| |
rec.games.roguelike.development |
In article <1172240450.572579.253...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > Thinking about it, I don't think there's much of an argument for why I 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. > The whole idea of me writing it for a BBC is to find out exactly - Gerry Quinn
Phlamethro...@gmail.com says...
> > 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.
> 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.
> 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 :)
> 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.
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.