Vapourware announce: the rebirth of Kharne
perdu...@googlemail.com
screenshots of my Vapourware RL actually running on my PC. It's called
"Kharne" because....I'm the author of the old (and and very
incomplete) defunct RL Kharne: The Revelation written way back in
2001, and I'm now rewriting it from scratch to try and make a better
fist of it than I did back then. They'll both have the same name and
splashscreen in common, but that's about it.
The old Kharne was played by quite a few people, and it actually
helped me get another coding job, but the code wasn't nice, and the
architecture was...bleh, so bleh that for years when I toyed with the
idea of finishing it, I had a metaphorical allergic reaction to doing
any work on it. It was a bit shit really. Some of the original code
comments are....6 years later, a joy to behold *grins*
This time however, I want to do a proper RL. I suspect a playable
version won't be released for quite a white yet because well, so far,
you can create characters, run around lots of different dungeons, and
examine and pick up and wear/wield/drop/activate/manipulate items, but
apart from that....nothing else at the moment.
The two big things left to put in are magic and monsters (yes, those
are damn big), and once those are in (along with a victory condition),
I'll plop a version out for folks to play. This should be in a few
weeks time, hopefully. *crosses fingers and lots of other appendages*
Character Creation:
http://img237.imageshack.us/my.php?image=charcreate1vy9.gif
http://img237.imageshack.us/my.php?image=charcreate2ub4.gif
http://img237.imageshack.us/my.php?image=charcreate3kt8.gif
http://img237.imageshack.us/my.php?image=charcreate4nd0.gif
There are several different options for character creation, ranging
from one-click for a random (but optimised character), to the full
works.
---------------------------------
ASCII Graphics, showing the Minimap and some Item Details:
http://img237.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gameshot1sk5.gif
Graphical Tiled Version of the above:
http://img237.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gameshot1amf8.gif
The display engine additionally supports onochrome-ASCII in the
original style of Rogue. Due to the scaling used, more of the dungeon
is actually visible in ASCII mode than in graphical mode.
----------------------------------
In a different dungeon from above. I hope to have 9 different dungeons
eventually, each with their own themes and monsters:
http://img237.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gameshot2gs8.gif
----------------------------------
The Nexus, where you can access all the other dungeons from:
http://img237.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gameshot3su8.gif
----------------------------------
Some items:
http://img237.imageshack.us/my.php?image=item1lm4.gif
http://img237.imageshack.us/my.php?image=item2ss1.gif
Best,
Perdura.
Brigand
why even offer ascii mode when the surrounding windows are still
graphical.
I'll definitely devote some time to it when it comes out!
zaimoni
> Looks really cool! I especially like the interface, though I wonder
> why even offer ascii mode when the surrounding windows are still
> graphical.
Depending on the target language, it may be possible to do ASCII mode as a
genuine text console while retaining the graphical windows ;)
Am I correct in thinking the original Kharne was written in Delphi (Pascal)?
Regrettably, I had yet to become a packrat with game installers back then.
perdu...@googlemail.com
> On 2007-10-08 04:33:33, Brigand <markash...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Looks really cool! I especially like the interface, though I wonder
> > why even offer ascii mode when the surrounding windows are still
> > graphical.
>
> Depending on the target language, it may be possible to do ASCII mode as a
> genuine text console while retaining the graphical windows ;)
Yeah, shouldn't be too hard, although in Kharne I actually fake an
ASCII display by blitting text instead of a 32x32 tile onto the off-
screen surface.
>
> Am I correct in thinking the original Kharne was written in Delphi (Pascal)?
> Regrettably, I had yet to become a packrat with game installers back then.
It was. And the new one is also written in Delphi (Delphi 7 to be
precise, best Windows Programming Environment evah). The only code
that's currently common between both versions is part of the dungeon
generation algorithms (which were originally based by the ones used in
Tyrant/Tapestry, I recall). The rest of the code is new, improved and
washes whiter than white.
Oh, and I probably intend to release the source as well. It does use a
few custom components, but these are easily available on
t'interwebnet.
Best,
Perdura.
perdu...@googlemail.com
Cheers.
If you google this group, there's many many threads devoted to this
subject.
Basically, I like both, and both have their advantages and drawbacks,
and it was very easy to program both in (basically just a switch
statement in the Display routine - to blit out a character instead of
a bitmap at the assigned point in the Viewing Window).
Best,
Perdura.
