[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software

Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

ntu-kpi.comp.programming

[q] InterBase Api

chook

4/23/2005 12:20:00 PM

eIIE IAIACAAOO EIIAEOEOEOO AI OAO?AOA
?¦ EAOA YI: Your user name and password are not defined. Ask your
database administrator to set up an InterBase login
IIOA N IA?OA?EIOII AUAA isc_expand_dpb()
NE ?OA?EIOII ?EEIOEOOI?O?AOE AAE dpb
9 Answers

SeR

4/23/2005 3:10:00 PM

0

ðÒÉ×ÅÔ ÍÏÇÕÞÉÊ chook, ÚÁÓÔÁ×ÌÑÀÝÉÊ Í£ÒÔ×ÙÈ ÄÒÏÖÁÔØ!
c> ëÏÌÉ ÎÁÍÁÇÁÀÓØ ËÏÎÅËÔÉÔÉÓØ ÄÏ ÓÅÒ×ÅÒÁ צ ËÁÖÅ ÝÏ: Your user name and
c> password are not defined. Ask your database
c> administrator to set up an InterBase login ÍÏÖÅ Ñ ÎÅÐÒÁ×ÉÌØÎÏ ÀÚÁÀ
ïÛÉÂËÉ ÞÉÔÁÔØ ÕÍÅÅÛ? íÏÖÅÔ ÐÅÒÅÞÉÔÁÅÛ ÔÏ ÞÔÏ ÎÁÐÉÓÁÌ ?


--
UnitÅd minds...
Connecting...

chook

4/23/2005 4:04:00 PM

0

SeR ?EUAO:
> ?OE?AO IICO?EE chook, UAOOA?INAYEE I?OO?UE AOIOAOO!
> iUEAEE ?EOAOO OIAAU? iIOAO ?AOA?EOAAU OI ?OI IA?EOAI ?
>

oAE ? OIIO OI ¦ ?ON O?OA?A UI I¦E "user name" i "password" OOI ?OAI?
"defined". "Administrator"- AA N, ¦ "InterBase login" AA?II "set up" !!!

a EIIAEOEOEOO ?OA IAII IA EI?A!!! :(

Martin Read

6/13/2008 7:36:00 PM

0

heckruler83@yahoo.com wrote:
>But for realism, I think we need low hitpoints, damage reduction for
>armor, area-specific damage, bitchy complicated tohit rules, and
>consequences for being hurt. For the table-top, this is absolutely
>unacceptable,

It's called Runequest.
--
\_\/_/ turbulence is certainty turbulence is friction between you and me
\ / every time we try to impose order we create chaos
\/ -- Killing Joke, "Mathematics of Chaos"

Billy Bissette

6/14/2008 6:23:00 AM

0

heckruler83@yahoo.com wrote in news:7390a80c-492f-4d5f-9b77-d1fbd0accc71
@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

> On Jun 12, 3:42?pm, Gamer_2k4 <gamer...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 12, 1:20?pm, heckrule...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> > Most people associate hitpoints with
>> > being tougher, or more padding (muscles), or some other thing that
is
>> > associated with big strong tough people.
>>
>> I used to think that as well, but now I consider hitpoints to be kind
>> of a measure of stamina. ?It's basically how much longer you can
avoid
>> attacks before a major hit is landed. ?"Hits" are probably glancing
>> blows. ?This explains why explicit bleeding is an issue, why the
>> character can still perform actions like jumping and kicking, and
also
>> why hitpoints regenerate so quickly. ?Fatigue will go away.
>> Amputations won't.
>
> That's certainly a way of looking at it. And it makes more sense in
> terms of functionality and healing. But it is never EVER sold that
> way. People don't want to expertly hit with their +3 flaming longsword
> for max damage and have it explained away that "he rolled with it".
> Personally I detest the concept of massive amounts of hit points. If
> you land a solid blow on an unarmored person, then they should be
> impaired or dead, regardless of the weapon or build of the assailant.

At least one version of D&D considered hitpoints as a
combination of factors such as health, skill, and even luck. High
hit points didn't necessarily mean that you could get stabbed
through the heart and live. Rather, it meant that you were too
skilled (and/or lucky or heroic or whatever) to *get* stabbed
through the heart by some measly goblin. If you got hit by a
dragon's breath attack and lived, it didn't mean you stood out in
the open and lived, it meant you somehow avoided taking the
normally lethal full force of the flame.

This to a degree works. The problem is when you then start
adding in those situations where someone, regardless of level, is
going to be in a situation where he shouldn't or couldn't be able
to roll with it. Things like being beheaded, or standing in a
cul-de-sac with absolutely no cover and a dragon unloading on you,
or an assassin slitting your throat in your sleep. Then you
either get instant death regardless of HP, or you get silliness
like a skilled assassin stabbing you in the back with a near
instantly lethal poison while you are bound with ropes and
asleep but you still live. Or you fall 100 feet into a densely
packed spear pit and live.

And you get things like bleeding, poison, acid damage,
dismemberment, limb damage, or other things that don't mesh
so well.

J?rgen Lerch

6/14/2008 11:18:00 AM

0

Saluton!

