Proposed change to make an "action" button

[penguinflyer5234]

Fine, do as you wish... It's not like I'm the one to implement it anyway. However, if you want to implement it no matter what, calling it a "proposal" is rather misleading...

Just like his proposal for Lua!

Also, I say we should keep it how it is. (and I can revert it, lol)

[bgbirdsey]

However, if you want to implement it no matter what, calling it a "proposal" is rather misleading...

The proper responses to a proposal would be a counter proposal, or reasoned argument (that means argument with actual reasons behind it, not just I don't like it).

If there was a counter proposal that was better than mine, or if there were arguments other than "I like it the way it is" then I would listen to them.

As zefz said, if this creates major bugs it will either be modded until it works or it will be removed.

As it stands, the feature will be almost transparent to current gameplay, just as the lua extension is.

[Zefz]

Do you think that the LUA implementation could somehow affect that the game does not run on other computers anymore? (I did use the static library) I had to change the compiler to compile as C code instead of C++ (I get linker errors if not).

[Zefz]

Do you think that the LUA implementation could somehow affect that the game does not run on other computers anymore? (I did use the static library) I had to change the compiler to compile as C code instead of C++ (I get linker errors otherwise).

[bgbirdsey]

No. If it links, it will run. There are no external dependencies if you use the static library.

You have to compile it as c because of the use of void * all over the place. You should compile all projects with only .c as c-code, anyway.

The only possible benefit to compiling to c++ is that the compiler embeds type information into the function definition in the .lib file. This is tricky since it is completely compiler dependent so c++ .lib files cannot generally be shared...

You can certainly remove any dependency by not including the ego_wrap.c, lua_console.c and undefining the USE_LUA_CONSOLE switch if you like.

I would "blame" some minor variation in the setup of your 2 machines, because the errors have to do with SxS configuration and VC9 runtime configuration on the target machines.

If you could send me a copy of your Inno script files, I could try to build a binary on my machine and see if it would install on my other XP box. That one doesn't have any Visual Studio stuff installed on it unless the runtimes were dumped on there from a different game...

[Shade]

However, if you want to implement it no matter what, calling it a "proposal" is rather misleading...

The proper responses to a proposal would be a counter proposal, or reasoned argument (that means argument with actual reasons behind it, not just I don't like it).

If there was a counter proposal that was better than mine, or if there were arguments other than "I like it the way it is" then I would listen to them.

Now, Mr. I-ignore-anything-you-say-because-I-don't-care-about-your-opinion, if you had actually read what I wrote, you would have noticed that I actually gave you several reasons why I don't want it in. It is likely to introduce new bugs, causes quite some work and it is hell-a wierd to have two action buttons that would pretty much do the same to anything that can not be grabbed. I don't think any newbie who doesn't know the game would seriously try to pick an NPC up to interact with it before simply bumping it. Also, considering we already have a well-working way of interacting with NPCs, I don't see any reason to introduce a much more complicated one, unless you want to discourage talking to NPCs and stuff for some reason.

You want a counter proposal? If you want an action button so badly, why not just use the jump button for it? Jumping only is required in rather few places right now, and hardly at all in places where there are NPCs or switches. Also, it would be less weird since it would only be one button, not two.
I still greatly dislike the idea of any "action" button at all though. Bumping is good enough in my opinion.
Thus my second counter proposal: Leave it as it is. KISS.

[bgbirdsey]

I have actually read everything you wrote, carefully considered it, and spent approximately 10 minutes per post carefully answering each relevant point. Fully reading my posts would reveal that.

It is likely to introduce new bugs is a statement that is true of any change in the program, the scripts, the module design, and many other aspects of the game.

I have addressed the potential bugs that you have mentioned and they do not seem serious to me.

• Problem 1 - The bumping the grub bug problem is incorrect for 2 reasons.
  
  • 1) the mere fact that you send a bump message to a grub bug does not do damage to your character, you basically have to be in a position for the grub bug's mouth to bite you already.
    
    2) you seem to have made an implicit assumption that the effect will work over long distances. The effect will only work over the same distance as the normal grab function. Essentially, if you try to grab something but you can't lift it for some reason, you bump it. If you are already close enough to grab something you should basically already be bumping into it already.
  Problem 2 - The assertion that you might somehow loose an item because you drop it near an NPC or a switch is not rally that important. For it to be confusing at all, the item would have to end up in an awkward position.
  
  • - the NPC is actually standing on the item
    - the item drops behind a switch or something where you can't make your character get closer to the item than the switch
    - the item is something like a spear where the actual position of the item is quite a ways from the spear point, but you assume that you can pick it up because you are close to part of the spear.
    
    If an npc is basically standing on an item that you dropped, you can just push the guy. Just as you would now if he was blocking your way. Very intuitive solution.
    
    For point 2, I do not think there are any places like this in the game, and I think that switches do not block your way at all.
    
    Point 3 really has nothing to do with the action button thing, but it is a common annoyance with the way things are grabbed at the moment
  If you can come up with more cases that show more significant problems, let me know.
  
  Problem 3 - the "causes quite some work" problem
  
  If you are concerned that I might succumb to exhaustion from overwork, I appreciate the fact that you are looking out for me I am not that fragile, though.
  
  If you mean that it is somehow "more work" for the player, I don't understand that.
  
  Take Call of Duty 3 on Playstation 2 for instance. In that game you have a controller with 14 buttons and 2 analog joysticks, and they still choose to have multi-purpose "action button" that does everything from planting C4 on walls and bridges to entering vehicles, blah, blah, blah
  
  This pattern is repeated over and over and over again even in many PC action games that have basically 102 buttons * 4 (or more) ways of modding each key, so that each and every command could definitely be assigned to a unique key.
  
