Magnate's new egos

[Nick]

Sure, it's a bit negative, but there's a certain cohesion among variants and Vanilla that lead to a certain minimum maintenance standard below which makes it hard for players to move between variants. It doesn't help that players play the variants that are being modified, and Vanilla already has such a large draw.

Despite my occasional grand plans to unify everything, I am inclined to think that a certain amount of creative tension is good overall. While the current situation is very demanding on variant maintainers, I think it's great for players.

It's worth noting, too, that a lot of the gameplay innovations to V have come (directly or indirectly) from variants.

I think, too, that at some point not too far away Vanilla will get to the stage where there is a portion of the code (low-level stuff + UI/ports) which will be more or less distinct, and so variant maintainers will essentially just have to make sure they can 'plug in' to that, and immediately reap all the benefits of latest ports to multiple platforms.

I am an optimist

[camlost]

That is a bit negative - you always have the option of continuing to develop NPP without keeping up to date with V?

Sure, it's a bit negative, but there's a certain cohesion among variants and Vanilla that lead to a certain minimum maintenance standard below which makes it hard for players to move between variants. It doesn't help that players play the variants that are being modified, and Vanilla already has such a large draw.

I certainly have thoughts similar to nppangband, though that's not the only reason I haven't been doing much maintenance lately.

[Antoine]

What about affixes that are just different names for the same thing. For example, in 3.3 you may find a broadsword (+3, +3) now that might be called a "sharp broadsword" is that considered different from 3.3 or the same?

When I think about flavor, I think that is different from 3.3 and you shouldn't do it [yet]. (If you want to make "(+3, +3)ness" an affix, then make it a "silent" affix that has no effect on the item name.)

On the other hand, when I think about content, I think "go for it, no harm done".

A.

[Antoine]

As for people starting their own variants, that doesn't happen much any more.

Fair to say that DAJ was the most recent variant forked from V?

But maintaining a variant is starting to feel like a waste of time, because I would need a devteam of my own to keep up with the changes.

That is a bit negative - you always have the option of continuing to develop NPP without keeping up to date with V?

A.

[fizzix]

Well, if you want my advice, here it is: don't include any affix in 3.4 that was not (in some form) in 3.3, and in 3.4 don't allow a weapon to have more than one affix or an armor to have more than one suffix.

A.

What about affixes that are just different names for the same thing. For example, in 3.3 you may find a broadsword (+3, +3) now that might be called a "sharp broadsword" is that considered different from 3.3 or the same?

[Antoine]

And I hope you and buzzkill are willing to give it a shot and tell us what works and what is complete crap.

Well, if you want my advice, here it is: don't include any affix in 3.4 that was not (in some form) in 3.3, and in 3.4 don't allow a weapon to have more than one affix or an armor to have more than one suffix.

A.

[Antoine]

Come on - it's not like I've just added a wilderness - or friendly monsters. All I've done is give names to features that were already in the game. If you think the names lack flavour, by all means suggest better ones.

The problem is that the names have flavour, a flavour different from the original.

If your argument is that Angband really shouldn't have more variation in items than exists in the current ego_item.txt, how do you support that?

That wasn't my argument in this post.

I would contend, though, that any increase in variation in ego items should be very carefully considered (look at the way Timo talks about JLE changes), and I think the affix system tends to facilitate creation of new item types without careful consideration.

A.

[Magnate]

I look forward to it. I might not attempt another codebase update until it is done. At that point it might be simpler to put all of the NPP changes into the current code rather than the other way around, which I believe is your intent.

Not particularly, but it is true that the sequence in which things get done is not optimised for variant maintainers. We're just not that well organised, or resourced. Stuff happens when someone is motivated to do it, and really tricky internal stuff doesn't motivate many people, so when it does nobody wants to say "hang on, we need to do this after XYZ".

At this point I sometimes wonder why it wasn't started from scratch in python or something like that.

More than one person has started rewriting from scratch, but it's the same motivational issue as above. If a team decided to start from scratch in python they might get somewhere, but even then there is so much work before you get a playable game that most people's return on time invested is probably higher with an existing playable version or variant.

