Announcing: Faeguard

Yet another game in development. Yes, with roleplay elements. Yes, overly ambitious. Just another geek promoting his obsession rather than his product.

Hopefully I can write this thing well enough, clean enough, that it is considered IF, not just a text game. We shall see. Current development is clearly centered around the gaming system, however, and although nothing of that sort has been posted at the blog, the information is definitely forthcoming: what the game is about, the mechanics, plot lines, etc. I also plan to post code, for those who are interested.

So don't be afraid to drop by and ask poignant questions. Poignant suggestions welcome, too. Observations, also poignant, certainly enjoyed. Criticisms? Poignant? Clearly accepted. Now excuse me while I flee this failed attempt at humour.

Wow, another making a hugey huge rpg on quest, you are truely my brother. I think every-one who still with quest is moving towards online rpg's, prolly cos they're so cool. But i think some of us should form a group or something, making one together, that'd mean progress wouldn't be restricted on one person and a lot more idea can merge together, et cetra...

So what's the theme or idea behind faeguard, what features you gonig to have, race, classes, and so on! Anyway, i'm existed that you're back in the game and everything, but let's not be rivals, completing our rpg's against eachother and all that. let's as they say 'be friends'. yes? lol.

good luck, man!

I think every-one who still with quest is moving towards online rpg's, prolly cos they're so cool.

Actually, Faeguard is a single player game. Read this post to find out why.

But i think some of us should form a group or something, making one together, that'd mean progress wouldn't be restricted on one person and a lot more idea can merge together, et cetra...

I think perhaps this forum is a good enough merger of minds. Creative differences are sneaky corpuscles that exist whenever more than one person lends themselves to the same project. No one wants to do that for free. (That's why we have salaries and job benefits.) Unless there is one Creative Director, emotions can fly like blood-sucking vampire bats after a long bout of starvation. Judging by the activity going on here, I'd say we're all Creative Directors. But. I could be wrong.

So what's the theme or idea behind faeguard, what features you gonig to have, race, classes, and so on!

Check out the blog, Elexxorine. All info is in the process of being posted there.

Anyway, i'm existed that you're back in the game and everything, but let's not be rivals, completing our rpg's against eachother and all that. let's as they say 'be friends'. yes? lol.

Now it's probably competing, but completing works. I'm not so sure about existed, though. I'm glad that you do. I hope it's not truly past tense.

existed = excited, damn my crap dyslexia!

lol, that entry wasn't there when i looked at the blog before.... seriously.

anyway, i still want to form a team.

also, judging my the scrap of code given in the picture, if it is from faeguard, it looks good, very dynamic.

oh, if you have a battle code, may i borrow it. just to look at and see how to make one as i'm having a bit of trouble with mine at the moment... thanks.

oh, if you have a battle code, may i borrow it. just to look at and see how to make one as i'm having a bit of trouble with mine at the moment... thanks.

Well, I have code for turn-based battles, but it is full of debugging messages, extraneous calculations, etc. I do plan on posting code to the blog, so just check back there every once in a while. I should have something ready soon, although it's highly unlikely that it will be battle code.

Why can't I be happy with my blogger looking clean and nice like that, instead I try to do something fancy and mess it all up. Good luck with the game, coding complex systems in ASL is a lot easier for single player than multiplayer, so I'd say that was a good call, and I actually can forsee a few committed people finishing games soon.

Why can't I be happy with my blogger looking clean and nice like that, instead I try to do something fancy and mess it all up.

I just grabbed minimalist and edited it a tad. What did you do to yours? Java overload? I ask because I've done that before, and the thing just had to die.

Good luck with the game...

Thanks.

...coding complex systems in ASL is a lot easier for single player than multiplayer, so I'd say that was a good call...

Well, that's one thing helping me prod towards the ending. I've just got one PC to worry about. Speaking of which...maybe a poll on this? Lemme' check if it hasn't been done yet...

Can't see the blog myself - work blocks it.

Of course, good planning should mean the RPG system for single-player should be pretty much cut-and-paste into network play, with little alteration.

