| Author |
Message |
Karl Scherer (Karl)
| | Posted on Thursday, October 05, 2000 - 6:46 am: | |
Since there is a command "adjacent-to-enemy",
I suppose that the next Zillions version will have
"adjacent-to-friend".
But what about
"adjacent-to-marked", which would sometimes be very useful.
Maybe also
"adjacent-to-from", "adjacent-to-to",
"adjacent-to-lastfrom" "adjacent-to-lastto" ! |
David GLAUDE (Glu)
| | Posted on Friday, October 06, 2000 - 4:48 pm: | |
Hello,
I wonder wich game is using "adjacent-to-enemy?".
I think it is possible to get the same result without it, this is exactly the same for the other "keyword" you talk about.
David GLAUDE.
PS: Do you have any example where it will be required or more appropriate than equivalent code? |
Karl Scherer (Karl)
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 11, 2000 - 6:03 am: | |
Hi David Claude,
Your question is a bit the wrong way round.
Well, it is more easy to develop an example game
with new features when the code is available.
Without the proper command how can the code exist in the first round??
Usually one will not write a game when the current work-around is too awkward.
I have ideas for games that use such commands. Can't you imagine some?
To satisfy your curiosity:
Yes, an example of a game
that uses something like "adjacent-to-friend" exists: It is "Companion Chess".
I have sent it to Ed van Zon already.
It will be one of the next games published in
Zillions.
You have to have a friendly piece next to the moving piece.
Only if there is no such piece you may execute
any other legal chess move.
Th game has several variants.
When the new commands will be available, a lot more interesting games will be possible.
New commands are powerful tools to increase
creativity.
I do not think that Zillions should be restricted
to cover only existing ground, but should also
allow to open up new vistas for new types of games.
Cheers, Karl |
Karl Scherer (Karl)
| | Posted on Thursday, October 12, 2000 - 3:15 pm: | |
Hi David Claude,
you were looking for a game that uses the command
"adjacent-to-enemy" and could obviously not
imagine some good use for it.
Well, here is one, and the use of the command
in it is straightforward:
The game is called "Cat And Mouse III".
This, as well as the games "Cat And Mouse"
and "Cat And Mouse II", will be published soon.
In "Cat And Mouse II" you play the cat that has to chase and eat the mice. The mice are dropped
at the beginning of the game and then roam randomly.
In the sequel "Cat And Mouse III" the cat and mice have become more clever. The mice are not dropped adjacent to the cat anymore (makes sense, ey?) and never stray next to a cat anymore (makes sense?).
Both the drops and the moves use the command
"adjacent-to-enemy".
I think that the use and ease of the command
"adjacent-to-enemy" and its advantages in these circumstances is obvious.
Happy programming!
Karl |
David GLAUDE (Glu)
| | Posted on Monday, October 16, 2000 - 9:38 am: | |
if there is a work arround should we request a new feature?
Hi Karl, (my name last name is GLAUDE)
My only question is the one above.
If you have a great game in mind that require a feature that do not exist, you will try to find a work arround without it.
That's what you have done.
The "Cat And Mouse" kind of game don't require much (thinking) speed from the computer opponent. So the price to pay for using the work arround is not high.
If a feature does not exist, is require for a game to be implemented and there is no work arround, not even a complex one... they we should ask for a new feature (like for Internationnal Checkers that require majority take).
If a feature does not exist, is required for some game to be implemented but the work arround is so complex that it make the game too difficult for Zillions to play agains human in resonnable time. If that same feature can be used creatively by other game and is generic (rather than game specific) then we should ask for the feature.
If a feature would be great: fixing bug, making the language more orthogonal, help a lot of peaple starting to write game and does not cost much (in terms of Zillions AI engine modification) we should ask for it.
But not everything can be turn into a new keyword, it's not a language anymore it's a list of keyword. The big question is the performance. Is a specific keyword more or much more efficient than the equivalent langage work arround (let say a macro full of test...).
Well, that's my oppinion concearning new keyword.
The most painfull problem is when you have to find work-arround for BUGs.
David GLAUDE (glu@who.net) |
|