Almost done with my mousebutton project, BTW. It should go up in a single commit this week. It would have to be cut and pasted into vanilla because the codebases are so different (ironically). It includes, for objects anyway, a noun-verb mouse-supported menu to interact with equipment, inventory, and floor, and should allow for the player to enter multiple commands without exiting the interface (so long as they don't take any energy to perform. I am not sure if game-cmd would let me pull off multiple commands that expend energy.) I picture the player getting attacked by a monster while they are in the interface. Maybe game-cmd would prevent that, I can't tell. But it should be a pretty good start to knocking out 3-4 long standing tickets at once.

Thank you, that'll be excellent. This neatly illustrates the tension between a single maintainer and a team: I won't be able to incorporate this piece of work because I lack the skill, so one of the others will need to do it. The price of extra personpower is that knowledge fragments, and few in the team understand the whole of the code. But we're gradually picking it up.

[nppangband]

This is one for takkaria really, but I'd just like to make sure we're all assuming good faith.

Absolutely. I meant it as a constructive observation, and I do appreciate you treating it as such. Good intent, mood, and tone tends to get completely washed out on the internet.

Angband is both huge - ~130k lines of code - and 20 years old. Turning it into a modern, modular program, with the core code, game code and UI code all properly delineated, is a multi-year project (probably more difficult than rewriting it from scratch in python). Please rest assured that the devteam keep this goal in mind - nobody makes major internal changes (e.g. what happens to global variables, or game/ui interfaces, or whatever) without consensus. The fact that it's hard to keep up with is evidence of how much there is to be done (and we still haven't really bottomed out input, events, graphical displays or layer interfaces, so there is much more fundamental change to come).

I look forward to it. I might not attempt another codebase update until it is done. At that point it might be simpler to put all of the NPP changes into the current code rather than the other way around, which I believe is your intent.

I accept (but don't share) the view that it would be be better if nobody made gameplay changes until this was done, and also the view that it would be better if nobody made gameplay changes at all and just worked on maintenance/ui - but that's already been debated several times.

I suppose that might be considered an ideal, but I agree it isn't practical. At this point I sometimes wonder why it wasn't started from scratch in python or something like that.

I'm certain that fizzix didn't intend to offend or belittle variant maintainers. What I believe he was trying to say was that there is a long-term goal of making the game more configurable by moving stuff out of the code into edit files - so *anyone* can tweak stuff, whether they want to produce a variant or not.

You are right. It was probably just that particular order of words that set me off.

Almost done with my mousebutton project, BTW. It should go up in a single commit this week. It would have to be cut and pasted into vanilla because the codebases are so different (ironically). It includes, for objects anyway, a noun-verb mouse-supported menu to interact with equipment, inventory, and floor, and should allow for the player to enter multiple commands without exiting the interface (so long as they don't take any energy to perform. I am not sure if game-cmd would let me pull off multiple commands that expend energy.) I picture the player getting attacked by a monster while they are in the interface. Maybe game-cmd would prevent that, I can't tell. But it should be a pretty good start to knocking out 3-4 long standing tickets at once.

[Magnate]

Let me preface this by saying that I am glad you all are working so hard on Angband and I think you all have come up with alot of good ideas and changes, but I saw that statement and had to rant a bit. My apologies in advance........

I promise you, the changes being made are making it *MUCH* more difficult and frustrating to maintain a variant. It might someday be easier when you all reach your end goal of a codebase that you all are happy with, and limit your changes to the actual gameplay rather than what appears to be almost a total re-write of the game, both the game backbone and all of the gameplay features. But with more than a half-dozen people working on the game, each with thier own opinions and styles, when is that going to happen?

As for people starting their own variants, that doesn't happen much any more. I think most people who would have been inspired to do that in the past simply join the devteam and start making changes directly to Angband. But today, why would anyone start a variant with the current codebase when in 6 months the code will have comletely changed again?

But with all the things that are going into the edit files, there still isn't much you can do to the game that won't need changes to the code. For example, I doubt you could ever ptu enough in the edit files that you can't even put in a new spell type (GF_FOO) without a little programming.

As it is now, Angband pretty much is a variant, but it has the benefit the Angband brand name so it gets played the most. Like all variants (NPP included), some of the changes are pretty good, and some of them appear to have not quite panned out as intended.

Again, I am glad Angband is being worked on so much, but we went from one extreme (stagnant) to another (so much change we can't even get a feel for the game before it changes again). I do wonder when things will settle down, and if the game will even resemble Angband any more when it does. But it is not making things easier for the variants. But maintaining a variant is starting to feel like a waste of time, because I would need a devteam of my own to keep up with the changes.