The RPG code I'm working on right now is a bugger, and until I can get a good formula for damage, then it aint gonna happen!
... Just a shame Quest can-can's out at 32,000-odd (integer limit).

I wish you good luck.

The RPG code I'm working on right now is a bugger, and until I can get a good formula for damage, then it aint gonna happen!

What's the snag? Curious.

...Quest can-can's out at 32,000-odd (integer limit).

Knowing this, and that a large set of numbers or calculations can be mirrored by a smaller set (relatively), just code for the limitation. Instead of comparing numbers at a very high range, or knowingly creating routines that produce large numbers, scale everything. The question "is 50,000 > 60,000?" happens to be the same as "is 50 > 60?" or "is 5 > 6?".

That might be fairly obvious. If it's a matter of percentages, then they can be calculated to two decimal points provided your base numbers don't exceed around 320. Just multiply by 100, do your calculations, and compare. 320 is a small range, granted, but I think it's plenty large enough to code a system/sub system in.

What do you think?

Tr0n wrote:
Of course, good planning should mean the RPG system for single-player should be pretty much cut-and-paste into network play, with little alteration.

Eh, if you used any arrays, they would immediately be broken, or jerk up when more than one player used them at once crashing the server. There's also a whole lot of [userid]'s added onto every variable, if statements modified to test $player%userid%$'s or whatever object is storing player properties persistantly and hell, a ton of other stuff. Point taken though, we both just know it isn't that easy typically.

Programming for multiplayer is a lot harder, as you have to cater for loads of people doing things at the same time. Yes you can array everything but that's horriable. Also all data will be over-written when another user steals your old userid. What I've done for MHM is make objects in a special room that store all the data on the players. Things like where they are (so when they log back in they go back to where they were), their hp, etc.... That fixes userid's, but you still need to programme some pritty horrid stuff now to cater for everything being properties.

Good rpg's are hard to write, and harder to make inter-switchable for multi/single player.

Knowing this, and that a large set of numbers or calculations can be mirrored by a smaller set (relatively)

I did try making a decimal point math library once... until I hit the 32000 limit...
Means you can have a maximum of 3*3 - and no more ... or something like that.

If it's percentages, integer precision is fine. the difference between 1.5 and 2 isn't anything.
While if you're talking about damages, using a complex formula, limiting yourself to 100, will mean you could have jerky damage - an upgrade of 1 strength point will increase damage by 100 - or the variation of damage per hit can be 50, going up in 10's..
For example:
sword:str=5 etc..
"> attack guy..
you hit guy for 100HP"
sword:str=6 ...
"> attack guy..
you hit guy for 140HP
.. for 120HP
... for 130HP..
.. for 150HP"

it get's even worse for big jumps:
str=20
"you hit for 1000"
str=21
"you hit for 2500" ... Now this could only be an increase in your code of, say, 15... but when multiplied out it get's into LARGE differences.
str=40
"you hit for 10,000"
str=41
"you hit for 25,000"

I did have a nice formula worked out, and with a nice curve IIRC.

My reasoning was, make it a tiny bit large, and then bring it down, instead of keeping it small and making it large - you get me?
Plus the fact Quest doesn't catch the error - instead it crashes (again - from memory).

Eh, if you used any arrays, they would immediately be broken

Why?
Unless you're storing arrays to keep monster values/player values.... Which is silly.
Keep player values in a "stats" object.. I'm not sure if there's a game[playerid] object - but you can use that too...

To begin battle may need a little alteration - cloning the battle room or finding an available/free battle room..
I didn't know about Quest crashing on array usage though..

It's alot easier to write generic scripts for objects - that's why a better script, using functions, can be basically ported over, with a little change here and there... (temporary variables are one of the changes) Of course, I've ignored my own advice, and done it in halfs...

Point taken though, we both just know it isn't that easy typically

Yeah.. It needs damn good foresight to plan it all properly to be ported easily... Still requires a fair bit of changes and debugging though.

