Web Images Videos Maps News Shopping Google Mail more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
rec.games.roguelike.development
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion 7DRL: Bob and Trev: Resurrection
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Follow-up To:
Add Cc | Add Follow-up to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers that you hear
 
phlamethro...@gmail.com  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 22 Feb 2007, 16:14
Newsgroups: rec.games.roguelike.development
From: Phlamethro...@gmail.com
Date: 22 Feb 2007 08:14:38 -0800
Local: Thurs 22 Feb 2007 16:14
Subject: Re: 7DRL: Bob and Trev: Resurrection
Reply to author | Forward | Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On 22 Feb, 14:42, David Damerell <damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
wrote:

> Quoting   <Phlamethro...@gmail.com>:

> >On 22 Feb, 10:50, henrih...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>Just a suggestion: Given the severe limitations, I feel it is
> >>justified to create non-persistent levels, and instead focus on
> >>generating particularly good random levels.
> >I don't think development time saved by not having persistent levels
> >will allow me to develop a significantly better random level
> >generator.

> If levels can only be altered trivially - opening doors, etc - and you're
> not going to be walking round a skyscraper with digging tools - random
> seed plus diffs might be an efficient way to store persistent levels.
> --
> David Damerell <damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
> Today is Leicesterday, February.

Actually, the main space waster in the proposed savefile format is the
object list. Each 40x22 dungeon can be stripped down to 660 bytes of
data, but unless I go for a more complex save format I'll also be
saving 202 objects, which are 8 bytes each. If on average each dungeon
level only contains 30 items, that'll be over half the save file
wasted with empty definitions.

If I have the time (or a really good idea) I'll go for a more complex
save format, but the limits of DFS, BASIC, and 32K of RAM will be
working against me. So for now I'm just sticking to storing a fixed
size block of data per level.


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2009 Google