This is one for takkaria really, but I'd just like to make sure we're all assuming good faith.

Angband is both huge - ~130k lines of code - and 20 years old. Turning it into a modern, modular program, with the core code, game code and UI code all properly delineated, is a multi-year project (probably more difficult than rewriting it from scratch in python). Please rest assured that the devteam keep this goal in mind - nobody makes major internal changes (e.g. what happens to global variables, or game/ui interfaces, or whatever) without consensus. The fact that it's hard to keep up with is evidence of how much there is to be done (and we still haven't really bottomed out input, events, graphical displays or layer interfaces, so there is much more fundamental change to come).

I accept (but don't share) the view that it would be be better if nobody made gameplay changes until this was done, and also the view that it would be better if nobody made gameplay changes at all and just worked on maintenance/ui - but that's already been debated several times. If someone steps up to maintain V and not change it, I for one would be happy to rename whatever the devteam is working on. There's really no conspiracy to stop anyone doing that if they want - lots of people would welcome it, and I don't think any of the devteam would object.

I'm certain that fizzix didn't intend to offend or belittle variant maintainers. What I believe he was trying to say was that there is a long-term goal of making the game more configurable by moving stuff out of the code into edit files - so *anyone* can tweak stuff, whether they want to produce a variant or not.

[Nick]

Jeff makes some good points.

Also, if you just change the edit files, you haven't made a variant.

[nppangband]

So, as you're probably aware, one of the main ideas behind Angband is to make it very easy for variant maintainers to make their own game solely by changing the edit files.

Let me preface this by saying that I am glad you all are working so hard on Angband and I think you all have come up with alot of good ideas and changes, but I saw that statement and had to rant a bit. My apologies in advance........

I promise you, the changes being made are making it *MUCH* more difficult and frustrating to maintain a variant. It might someday be easier when you all reach your end goal of a codebase that you all are happy with, and limit your changes to the actual gameplay rather than what appears to be almost a total re-write of the game, both the game backbone and all of the gameplay features. But with more than a half-dozen people working on the game, each with thier own opinions and styles, when is that going to happen?

As for people starting their own variants, that doesn't happen much any more. I think most people who would have been inspired to do that in the past simply join the devteam and start making changes directly to Angband. But today, why would anyone start a variant with the current codebase when in 6 months the code will have comletely changed again?

But with all the things that are going into the edit files, there still isn't much you can do to the game that won't need changes to the code. For example, I doubt you could ever ptu enough in the edit files that you can't even put in a new spell type (GF_FOO) without a little programming.

As it is now, Angband pretty much is a variant, but it has the benefit the Angband brand name so it gets played the most. Like all variants (NPP included), some of the changes are pretty good, and some of them appear to have not quite panned out as intended.

Again, I am glad Angband is being worked on so much, but we went from one extreme (stagnant) to another (so much change we can't even get a feel for the game before it changes again). I do wonder when things will settle down, and if the game will even resemble Angband any more when it does. But it is not making things easier for the variants. But maintaining a variant is starting to feel like a waste of time, because I would need a devteam of my own to keep up with the changes.

[Magnate]

Although it might not fit in with this thread, I'm also supporting the idea of having a wider variation of food/drinks within Angband...

takkaria made a branch for that in the official repo, it's called 1520-food if you want to test it. Hopefully it'll get merged into a dev version soon. More variety is clearly bad though, so perhaps it won't.

[Shockbolt]

Come on - it's not like I've just added a wilderness - or friendly monsters. All I've done is give names to features that were already in the game. If you think the names lack flavour, by all means suggest better ones. If your argument is that Angband really shouldn't have more variation in items than exists in the current ego_item.txt, how do you support that?

Although it might not fit in with this thread, I'm also supporting the idea of having a wider variation of food/drinks within Angband...

[Magnate]

That's my other major concern. If I wanted to find a Cruel Voulge of Dweomercraft, I'd go buy a copy of Diablo 3.

Come on - it's not like I've just added a wilderness - or friendly monsters. All I've done is give names to features that were already in the game. If you think the names lack flavour, by all means suggest better ones. If your argument is that Angband really shouldn't have more variation in items than exists in the current ego_item.txt, how do you support that?