+- SphereCommunity (https://forum.spherecommunity.net)
+-- Forum: General Discussion (/Forum-General-Discussion)
+--- Forum: UO/Sphere Discussion (/Forum-UO-Sphere-Discussion)
+--- Thread: BASE PACK DEFINITION NAMING (/Thread-BASE-PACK-DEFINITION-NAMING)
RE: BASE PACK DEFINITION NAMING - XuN - 12-01-2013 08:02 PM
I think precise naming is better for memorizing, but not good for scripting purposes, imagine that you have a set of items in a def like this:
items_to_recolor=i_large_battle_axe,i_bardiche,i_paladin_sword,i_gargish_war_fork
And you want to convert one of them to verite material so following this patron, it will be i_verite_whateverid... easy way of doing this without cuting up IDs? none. Using inheritance its so easy:
args=<def.items_to_recolor>
serv.newitem=<argv[x]>_verite
So while your way is better to understand at first... this other way is better for scripting and, always that this naming-way is strictly followed anyone will get up how call any item so quickly.
RE: BASE PACK DEFINITION NAMING - Khaos - 12-01-2013 08:42 PM
Yes and no. The naming for stuff like that is fine to place _verite at the end; as it is not the BASE item. The BASE item should be strictly named. As I showed you before; I strict name and then do the addon's after. Again it comes into the way the polls setup right now. there is too many variants used. Then we get to cleaver... i_cleaver. Then i_cleaver_war? Yet what if I want i_cleaver to have a war version? Simply slapping i_sword in front of cleaver_war goes against the naming conventions. This is where I will never agree with you and others. war cleaver (war is not the descriptor). It is a War Cleaver. that is the BASEITEM name. What you add in the suffix to it in the definition is customized.
We don't have i_armor_leather in the basepacks since ever. We have always had i_leather_armor. So why is it you all make this exception with strict naming, but not with weapons, items, and NPCs? Armor is top of the class and get special privileges? I don't think so in my opinion.
Yet, with the above i_leather_armor example; this is all through sphere since pre 55i times. Some items get strict naming while others get what you all want. Mind you, only 5 of us think it should be STRICT (including me and another developer whom is a programmer as well). there is a reason for this. If I think I want a large battle axe... it is just as easy to add i_large_battle_axe. I know that is the name so the def should be the same. Now I want a war cleaver: i_war_cleaver Oh god it wont add. Lets try i_cleaver_war... darn it won't add. i_sword_war_cleaver?! But it is not called Sword War Cleaver or War Cleaver Sword.
This is what I am getting at. You all talk inheritance; but there isn't a single piece of logical inheritance with the war cleaver.. or elven machete... or any of those new weapons. STRICT naming makes more sense.
I will know in my custom scripts that i_war_cleaver that is verite will have verite suffixed. Because that is customary to suffix customization's to the baseitem. No matter how you slice; you aren't sticking true with what you are saying if you are slapping SWORD in front of war cleaver... or even adding MEAT to a normal cleaver... it is not called a meat clever.
RE: BASE PACK DEFINITION NAMING - Extreme - 12-01-2013 09:46 PM
Can't we have 2 defnames on the same item?? It would be nice.
In my opinion, I like I_SWORD_VIKING instead I_VIKING_SWORD because "sword" is the base item and "viking" is the variation.
So if I want to add I just type I_SWORD_X for viking, long, broad, paladin, etc.. or ever I_SWORD_X_RUIN instead of I_RUIN_X_SWORD
So variations come after the base item name.
But I would like to see DEFNAME2 that was removed back again
)Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
RE: BASE PACK DEFINITION NAMING - XuN - 12-02-2013 12:07 AM
Then we're back on what we talked on Skype, i_Strictname_Inheritance, so one custom made War Spear set would be i_war_spear_short and i_war_spear_long (And looking again over the poll options I see that I voted wrong) 'i_battle_axe_large' would be the choice if there is also a not 'large' battle axe wich will call on inheritance, if it's not then it should be i_large_battle_axe. Naming it is NOT important always that people has an easy and fast way of change over inheritance differences without problems.
RE: BASE PACK DEFINITION NAMING - Khaos - 12-02-2013 12:30 AM
Switch your vote to the first one.
Extreme. You can have two defnames. Backwards list.
[DEFNAME new_to_old_defs]
i_sword_viking i_viking_sword
this is how you would do that, assuming the ID for viking sword is linking to defname=i_viking_sword
RE: BASE PACK DEFINITION NAMING - Extreme - 12-02-2013 06:26 AM
I forgot to vote, was on cellphone.
I voted I_AXE_BATTLE_LARGE.
Khaos, I don't want to create a list to make backwards compatibilities...
There is thousand stuff, really that the best way is create the list? I don't know, I wouldn't do it.
Get back the DEFNAME2 then
RE: BASE PACK DEFINITION NAMING - Khaos - 12-02-2013 07:11 AM
Don't make me put Defname2 back in and make you all write it!
RE: BASE PACK DEFINITION NAMING - XuN - 12-02-2013 07:32 AM
What's the difference about having DEFNAME2 and using defnames? you'll have to write them anyways
RE: BASE PACK DEFINITION NAMING - Extreme - 12-02-2013 08:51 AM
(12-02-2013 07:32 AM)XuN Wrote: What's the difference about having DEFNAME2 and using defnames? you'll have to write them anywaysKeep the old default on standard DEFNAME.
Then add DEFNAME2 to make customs.
No, I'm sorry, but if YOU would change the 'syntax', YOU should use DEFNAME2.
Ahh, really? It don't make difference, but I like the old default preset.
RE: BASE PACK DEFINITION NAMING - babazar - 12-04-2013 10:59 PM
it is a 'Large Battle Axe' its not a 'Axe Battle Large' or 'Battle Axe Large'