• Advertisement


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

592 Good

About Jiia

  • Rank
  1. Swords and Shields

    There's a difference between "last resort" and "last ditch effort". The later sounds like swords were nearly worthless and were only used when all other weapons have failed and they expected to die anyway. Honestly, I can't imagine why. I've held a katana, and I would much rather wing those babies around than a sharp stick. Now choosing a bow over a sword is a different matter. I would most likely prefer ranged combat, where only I'm ranged and the other person is trying to sword me :P Quote:Original post by Fruny In the Middle Ages, training to fight with a shield was integral to weapon training. So there is no reason to separate sword from sword + shield, since you'd have learned both at the same time anyway. RPG characters don't train. They freelance. The player character will not come pre-equipped with much skill. Besides, the fact that it is an RPG make shields worthy of their own skill. I just have to find clever ways to make use of it.
  2. Heh, this has been bothering me for a while. Templates are great, and they are compile time objects. Or at least they get 'restructured' at compile time. So why is it not possible to provide handler support where it exists, and fall back to generic routines were it doesn't? Here's an example: class FileClass { public: void write_data(void *data, size_t num_bytes) {...} template <class Type> void SaveData(Type *data) { if( Type::Save(FileClass*) ) // Or any kind of conditional statement data->Save( this ); else write_data( data, sizeof(Type) ); } }; Is anything like this possible? Since the compiler generates a new instance of SaveData() for each type, there would be no cost in providing conditional generation. It would allow a programmer to write a function which allows specific objects to require themselves handled differently than anything else. And the routines sending these objects to some random task would not even need to worry about such things. Only the template function and the type would be involved. I'm not looking for a new way of doing things. Just curious if something like this already exists. Thanks :)
  3. You're being incredibly helpful.. and hey.. look, I didn't have your rating maxed. This is the first time in a while I've actually been able to rate up a helpful poster. I usually assume I've maxed out helpful people such as yourself. Only a few points, but it's the thought that counts :P Seriously, I don't think I could ask for more details. Thanks a lot for your help.
  4. If you're doing something advanced, you probably don't want to orientate the vehicle to the terrain. Hmm.. a rough idea would be to find the height of the terrain where each tire should rest on the ground. Push each tire up individually to the terrain, if they are below it. Then make sure the tires are not too far up, using suspension settings. If any one tire is higher than the shocks allow, you need to rotate the entire car, including other wheels, to compensate. Finding the correct pivot point for this rotation could be tricky. You could start off using the opposite corner of the car to the raised wheel, but I think weight distribution has a lot to do with it. For example, if the front left wheel is too high, the entire front could lift up, or instead, the entire left side. Using the opposite corner would lift both. Rotating on a pivot is not too difficult. You can use a matrix to move the space so the pivot is at zero, then rotate normally, then move the pivot back where it was. Example: Matrix mat; mat.Translate( -PivotVector); mat.AddRotate( Angle ); mat.AddTranslate( PivotVector ); You could use this one matrix to offset all of the parts of the car. But you would need to calculate a new one for each wheel that is too high. Anyway, after performing this excessive task, you simply apply gravity to the whole thing.
  5. Swords and Shields

    What about all of that jazz about it being their soul? :)
  6. Quote:Original post by Zahlman "Moving" something on a computer logically consists of copying it and then erasing the original; there isn't really much else you can do. But that's exactly what I want to do. I want to copy the instances in the array without copying all of the data that complex types may have allocated. For example, consider an array of SomeClass. SomeClass may be capable of allocating a huge chunk of data on it's own in some process. I want to copy the array of SomeClass instances so their huge chunk of memory simply moves to other instances, causing the old instances to revert back to their construction stage. I don't want to reallocate that huge chunk of memory for each SomeClass instance, considering the old one is just going to be deleted. What about swapping? Would it be safe to swap the instances? Instead of simply copying the old over onto the new, I could copy the new back to the old as well. This would even take care of situations where an object may allocate data on construction. It would be deleted as though it had just been constructed there. Unfortunately, I'm not even sure how I could swap them cleanly. I would have to make an additional buffer of some kind.
  7. Swords and Shields

