Probably there has been some posts before about war machines, but I couldn't find something about chariots.
A few days ago, I was looking at old dark sun rpg books... Why don't we have chariots in game? Is it because that is hard to code?
No commoner PC can have something rather than a kank, erdlu, ... etc.. Chariots for example drawen by two erdlus, carrying just two people, would really be interesting.. What do you think?
There are chariots in game.
But they're also very expensive. You won't see the majority of people making use of them.
If they are the same things I think they are, it would be good to see them not coded as mounts, but rather, actual wagons.
7DV,
There was some discussion about that. Mount-objects vs. Wagon-objects for animal drawn vehicles.
I think the biggest objection to making them wagon objects is that the driver is instantly invulnerable to attack unless the assailant actually "enters" the chariot, which seems pretty unreasonable.
At least as mount-objects, you can "pack" cargo, "hitch" them, "title" them, the animals suffer fatique, they can be stabled safely, and someone can pick you off with arrows while you drive them, and pirate them.
Of course, this may all change with the Dust Cloud's work. :D
Seeker
It's not so much that they are mounts which annoys me, but rather this.
A red chariot walks west, carrying a man in black.
That is not real tight.
In the code, we can add a flag called wagon, in the same manner that mount is currently in. In Move.act, or whatever the file is, we can do this.
if aff_wagon
send_to_room "(mount) rolls west, driven by (PC)."
send_to_char "You drive (mount) west."
ALSO in do_mount
if aff wagon
send_to_room "(PC) climbs into (mount)."
send_to_char "You climb into (mount)."
THere is NO case where this would be hard to implement.
And the realism would be amped. Additionally, on these mounts, the number of passengers could be adjusted. This may be harder to do right. But the first part is in no way difficult.
Also, I would like to see carts, crappy badly-made carts, which one could buy for obviously more than a single mount, but not for that much ... maybe a thousand sids....
I have ridden on a chariot that was a wagon object rather than a mount.
Me too.
Me three. Probably the same one as you guys. However, I didn't just ride in it, I accidently drove it into a barracks. :oops: Hey, it wasn't all my fault! The kank pulling the chariot wouldn't listen, and besides they ought to make barracks doors too small for a wagon to roll on in.
AC
*sigh*
Chariots should not be wagon objects. Get it?
You prefer them to have hit points and suffer the same joys mounts do?
Quote from: "Lazloth"You prefer them to have hit points and suffer the same joys mounts do?
Hmm.. I am also supportive of chariot, but this quote just hinted that it can be very difficult to code.
Sure they better not have hit points, as wagons do, but it is possible to -break- a chariot, whereas it is not in case of wagons. And unlike wagons, chariots can be driven into close combat, and archery works inside of the chariot. So adding all these to make chariot unique might be a little difficult to code.
But really, how nice would it be to see a chariot driven by two erdlus, carrying a militia member and a templar on its back :)
I think chariots should remain as wagons. Not being able to fit multiple people on a chariot is harder to explain than not fitting multiple people on a kank.
Quote from: "spawnloser"I think chariots should remain as wagons. Not being able to fit multiple people on a chariot is harder to explain than not fitting multiple people on a kank.
Not really. Many chariots were single-person.
Quote from: "The7DeadlyVenomz"Quote from: "spawnloser"I think chariots should remain as wagons. Not being able to fit multiple people on a chariot is harder to explain than not fitting multiple people on a kank.
Not really. Many chariots were single=person.
This is Very true, Very very true.
...and kanks are giant ants. A slick shell that only easily lends to sitting in a spot or so. Which do you think would be easier to cram another person on?
I am confused, we seem to be jumping from topic to topic, How did that have anything to do with the fact there were both multiple and single person Chariots?
Quote from: "Krath"I am confused, we seem to be jumping from topic to topic, How did that have anything to do with the fact there were both multiple and single person Chariots?
Venomz believes that chariots should be mounts. Mounts are single person conveyances. The only chariots I have seen in game are wagons, meaning it can carry more than one person.
No, He is upset at this...Read his post again...:
Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2004 3:34 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not so much that they are mounts which annoys me, but rather this.
Code:
A red chariot walks west, carrying a man in black
.
That is not real tight.
In the code, we can add a flag called wagon, in the same manner that mount is currently in. In Move.act, or whatever the file is, we can do this.
Code:
if aff_wagon
send_to_room "(mount) rolls west, driven by (PC)."
send_to_char "You drive (mount) west."
ALSO in do_mount
if aff wagon
send_to_room "(PC) climbs into (mount)."
send_to_char "You climb into (mount)."
THere is NO case where this would be hard to implement.
And the realism would be amped. Additionally, on these mounts, the number of passengers could be adjusted. This may be harder to do right. But the first part is in no way difficult.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is moreso a message system that is upsetting him I think..Now as far as Mounts being Single Person Conveyances I do not know where that came from, Horses are mounts correct? Yet Two people can ride a single horse at a time correct?
It is just your opinion, it can be Either Wagon or Mount. Maybe specialized messages based on the Type of MOUNT or Wagon would be the answer.
