16 réponses à ce sujet

[Barnabas2]

I know I asked a similar question before, but I can´t find the topic to post there, so I´d like to open a new topic fpr global- and local ints.
Atm I´m faced to a problem, I can´t understand. I working on an Inn, where a player can get a key for a bedroom during a conversation. Of course I don´t want to have multiple people in one room, so I set a global_int to 1, when the player gets a key. Other nodes in the conversation contain a condition, so that no other players can get the key, when the global int = 1, until the key gets back to the owner. So far the idea, but unfortunally it does not work as planned. Every node in the conversation that contains the condition to check the global int, is ignored in the conversation and the conversation stops immediatly.
I try to set a global int for this, because as far as I unterstand the global vs. local int. thing, a local int would only prevent the player, who got the key before from getting another key, while other players would be able to get a key for the same room, or did I misunderstand something?

[PJ156]

Either will work, it depends where you put the local int.
It sounds like your test idea should work and I have done similar many times. I am guessing your problem is either in the test itself or the structure of the conversation. neither are easy to problem solve on the forum.
If you PM a link to the convo file I am happy to have a look for you.
in general though say your man has three rooms. You say.
Can I have a room? 
    Yes here's the key gc_local_int   key 1      !1
         Thank you good barman.  ga_local_int  key 1 =1
    Yes here's the key gc_local_int   key 2      !1
         Thank you good barman.    ga_local_int  key 2 =21   
     Yes here's the key gc_local_int   key 3      !1
         Thank you good barman. ga_local_int  key 1 =1
     Sorry I don't have any rooms.
Here is my key back  gc_local_int Key 1 =1 
    Thank you good sir, come again. ga_local_int  key 1 =0
          Thank you good barman. 
Here is my key back  gc_local_int Key 2 =1 
    Thank you good sir, come again. ga_local_int  key 2 =0
          Thank you good barman. 
Here is my key back  gc_local_int Key 3 =1 
    Thank you good sir, come again. ga_local_int  key 3 =0
          Thank you good barman. 

Put the local int on the barkeeps tag.

What will happen here is the barkeep will first offer key 1, if it is gone the convo fall throguh to key 2 and then 3 if he has no keys he will say he has no rooms. The barkeep will always offer the lowest number key he has available.

the integer could equally be a global one, then you dont have to pin it on the barkeep.

At any time the player has a key he will be able to give it back.

Does that help at all?

PJ

[M. Rieder]

The difference between local and global ints is that local ints are stored "on" an object (a creature, placeable, area, item, etc...) and global ints are not. That is it.

I have already made one module and am 90% done with my second and I have never used a global int. I prefer locals because they are more specific because they are stored in a certain location. If you accidentally give two local integers the same name, but they are on different objects, it is no big deal because you look for those integers on a specific object. Also, this gives you more flexibility with scripting because you *can* give local integers the same name and put them on different objects and it works just fine.

Global integers will also work fine, but you have to make sure each one has a different name or else you will run into problems.

As far as I know, that is the only difference.

I am 99% sure that using global or local integers will make no difference to your inn key scripting as long as your naming conventions are correct.


On a side note, regarding your key situation, you could just make 3 different key blueprints in the toolset and actually give them to the player then use the script:

gc_item_count

in your conversation nodes to check for whether the pc or an npc has the key.

[PJ156]

M.R. is of course correct you have to be careful with the naming of global ints. I believe there is an issue with load games too.

However I have never used a local int it any of my five modules. Which means i could be in for a rough ride when I make them a campaign

PJ

[-Semper-]

could local ints, which are stored at the pc, be transported to another module/campaign through character import?

[Shallina]

Yup local int stored in a camapaign object or a player can be transported accross module in the same campaign.

Globalint are dangerous as mister Rieder said, if you name 2 different things the same you are screwed.

[MasterChanger]

When I studied introductory programming, we were taught that we should always look for an alternative to global-scope variables if at all possible. Having a global variable in a short (two functions or so) program is not necessarily a huge problem since you can still keep track of things, but as programs/scripts grow I believe this is sound advice. Using local variables in nwscript you give up a little bit of access for increased specificity, which means that various bits of code are less likely to step on each others' toes, as M. Rieder noted.

