Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.angband (
More info?)
"Eddie Grove" <eddiegrove@hot.NOSPAM.mail.com> wrote in message
news:m364zcr6xt.fsf@hot.NOSPAM.mail.com...
> "Glen Wheeler" <gew75@uow.edu.au> writes:
>
>> "Eddie Grove" <eddiegrove@hot.NOSPAM.mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:m3zmwp3qtk.fsf@hot.NOSPAM.mail.com...
>>>
>>> I'm playing NPP right now, but I think this issue affects most *bands.
>>>
>>> Suppose you have a shield of preservation, which comes with a random
>>> power. The shield by definition provides Hold Life. Should it be
>>> allowed/disallowed that the random power is Hold Life, effectively
>>> meaning no random power? Similarly for a weapon of Gondolin with
>>> a random power of Free Action?
>>>
>>
>> Makes sense to me.
>
> Which way makes sense? I meant to pose a question!
>
Ah. Well, it makes sense in this way:
Smithy Jimbob makes some magic item. He always makes them with X atributes.
If Smithy Jimbob is making a shield of preservation or a weapon of Gondolin,
then they will (should) have the same number of attributes. Smithy Jimbob
likes consistency, and if they didn't have the same number of attributes
then those pesky elvenkind armours (where this clash doesn't occur) and
other such types would have an advantage (constant number of attributes).
So if Smithy Jimbob makes an item and it has less attributes than it should
(duplicate power/sustain) then he tries again.
Of course Smithy Jimbob is just our item generation functions
. All the
above dancing is just to say that I think it is very important for a game to
be consistent, and to disallow duplicate powers/sustains preserves
consistency.
>> When do we see your variant?
>
> It is coming slowly. I've been waiting for NPP 0.4.1. Now that that
> is out, I will port my changes over and clean them up. When I
> started, I was following the "when-in-Rome" philosophy, but I changed
> my mind an now am insisting on good code. Things are garbled, and I
> would be embarassed to have them made public.
>
> Unfortunately, the following command:
> [eddie@bughouse src]$ wc < BUGS
> 177 993 5877
> shows that there remains a little work to be done.
>
> I still haven't even started seriously on stacking or squelching.
>
> I was aiming for release in time for the May comp, but that is looking
> overly optimistic. Especially since I am pretty much pure Linux, and
> I will need help producing binaries for other platforms.
>
Good to hear. Have you done away with *id* and tunneling? Is LOS
``fixed''? I would like to play that
.
--
Glen
L
😛yt E+++ T-- R+ P+++ D+ G+ F:*band !RL RLA-
W:AF Q+++ AI++ GFX++ SFX-- RN++++ PO--- !Hp Re-- S+