On Sun, 12 May 1996 email@example.com wrote: > > First of all I would like to ask a quick question. I have heard much > discussion about adding > 32 (or is it 31 now?) flags to the code. > Although my mud hasnt reached the point where i have to worry about this > yet, I am sure it will. I have also heard a few poeple suggest changing > to a long to add more room. Am I misunderstanding this or is that true > and if it is that simple why doesn't everyone change it? Is it because > it uses more memory or something? I would appreciate if someone could > explain this to me. ( And I did look in a couple C books before asking. ) Ints/Long ints are 32 bits on most UNIX compilers, to my understanding. Anyway, on many machines, ints and longs are the exact same length, so that's not a fix. It's 0-31 bits (so, 32 max), although many machines, I've heard, use 31 as a signed field, so it'd be better to use "unsigned". Anyway, the fix many people have used is bitfields, which is availible at the CircleMUD ftp site (last I checked). If you want to use bitfields and CircleMUD pl11, I think you'll have to 'diff' the bitfields pl with a stock Circle of the same pl and then try 'patch'ing it into CircleMUD, manually adding in rejected things. Note, I said, 'diff'ing the same patchlevels then patching to CircleMUD pl11. So, if the submitted CircleMUD using bitfields is based on pl8, then diff it against a stock pl8 and try patching to pl11, so you don't change anything new in pl11. It's probably the easiest (with some risk of it automatically changing things it shouldn't, but that's slight) way to do it, although, it'd be safer to manually port over all the code (ultra vomit) or just try upgrading pl8 to pl9 to pl10 to pl11 fixing any rejections as you go. > > > Next, I have been considering completely changin alignment because mostly > I find the current system too narrow. As someone mentioned before what > may be "evil" to one group could be perfectly normal to another culture. > I am considering using an alignment system like that of AD&D and making > alignment changes based on shifts. For example, a charcater would have 3 > values and an alignment. The values would be Moral and Law. A character > would lose or gain Moral and Law based on their actions i.e. if they gave a > beggar gold they would gain moral and if they killed something they may lose > moral and if it was unlawful to kill they would lose law also. Each time one > of the values reached 0 or 100 the alignment of the character would shift. For > example: <grin> I like being referred to in messages -- eh, as long as it's not a flame, that is ;) And this is in an interesting idea. Perhaps I'll play with it a bit, is seems to fill out the requirements I was in need of. > Alignment shifts would also carry some kind of penalty and affect which > spells a character could/could not cast (this would affect all charcaters > since my mud is multiclassed). OOoh, there, that's something that'll make alignment more important, which is something I wanted to hear in the thread I took over, heheh. ;) > > I would like any critiques, suggestions, praise or flames (but if its a > flame please send it privately :). > No flame (flaming someone for a good idea?), but I might suggest further divisions. Morality and Lawfulness are all good, but their Loyality is something else, and Loyality to country and loyality to their religion is also different. It is, BTW, possible to be disloyal to your government or country and not break the law (although there is ways of being disloyal that is against the law -- treason). Say there's a holiday that's not religious, just a holiday, like Independance day. Not going, while not against the law, would be considered a lack of loyality for your country or governing parties. Not being Loyal to your God doesn't require any kind of automatic events within cities. It just says, "Does this person pray?" and possibly, if you wanted automatic events, "Does this person attend church?". The loyality to religion rules would be different for each religion. For instance, I'm currently making orcs be cannabals, so I have them have sacrificial rituals, etc. Every game paints orcs as savage and unintelligent, perhaps, though, that's because no-one's been an orc from an orc's point of view. Sacraficing someone to the Gods then eating them shows loyality to their God. Not doing so, shows disloyality. Then that would determine their alignment and you could call them: You are disloyal to state and country, loyal to religion, of good morale, and somewhat lawful. This makes you Neutral.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/18/00 PST