Timofei Shatrov
confuse everyone with this message:
>Looks really cool! I especially like the interface, though I wonder
>why even offer ascii mode when the surrounding windows are still
>graphical.
You probably missed this part: "Due to the scaling used, more of the dungeon
is actually visible in ASCII mode than in graphical mode."
That's one huge reason to play in ASCII mode.
--
|Don't believe this - you're not worthless ,gr---------.ru
|It's us against millions and we can't take them all... | ue il |
|But we can take them on! | @ma |
| (A Wilhelm Scream - The Rip) |______________|
perdu...@googlemail.com
> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 19:33:33 -0700, Brigand <markash...@hotmail.com> tried to
> confuse everyone with this message:
>
> >Looks really cool! I especially like the interface, though I wonder
> >why even offer ascii mode when the surrounding windows are still
> >graphical.
>
> You probably missed this part: "Due to the scaling used, more of the dungeon
> is actually visible in ASCII mode than in graphical mode."
>
> That's one huge reason to play in ASCII mode.
>
Yeah, sorry Graphics fans, but there's no real proper way around this
apart from
a) enlarging the ASCII characters to be the same size as the 32x32
tiles, which would look weird.
b) using 16x16 or 24x24 tiles, which, to be honest, I'm not keen on.
For the main reason that at that tile size, ASCII is easier to
understand by and is superior in conveying information to the player,
(and also the David Gervais tiles were designed for 32x32 and don't
scale that well anyway)
c) Only making the game playable in Widescreen Monitors. I develop
using one at a silly resolution, but its not fair on others. And its
hard enough keeping the game down to a 1024x768 resolution as is.
The Graphical view is 24 tiles wide x 23 tiles high, whereas the ASCII
view is 46 characters wide x 22 characters tall.
(incidentally. I may at some point allow the display to be resized to
allow more tiles to be shown, but that's something for the far
future).
Best,
Perdura
Krice
<perdurab...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, sorry Graphics fans, but there's no real proper way around this
There is. You need to get hold of yourself and stop creating
confusing user interface solutions. If you can't use both
modes consistently, use only one. That's the proper way.
Brigand
Well, the main reason I asked (and you already answered) is that
mainly I see ASCII as a holdover from the days that computer
'terminals' couldn't properly display graphics. I guess no one plays
Roguelikes anymore simply because their 'mainframe' only supports
terminal window output - in which case, it wouldn't be able to play
the game due to the requirement of graphics in the secondary windows.
But, I do realize it's a nostalgia/purist/choice thing. Yeah, I see
the appeal, but I don't really go for it. I have been playing Nethack
since it was just Hack, and I certainly was happy when I had the
choice to upgrade to tiles, 'purism' be damned. Being able to see
gloves/breastplates/shields/helms/etc in an armor shop is 1000x easier
than having to use the look command 50x, and the cursoring over each
of the 50 non-descript ['s in the shop. I guess that makes me the
outsider in being the old-timer who hails at least a marginal
graphical upgrade to Nethack as a good thing :)
perdu...@googlemail.com
No, bear in mind that in both cases, the *lighted* area is the same,
so and this "lighted" area is the only area where you can see monsters/
items and suchlike.
Now, I have a certain amount of screen space to work with. This screen
space can be utilised via either graphical tiles or ASCII characters.
The Gervais tile graphics are a different size and dimensions to ASCII
characters. Ever looked up close at any font? They're not square, like
graphic tiles are. That is the fundamental problem. It's not really a
problem because if people want to play in graphical mode, they can.
They just have a tradeoff in they don't get to see quite as much of
the dungeon at once.
Best,
Perdura
perdu...@googlemail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh, I've implemented a "right-click on an item" to see its properties/
description (if known), whither that item be in a shop, in your
inventory or lying on the dungeon floor. And that's in either ASCII
mode or Graphical mode.
Best,
Perdura
Brigand
>
> - Show quoted text -
Woot, very nice!! Makes me wanna play the finished product even more!
perdu...@googlemail.com
<snip>
>
> Woot, very nice!! Makes me wanna play the finished product even more!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
"finished"? what's what then? *grins*.
Best,
Perdura.
David Damerell
>'terminals' couldn't properly display graphics. I guess no one plays
>Roguelikes anymore simply because their 'mainframe' only supports
>terminal window output
PDA users (although I appreciate you favour gratuitous unportability).
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is Second Chedday, September - a weekend.