    Quote:Original post by ScottNCSU In this sense, there are no predefined 1 and 2 hand swords, only weights for all swords. It would be difficult for me to do this. Each weapon configuration can be compared to different character classes in most games. Fighting with a two handed katana is totally different than fighting with a two handed claymore. If I wanted to copy your idea for my own game, I would have to impliment an entirely new style for fighting with single-hand claymores. Way too much work for me. Even though characters can define themself to use a claymore with one hand on generation by mapping all of the functional animations, they cannot choose to switch between using two hands or not after the game is running. However, I'll likely play around with single handed weapons by creating moves that use both hands to do certain slashes, or moves that toss it up with one hand, then grab and slash down with the other. Samurai seem to continuously alternate the number of hands on their sword. Or at least in movies :)
  8. I'm trying to create a function which takes an array and returns a new array containing all of the same elements of the old array as well as a new empty subset inserted at a variable point. The function is templated, and I want it to work well with basic and complex types. I need a built in nullify or transfer-instance operation. I can't think of a correct way to do this :) Thanks for the help, and I'm sorry I haven't been clear enough.
  9. I want to do something very basic with a template function. The function receives an array, and adds a subset to it. It can add the subset in the center of the array, the end, or the beginning. This is basically how it works: newArray = allocate[?]; copy( newArray + ?, oldArray + ?, ? ); - actually two calls for start and end deallocate oldArray; I'm not wanting to copy the data, I want to move it. Otherwise the inner-working allocations would get out of hand. The problem is that the destructor of a certain type is deleting its memory when I deallocate the old array. What would be the proper way to handle this? I thought about a memset on the whole chunk before I delete, but I know this will totally erase v-tables. I just want to delete the instance data without calling destructors. If there is no better way to handle this, is it safe to zero v-tables before deleting objects? My guess is no, but what effect would this have? Thanks for suggestions
  10. Swords and Shields

    Oh, sorry. For what it's worth, I'm my own animator, so I won't be adding hundreds or thousands of anything. Less than 15 stances per weapon at best. This is my action control-condition list: Holding forward Holding back Holding left Holding right Press high left (attack button) Press high right (attack button) Press low left (attack button) Press low right (attack button) Press jump Press block Release block Holding block Shield Equipped Shield Unequipped These are flags, which mean it's possible to require several conditions to be true at once. But these are the only control conditions available to attacks and stances. For example, a single attack could have [Shield Equipped + Holding forward + Press high left], but it doesn't get any more complicated than that. It's the state of your character and the state of your enemy that will add the most variety to available actions. Instead of adding hundreds of actions to keep the player from getting bored, I would rather add a few that require complex decisions to figure out what to do next. The diversity of combat is not there to require mastering it. At its most basic form, it's no different than your typical role playing clickathon. Mastering it would be reserved for munchkins, who want to go off and face the deadly outworlder tribe - which most players will run from. A middle ground is a player who knows which stances work best against which types of enemies or opponent fighting styles, and which attacks work best to counter an enemy who is slashing down at you.
  11. Swords and Shields

    Quote:Original post by Ned_K I don't advocate dumbing down games. Not at all. But neither do I recommend these complex approaches to combat and the like. Ermm, what is so complex about fighting stances? Most fighting stances are entered automatically via an attack. Such as a sword being slashed downward could enter a crouched stance. What the player does after entering a stance is up to them. They could just press another button and make a tiny combo, or they could do another crazy move that puts them into another stance. The great thing about a good fighting engine is that you can play them dumb or you can play them smart. I'm not creating an MMO or even an MO at all. So that means my dumb players will have to upgrade their skills further to defeat tough opponents, rather than doing a crazy psycho death combo in a few seconds flat. Quote:Combat on computer games will NEVER be realistic. You are fighting via a mouse and a keyboard. There is a forced disconnect that cannot currently be escaped with today's technology. Having your character hold his opposite arm up while he attacks without a shield is just lame, it's not unrealistic. I'm not caring about realism at the moment. Quote:Rather, it just means that the gameplay itself, rather than a system that emphasizes reality (as it were), would appear to be far more important. How are combat stances and shield battle techniques leaning toward realism and away from gameplay? Quote:As I consider a game, I look at it first from a global perspective. I feel that this is more effective than putting together a game around a dense and unwieldy combat system. The combat system should not come first, which is what seems to be the case so often. That was my assumption as well. That's why I'm messing up on the combat design phase :)
  12. Swords and Shields

