Angband.oook.cz
Angband.oook.cz
AboutVariantsLadderForumCompetitionComicScreenshotsFunniesLinks

Go Back   Angband Forums > Angband > Vanilla

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 22, 2008, 23:18   #1
GSN
Rookie
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 21
GSN is on a distinguished road
Monster editor?

Has someone written a monster _editor_ for Vanilla or any other variant? I have found a monster viewer (BAE) with several useful features, but editing still has be done by hand.
GSN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 25, 2008, 04:18   #2
d_m
Angband Devteam member
 
d_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA, USA
Age: 38
Posts: 1,516
d_m is on a distinguished road
I was thinking about writing one. Initially it would probably run on Linux (which is what I'm developing in).

Is there any rhyme or reason for how the current file is formatted? Reading the stuff in is easy, but writing out spells, flags and description so they are exact matches of the current monster.txt file is kind of annoying.

If there really is a hard-and-fast system of how it should be structured I'll definitely support it, but it seems pretty arbitrary right now.
d_m is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 25, 2008, 09:08   #3
Pete Mack
Prophet
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 5,016
Donated: $40
Pete Mack is on a distinguished road
In re formatting changes: yes and no. Yes: there's no fundamental
Reason for the current format, and a canonical (machine generated) format is a good idea.

No: because any time the format changes, doing revision diffs becomes impossible. Major file changes should be bundled together.
Pete Mack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 25, 2008, 18:06   #4
d_m
Angband Devteam member
 
d_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA, USA
Age: 38
Posts: 1,516
d_m is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete Mack View Post
No: because any time the format changes, doing revision diffs becomes impossible. Major file changes should be bundled together.
Do you think it would be feasible to agree on a canonical form, and then do one commit which was just reforming the file? Obviously this would only happen if people were convinced that having a canonical format was useful (e.g. if there were tools to manipulate the file and a filter to canonicalize files).
d_m is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 25, 2008, 19:39   #5
Narvius
Knight
 
Narvius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Poland, Katowice
Age: 26
Posts: 588
Narvius is on a distinguished road
I know there's a monster *generator* over on thangorodrim.net. Could be combined with that viewer thing for awesomeness.
__________________
If you can convincingly pretend you're crazy, you probably are.
Narvius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 25, 2008, 23:17   #6
takkaria
Veteran
 
takkaria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,859
Donated: $40
takkaria is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by d_m View Post
Do you think it would be feasible to agree on a canonical form, and then do one commit which was just reforming the file? Obviously this would only happen if people were convinced that having a canonical format was useful (e.g. if there were tools to manipulate the file and a filter to canonicalize files).
There is a canonical form for monster flags:
http://dev.rephial.org/trac/browser/...ster/mon.flags

Flags should be in order specified there, and each new grouping should start a new line. For each flag, if there are already six flags on the same line, then it should start a new line, too.
takkaria is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 25, 2008, 23:28   #7
d_m
Angband Devteam member
 
d_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA, USA
Age: 38
Posts: 1,516
d_m is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by takkaria View Post
There is a canonical form for monster flags:
http://dev.rephial.org/trac/browser/...ster/mon.flags

Flags should be in order specified there, and each new grouping should start a new line. For each flag, if there are already six flags on the same line, then it should start a new line, too.
Awesome, thanks! This is exactly what I was looking for.

EDIT: while you're here, what is the guideline for wrapping descriptions (if any)?
d_m is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26, 2008, 09:48   #8
takkaria
Veteran
 
takkaria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,859
Donated: $40
takkaria is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by d_m View Post
Awesome, thanks! This is exactly what I was looking for.

EDIT: while you're here, what is the guideline for wrapping descriptions (if any)?
Wrap at 80, and spaces at the end of a line should be moved to the beginning of the next.
takkaria is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 1, 2008, 05:11   #9
d_m
Angband Devteam member
 
d_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA, USA
Age: 38
Posts: 1,516
d_m is on a distinguished road
So here are a few more questions/issues that I have about the file. Free free to defer these questions if they prove too annoying:

1. Should spells come before or after flags? Currently it seems to vary by entry. Should this be standardized?

2. Is there a canonical order for spells? Should there be? Should spells wrap after the 6th entry like flags? Should they be grouped according to spell type (this might be happening right now)?

3. There are some flags missing from the .lua file you referenced (DROP_2, DROP_3, etc). Should these be added?

4. What order should attacks be in? Currently it seems alphabetical by attack name (e.g. "bite" before "claw").
d_m is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 1, 2008, 11:27   #10
GSN
Rookie
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 21
GSN is on a distinguished road
Quote:
1. Should spells come before or after flags? Currently it seems to vary by entry. Should this be standardized?
All r_info lines are parsed independently of each other (see parse_r_info in initi1.c). The current convention merely affects human readability.

Quote:
2. Is there a canonical order for spells? Should there be? Should spells wrap after the 6th entry like flags? Should they be grouped according to spell type (this might be happening right now)?
No each time.

Quote:
3. There are some flags missing from the .lua file you referenced (DROP_2, DROP_3, etc). Should these be added?
Only flags that are defined in defines.h may be added. I don't know much about Lua, but I believe that any flag defined by scripts may be used only in monster definitions contained in scripts, not in r_info.

Quote:
4. What order should attacks be in? Currently it seems alphabetical by attack name (e.g. "bite" before "claw").
Attack order is irrelevant except for aesthetic reasons. Currently monsters always do a "full" attack (unless they cast spells), and so does the player. Implementing D&D 3.x style full and base attacks would be more trouble than they are worth. Angband it's not THAT tactical, at least in its current form.
GSN is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Something odd about monster.txt Magnate Vanilla 2 August 3, 2008 02:25
Monster options? Markus_z Vanilla 0 May 8, 2008 10:52
monster list info DaviddesJ Vanilla 1 March 31, 2008 04:10
Vault Editor Zambaku Variants 0 January 6, 2008 20:43
Monster AI Malak Darkhunter Vanilla 3 December 9, 2007 08:05


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 18:04.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.