Nik Coughlin
<perdu...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1191803607.8...@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> OK, so its not actually physically available *yet*, but here are some
> screenshots of my Vapourware RL actually running on my PC.
Coming from an ex-Delphi hack, very nice. Looking at your interface, can I
just offer one piece of advice on using gradients? Gradients always look
better when they're more subtle. The green text is good (Full, Quick,
Random) but the tabs are too harsh, and the left hand side of the "Choose a
Character Creation Method" text is too dark. I know it's just a tiny
cosmetic thing, but try it, it will only take a moment to change and it will
make a big difference :)
perdu...@googlemail.com
wrote:
> Quoting Brigand <markash...@hotmail.com>:
>
> >'terminals' couldn't properly display graphics. I guess no one plays
> >Roguelikes anymore simply because their 'mainframe' only supports
> >terminal window output
>
> PDA users (although I appreciate you favour gratuitous unportability).
> --
Don't forget mobile phones. Dweller is a good way to pass....enforced
momentary rest periods, shall we say, at work. *grins*
Best,
Perdura
jot...@hotmail.com
<perdurab...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> <snip> Ever looked up close at any font? They're not square, like
> graphic tiles are. That is the fundamental problem. It's not really a
> problem because if people want to play in graphical mode, they can.
> They just have a tradeoff in they don't get to see quite as much of
> the dungeon at once.
>
> Best,
> Perdura
Actually, I've seen a few RL's using square fonts. There was a post in
this group a few days ago where this subject came up and Jice provided
a link for one of them:
http://jice.nospam.googlepages.com/terminal.bmp
It's the one he's using in Chronicles of Doryen, and it looks really
good!
Jotaf
perdu...@googlemail.com
Yeah, the more I think about it, I will *eventually* move to a fully
scaling model, which will try and be more consistent in the use of
screen space and font/tile resolutions. For the time being, I'm using
the "Video Terminal Screen" font which looks quite good as well, but
is 8x16.
Best,
Perdura
Gerry Quinn
perdu...@googlemail.com says...
> On Oct 8, 1:41 pm, Krice <pau...@mbnet.fi> wrote:
> > On 8 loka, 13:26, "perdurab...@googlemail.com"
> >
> > <perdurab...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > Yeah, sorry Graphics fans, but there's no real proper way around this
> >
> > There is. You need to get hold of yourself and stop creating
> > confusing user interface solutions. If you can't use both
> > modes consistently, use only one. That's the proper way.
>
> No, bear in mind that in both cases, the *lighted* area is the same,
> so and this "lighted" area is the only area where you can see monsters/
> items and suchlike.
I don't think it's a problem; some roguelikes such as ZangbandTK have
variable size windows without affecting gameplay.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
perdu...@googlemail.com says...
> OK, so its not actually physically available *yet*, but here are some
> screenshots of my Vapourware RL actually running on my PC. It's called
> "Kharne" because....I'm the author of the old (and and very
> incomplete) defunct RL Kharne: The Revelation written way back in
> 2001, and I'm now rewriting it from scratch to try and make a better
> fist of it than I did back then. They'll both have the same name and
> splashscreen in common, but that's about it.
It looks very good.
One issue with regard to skills: how useful is it to tell starting
characters that their skills range from Bad (when they put the max into
it) to Abysmal? Do these descriptions actually tell you anything, or
do you already know that 11 points in skill X mean you are at 11% of
the max you might achieve?
If my fireball skill is really bad or abysmal, I shouldn't be able to
reliably kill rats with fireballs in level 1, but I bet I can.
- Gerry Quinn
perdu...@googlemail.com
> In article <1191803607.820053.147...@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> perdurab...@googlemail.com says...
Yeah, I've been having a whole bunch of doubts about the skill system
in general since I posted that.
Fundamentally, what are skills in a RL for?
At the moment, I can see two answers:
1) they govern how good someone is in a particular scenario.
2) They allow differentiation between classes.
As regarding 1), I'm seeing problems with this already. For example,
as you said, how do you model, in game, the difference between a
character with spellcasting 50% and spellcasting 60%? And does it
really matter? You end up changing the gameplay to suit the skill
system, and I'm more and more convinced that's not exactly a good
thing.
For example, I was intending to (and have partially coded up) a hidden
planar corruption statistic that would hang off fizzles and miscasts
of certain types of spells in certain dungeons. This planar corruption
could induce certain mutations in the player themed to the current
dungeon. For example, if you are in the Mausoleum (an undead-themed
dungeon branch permenated with negative enegy) and you miscast a spell
dealing with negative energy then your planar corruption for that
plane would increase and you would become more attuned to negative
energy and more like an undead. Which isn't necessary a good thing.
