Structure of the hierarchy:

Keeps track of all the types of wearable and how they fit together. Provides methods for rapid querying. Will build the datastructure described below during its construction.

Datastructure

key

type (equivalent to location)

value

[description, over, under, bodypart ]

description

One or two word description of the type

over

Array of the types of wearable that this covers

under

Array of the types of wearable that this goes under

bodypart

Array of the body parts that the person must have to be able to wear the item

Methods

• status is_valid( type )
• string get_description( type )
• string *get_goes_over( type )
• string *get_goes_under( type )
• string *get_required_bodyparts( type )

n-dimensional map.

- What about things that are not worn that provide protection? is armour not a wearable with ac, but perhaps a wearable with protection, and protection is something that provides an ac?
- Does wearing one thing over the top of another make the one underneath provide less protection?

• What about things that are not worn that provide protection? is armour not a wearable with ac, but perhaps a wearable with protection, and protection is something that provides an ac?
• Does wearing one thing over the top of another make the one underneath provide less protection?
• How do we handle that a human can wear two rings, but a 4 armed being an wear 4, and a snake can wear none.

function: is_wearable() returns true.

Backwards compatibility

The following are also defined - but we'll probably have to break them:
query_armour_type()
set_armour_type()
test_armour_type()
restored()
remove() - triggers on the 'prepare_destruct' hook.
drop_armour() - triggers on the object being moved

It also defines these and hopefully we can remove them
worn_attributes()
wear() - this becomes a verb
init() - all replaced by verbs
do_remove() - this becomes a verb

-- have to call it a night. thoughts for the next time: - What about things that are not worn that provide protection? is armour not a wearable with ac, but perhaps a wearable with protection, and protection is something that provides an ac?

Thoughts for the next time:

• We have a daemon that records the hierarchy of what goes over what.
• Wearing moves to being based on wearables, implemented through m_wearable.
• All things wearable can provide some level of protection, but normally provide none.
• Armour just becomes a Wearable which normally has an AC > 0
• Each wearable object has a reference into the daemon for the details of where it fits.
• The daemon provides methods for checking whether an item can be worn, given what the player is wearing.
  • TODO: how to handle effects that mess with what you can wear?
• Wear and remove become verbs that work with Wearables, instead of embedded within armour objects.

We have a daemon that records the hierarchy of what goes over what. Armour becomes a Wearable with an armour class > 0. Each wearable object has a reference to the details in the daemon. The daemon provides methods for checking whether an item can be worn, given what the player is wearing. - TODO: how to handle effects that mess with what you can wear? Wear and remove become verbs that work with Wearables, instead of embedded within armour objects.

Nice to have

• Would be nice to pick up different types of protection.... padded leather armour providing better protection against blunt weapons than against edged.

m_wearable

Design

We have a daemon that records the hierarchy of what goes over what. Armour becomes a Wearable with an armour class > 0. Each wearable object has a reference to the details in the daemon. The daemon provides methods for checking whether an item can be worn, given what the player is wearing. - TODO: how to handle effects that mess with what you can wear? Wear and remove become verbs that work with Wearables, instead of embedded within armour objects.

Daemon

-- have to call it a night. thoughts for the next time: - What about things that are not worn that provide protection? is armour not a wearable with ac, but perhaps a wearable with protection, and protection is something that provides an ac? - Does wearing one thing over the top of another make the one underneath provide less protection?

• Yeah. When I experimented with a multiple hand system I also made the shield a thing you hold in your hands instead of a weapon, ofcourse as usual its just a placeholder code to test the system functionality - FreD 4 Sep 2006

• I suggest adding an input when adding armour to your body; "This jumpsuit also covers your groin area. You are currently wearing a pair of underwear that is too large for a jumpsuit to cover. Exchange the underwear with jumpsuit? [Yes/No]". Ditto when removing stuff allowing automaticly removing/wearing stuff that is a layer above the said clothing part with a yes no statement. - FreD 4 Sep 2006

I see how this could work. Currently when you build an armour it asks you about weight. I think when you hit "?" in there, you should add a new blurb about how much that piece should be at minimum and max (instead of (now) telling someone to check the guidelines for that same info.) So, for example a ring: ? = 0-2. Then tell builder that if # = 2, at that weight nothing more could be worn over the hand. Now, a change like that could have a major negative effect on worn items in the mud. So a tool might have to be made to deside size (weight) of armours inplay. Alternatively, aside from that approach, you could add a new setting of "encumberance(?)" to the building of armours. With a setting of 0 (default) something could be worn over it (along the layer tree scale - something that should be viewable in-game in a builder help file somewhere,) and 1 being that it was too big/heavy/magical to allow more things to encumber it.