That fixes userid's, but you still need to programme some pritty horrid stuff now to cater for everything being properties.

Object properties are great to code for - much better and clearer IMO than arrays!
An object containing a players info, is very nice to get info from - while search through 1000+ variables with the same name (if you've used Quest's debugging windows) is very hard.
Also, coding properties is much nicer IMO.. Alot easier for loop's and stuff too.

Yeah, Quest's %userid% isn't all that.. a PROPER userid would be helpful - linked to usernames.

"you hit for 2500" ... Now this could only be an increase in your code of, say, 15... but when multiplied out it get's into LARGE differences.

Why not make the curve smaller? Or why use a curve at all?

Why not make the curve smaller?

As I said, if you make the start smaller - then to get large numbers, you get bigger gaps etc..
I did try out the more simple curves - but they either accellerated too much at the higher end - or too much at the lower end.

If you use a straight line, then you get large increases at the start (from say 100 to 200) BUT small increases towards the end (2000 to 2100 - or 10,000 to 10,100)..

I would assume, possibly in err, that you are generating numbers in order to compare them for the purpose of determining which is greater (or lesser). That comparison would then determine the outcome of a decision branch. If this assumption is correct, then why do you need the curve? (50 > 10, but 11 is also > 10.) Is the degree of difference important?

The difference can be important, say for resistance and such.

No... The outcome of a decision branch - unless you want to use high-precision percentages - is fine at about 100.
I did decision branches easily for monster attacks.

What I'm talking about is damage.
The calculation to take the damage, remove any resistance/defence against that attack, and then calculate the amount of damage you inflict apon an opponent.
This uses quite a few variables, and if you keep it small - you can get the damage going from 2000 on one monster, to 10 on another - just because they have 45 instead of 44 for their defense.

I see. What I'm getting at with all my questions is this: if you know the integer limit, why not just change your system to accomodate it? For example, you can change the way health is carried by objects. Eliminate hit points and utilize some other forms, such as wound levels (penalty sets to performance), hit locations, etc. That change alone would scale everything down sufficiently.

If you can't part with the old HP sauce, what about describing damage dealt in terms of %? That way objects can have up to 32,000+ hit points, and it won't mess up your curve. The damage calculations will only produce results from 0% to 100%. Then you just apply that % result against the hit points.

I don't know. Maybe I'm just rambling, here. It seems to me that if the shoe don't fit, don't give up: change the shoe. Style is size-less.

Style is size-less

Tell that to the guy that needs to have special shoe sizes made for him.. Large feet are a curse!

The problem with %-based system would be this:
two monsters could have two different HP values (say, 1000 and 35000) but very similar - if not exact - stats.
This would mean 1% for the 35,000-HP monster would be 33%-ish for the 1000-HP monster..
You only make sense for this is you build around a %-based system - which I'm not going to do as that'd require a re-write of almost everything.

Coding around a 35,000 limit is hellish... Next Quest release should have Long integers (~4 billion limit IIRC) so it'll be solved then..

You only make sense for this is you build around a %-based system - which I'm not going to do as that'd require a re-write of almost everything.

Aw, c'mon - you can do it.

Next Quest release should have Long integers (~4 billion limit IIRC)

Is there a tentative date for this?

Is there a tentative date for this?

Erm, sometime this century is a bit optimistic I think..
I would kinda help Alex with it - 'cept I have VB6 (for one) - and he has 'proper' VB training (maybe).

Am I the only one wondering why it's even necessary to have hit point totals for monsters that go as high as 1000 or 35000? Unless you're starting enemies with hp totals of 1000, you're never going to need anything like 35000. Is there a reason why enemies can't just have 10 hps and 35 hps instead?

because 35000 is harder to kill than 35? perhaps using a percentage based system would be be better?

tell us more of the wound-system over-cat....

35000 isn't necessarily harder to kill than 35. It all depends on the damage inflicted. If you're going to start your character capable of dealing 1000 points of damage with a hit, wouldn't it make more sense to start him with 1 or 2 points per hit?