But this smacks of inventing a game mechanic to justify a skill, and
I'm not sure I like where I would be going with it.
For some things like lockpicking, yes, that can be modelled on a
discrete scale - failure means you open the lock but you make a lot of
noise, but success means you open iy quitely, for example. Or defense,
which is the basic dodge/parry skill - if you make this roll, you can
dodge incoming attacks. But spellcasting, how can you model that?
I suspect that I'll eventually move towards a simpler skill system
akin to what Crawl, for example, uses.
Best,
Perdura
Gerry Quinn
perdu...@googlemail.com says...
> On Oct 9, 1:05 pm, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
> > It looks very good.
> >
> > One issue with regard to skills: how useful is it to tell starting
> > characters that their skills range from Bad (when they put the max into
> > it) to Abysmal? Do these descriptions actually tell you anything, or
> > do you already know that 11 points in skill X mean you are at 11% of
> > the max you might achieve?
> As regarding 1), I'm seeing problems with this already. For example,
> as you said, how do you model, in game, the difference between a
> character with spellcasting 50% and spellcasting 60%? And does it
> really matter? You end up changing the gameplay to suit the skill
> system, and I'm more and more convinced that's not exactly a good
> thing.
Well, one option, if you want the 'good/bad' flavour notes, is to tie
them to level.
For example, 25 skill might be "good" for level 1, "adequate" for level
10, and "poor" for level 20. Perhaps monsters of these levels might
have a tendency to resist fireballs if their level exceeds half the
fireball skill level, or something.
- Gerry Quinn
David Damerell
>For example, 25 skill might be "good" for level 1, "adequate" for level
>10, and "poor" for level 20.
"I gained a level - why did my skill drop?"
Perhaps the answer would be to display both the numerical skill and the
descriptive word, with the latter varying as Gerry suggests. That would
make it more clear, since the numbers wouldn't change.
Part of the problem here is level progression combined with skills, to be
frank. I don't mean level progression so much as the idea that the
character will be much much better at the end of the game than at the
start. That's not inherently a problem - starting out fighting goblins and
finishing fighting dragons isn't the only way to do it, but it's an
acceptable one - but combined with progressive skills it does rather lead
to the idea that at the start of the dungeon all locks were constructed by
small children out of soft cheese and your character has the lockpicking
ability of a drunken elephant.
If we're going to have blatant D&Disms, I think part of the answer is to
learn some lessons from D&D (specifically, 3e, which is trying to do both
level progression and skills).
Firstly; recognise that a level 1 character is not a total incompetent,
and don't try and spread the descriptive terms for levels of skill across
the whole range. Taking the maximum level 1 lockpicking ability should not
move you from Utterly Abysmal to Mostly Abysmal; the maximum level 1
lockpicking ability should make you OK at lockpicking. Sure, you can't do
the magical stuff, you can't do those tiny fiddly six-barrel Swiss watch
locks where the guy who made it got a pixie in to help, but the standard
issue big dungeon lock, you can open that - and the description of the
player's skill should reflect that.
Secondly; the extra dose of skill at each successive level should
probably be smaller than the level 1 handout, to prevent skill levels
getting absurd.
Thirdly; recognise that skill levels _can_ be absurd. If a maximum level
character can beat dragons - in any reasonably coherent view of the
world, that's a superhuman feat. If they can stand surrounded by dragons
and eat a meal, that's a ludicrously superhuman feat. Rather than having
non-combat skills start at Totally Awful Worse Than A Baby With No Arms,
consider that that character might equally well have cinematicly absurd
superhuman non-combat skills; unlock ordinary doors just by slapping the
lock, climb smooth wet overhangs, recognise 300 types of tobacco from the
ash.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is Second Stilday, September - a weekend.
jot...@hotmail.com
> For example, I was intending to (and have partially coded up) a hidden
> planar corruption statistic that would hang off fizzles and miscasts
> of certain types of spells in certain dungeons. This planar corruption
> could induce certain mutations in the player themed to the current
> dungeon. For example, if you are in the Mausoleum (an undead-themed
> dungeon branch permenated with negative enegy) and you miscast a spell
> dealing with negative energy then your planar corruption for that
> plane would increase and you would become more attuned to negative
> energy and more like an undead. Which isn't necessary a good thing.