And as for the shield, i agree, it should be held under the hands/weapons section of the combat tree.

Re: body

I've seen armour consist of just a chestplate, where the sleeves (if any,) torso section, and leggings were all other pieces that are attached seperately. And i've seen full platemail that occupies the whole body. So for plate setting, i suggest the additional options of: upper, upper + sleeves, full (not including feet, head, or hands.)

-- LuCid - 04 Sep 2006

-- Main.Fantom - 03 Sep 2006

-- FantoM - 03 Sep 2006

Wearable slots are places that a player can wear items of armour or clothing.

The current slots available are: body, boot, cloak, glove, helmet, legging, shield, sleeve, amulet, bracelet, earring, ring, badge, backback, magical.

At this time a player can only wear one item in each slot except for "magical". A player can wear as many "magical" clothings as he likes. This is designed to allow coders the ability to create wierd stuff that the player wears that doesn't use up another slots - not normally something that the player can see.

-- Main.Fantom - 03 Sep 2006

-- LuCid - 02 Sep 2006

My questions regarding these new ones:

• Body normally includes groin. If I am wearing a groin armour can I also wear a body armour?
• Ditto leggings normally includes shin and knee.
• Ditto helmet including face.

-- LuCid - 02 Sep 2006

Tail is a new one. Belt is a very interesting one.

I'd suggest that perhaps this is a good time to put in the concept of layers of clothing. You can wear groin armour, and then body armour over the top, and then your belt. Possibly the same for face & then helmet. I'm not sure about knee and then leggings. It would depend on the knee armour (and probably the legging armour?).

So if we say that there is a tree ( or several trees? )of clothing slots rather than just a list of totally independent slots, and each item fits a place in the tree and can choose if anything can be worn over it or under it, then we might solve this.

Trees:

ring -> glove  -> 
                 -> gauntlet
      bracelet ->


elbow-> forearm  ->
                   -> arm
        upperarm -> 


toe -> foot  -> 
               -> boot
       ankle ->

knee -> shin     ->
                   -> leg
        upperleg ->


                neck  ->  
                groin ->
                neck  ->
fronttorso ->            -> body -> robe     ->
             -> torso ->         -> belt     -> -> cloak
backtorso  ->                    -> backpack ->
                   


face  ->
         -> helmet->
crown ->

Interpretting these trees (and using the top one as an example): A ring goes under a glove. A bracelet is independent of rings and gloves, but both bracelets and gloves (and thus rings) go under gauntlets. As a coder you could state that "this ring is bloody huge, nothing can be worn over it", thus stopping the wearing from wearing either gloves or gauntlets, but not bracelets. You could also do the reverse and say "these are skintight thieving gloves, you can't wear anything under them", thus stopping the player wearing rings.

Having drawn those I am no longer convinced that it is a tree (being something that in which each node has only 1 thing above it). For example I felt that "body" should have all of "belt", "robe" and "backpack" over it, and then cloak over all of those.

This "layered" approach to armour is more realistic, it also allows people to conceal what they are wearing, by wearing a cloak over everything.

You'll notice I left "shield" off a this point in time. I don't see it as a type of clothing. I think people just hold them.

-- FantoM - 03 Sep 2006

%META:TOPICINFO{author="LuCid" date="1157127794" format="1.0" version="1.1"}% %META:TOPICPARENT{name="WebHome"}% I want to create further armour slots than we already have, so that I don't have to put in magical and/or unique for those pieces i want my monster to wear.

ie. shin (lower legs,) knee, face, tail, hip (/belt), groin armours, etc.

-- LuCid - 02 Sep 2006