However, using local variables in nwscript hardly even makes accessing them more difficult. You can store your variables on any object you'll be able to find later on--a creature, an item, an area, or even the module itself. Finding these objects is usually also not that hard--often it's as simple as getting the nearest object with a certain tag.

Of course, global variables have their place. I would suggest that you use them only if you have a specific reason to do so, and only if you don't intend to change their values often.

[Barnabas2]

PJ156 wrote...

Either will work, it depends where you put the local int.
It sounds like your test idea should work and I have done similar many times. I am guessing your problem is either in the test itself or the structure of the conversation. neither are easy to problem solve on the forum.
If you PM a link to the convo file I am happy to have a look for you.
in general though say your man has three rooms. You say.
Can I have a room? 
    Yes here's the key gc_local_int   key 1      !1
         Thank you good barman.  ga_local_int  key 1 =1
    Yes here's the key gc_local_int   key 2      !1
         Thank you good barman.    ga_local_int  key 2 =21   
     Yes here's the key gc_local_int   key 3      !1
         Thank you good barman. ga_local_int  key 1 =1
     Sorry I don't have any rooms.
Here is my key back  gc_local_int Key 1 =1 
    Thank you good sir, come again. ga_local_int  key 1 =0
          Thank you good barman. 
Here is my key back  gc_local_int Key 2 =1 
    Thank you good sir, come again. ga_local_int  key 2 =0
          Thank you good barman. 
Here is my key back  gc_local_int Key 3 =1 
    Thank you good sir, come again. ga_local_int  key 3 =0
          Thank you good barman. 

Put the local int on the barkeeps tag.

What will happen here is the barkeep will first offer key 1, if it is gone the convo fall throguh to key 2 and then 3 if he has no keys he will say he has no rooms. The barkeep will always offer the lowest number key he has available.

the integer could equally be a global one, then you dont have to pin it on the barkeep.

At any time the player has a key he will be able to give it back.

Does that help at all?

PJ

I made a similar conversation, with two differences. I have three
different blueprints, one for a room. The keys do not come from the
barkeeper`s inventory, the got created by ga_give_item.
I changed the
the ints from global to local, but it still doesn´t work. Every node
that has the condition to check the local int is completly ignored,
whether a player ordered a key yet, or not.
I set unique local ints for each room/key and the convo looks in essence like this:

I want the 1st room.
You do not have enough money. gc_check_gold  >25
Great, here you have the key. gc_local_int string !1; ga_take_gold 25, ga_give_item Key Tag (This node is ignored)
--> Thank you. ga_local_int string =1
Sorry, this room is occupied yet. (This node always comes up, whether a player got a key - which is impossible atm, before, or not).

When the player wants to leave the Inn, he has to walk over a speaktrigger:

Sorry, you still got my key. gc_check_item (one for every key)
--> Sorry, here is your key.
---->As I remember you had Room 1? ga_check_item key1 tag
------>That´s right, here is the key.
-------->Thank you, Sir, please visit us again. ga_destroy_item keytag1 -1(all in inv.); ga_local_int string =0
---->As I remember you had Room 2? ga_check_item key2 tag
(The same as above, but with room/key/local int 2)
[color=rgb(0, 0, 0)">---->]As I remember you had Room 3? [/color]ga_check_item key3 tag[color="#0000ff"][/color]
(The same as above, but with room/key/local int 3)

Modifié par Barnabas2, 15 octobre 2011 - 06:34 .

[PJ156]

Nothing jumps out at me.

I would check where you are putting the local int and is that the same as where you are testing it.

However if you are giving the player a unique tagged item then you can test for that as has been reccomended by the others. The local int is not needed.

Try testing it as a global int, then the location becomes irrelevant. If that works then it is where you are putting the integer rather than what it is.

Also check you have not ticked the not box by mistake, a not and a ! will cancel each other out I think.

PJ

BTW that is an expensive room

[M. Rieder]

Barnabas2 wrote...
I changed the
the ints from global to local, but it still doesn´t work.

This suggests to me that the integers are not the problem.  I say look elsewhere for reasons the node may not be firing.

