Requests for BoA Scenario Format 3

[Overwhelming]

Quote:

**** OUR #1 TOP PRIORITY ****
1.1 void add_dialog_pic(short which_pic) - Puts a dialog picture in the upper-left corner of the dialog.

Why top priority? Sure it would be cool, but I think there are other much more important calls. The dialog box call can be emulated, while there are other calls that don't. And those would open many paths in scenario design, like missile animations, cast_spell, time calls and the light calls.

[Lilith]

You've obviously never played BoE. Dialogs have enormous value, both practical and sentimental. Play a BoE scenario like Doom Moon II or Falling Stars and tell me it'd be the same without the dialog pictures.

 

And the "workaround" bloats file sizes horribly if it's used for more than a couple of dozen dialogs (some BoE scenarios have used literally hundreds of dialogs with custom images.)

 

To give you an idea of just how important an issue this is, at least two respected designers have threatened to stop designing if dialog pictures are not implemented in BoA. Maybe, just maybe, you should trust the word of people who know what they're talking about.

[Dahak]

Dialog Box Picture = Very very very very very very very very very good.

[Donald Hebb]

Oh yeah... I'd also like to have custom scenario icons. It would be super-easy to do, and isn't even listed as not being possible. Not a top priority, but it's so damn easy that I can't see it being too difficult to do anyway.

[Fort]

My feelings toward this are variable. On one hand, the dialog pictures were very good for setting the mood in BoE, and the custom creations by graphic artists were pretty good.

 

But it is just an aesthetic thing. I'm sorry, but I'd prefer more functionality to be added if it had to be a choice between the two. Do not misinterpret this; I'd like the pics, too.

 

But I think the main thing that is on my mind is whether or not the pics can be of variable size. A limitation to small pics might make them not noticeable to some, while big ones will force text off the screen. I hope there is some mechanism for this, rather than restricting the size.

[Lilith]

Referring to people by names instead of numbers is just an "aesthetic thing", too. Do you want to start barcoding people?

 

Because my attitude toward a message's dialog picture in BoE was honestly analogous to that toward a person's name; it may not carry any real information, but it's surprisingly important to your overall impression of them.

[Fort]

Well, we could live in a utilitarian society with ubiquitous values and absolute references to everything. That would be very interesting for language, though. Extremely precise and easy to understand.

 

...barcoding people is a little extreme, don't you think? I'd be all for it if 2 things would be satisfied:

• Variable sizes for the pics.
• More than 1 possible per dialog box.

[Donald Hebb]

Honestly? The "multiple images" deal is a nice idea, but I don't think it'll happen. If you tell Jeff to build you a hut, you might get it if you're lucky. If you ask him to build the Empire State Building, he will piss in your face and tell you it's raining.

[Donald Hebb]

Another request (I'm TPing this, BTW) is that SFX calls be enabled for outdoors. I've perfected the art of making something action-packed that uses no towns for BoE, and I could have really used some outdoor SFX nodes.

[Kelandon]

It occurs to me that we might want a third, independent thread for that sort of thing and for the add_item_to_shop request. We have one thread for new calls and one thread for bugs; maybe a third thread for additional functionality for the old calls?

 

If I understood him correctly, Jeff said that he would do bug fixes, might add functionality to old calls, and would think about adding new calls. It seems that we're a lot more likely to get the first than the second and still less likely to get the third, so we might want to separate them.

[Fort]

We would all love him so much more if he did all 3.

 

I don't think it is necessary to separate them even further, since it is only 2 calls. Just move them into a new category. I recommend that the calls be updated and the NO WAY ones stricken from the record.

[Donald Hebb]

If he doesn't add calls, I drop whatever I'm working on and quit designing alltogether. BoE spent 7 years neglected, four of which I endured, and I don't want to see whichever medium I work with hereafter rot either. I can wait for Pyg, if it means suitable coverage and updates which meet the requirements of its designers.

 

Honestly, I'd be thrilled to recieve support from JV for BoA. I'd be totally unsurprised if none was provided. The only thing differentiating this and the four years of BoE is my continuously waning patience.