> But this smacks of inventing a game mechanic to justify a skill, and
> I'm not sure I like where I would be going with it.
Actually, I think this is a good idea. Even if it started as a way to
fit a skill in the game mechanics, it can turn out to be a good
mechanic in itself. IMO spellcasting needs more depth and this is one
of those things.
perdu...@googlemail.com
> perdurab...@googlemail.com says...
After some more back of the fag-packet decisions (and consulting my
better half, who has just recently started playing RLs herself), I've
kinda scrapped the previous skill system entirely, and went with a
simpler major/minor skill system, like TOMEs:
http://img410.imageshack.us/my.php?image=charcreate5dj8.gif
http://img234.imageshack.us/my.php?image=charcreate6nj7.gif
The first is a typical Warrior skill setup, the second a typical Mage
skill setup. I'll probably change my mind again, on this, but this is
a *lot* closer to how I want the gameplay to be.
Best,
Perdura
P.S. Nik, yeah, I will change the colours at some point.
Gerry Quinn
perdu...@googlemail.com says...
> After some more back of the fag-packet decisions (and consulting my
> better half, who has just recently started playing RLs herself), I've
> kinda scrapped the previous skill system entirely, and went with a
> simpler major/minor skill system, like TOMEs:
>
> http://img410.imageshack.us/my.php?image=charcreate5dj8.gif
>
> http://img234.imageshack.us/my.php?image=charcreate6nj7.gif
>
> The first is a typical Warrior skill setup, the second a typical Mage
> skill setup. I'll probably change my mind again, on this, but this is
> a *lot* closer to how I want the gameplay to be.
Makes sense. But the important thing is to keep this separate from
your game engine, so you can change how skills work anytime without
breaking the game.
(In fact up to a good stage of development, it might be better to just
work with pre-rolled characters and worry about the interface for
selecting their abilities later. It's too easy to fiddle with skill
systems and get nothing actually done in the game...)
- Gerry Quinn
perdu...@googlemail.com
<snip>
>
> Makes sense. But the important thing is to keep this separate from
> your game engine, so you can change how skills work anytime without
> breaking the game.
Yah. Skills at the moment are just an Array of Integers belonging to
the Creature class, and individual skills are accessed via constants,
e.g. Player.Skills[SK_FIGHTING] or Player.Skills[SK_MELEE]. That way,
I can implement the combat arithmetic as just that, basic arithmetic.
>
> (In fact up to a good stage of development, it might be better to just
> work with pre-rolled characters and worry about the interface for
> selecting their abilities later. It's too easy to fiddle with skill
> systems and get nothing actually done in the game...)
>
> - Gerry Quinn
What I'm finding at the minute is that a lot of the code I've already
written is hideously over-engineered (do I really need a TItem class
descending from an TItemBase class descending from a TItemArchetype
class when TItem and TItemType classes will do?) and I've spend the
last couple of days actually spending more time yanking out
unnecessary crap than moving things for forward. Its amazing how many
times a straightforward array will do instead of having custom classes
coming out the wazoo....
I'm not going to do more on character creation until I have the magic
system implemented. This is where the oiginal Kharne fell down in that
there was never any magic implemented, and it was too much work to add
it. The one I had in mind was based upon Crawl's - with a few
modifications, such as Incursion-style Metamagic modifiers. Fairly
straightforward to implement, and easily expandable.
Best,
Perdura
Gerry Quinn
perdu...@googlemail.com says...
> What I'm finding at the minute is that a lot of the code I've already
> written is hideously over-engineered (do I really need a TItem class
> descending from an TItemBase class descending from a TItemArchetype
> class when TItem and TItemType classes will do?) and I've spend the
> last couple of days actually spending more time yanking out
> unnecessary crap than moving things for forward. Its amazing how many
> times a straightforward array will do instead of having custom classes
> coming out the wazoo....
I get by with an Item class; the ItemType is just an enum.
> I'm not going to do more on character creation until I have the magic
> system implemented. This is where the oiginal Kharne fell down in that
> there was never any magic implemented, and it was too much work to add
> it. The one I had in mind was based upon Crawl's - with a few
> modifications, such as Incursion-style Metamagic modifiers. Fairly
> straightforward to implement, and easily expandable.
There's a lot to be said for using magic for *everything*. I think I
would do this if rewriting; e.g. a melee weapon is just a magic item
with its own particular spell type(s) and rules for use.
- Gerry Quinn