Has someone written a monster _editor_ for Vanilla or any other variant? I have found a monster viewer (BAE) with several useful features, but editing still has be done by hand.
Monster editor?
Collapse
X
-
I was thinking about writing one. Initially it would probably run on Linux (which is what I'm developing in).
Is there any rhyme or reason for how the current file is formatted? Reading the stuff in is easy, but writing out spells, flags and description so they are exact matches of the current monster.txt file is kind of annoying.
If there really is a hard-and-fast system of how it should be structured I'll definitely support it, but it seems pretty arbitrary right now. -
In re formatting changes: yes and no. Yes: there's no fundamental
Reason for the current format, and a canonical (machine generated) format is a good idea.
No: because any time the format changes, doing revision diffs becomes impossible. Major file changes should be bundled together.Comment
-
Do you think it would be feasible to agree on a canonical form, and then do one commit which was just reforming the file? Obviously this would only happen if people were convinced that having a canonical format was useful (e.g. if there were tools to manipulate the file and a filter to canonicalize files).Comment
-
Do you think it would be feasible to agree on a canonical form, and then do one commit which was just reforming the file? Obviously this would only happen if people were convinced that having a canonical format was useful (e.g. if there were tools to manipulate the file and a filter to canonicalize files).
Flags should be in order specified there, and each new grouping should start a new line. For each flag, if there are already six flags on the same line, then it should start a new line, too.takkaria whispers something about options. -more-Comment
-
There is a canonical form for monster flags:
Flags should be in order specified there, and each new grouping should start a new line. For each flag, if there are already six flags on the same line, then it should start a new line, too.
EDIT: while you're here, what is the guideline for wrapping descriptions (if any)?Comment
-
takkaria whispers something about options. -more-Comment
-
So here are a few more questions/issues that I have about the file. Free free to defer these questions if they prove too annoying:
1. Should spells come before or after flags? Currently it seems to vary by entry. Should this be standardized?
2. Is there a canonical order for spells? Should there be? Should spells wrap after the 6th entry like flags? Should they be grouped according to spell type (this might be happening right now)?
3. There are some flags missing from the .lua file you referenced (DROP_2, DROP_3, etc). Should these be added?
4. What order should attacks be in? Currently it seems alphabetical by attack name (e.g. "bite" before "claw").Comment
-
1. Should spells come before or after flags? Currently it seems to vary by entry. Should this be standardized?
2. Is there a canonical order for spells? Should there be? Should spells wrap after the 6th entry like flags? Should they be grouped according to spell type (this might be happening right now)?
3. There are some flags missing from the .lua file you referenced (DROP_2, DROP_3, etc). Should these be added?
4. What order should attacks be in? Currently it seems alphabetical by attack name (e.g. "bite" before "claw").Comment
-
Attack order is irrelevant except for aesthetic reasons. Currently monsters always do a "full" attack (unless they cast spells), and so does the player. Implementing D&D 3.x style full and base attacks would be more trouble than they are worth. Angband it's not THAT tactical, at least in its current form.
Currently I have a program that can read in the entire monsters.txt file into various Monster objects, and then later write those objects out. The problem is that the way my program chooses to write out the monsters isn't identical to the current format of these monsters (because many of them are arranged in conflicting and arbitrary ways).
I would prefer to have the maintainer(s) state a preferred canonical form for the entire file. This way, once the file conforms to the spec, I don't have to worry about having my program save out the "same" monster in a form that looks different (for whatever reason) from the original input.
Sorry if I wasn't clear about that. I have read and understood the input format, so I am really asking for an "official" opinion about it, not an explanation for what the fields mean or what order they are usually in.Comment
Comment