[*i]

*bump*

 

We need to send this off ASAP. Have anything else you want to say done by the end of next week.

[Kennedy]

I would like the ability to give creatures negative immunities to make them take extra damage from certain kinds of attacks.

[Fort]

He [Jeff Vogel] already stated that his favorite workaround was making the monster resistant to everything BUT the damage type in question to simulate weakness.

[Kelandon]

I'm going to define "end of next week" as Saturday the 18th, unless anyone has any objections. Then I'll make the final edit to the first post in this thread, and... well... it would be nice if someone important (and here I am thinking of Stareye) would send this to Jeff at that point because I am a nobody and I have no idea if he would just ignore a random e-mail from me.

 

We could combine this with Keep's bugs topic in the final e-mail.

[Donald Hebb]

I really would like to be able to customize outdoor wall sheets- type, height, etc.

[Archmagus Micael]

Quote:

Originally written by Kelandon:
I'm going to define "end of next week" as Saturday the 18th, unless anyone has any objections. Then I'll make the final edit to the first post in this thread, and... well... it would be nice if someone important (and here I am thinking of Stareye) would send this to Jeff at that point because I am a nobody and I have no idea if he would just ignore a random e-mail from me.

We could combine this with Keep's bugs topic in the final e-mail.

DSon't JUST email jeff, send him the first page of the topic over by email, using the "UBB Email" system. Give him a little message in your email, ORDERING, or at least ASKING him to read all three pages, and he'll kinda get the gist. It's all very well for someone to say something in an email, like saying two designers have already threatened to quit, but it's better if he can actually SEE and READ it himself.

- Archmagi Micael

Oh, and in that earlier topic, the one with the pic onloy 11KBs, BoA doesn't accept JPEGs, and in BMP format it's more like 250KBs, each!

[Fort]

Much smaller on a Mac, I believe, unless Jeff uses uncompressed resource files. He does, doesn't he?

[Lilith]

He does. He's made some... interesting... programming decisions with BoA, and the graphics formats were one of them.

[Fort]

That is SO stupid. He should've made the game accept gifs, tiffs with compressiong schemas, and the uncompressed formats like BMP for speed.

 

Kel, did you receive my PM?

[Lilith]

The problem with GIFs is that they're copyrighted; you can't use the GIF format for commercial purposes without written permission.

[Fort]

Hwat? LZW or something?

[Djur Revolutions]

Quote:

Originally written by Thuryl:
The problem with GIFs is that they're copyrighted; you can't use the GIF format for commercial purposes without written permission.

The patent Unisys held on LZW expired in June. GIFs are now legally unencumbered; however, they're a relatively poor choice for game graphics. GIF is very dated; it's an 8-bit indexed format ideal only for simple graphics with large blocks of color.
JPEG would of course be a terrible choice, being lossy. I use PNG -- more colors, better compression.

[demonslay3r]

PNG's are great.

 

I still prefer BMP's myself. I feel my computer is fast enough... screw file-size issues!

[Djur Revolutions]

Which is fine and dandy except for the people using dialup.

[Fort]

Due to the differences in compression algorithms (PNGs have basic compression, really, but the multiple filters and number of refinement passes can do wonders), the disadvantage of poor PNG Lib implementation, the possible extra size of 24 - 36 bit palette size, difficulty of pronunciation, and Jeff's insistence on using last generation technology will forever keep this new standard away from his games.

 

I'd like to point out that this topic has practically died for some reason. Does no one have any insight to add? I swear, the moment Jeff comes out with SF3, somebody is going to whine about something that wasn't suggested and not implemented. Zero hour is almost nigh, friends.

[Donald Hebb]

I'm not even sure that half of our "top priorities" (because as Jeff will hasten to add, giving us better tools is bad because us designers aren't worth the dung we crap out on the 'loo anyway and will massively abuse all that is given to us) will even be read, much less processed.

 

Well, eh. Maybe I'll be proven wrong- hopefully so.

