Problems..

ID:148384
 
Mar 9 2003, 9:32 pm
Ok in the prevous topic i said about building, ok now you can build troops but, the troops dont actully move..

mob/allies
    var/owner=""
    var/mob/allies/M
    New()
        .=..()
        spawn(1)
        Wander()
    proc/Wander()
        while(src)
            if (M in oview(5))
                if(M.owner == src.owner)
                    ..()
                else
                    step_towards(src,M)
            else
                for(M in view(src))
                    break
            sleep(10)
        spawn(30)
            Wander()
    Bump(mob/M)
        if (istype(M,/mob/allies))
            attack(M)
    proc/attack(mob/M)
        var/damage = rand(1,str)
        if(usr.str - M.defense > 0)
            M.hp -= usr.str - M.defense
            view(4) << "[src] attacks [M] for <font color = red><b>[damage]</b><font color = black> !!"
            M.DeathCheck        
        else
            return
    infantry_b
        icon='Player.dmi'
        icon_state="infantryb"
        str=5
        defense=3
        hp=20


Im going to bed, i'll check this tomorow.
Mar 9 2003, 10:49 pm
Maybe indent the Wander() proc by one.
Mar 10 2003, 8:27 am
In response to Unknown Person
Unknown Person wrote:
Maybe indent the Wander() proc by one.

The indention is fine, i think it is calling the Wander proc, but its trying to walk into it self...There for no walking around, :-|
Mar 10 2003, 8:53 am
Wanabe wrote:
Ok in the prevous topic i said about building, ok now you can build troops but, the troops dont actully move..

There are a few problems. The first was pointed out by Unknown Person: You have an indentation error.
    New()
        .=..()
        spawn(1)
        Wander()

That's where he meant you need to indent by one. spawn() should be followed by an indented line if you're gonna do anything with it, or else you could just put it all on one line as spawn(1) Wander().

Second, the Wander() proc is massively screwed up:
    proc/Wander()
        while(src)
            if (M in oview(5))
                if(M.owner == src.owner)
                    ..()
                else
                    step_towards(src,M)
            else
                for(M in view(src))
                    break
            sleep(10)
        spawn(30)
            Wander()

Here are the problems with it:

  • Since you're looping while(src), what's the need for the spawn(30) Wander() at the end? That does nothing; get rid of it.
  • Why are you calling ..()? This is a brand new proc; it has no older version of Wander() to fall back on. ..() will do nothing here. In fact it'd be nice if DM threw a warning for when people misuse it.
  • oview(5)? Tsk tsk tsk. That should be oview(5,src).
  • The way you're choosing M is friggin' screwy. I mean just drop dead awful. The loop through view(src) is non-selective, so it doesn't just choose mobs with a different owner, and so it's not going to find anything useful: The first mob it finds should always be itself, I think, and so it's what's causing your problem. And while I'm on the subject, why is the search for a new M put after the step_towards() call instead of before it?

    So here's how your proc should look:
proc/Wander()
  var/mob/M
  while(src)
    // pick a new M if there isn't one
    if(!M || !(M in oview(5,src)))
      for(M in oview(5,src))
        if(M.owner != owner) break
    // follow the target, if there is one
    if(M)
      step_towards(src,M)
      sleep(4)  // movement delay
    else
      step_rand(src)
      sleep(10) // sleep while waiting for a new target
If you want to make the monster even more tenacious, increase the first oview() from 5 to something larger like 7 or 8. Then it'll follow you even if you get a little way out of sight, and only give up if you get farther away. Better still, you could also change the first oview() to orange() so hiding behind something won't fool the monster, and change step_towards() to step_to() to use built-in pathfinding. The second call to oview(), however, should remain as it is because that's for picking a target, not following a known target.
    proc/attack(mob/M)
        var/damage = rand(1,str)
        if(usr.str - M.defense > 0)
            M.hp -= usr.str - M.defense
            view(4) << "[src] attacks [M] for <font color = red><b>[damage]</b><font color = black> !!"
            M.DeathCheck        
        else
            return

Everywhere you put usr in this proc, it should be src, so change it. M.DeathCheck should be M.DeathCheck(src), and the "else return" you can just plain delete.</dm>
Lummox JR
Mar 10 2003, 10:36 am
In response to Lummox JR
ok thanks lummox, but, i seem to be getting a loop error, (keeps on looping a LOT and slows down game play) its in the wander proc, but i cant see whats making it loop over and over... :-|..so um yeah mind helping?.....