That's how I always saw it. I've never had any of these problems at all. Keep it lower, we don't need another Final Fantasy

Is there a reason why enemies can't just have 10 hps and 35 hps instead?

35000 isn't necessarily harder to kill than 35. It all depends on the damage inflicted. If you're going to start your character capable of dealing 1000 points of damage with a hit, wouldn't it make more sense to start him with 1 or 2 points per hit?

Keep it lower...

Relativity is a wonderful thing. This is what I was voicing, perhaps incoherently, in my previous posts. There was a brief mentioning of a 'curve', which I took to mean some sort of exponential progression of attributes/abilities between levels. IE, level 2 is 1.1 times greater than level 1, and level 3 is 1.1 times greater than level 2, ad infinitum. I assumed that such a curve skyrockets the needed values for even a moderate range of levels. My suggestion is to shrink that curve.

tell us more of the wound-system over-cat....

Well, it's pretty simple. Many PnP RPG's implement wound systems as opposed to classical hit points systems. The one in Faeguard is modelled after The Riddle of Steel. Essentially all living objects have body parts which sustain wounds of various intensities. Those wounds apply penalties to performance based on their intensity (level), number, and location.

Adopting this system has a great benefit to text games: it provides a built-in method of description generation. Instead of "You hit for 13 points of damage", what you might read instead is "You lunge forward, pressing the advantage, and slash Horatio across his chest. His leather armor parts like cheese. Blood spurts across your vision. He stumbles backwards, stunned."

That description implies other systematics as well: armor condition, combat advantage, a lunging maneuver, being stunned. It means that things such as blood must be accounted for - knowing what it splashes on, how much off it, how long ago, whether it has dried, etc. Okay, the blood thing is FAR down the list on the development schedule, but I'd like to have it.

In any case, whether hit points or wounds, the ability to scale the chosen system to operate beneath a 32,000-odd integer limit is definately do-able and enjoyable.

because 35000 is harder to kill than 35

EXACTLY...
You can either have it so stat's get really large, or HP get's large.
I choose to have HP get large.

The natural progression is to have the battles get a little harder - especially if you don't upgrade your weaponry/assign stats to the right places.
If you keep your HP low - then your stats must grow and they must mean ALOT more - requiring more precision, and a more complex equation to bring the result down to below 1000-say.

I can't see how a percentage system is any better, seeing as how you'd have to have a totally different stat system.. Stat's with values would be totally useless (at least the way I see it).

No.
My curve is a relationship between strength/defense/power of weapon/speed/magic/elemental defence/etc of the attacker/victim, which results in a resultant amount of damage..
I can't remember the calculations off the top of my head, but suffice to say I finally found a calculation which I liked... and it worked up until a certain stat amount - in which case the number in the middle of the calculation probably just topped 35,000 (although the actual damage inflicted may have been about 3,725)... There was also an experience level on how efficient you were at: types of weapons/magic/etc. So that also effected your damage..

I don't know if I actually made a 'levelling' system.. I think I was going to head towards the "you gained a level - you can assign [5] points to the following stats:"..

I wasn't going to be too worried about battle descriptions.. They would be in specific moves..
I think (personally) I'd rather get a text-battle over and done with, as most battles are tedious (expecially if you have too many of them)..
- Plus there's the fact it was going to be basically generic - IE, with a QDK interface so that anyone can just pick it up, plug it into their game, and it would 'work', while you could customise a fair bit of it... Niceties would come later.

I'd rather concentrate on a more storyline-centric game anyway, so having to wait to finish off my RPG library is fine..

Tr0n wrote:"because 35000 is harder to kill than 35"
EXACTLY...

So if I'm carrying the Uber Massive Sword of Vengeful Smiting +45 which inflicts 20000 points of damage with a single hit, it would take me longer to kill a 35000 hp enemy than, say, a 35 hp enemy if I was carrying a short sword with inflicted 5 points of damage per hit?