Great, here you have the key. gc_local_int string !1; ga_take_gold 25, ga_give_item Key Tag (This node is ignored)

Look at the bolded and underlined above.  If you are entering !1 for gc_local_int then that may be a problem.  Try entering !=1.  I'm not sure about this, but it may be the issue.  Also, for testing purposes, you may want to try a simple 0 as well.

Modifié par M. Rieder, 16 octobre 2011 - 12:00 .

[Barnabas2]

M. Rieder wrote...

Look at the bolded and underlined above.  If you are entering !1 for gc_local_int then that may be a problem.  Try entering !=1.  I'm not sure about this, but it may be the issue.  Also, for testing purposes, you may want to try a simple 0 as well.

I tried to set the condition to !=1, but it didn´t work neither. Then I set a condition for the sentence for occupied rooms with gc_local_int string =1. Now this sentence is ignored too, so it seems, that it is a problem with the local int. itself. Do I have to set the local int anywhere out of the conversation as well? Until now I only set local ints in the conversations self. For example I always use local ints at the beginning of a conversation, so that the NPC recognize the player after the first meeting. That always worked without a problem. The stuff with the keys is the first time I have these problems.

On a side note, regarding your key situation, you could just make 3
different key blueprints in the toolset and actually give them to the
player then use the script:

gc_item_count

in your conversation nodes to check for whether the pc or an npc has the key.

I think I´ll try that. For this, as far as I understand that, I have to set one of each key into the inventory of the barkeeper, do I? And the key must not be destroyed, when the PC leaves the area?

[M. Rieder]

Barnabas2 wrote...

I tried to set the condition to !=1, but it didn´t work neither. Then I set a condition for the sentence for occupied rooms with gc_local_int string =1. Now this sentence is ignored too, so it seems, that it is a problem with the local int. itself. Do I have to set the local int anywhere out of the conversation as well? Until now I only set local ints in the conversations self. For example I always use local ints at the beginning of a conversation, so that the NPC recognize the player after the first meeting. That always worked without a problem. The stuff with the keys is the first time I have these problems.

If you don't set a local int, the engine defaults to 0 for its value.  So you never have to initialize a local int as 0, you can just not initialize it.  If all the variable names are correct and the objects you are storing them on exist and are correct, then I am mildly baffled at the problem. 

I think I´ll try that. For this, as far as I understand that, I have to set one of each key into the inventory of the barkeeper, do I? And the key must not be destroyed, when the PC leaves the area?

I don't think you need to put the key in the barkeep's inventory, just create it on the PC the way you have been doing things. The only difference would be that instead of checking for a local int, you would check for the key on the player.  Of course, this wouldn't help keep other players from getting a key from the inkeep, and that brings us back to the integers. 


I'm not sure why the integers aren't working for you.  From what you describe, the system should work.  If you get stuck and can't make it work, let me know and maybe you can extract the convo in an .erf file and put up a dropbox or mediafire link and I'll have a look at it, if you want.

[PJ156]

If you have more that one room then the conversation struture does not change, you are looking for a specific key to fall through to handing out the next one. When you have run out of keys you fall thorugh to no rooms left. It's not a whole lot different to the integer structure.

Can you put the convo on dropbox or simlar and link it. Either export it if you are working in .mod format or copy paste it from the folder?

PJ

[MasterChanger]

M. Rieder wrote...

If you don't set a local int, the engine defaults to 0 for its value.  So you never have to initialize a local int as 0, you can just not initialize it.

Yes, this brings up interesting issues in situations where you want to have a local var have a meaningful value that you want to treat as 0 but you want to know it's been initialized.

For example, when I stored custom faction reputations as integers, I wanted to be able to distinguish a value that had not been stored from a really terrible reputation. My solution was to never let a reputation get below 5 or so; the in-game effect was the same, but I was able to determine whether a variable had or hadn't been stored.

[Barnabas2]

I found the mistake. When I added the condition gc_local_int I had to set three parameters: the local_int string, the value of the int AND the tag of the owner of the local int. The script gc_local_int says, that if the last parameter is blank, it checks the owner of the conversation. In this case the barkeeper - as it should be. But this doesn´t seem to work. After setting the tag of the barkeeper as the third parameter, the conversation runs as planned. I thank you all for your help.

[M. Rieder]

Great! Glad you got it working.