[SmirfOfDoom]

While this is completely incomphrehensible for Jeff to do. (It would require a remake more then a modification) I want to be able to modify races/spells/skills. And be able to add races/spells/skills. While as I said before it is highly unlikely, I believe this would vastly expand the capabilites of the editor, along with the creativity of the editors.

 

Edit- BTW this has nothing to do with the format itself, just something I would love to see implemented...

[Kelandon]

It's not that it's unlikely. It's just not going to happen. The chances are not slim, but in fact none. Jeff has said this repeatedly, most notably in a post that was deleted in the last prune here, but remains at the Lyceum here .

 

EDIT: Any final requests? I think I'm going to make the last adjustments tomorrow, ask for any final comments that anyone would like to make, and then... err... something will happen on Sunday. Someone will, like, send it to Jeff or something.

[Lilith]

Quote:

Originally written by Kelandon:
EDIT: Any final requests?

A cigarette would be nice.

Oh, you mean for the editor. Hmm. The only thing that comes to mind is better AI for NPCs that actually join the party. At the moment, an NPC's script doesn't seem to affect its behaviour once it's joined the party. Of course you can work around this by having the NPC follow you using scripts instead of joining the party, but that means PCs can't cast spells on the NPC.

[SmirfOfDoom]

While I read the article pretty well Kelandon, some parts I agree with. Other parts (no offense Jeff I love you) are crap. Plain and utter crap. The basis makes sense. Yes. I have no problem with Humans and Sliths and Nephilim and these skills stay the same, and edged weapons will always be edged weapons. Thats fine. What should have been done is additions. Have a basis, every game does. Thats fine by me and everyone else with any type of brain. However there is no reason that you cannot add more. Make a spell list solid, and then allow people to make more spells to add on. Make the same concept as the weapon that has a custom graphic, and is no longer valid outside of that particular scenario. However I see why he didn't. He didn't say it. But I see it. It's the three main things that everybody doesn't want to give up. Money, Effort, and Time. Well, this is why I say it's crap. I gave up money to buy BOA. I gave effort to making scenarios. I gave up time to testing them to a fault. So, in conclusion, sorry if I offended anyone, but with a reasonable limit, there is no reason why these things couldn't have been implemented in from the start.

 

EDIT- oh and for final request I have to go with the post last said before mine, The ability to add NPC into the actual party itself. Would be a nice addition.

[Kelandon]

Oh, I completely agree with you, Smirf. I'm just saying there's no point in requesting it.

[Lilith]

Oh, Smirf, I didn't want actual player-controlled joinable party members -- that would be nice but definitely isn't going to happen. I just want creature scripts to not be broken for NPCs that join the party.

[Fort]

I don't think that they even use the basicnpc script that you might put into the scenario. They use the default basicnpc in your \data\ folder that is placed into every new scenario upon creation.

[Isaac]

There has to be some reason why a party member joining you has to have a unique script - but that script isn't used. It seems very strange. I wonder what (if anything) would happen wrong if you used another script that other creatures use? Perhaps they would all revert to the default basicnpc script?

 

Perhaps joined party members don't use a script at all. Remember the AI was just a part of the game code that controlled all NPCs in Avernum 3. Perhaps joined party members are controlled by something like that. Maybe that's important so they can follow the party when out of combat and not move too far away from the party when in combat. Who knows?

[Fort]

I think you should send all the suggestions to Jeff, but highlight the important ones for him. I have a feeling he's only going to implement the ones that fit his whim, so why not send them all and see which ones he likes?

 

If we are to send the bug reports to him as one big chunk as well, I think we might need to make a short scenario illustrating all the errors. I'm going to need some help with that, considering I don't have the full version of the game (yet).

[Kelandon]

Okay, final update (I think). A few of the least likely calls as determined by myself, Garrison, and *i were stricken from the record (4.3, 4.4, 5.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, -- dealing with shop money, altering day length, and altering the rate at which creatures regenerate their health). I think this is the final edit, unless anyone has any strenuous objections. Now it's time for someone important that Jeff knows and to whom he might actually listen (*cough* Stareye *cough*) to send this in.

 

EDIT: And Stareye sent it in. Now we'll just have to wait and see what he says.