Sorry, but a total of 35000 hps is ridiculous. You could have a system which has a maximum limit of 100 hps which would be easier to handle and implement and, best of all, you wouldn't have to jump through hoops to get Quest to accept it.

Ever looked at the AD&D 3.5 rules? You can have a character with 65 hps who takes a heck of a lot of killing. You don't need to assign silly amounts like 35000 hps to make an enemy formidable.

As an addendum: is this the reason why people continually talk about huge RPG games with Quest that they never get finished? The need to allow for massive amount of hps when, in reality, the odds of anyone playing the game long enough to amass even a tenth as many hps is extremely unlikely?

Assume you start with 10 hps and gain another 10 every level. Now assume it takes an hour of gameplay time to gain a level. How long till your player has 35000 hps? Weeks? Months? Years? Unless your game is the kind of epic that people are going to play continually for year after year, it’s never going to reach the stage where anything like 1000 hps would be required, let alone 35000.

On the other hand, if you're starting the game with the player having 1000 hps and gaining an extra 1000 every level, consider just why you're starting with such massive amounts. Power gaming aside, there's no real advantage to starting with 1000 hps instead of 10 hps. And 10 hps would be a lot, lot easier to implement.

I think I started with roughly 100HP... Or 50..
And the player can gain up-to a rough guess of 30,000. Probably the first would stop at about 3,000 (which should be more than enough).

, a 35 hp enemy if I was carrying a short sword with inflicted 5 points of damage per hit?

No, but it's going to take longer to kill a 35000 monster if you're hitting it with 5 points of damage.

Yes, I agree, 35,000 - unless it's an uber-boss of godly proportions - is silly.
But so is a system which limits you to 100HP maximum.
With that, most of the time you'll be missing hit's or getting parried (wow, pretty nice) and as I said before - the whole system then needs to change so stat's have more (or less?) effect...

the odds of anyone playing the game long enough to amass even a tenth as many hps is extremely unlikely?

Quite true.

Assume you start with 10 hps and gain another 10 every level. Now assume it takes an hour of gameplay time to gain a level. How long till your player has 35000 hps?

You may also gain HP through other means..
I didn't think of the player aquiring 35,000 - only one or two monsters (which would be pretty special).

On the other hand, if you're starting the game with the player having 1000 hps and gaining an extra 1000 every level, consider just why you're starting with such massive amounts.

I don't.
I think I start off everything around about 100HP... I've played too many games with HP below 10, and it's just horrid! you either miss, die way too soon, and the amount the oponent hit's you for never varies.
That was my choice to use HP from 100 to 5000-odd (or 10,000-odd).
Well within the 35,000 limit. The player can gain up to 2000-ish (200% gain on HP) and probably get armour which could boost it higher...
The HP has no determination on the result though - you could have 10,000HP and the damage could amount to only 3. Or have a HP of 110 and damage of 2000 (you'd obviously die).

davidw wrote:So if I'm carrying the Uber Massive Sword of Vengeful Smiting +45 which inflicts 20000 points of damage with a single hit, it would take me longer to kill a 35000 hp enemy than, say, a 35 hp enemy if I was carrying a short sword with inflicted 5 points of damage per hit?

Sorry, but a total of 35000 hps is ridiculous...

Hahaha...
What if you find a cricket bat that takes only 2 hp with every swing...you'd have to hit the monster 17,500 times. hee hee ...and that's if the hit lands every time.

I'm having a sense of daji vou here. I could have sworn I posted here before..

The Unknown wrote:I'm having a sense of daji vou here. I could have sworn I posted here before..

i had a english class & they said its spellt deja vu

Isn't it supposed to be French?

Yes, the literal translation of déjà vu is "already seen" and it is indeed French.

I dont know french... maybe that's why I misspelled it.

i no a little French! French fry, French kissing! hahahahahaha

ooh baby

how bout a French Lick?

CheerleaderChick wrote:how bout a French Lick?

How's bout damn skrate sugar pants.

In this heat!?
You must be joking!

no pant's.

Tr0n wrote:In this heat!?
You must be joking!

no pant's.

LOL