[edit] the error is on this line: while(src) , im geussing its because that loops it, but umm how do i get it to stop looping so much?, should i just put a sleep or somthing before or after it? [/edit]
Mar 10 2003, 11:09 am
In response to Wanabe
Wanabe wrote:
ok thanks lummox, but, i seem to be getting a loop error, (keeps on looping a LOT and slows down game play) its in the wander proc, but i cant see whats making it loop over and over... :-|..so um yeah mind helping?.....

[edit] the error is on this line: while(src) , im geussing its because that loops it, but umm how do i get it to stop looping so much?, should i just put a sleep or somthing before or after it? [/edit]

The revised proc I showed you will sleep one way or the other, so it shouldn't have that kind of problem.

Lummox JR
Mar 10 2003, 12:52 pm
In response to Lummox JR
Well, heres what i have;

mob/allies
    New()
        .=..()
        spawn(1) Wander(src)
    proc/Wander()
        var/mob/M
        while(src)
        if(!M || !(M in oview(5,src)))
            for(M in oview(5,src))
                if(M.owner != owner) break
            //   follow the target, if there is one
                if(M)
                    step_towards(src,M)
                    sleep(4) //  movement delay
                else
                    step_rand(src)
                    sleep(10) // sleep while waiting for a new target

    Bump(mob/M)
        if (istype(M,/mob/allies))
            attack(M)
    proc/attack(mob/M)
        var/damage = rand(1,src.str)
        if(src.str - M.defense > 0)
            M.hp -= src.str - M.defense
            view(4) << "[src] attacks [M] for <font color = red><b>[damage]</b><font color = black> !!"
            M.DeathCheck(src)


the reason why i removed 'var/owner' since you thought it would be a good idea to check for all mobs, instead, i had to put var/owner in a var for all mobs, not just certain ones.
Mar 10 2003, 12:54 pm
In response to Wanabe
You've managed to indent that last if/else pair two tabs too far, putting them not just inside the loop, but inside the if() before it. How you did that I don't know, since my code has them indented correctly.

Lummox JR
Mar 10 2003, 12:56 pm
In response to Lummox JR
its the forum, in DM its all indented fine, ill send you the files to prove that...or are you meaning somthing else? that i havnt clicked on to.
Mar 10 2003, 3:53 pm
In response to Wanabe
Wanabe wrote:
its the forum, in DM its all indented fine, ill send you the files to prove that...or are you meaning somthing else? that i havnt clicked on to.

It's not the forum; your code is definitely indented too far in that section, by two tabs. And if it was the forum, then it would mean you were mixing spaces and tabs, which is an indent problem in itself.

Lummox JR
Mar 10 2003, 4:03 pm
In response to Lummox JR
Lummox JR wrote:
Wanabe wrote:
its the forum, in DM its all indented fine, ill send you the files to prove that...or are you meaning somthing else? that i havnt clicked on to.

It's not the forum; your code is definitely indented too far in that section, by two tabs. And if it was the forum, then it would mean you were mixing spaces and tabs, which is an indent problem in itself.

Lummox JR

I noticed, that in the forums it looks like it is out by two tabs, but in the thing its only out by one, whitch is indented. And there is no Spaces, i made sure of that :-)[edit] ok i just deleted a tab, ill see if it works now [/edit] [edit2]ok tried that, no good. [/edit2]
Mar 10 2003, 5:00 pm
In response to Wanabe
Wanabe wrote:
I noticed, that in the forums it looks like it is out by two tabs, but in the thing its only out by one, whitch is indented. And there is no Spaces, i made sure of that :-)[edit] ok i just deleted a tab, ill see if it works now [/edit] [edit2]ok tried that, no good. [/edit2]

If you hit the "reply with quote" button you'll see the tabs as they are, and the section was definitely in by two, not one. So you've just made a random edit, which didn't help you. If you'd actually change the code to fit what I showed you in the first place, it would work.

Lummox JR
Mar 10 2003, 6:19 pm
In response to Lummox JR
Lummox JR wrote:
Wanabe wrote:
I noticed, that in the forums it looks like it is out by two tabs, but in the thing its only out by one, whitch is indented. And there is no Spaces, i made sure of that :-)[edit] ok i just deleted a tab, ill see if it works now [/edit] [edit2]ok tried that, no good. [/edit2]

If you hit the "reply with quote" button you'll see the tabs as they are, and the section was definitely in by two, not one. So you've just made a random edit, which didn't help you. If you'd actually change the code to fit what I showed you in the first place, it would work.

Lummox JR

hehe, as soon as you said that i thought 'oh just a dumb mistake' then i do it, and theyre only tabbed..by one...