Subject: "Some implementaion notes" Previous topic | Next topic
Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend CF Website
Top General Discussions Gameplay Topic #17084
Show all folders

DwoggurdMon 19-Mar-07 03:39 PM
Member since 20th Jan 2004
668 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author Click to add this author to your buddy list
#17165, "Some implementaion notes"


          

I don't know how well the current wield code is designed, though I afraid it is not a very clean desing because of many years of development. I can't estimate what it takes to implement my idea.

But in general, such kind of stuff is implemented using shadows.
You make all changes in a shadow and if every check is passed, then apply changes.
In this case it may be shadow primary/offhand slots or the whole shadow PC (heh, though I don't suggest that!).
In general, it is easier to put a weapon/item in the shadow slot and make all consistency checks at once rather then apply them one by one and make changes in the current wield status along the way. Perhaps some tricks will be needed to make checks for progged items.

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote

HOT TopicHow do you want wield to react? [View all] , Zulghinlour, Wed 14-Mar-07 10:41 PM
Reply Dual wield helpfile looks outdated, DurNominator, 21-Mar-07 06:46 AM, #31
Reply Has this gone live?, Tac, 20-Mar-07 08:13 AM, #24
Reply No, it has not., Zulghinlour, 20-Mar-07 10:39 AM, #25
     Reply FNCR, Zulghinlour, 20-Mar-07 08:43 PM, #26
          Reply Cool thanks! nt, Tac, 20-Mar-07 09:01 PM, #27
          Reply RE: FNCR, Isildur, 20-Mar-07 11:52 PM, #29
Reply Wield command ANSI standard, Dwoggurd, 17-Mar-07 02:59 PM, #11
Reply RE: Wield command ANSI standard, Gabe, 19-Mar-07 10:13 AM, #12
Reply Heh, Dwoggurd, 19-Mar-07 12:15 PM, #13
     Reply RE: Heh, Gabe, 19-Mar-07 12:20 PM, #14
     Reply Problem is, Dwoggurd, 19-Mar-07 03:30 PM, #17
          Reply RE: Problem is, Gabe, 19-Mar-07 08:43 PM, #19
               Reply You may notice, Dwoggurd, 20-Mar-07 03:35 AM, #22
     Reply RE: Heh, Valguarnera, 19-Mar-07 01:07 PM, #15
          Reply Actually, Dwoggurd, 19-Mar-07 03:21 PM, #16
          Reply Some implementaion notes, Dwoggurd, 19-Mar-07 03:39 PM #18
Reply Nice idea, however it needs one more additional command..., DurNominator, 20-Mar-07 01:31 AM, #20
Reply Answers, Dwoggurd, 20-Mar-07 03:33 AM, #21
Reply Clarification, Dwoggurd, 20-Mar-07 04:26 AM, #23
     Reply RE: Clarification, Zulghinlour, 20-Mar-07 09:35 PM, #28
          Reply Re, Dwoggurd, 21-Mar-07 05:05 AM, #30
Reply I would prefer, Dwoggurd, 15-Mar-07 11:30 AM, #3
Reply RE: I would prefer, Zulghinlour, 15-Mar-07 05:08 PM, #4
     Reply Re, Dwoggurd, 16-Mar-07 05:34 AM, #5
          Reply While a stochastic dual wield function would be fun,, Marcus_, 16-Mar-07 07:19 AM, #6
          Reply RE: Re, Isildur, 16-Mar-07 10:34 AM, #7
               Reply Say no to AI, Dwoggurd, 16-Mar-07 11:51 AM, #8
                    Reply RE: Say no to AI, Isildur, 16-Mar-07 01:17 PM, #9
                         Reply yes, Dwoggurd, 16-Mar-07 01:42 PM, #10
Reply RE: How do you want wield to react?, Isildur, 14-Mar-07 11:56 PM, #1
     Reply I don't care either way, Zulghinlour, 15-Mar-07 10:27 AM, #2
Top General Discussions Gameplay Topic #17084 Previous topic | Next topic