, 2007, kiasyn wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
Kavir said:
Why, out of interest? You realise it'll be counter-intuitive to anyone from a D&D or Diku background, and will likely confuse a lot of players?


neither should anyone from a diku or D&D background.
13 Jul, 2007, KaVir wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
kiasyn said:
Kavir said:
Why, out of interest? You realise it'll be counter-intuitive to anyone from a D&D or Diku background, and will likely confuse a lot of players?


neither should anyone from a diku or D&D background.


…neither should they what?
13 Jul, 2007, KaVir wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
Conner said:
I'd argue that it's his game and if he wants to change it to a form that makes more sense to him, more power to him.


Certainly - but he asked for input, so I gave mine.
14 Jul, 2007, Conner wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
Conner said:
I'd argue that it's his game and if he wants to change it to a form that makes more sense to him, more power to him.


Certainly - but he asked for input, so I gave mine.


Well, there is that. :lol:
14 Jul, 2007, Tyche wrote in the 19th comment:
Votes: 0
Hades_Kane said:
In my experience, most people familiar with D&D are now more familiar with positive AC being better.


When did they change that?
14 Jul, 2007, Darmond wrote in the 20th comment:
Votes: 0
lol in third eddition and i beleve I already said I outright changed the fight function changeing AC is just one of my final steps to altering/changeing the battle system compleatly my mud eventualy wont even resembole a diku dirivitive I beleve and as for why I am changeing it

I have a system already writen down on paper it works farly well *has a few bugs* but in the end is something I find supperior to most D&D based dice games *this is a personal feeling though* this system involes evade and armour and might be complicated by some others might have seen it before I dont know if you wish to know more I can attempt to post the basics of my system here *not the code but how its sapost to function* I just wanted to let you all know I am not just changeing it just to be difernt nore have I just altered the AC function but rather I have altered how AC works compleatly as well as the battle usage for it


any ways as I said if you want to see what I am trying to create I will be happy to share it maybe someone will find it usefull maybe someone will find a better way to do it *in which case I hope you share as I beleve strongly in shareing as it benifits all of us*
0.0/20