+- 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)
BASE PACK DEFINITION NAMING - Khaos - 11-30-2013 08:33 PM
So I am running into a ton of issues with the naming conventions in the base packs. I am also running into a conundrum on what should be in there.
Now XuN and I talked. We can provide UO:R and UO:AoS+ damage and armor ratings. This would require at least two packs for weapon, armor, and possibly clothing (I would simply rar UO:R code and toss it in addons).
I need to get a proper naming structure put together though. The definitions are inconsistent I am noticing. So I found a rather interesting weapon for use to pick this naming convention...
RanXerox, XuN and I prefer the first. Mordaunt and others prefer the 5th. It is the argument of inheritance. Please read through these posts before making your decision.
- i_large_battle_axe
- i_lg_battle_axe
- i_axe_large_battle
- i_axe_battle_lg
- i_axe_battle_large
- i_battle_axe_lg
- i_battle_axe_large
RE: BASE PACK DEFINITION NAMING - karma - 11-30-2013 09:52 PM
Lol, voted for i_battle_axe_large by mistake, intended i_axe_battle_large.
Anyway, i noticed that in the current script pack there isn't anymore the notation "c_m" or "c_h" for human or monster npcs, now all the defnames begin with "c_". Why this change? Wasn't it more ordered with "c_" for "base" chars and "c_m" or "c_h" for "derived" (from the base chars) ones?
RE: BASE PACK DEFINITION NAMING - Crusader - 11-30-2013 10:21 PM
also voted for i_axe_battle_large
i like more this notation.
RE: BASE PACK DEFINITION NAMING - Mulambo - 11-30-2013 10:51 PM
voted for i_axe_battle_large since its the same way I DEFNAMEd items on 51a, and its easier to lists for example all axes this way
RE: BASE PACK DEFINITION NAMING - Mordaunt - 11-30-2013 11:12 PM
The c_m and c_h honestly just makes for my typing in-game if you are adding characters there. Their names should be enough for you to know what you are adding...
It creates a more uniform naming system than we had previously.
Organizationally it doesn't make any difference.
RE: BASE PACK DEFINITION NAMING - RanXerox - 12-01-2013 04:42 AM
I think we shouldn't use abbreviations... use the word "large", not "lg"
RE: BASE PACK DEFINITION NAMING - karma - 12-01-2013 08:23 AM
@Mordaunt I think instead that c_m (maybe c_h only for vendors and that sort of things) makes scripts more ordered, it also prevents you doing dumb errors like using a derived char as base. It's a personal consideration, i prefer using that notation.
RE: BASE PACK DEFINITION NAMING - Khaos - 12-01-2013 10:56 AM
c_m_
c_a_
naming would definitely be stricken from the packs for creatures.
c_man_bandit might be used or
c_human_bandit.
We already use c_garg_warrior_f (for pchar type ones), c_elf_bandit etc.
though we could do
c_h_
c_e_
c_g_
for pchar type npcs that aren't pchar.
RE: BASE PACK DEFINITION NAMING - Anarch Cassius - 12-01-2013 05:11 PM
I hated c_m_ and c_a_ as the difference is often arbitrary.
I do like and use the h, e, h distinction.
I could see keeping the current system but in code I think simplicity means more than alphabetization and I prefer the i_large_battle_axe option.
RE: BASE PACK DEFINITION NAMING - Khaos - 12-01-2013 05:37 PM
Yeah. I personally prefer precise naming. i_large_battle_axe instead of i_axe_large_battle. I prefer i_assassin_spike versus i_spike_assassin.