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
 
Gerry Quinn  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 23 Feb 2007, 15:37
Newsgroups: rec.games.roguelike.development
From: Gerry Quinn <ger...@DELETETHISindigo.ie>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:37:39 -0000
Local: Fri 23 Feb 2007 15:37
Subject: Re: 7DRL: Bob and Trev: Resurrection
Reply to author | Forward | Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
In article <1172240450.572579.253...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Phlamethro...@gmail.com says...

> On 23 Feb, 02:37, henrih...@gmail.com wrote:
> > If you absolutely require persistent levels, I suggest the following:
> > Store the random number seed of a level so you can remake it on
> > the fly without having to actually store the result; and just let
> > items
> > get hoovered away from a level when you leave.

> Thinking about it, I don't think there's much of an argument for why I
> should have persistent items. Any monsters which are left alive could
> either run off or follow the player to the new level, and any items
> which are left behind have presumably been left because the player
> doesn't want/need them. But at the same time, I can't think of any
> reasons why I shouldn't have persistent levels and items. Having fully
> persistent levels and items will certainly place some restrictions on
> the game, but I'd rather try working within those restrictions only to
> find it's impossible rather than take the easy route and throw all the
> old data away without even trying.

You're in a skyscraper and the elevator only goes up.

You're in a cave and have to jump down a hole to the next level.

The portal to the next level requires passing through an event horizon.

> If my ideas don't work - then fine, I'll start cutting them back. But
> at least we'll have some concrete evidence of them not working,
> instead of (what appears to me to be) a load of people running around
> claiming the sky is falling :)

> The whole idea of me writing it for a BBC is to find out exactly
> what's possible within the limitations of the machine - so I'm going
> to want to be pushing against and challenging those limits, not
> running away from them.

In a (never completed) project a long time ago, I saved the seed for
each level, plus a list of the ten most important/valuable items.  
Other items just had their value added up, and items of that value
would be generated randomly on re-entry.  The saved items would
persist.

- Gerry Quinn


    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