Skip to main content

Large Monster Implementation.

One thing which has been a cornerstone of my development framework so far has been Large Monster Implementation (from this point referred to as LMI). It's something that I've said I wouldn't give up on.

So as it became increasingly likely that LMI wasn't going to work, or was going to have to require two completely different movement and combat systems working in tandem I became a little downhearted.

A giant spider, and look, it really is GIANT!

I had built my level prefabs to include a two square wide door, specifically to allow plus size monsters. Many of the monsters I had already designed had small and large variants. It was a real downer.

Anyway, my original plan was to have two sets of tile data, one for small tiles and one for large. I would keep track of movement in both, and then share data between them. it was horrible complex to try and code, and I just gave up, just trying to work around the issue on other things that I could actually do.

Today I though again about my reasons for using two sets of tile data. Why separate things? A large monster takes up 4 tiles, so we could get the second set of data by checking every group of 4 tiles in the first data set and then checking to see if any of them are occupied. We could do this when building the map, and then update the data sets every time someone moves. But what if we check the tiles only when we need to?

Lets look at an example:

A spider ready to move across our large room.

Right now every walkable tile in the game is stored in a dictionary. We can set whether the tile is walkable, whether it blocks vision and who or what is occupying the tile. We can select a tile by clicking on it and checking who is occupying it. When characters move from tile to tile they clear their presence on the old tile and set it on a new one. Because character moves in this game are upwards of 6 tiles per turn (instead of the traditional 1 tile movement of most rogue likes), I only need to change the occupier reference in the start and end tiles of the movement. The path-finding script takes care of what happens between those tiles.

The pathfinder in fact consists of two parts, the graph builder which gets walkable tiles from the map, and the path-finding algorithm (which is again split in to two parts, a simple Bresenham's line script and an A star algorithm for if more complex movement is required).

Before getting passed to the pathfinder the graph can be built to take in to account the possibility of large monsters. By checking if each square is walkable, and if it's 3 neighbors are also walkable we can check for a 2 square wide path instead of a single width path.

So we check the actual location of the spider and its neighbors using a search array:


add_to_graph = True
search_array = ((0,0)(1,0),(1,1),(0,1))
for xy in search_array:
    check_x = own_x + xy[0]
    check_y = own_y + xy[1]
    tile_key = get_map_key(check_x,check_y)
    if tile_key in walk_dictionary:
         if walk_dictionary['tile_key']['occupier'] != None:
            add_to_graph = False
    else:
        add_to_graph = False

If add_to_graph is True we can add the square to the graph, knowing that it has enough room around it for the spider to walk through.

We keep going, filling up the graph to the extent of the monster's maximum movement range or the distance of the goal. Then we hand off to A* to try to make a route to the goal.


In this case the route is blocked, the actual A* would try a lot more routes than this one, I do have a variant which will find the best square from the closed list and path find to there too to get as close the goal as possible rather than just giving up.

If we remove the blocking square the spider will go all the way to the goal.


We have to do more things to get this to work, for example when moving the spider we have to give it an offset so visually it appears in the center of the 4 squares. We also have to set all the 4 squares as occupied and set the occupier as the spider. When moving to a new position we also have to clear all the occupied squares.

If e do it right clicking on any of the 4 squares will return the spider as the occupier. This will allow the player to select the monster for a combat target, or to shoot at it, or cast a spell on it or loot its corpse or interact with it in any other way without ever knowing that it really only occupies one square.

But... I do have more headaches in store, one of which is the fact that the Bresenham's line script actually runs before the graph builder (to try and save processing time, building a graph can be time consuming) so the Bresenham's line script will also have to be modified when dealing with large monsters. Or we can just skip linechecks for large monsters, baring in mind they are going to be quite few and far between.

Setting aside such problems for now, it seems like the LMI problem may have been partly solved, and the implementation can also be shared by such things as large pieces of furniture

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Upstairs / Downstairs.

I've decided to make my prefabs multilevel. Later this should allow me to add pit traps and other great stuff. It also makes it easier to line up stairs so that you can exit them on the same co-ordinates where you entered them. The prefab editor is pretty much finished, it just needs some code for loading up prefabs from a saved dictionary, so that they can be checked or edited. The entries will need to be forwards compatible, so I'll be loading each tile and then translating the indexes to a new array, that way if I add extra indexes or extra info (like traps or puzzles) I'll be able to update existing prefabs to work with the new standard. Click for a video.

Automating Level imports from Blender to Godot

  Recently I've been making some levels in Blender an importing them into Godot. There are only about 7 or 8 shaders for each level, not counting dynamic objects which will be added later. But to improve rendering performance, it can be a good idea to split the meshes up into sections. At that point you might be faced with a list like this: Or it might be even more chaotic, if you didn't use simple names for the objects in your level. So it can take a long time to sort out all the meshes, make them unique and add textures and so on. Blender imports with simple Blender textures, or with placeholder materials. This is sometimes OK, but if your Godot shaders are very different to those used by Blender, it means applying new materials to every mesh object in the level when you import the scene. I found that during the design process, I was importing and readying a level several times before I was happy with the final layout. So at first I was wasting a lot of time. In Blender, I us

Advice needed on tilesets...

I need some advice on which is the best way to handle building the dungeon. Right now I'm using prefabs for my dungeon, they have a north south east and west section for each "room": The basic tileset. This has several advantages, and also several disadvantages. Firstly I can have curved rooms, I can have tunnels and other interesting shapes. The tilesets can look quite nice with a little work. On the other hand I can't easily get the navigation data before building the map and once the map has been built I can't make changes to the layout, like having active pit traps or believable secret doors. Although the rooms are interesting, they are quite repetitive, and it takes a lot of effort to make even a few different variations. Also rooms are constrained to one size. A newer version of the tileset with a lot of variant parts for making more interesting rooms. To create a tile set is a real headache too. Planning how to lay out the UVs, trying to cra