  I do not think that you can truly argue that the idea of an action button is not useful.
  
  The one reasonable argument that you made is basically covered in "Problem 2" above. I welcome any more input on ways that the user might be confused by "two different purposes" for the action button at one time.
  
  Problem 4 - the "it is hell-a wierd to have two action buttons that would pretty much do the same to anything that can not be grabbed" problem
  
  Again, I am not exactly sure what you are referring to.
  
  If you mean that it is strange to have a left action button and a right action button, all I can say is... meh... I can't see too many people who would make the transition from meh to hella...

-------------------------

On another note, your statement:

I don't think any newbie who doesn't know the game would seriously try to pick an NPC up to interact with it before simply bumping it

Is actually mixing two different trains of thought. If the button is an action button (with only one of the actions being to pick up items), your statement should have read

don't think any newbie who doesn't know the game would seriously try to use and action button on an NPC to interact with it before simply bumping it

The newbie would never be told that the button was a "pick up" button. They would be told that it was an action button and one of the actions that it performs is to pick up objects off the ground, another action is to speak with NPCs, another action is to drop in-hand objects, another action is to activate a link to another module.... Or they could just be told that pushing one button will cause interesting actions with the left hand and the other will cause interesting actions with the right hand....

[Agent of Dread]

[quote="bgbirdsey]
If an npc is basically standing on an item that you dropped, you can just push the guy. Just as you would now if he was blocking your way. Very intuitive solution.
[/quote]
This = Bump anyway.
I haven't the time to make a full rebuttal anyhow, so I'll butt out.

[bgbirdsey]

Yes, but it is not bump... get some dialog... bump ... get some more dialog ... bump get some more dialog ... bump ... get some more dialog ... bump ... oh look the guy dropped a scroll...

On the other hand, the 3 cases I listed would be pretty rare. Why would you purposefully/accidentally drop something at some NPCs feet? Is there some game mechanic that requires that one of those 3 things occurs to finishe the game?

Also, this ignores the reality of bumping. If you want to buy healing you have to bump the healer so that your characters are basically face to face, then the healer will turn away from you and move to another location. you then have to try to bump her again, but if you do it before the timer is up, nothing happens and she "runs away" again. If you get it correct, you then exchange money for healing...

[Zefz]

I will try a release binary one more time with all the LUA stuff disabled.

If that does not work, I will try to send you the script. It would be great if we could test this on a 100% uncontaminated pc.

Also I can think of a fix to one of the "problem" cases mentioned above. The case where you can't grab items that are placed near interactive objects (outhouse, npc, lever, whatever), we just make the code first try to grab any item. If that fails it will continue to try to interact with something. So grabbing items overrides activating stuff. Should not be that hard to do?

[bgbirdsey]

Also I can think of a fix to one of the "problem" cases mentioned above. The case where you can't grab items that are placed near interactive objects (outhouse, npc, lever, whatever), we just make the code first try to grab any item. If that fails it will continue to try to interact with something. So grabbing items overrides activating stuff. Should not be that hard to do?

Yes, that was the original plan, that you would only bump something if there was nothing to grab.

So, how much of the "bumping interface" (lol) did you design? I know that arakon or someone used attack to activate links in randegoboo... How did you talk to K'Nife at the end of the rogue starter originally?

The real problem is that we need some kind of action button for following links, and there may be need for some retooling if we introduce alchemy or something in the future...

[Zefz]

Yes I know. It could be problematic if players suddenly jumped from module to module when bumping stuff (unless we add some sort of yes/no dialog).

Every NPC and lever in the game is handled by bumping (Including K'nife). That is every talking object and everything that has some quest related stuff (gaining quest from bumping the crypt in the bishopia graveyard for example). I really don't like the idea of "attacking" to interact with objects. How would healers or paladins without weapons interact? (I used bumping to activate links in randegoboo).

[Shade]

@bgbirdsey: Sigh. Okay, I give up. I trust you that you know what you're doing, so if you insist on adding a "action" function to the get/drop command, go ahead as long as the usual, simple bumping still works.

However:

On the other hand, the 3 cases I listed would be pretty rare. Why would you purposefully/accidentally drop something at some NPCs feet? Is there some game mechanic that requires that one of those 3 things occurs to finishe the game?

It is indeed not all that unlikely for such an accident to happen since the way you planned to implement it, interacting with an NPC that way would require having an empty hand. If your pockets and both your hands are already full, you'll naturally have to drop something.

The only other gripe I have about this is the fact that you need an empty hand to do anything with the new method. Looking at the example of module links, you probably don't want to have to drop an item to activiate the link since you'd have to leave it behind in the old module. And considering that characters can only carry eight items at a time, it's actually pretty common for a player to be packed to the maximum, so that would be a pretty common and annoying problem.

[Zefz]

That's a very valid point Clonks. My inventory is usually filled up, including both hands.

[xenom[GER]]

[snip]
The only other gripe I have about this is the fact that you need an empty hand to do anything with the new method. Looking at the example of module links, you probably don't want to have to drop an item to activiate the link since you'd have to leave it behind in the old module. And considering that characters can only carry eight items at a time, it's actually pretty common for a player to be packed to the maximum, so that would be a pretty common and annoying problem.

Why not increase the inventory size to 10, so all your items can go into the pack. If you already carry 10 items (either in the pack or in your hands), you can't pick up any more items. That shouldn't be that hard if I got the inventory / pack part correctly.

Or are there any plans to change the current inventory, too?