    Quote:Original post by TechnoGoth Also what about the ultimate in defense with the tower shield and spear combo? ... Of course personally I would like to see more games utilizing some of the more extoic where the iron fan, rope javalin or heaven and earth blade techniques in games? Ahh.. Bells are ringing. Why not just provide an alternate stance? For example, the player could hold block + back and press an attack to enter a certain fighting stance that requires a shield to start. The new stance could put forth an entirely new set of attacks, as well as even make the character move around differently. Pressing another combination could switch back, turning the shield into a simple blocking tool again. Heheh.
  13. Swords and Shields

    Well, the way my system works would do exactly what you're implying with Frodo. Weapons specify a posture type, and characters specify limits and animations to be used for each posture. So it's entirely possible to create a tiny character that uses two hands to wield a dagger. The game is an action RPG, I suppose. As for the main question, wouldn't that have the same problem? Players would feel ripped off that their mastery of the short sword has no effect when they pick up a shield? Or the fact that mastering a shield means they can use any one handed weapon like a master? The reason it's such a concern is because of the number of combat moves that will be available for each style. If it were just two or three, then any one of these ideas would work fine. The more I think about the differnet style idea, the less it seems like it will work. As much as I would love to have a seperate short sword+shield and spear+shield style, I'm not very confident the idea will support other weapons well. And making only some weapons change styles with a shield would seem pretty confusing. So would limiting the types of weapons that can be used with a shield. I may have to stick with simply alternating certain attacks when a shield is available. I appreciate the suggestion.
  14. How hard would it be to sell the idea that fighting with a sword and shield uses a different skill than fighting with a sword alone? In my game, wielding a short sword uses a different skill base and fighting style than wielding dual short swords. The combat style between the two equipment states are totally different. This means when you learn new attacks as you use a single short sword, those new attacks do not apply when you have two short swords. You would have to learn the dual setup like an entirely different weapon type. But now I'm considering having a short sword + shield setup use a different skill base and style as well. My original plan was to have each weapon utilize a shield whenever it could into it's combat technique, or simply do something else if the shield is absent. But the more I plan out attack types, the more I realize the difference having a shield really makes. For example, while fighting with a sword and shield, the character could keep a continuous half-body block up as he does almost any sword attack, protecting his entire front left side from attack. This pose would look ridiculous without the shield. Simply put, shield fighting would be more defensive and solid, where single handed fighting would be all out fast and aggressive. I'm not sure if I should just make shields blocking-only equipment, with a few occasional shield attacks thrown in, or make their use completely change the fighting style. Any opinions? There's one other thing that concerns me if I go through with it. There are 7 weapon types that could be equipped with a shield, unless I give the player a "you can't do that" message. This means I would need to try really hard to find cool and unique fighting styles that work with setups like a dagger and shield. Has anyone ever heard of not allowing the player to equip a shield just because it won't be very effective with the weapon? Daggers are concealable and very fast, so they have their uses, but I'm not sure they have one with shields.
  15. Is that why everyone liked it? For me, I just wanted to try to pimp out my character with a huge mansion and marry all of the women in the neighborhood at least once. It was fun trying to progress the guy into a rich freak machine. But then that was it. Once you've become incredibly rich and obtained the fruits of opposite sex, the game shows how realistic it really is and becomes incredibly boring.
  • Advertisement