On 13 Jun 2008 20:36:09 +0100 (BST), Martin Read wrote:
> heckruler83@yahoo.com wrote:
> >But for realism, I think we need low hitpoints, damage reduction for
> >armor, area-specific damage, bitchy complicated tohit rules, and
> >consequences for being hurt. For the table-top, this is absolutely
> >unacceptable,
> It's called Runequest.

And lots of others, but RQ probably came second.

(Second? Well, Eldritch Wizardry, the third supplement
for the original D&D had an optional hit location system.)

Ad Astra!
JuL

--
jynwyn@gmx.de / L'?tat, c'est toi. (Moi)
J?rgen ,,JuL'' Lerch /

Michal Bielinski

6/15/2008 12:46:00 AM

0

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 08:34:33 +0200, Gamer_2k4 <gamer2k4@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 13, 6:55 pm, Paul Donnelly <paul-donne...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Gamer_2k4 <gamer...@gmail.com> writes:
>> > On Jun 13, 3:50 pm, Paul Donnelly <paul-
>> >> I think if you want to enhance realism, heckruler, it's best to drop the
>> >> HP stat altogether. Replace it with progressive damage to areas of the
>> >> body, and base everything on that.
>>
>> > I believe this is referred to as the "Dwarf Fortress" system. ;)
>>
>> That seems arbitrary.
>
> I dunno...Dwarf Fortress is the only roguelike I know of that does
> something like that. Which other ones do?

IVAN and Scrap come to mind.
--
Michal Bielinski

David Damerell

6/16/2008 3:26:00 PM

0

Quoting <heckruler83@yahoo.com>:
>associated with big strong tough people. But alas, RogueLikes are
>usually built off of pre-existing RPG mechanics. They have the combat,
>but not the actual role-playing.

Inasmuch as tactically interesting combat is quite feasible in roguelikes
and roleplaying is impossible, why is that a surprise?
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Oil is for sissies
Today is Second Chedday, June - a weekend.

David Damerell

6/16/2008 3:28:00 PM

0

Quoting <heckruler83@yahoo.com>:
>It's a complicated issue that I haven't seen a solution for. And I'm
>pretty sure that if you ever developed a realistic set of rules, it
>would be god-awful boring.
>But for realism, I think we need low hitpoints, damage reduction for
>armor, area-specific damage, bitchy complicated tohit rules, and
>consequences for being hurt.

All this does is turn combat into a crapshoot.

>unacceptable, but for a roguelike, where all this would be computed
>away and automated, then I think we need to work towards it.

We need to work towards something "god-awful boring"? Why?
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Oil is for sissies
Today is Second Chedday, June - a weekend.

Billy Bissette

6/17/2008 3:08:00 AM

0

zaimoni@zaimoni.com wrote in news:be4d61d9-b2be-4a57-9493-5783df5104e9
@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

> On Jun 16, 5:08 pm, heckrule...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Jun 16, 10:28 am, David Damerell <damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Quoting <heckrule...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>> > >It's a complicated issue that I haven't seen a solution for. And
I'm
>> > >pretty sure that if you ever developed a realistic set of rules,
it
>> > >would be god-awful boring.
>> > >But for realism, I think we need low hitpoints, damage reduction
for
>> > >armor, area-specific damage, bitchy complicated tohit rules, and
>> > >consequences for being hurt.
>>
>> > All this does is turn combat into a crapshoot.
>
>> > ....
>
>> I'm sorry, but what's the technical definition of "crapshoot"?
>
> It's not a technical definition, but a metaphorical one. The actual
> casino game referenced is craps, but any game of (almost) no skill
> that is (almost) purely chance counts.
>
> Generally, the fun factor in a (roguelike) game is directly related to
> player control and mitigation of foreseeable threats. In particular,
> with correct play the player should *never* be attacked by a
> potentially instadeath attack without the opportunity of actively
> preventing it.
>
> With a minimal-hp system, this translates to "never be attacked with
> inadequate armor" (natural for a stealth game, not so awesome for
> heroic fantasy). When you add in "incomplete information", designing
> a single-character game to be fun becomes *very* difficult.

There is an alternative in having a system where high character
turn-over isn't an issue.

A form of this is Dwarf Fortress, where you are playing an entire
community, and thus injuries to a single character are not game
breaking. (The community itself is effectively a form of HP for
you.)

Alternately, you could make a really quick game, so that a
character being taken out in such a manner is not such a hit when
it comes to time expended. Such a game will still likely be one
where victory is a crapshoot, but the number of chances taken
required to win are reduced and the loss with a game is minimized.

Another possibility is inheriting in some fashion from character
to character. The player isn't playing a community, but is instead
playing something like a family line sequentially. When one
character dies, the next comes into play with some or all the
progress of the previous character still achieved. This could be
in the form of dungeon levels cleared, items retrieved passing
to the next character, key monsters defeated, or whatever else.
Perhaps a storyline excuse that magic can return a deceased
character's possessions. Or perhaps your next character starts
at a higher level, comparable to that of your deceased character.

A variation of the previous idea is the maimed/deceased
character himself can get back into the game.