Then...why does he argue that there is a problem with chariots being wagons?
Personally, custom messages are awesome...but I'm not sure how they would be coded, considering how the messages come to us, from my understanding, that would be a revamp of the movement code to some extent.
Quote from: "spawnloser"Then...why does he argue that there is a problem with chariots being wagons?
Personally, custom messages are awesome...but I'm not sure how they would be coded, considering how the messages come to us, from my understanding, that would be a revamp of the movement code to some extent.
Spawnloser, nm. Listen, chariots should be mounts if anything
BECAUSE THEY ARE OPEN AIR VESSELS, AND A PERSON SHOULD BE ABLE TO ATTACK YOU WITHOUT GETTING IN THE THING! However, that was not my main point. My main point was that the wagonish thingie I saw in game before was a mount, with the mountish movement message, but it was not described as a mount. I was offering a solution to the cheesy message that would come with the
mount-being-a-vessel idea. If chariotish vessels made of mounts no longer exist, then I think that alone is a mistake, but my entire argument prior to this then becomes invalid.
I can kinda understand your point, Venomz, but consider this. A war chariot should be able to hold four people. A pilot and a couple spearman or archers. How do you explain that when only one person can fit on the thing?
A war chariot for halflings?[/quote]
Why does it have to carry four people? That may be realistic, but it is more realistic for someone to be able to shoot at the chariot rider. Of course, to be perfectly candid about this all, a revamp of the riding and wagon code needs to occur. I certianly think that wagonish items should exist more, and be more prevelant, but that isn't going to happen, so in the end, all this arguing is kinda mote, eh?
The most I can hope for is that if chariots are going to be mounts, that they use my suggestion to make them move viable. Secondly, that if chariots are going to be wagon_items, that they put limits on the number of people capapble of fitting into a room.
*shrug*
Wait, I thought you could attack wagon objects. If chariots were wagon objects, couldn't you just attack the chariot instead of the people inside?
From my understanding, wagons are essentially moving rooms, and I don't think They can be attacked. The wagon object in the room simply provides the door, and the rooms inside are not really any different codewise from any other room. You just keep moving the link to get to these rooms. You cab enter the wagon and start attacking, But I don't think you can attack a wagon. I mean Hoe would that work, Would it have hit points? Would It fight back? I guess the only way it could work is it has a certain number of hit point, and when you manage to hack them away, all to contents spill out to the room the wagon is in. I would think that would be difficult to code, but I'm not sure.
You can attack tents, so the argument that you can't attack a wagon because they're just moving rooms doesn't work.
tents aren't rooms in the same way wagons are rooms.
This is related to the reason you can't quit out in a tent, Ever.
I have always wanted to see sand sleds. Its the equivelant of a wheel barrow but more adapted to the sand of Zalanthas. Pretty much its just a flat surface on two curved sled blades. It would be an object that can be drug, sort of the same way you have to free your hands to lift an object that is to heavy.
This way pulling the sled would leave you unarmed, would cost a good bit of stamina from the weight, but the up side is that it would be a container that could carry much larger laods than a person could normally lift. I can see obsidian miners and foresters profiting greatly from such an item.
Something like....
A bone and wood sandsled is here being held by an obsidian miner.
Look Sled
This sled has been crafted from a single plank of dark hued baobab wood nailed atop two parallel bone sled runners.
Look in sled
Within a bone and wood sandsled you see:
Many chunks of large obsidian
You know just something like that...and it could even leave its own special tracks in the sand behind you..
Many hours ago a sandsled moved west drawn by a short strided humanoid.
I dont know how hard this would be to code, but the merchant clases and even the nomadic tribes would love such an item,,allowing them to use thier own stamina and strength to move larger amounts of material at a high stamina cost.
I dig that, White Ranger.
Quote from: "The7DeadlyVenomz"Quote from: "spawnloser"I think chariots should remain as wagons. Not being able to fit multiple people on a chariot is harder to explain than not fitting multiple people on a kank.
Not really. Many chariots were single-person.
Still having 3 people on a chariot would be tight. Plus, you would want some advantage in mounted combat I should think.
EDIT: I am behind....
That said, I agree with 3V, this won't work as a wagon.
Mounts should have multiple slots for people to sit on. Kanks 2, Erdlu 1, Chariot 1-5....etc.
Plus mounts should simply have two action "echo" fields. Erdlu = walks/ride, Chariot = rides/drives, Kank = [something insecty/ride]
These echos would go in place of the defaults. You ride a kank east/a kank scurries east carrying a guy. You drive a flame-etched war chariot east/a flame-etched war chariot rolls east carrying a guy.
The same thing should apply for unit PCs. I have seeing:
A unit of Allanaki militia slashes a gith's head hard.
This should clearly be:
A unit of Allanaki militia assaults a gith's head hard.
Which is still a little silly....but this brings up other things, Chariots and Units don't have heads and arms.
Joe slashes a Chariot's head hard....um no...
Joe slashes a Chariot's front side....maybe.
