PenUltima Online

It is currently Sat Sep 06, 2008 11:15 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

How should the core handle damaged sounds?
Poll ended at Sun May 25, 2008 5:17 pm
It should do that or if it is an npc use a 'DamagedSound' property. 21%  21%  [ 3 ]
It should do that or if it is an npc, use a 'DamagedSound' and have another config setting to toggle if the core or script handles this. 42%  42%  [ 6 ]
It should be removed from the core entirely and handled purely script side. 35%  35%  [ 5 ]
Total votes : 14
Author Message
 Post subject: Hit Sounds in the Core
PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 5:17 pm 
Offline
POL Developer
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:30 am
Posts: 410
Location: San Diego, California
Damaged sound

Currently when a mobile is damaged the core plays a sound effect.
Code:
do_imhit_effects()
{
        if (gender == GENDER_MALE)
      play_sound_effect( this, SOUND_EFFECT_MALE_DEFENSE );
   else
      play_sound_effect( this, SOUND_EFFECT_FEMALE_DEFENSE );
     ...
}


Vote on the poll... ill let it run for 4 days.

_________________
-Austin


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 5:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 12:15 am
Posts: 217
I'd like to know reasons behind the votes casted. I, myself, voted "should be removed from the core entirely", because I like to be able to control how things work out: if stuff is coded in the core, modifying stuff tends to require heavy packethooking. Why not lend a hand to advanced users and give others an another reason to use core + distro?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 6:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 11:19 pm
Posts: 91
Location: Montreal, Canada
Honestly, I would handle the DamagedSound by myself. Well, that's for my part.

_________________
Image
FantasiaShard.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 7:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 6:26 pm
Posts: 548
I am still a fan of the idea of optionally enabling something to be handled by script. A good example for me is decay.

I guess it just lessens the impact of a core change whilst allowing a scripter to deal with it when they are ready.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2008 10:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 1:41 pm
Posts: 1127
Location: Southern Central USA
I am in favour of having the ability to handle as much scriptside as possible.

I vote with OldNGrey on this one. It is nice to have the option.

I'd say default to core handling it unless the setting, I assume it would be in serverspecopts or whatever that file is named, is set to hand it off to scripts.

Now if having an option adds much processing overhead to the server then let core pass it to scripts with no option.

_________________
Sincerely,
Yukiko

I know you think you understand what you thought I said but what you heard is not exactly what I meant.

Titus 2:13


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2008 11:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 12:15 am
Posts: 217
OldnGrey wrote:
I am still a fan of the idea of optionally enabling something to be handled by script.

Well okay, I could live with that.

-- edit:

Way to go Austin!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Style based on FI Subice by phpBBservice.nl