A unit of Allanaki militia slashes a unit of gith scouts' head hard....no
A unit of Allanaki militia assaults a unit of gith scouts' flank hard....I can see that..
Speaking from a programmers point of view most of this stuff could really just be handled by allowing multiples on mounts, and some label changes for actions and body parts.
Quote from: "MSM"
Plus mounts should simply have two action "echo" fields. Erdlu = walks/ride, Chariot = rides/drives, Kank = [something insecty/ride]
These echos would go in place of the defaults. You ride a kank east/a kank scurries east carrying a guy.
Scuttles. Scuttles is much more insecty than scurries, scurries is more something a mouse would do, and who wants to ride a giant mouse? Ok, riding a giant mouse could be cool, but there doesn't seem to be any big enough . . . hmm.
Anyway, you would need more than one custom movement because mounts can walk, run, and possibly sneak. You don't want your chariot to be rolling along, and then start "running" when you pour on the speed.
AC
Agreed. Every moving thing needs at least three movement messages. The defaults should stand for just about any two legged creature, and many four legged creatures, but there should be an option for a builder to change the movement messages given for each NPC created.
A spider scuttles to the west.
A spider scuttles rapidly to the west.
A spider sneaks west.
A chariot rolls west.
A chariot rapidly rolls west.
A chariot gently rolls west.
Using OLC, on my MUD, one might see all of that as this:
move_walk: rolls
move_run: rapidly rolls
move_sneak: slowly rolls
Else, you'd see:
move_walk: default
move_run: default
move_sneak: default
Problem solved...
Man, I like that idea 7DV.
That is pretty tight, 7DV.
Out of curiosity, what kind of codebase is DIKU? C++?
Hey that was a brillant idea 7DV. :wink:
Quote from: "JollyGreenGiant"That is pretty tight, 7DV.
Out of curiosity, what kind of codebase is DIKU? C++?
Nah, DIKU is C.
Quirk
Quote from: "Quirk"Quote from: "JollyGreenGiant"... what kind of codebase is DIKU? C++?
...DIKU is C.
Quirk is correct. However, some forms of Diku MUDs have evolved into hybrids. In other words, some of it is C, and some of it is C++.
I'll make a mental note to rewrite DIKU in ... Python, or something. When I have free time. That isn't taken up by playing Armageddon.
Come to think of it, I'll never get around to it.
Err.. Maybe we can have another group in GDB, in which staff asks players who are programmers IRL to help with the code.. Something like...
We need function integer tieMe(character *a, character *b, object c). 'character' is a structure. You'll need the integers character.agility and character.skills[8] (which is the skill subdue). You'll check if the object c equals one of the nodes in the node system character.inv (Err.. Here in Turkey we usually use nodes for lists of items when we need to search them frequently. I don't know if nodes are known as 'nodes' in English.. Anyway, this is just an example.). if not, the function will return -3. If string "rope" is not found in string c.flags the function will return -2. Then you'll roll a 1d20 and check the difference between the skills multiplied by the agilities. If the one in the attempt (a) has lost the roll with a difference more than 10, the function will add the flag (subdue) to a.effects and will set the pointer b.subduing to a. Then it will return -1. Any other failure will return 0 and will set the integer a.waitstate to 30. The success will return 1, will add b.effects 'subdue', will set b.wield and b.hold to c and will add the flag 'cursed' to c.flags.
Of course, I don't know anything about the code. The example is probably too simple. But the ones having free time may help for some long but easy work. I don't know what ARM's code is programmed in, but I guess I may help for C, C++ or Phyton (will need time to revive my memory for Phyton)
Cenghiz, brilliant.
Quote from: "Cenghiz"Err.. Maybe we can have another group in GDB, in which staff asks players who are programmers IRL to help with the code.. Something like...
We need function integer tieMe(character *a, character *b, object c). 'character' is a structure. You'll need the integers character.agility and character.skills[8] (which is the skill subdue). You'll check if the object c equals one of the nodes in the node system character.inv (Err.. Here in Turkey we usually use nodes for lists of items when we need to search them frequently. I don't know if nodes are known as 'nodes' in English.. Anyway, this is just an example.). if not, the function will return -3. If string "rope" is not found in string c.flags the function will return -2. Then you'll roll a 1d20 and check the difference between the skills multiplied by the agilities. If the one in the attempt (a) has lost the roll with a difference more than 10, the function will add the flag (subdue) to a.effects and will set the pointer b.subduing to a. Then it will return -1. Any other failure will return 0 and will set the integer a.waitstate to 30. The success will return 1, will add b.effects 'subdue', will set b.wield and b.hold to c and will add the flag 'cursed' to c.flags.
Of course, I don't know anything about the code. The example is probably too simple. But the ones having free time may help for some long but easy work. I don't know what ARM's code is programmed in, but I guess I may help for C, C++ or Phyton (will need time to revive my memory for Phyton)
Not going to happen.
Cengiz.. sometimes you make me think your brain can produce something useful.. This is one of those rare moments..
Brilliant. :wink: