Jump to content

Photo

ColorsFade's Development Journal


  • Please log in to reply
560 replies to this topic

#1
ColorsFade

ColorsFade
  • Members
  • 1,267 posts
Reading Tchos' awesome journal inspired me to start writing my own. So here goes.

Note: I've only read a few pages of Tchos' journal, but I think it's fantastic; good information on every page (some of it I am copying for later) and really neat to read about his progress over the past 9+ months. 

Campaign Goals

To create a huge, "sweeping epic" that I want to play :) 

Some backstory: I am a huge fan of the Baldur's Gate series. I'm sure a lot of people here are as well. I don't know how many times I played those games (and Icewind Dale series) from beginning to end. A lot.

I did have one problem with the first Baldur's Gate game, however: I found it to be essentially a map-clearing exercise. I didn't like that very much. I didn't like feeling that, at least for the majority of the game, it wasn't the story pushing me forward through the maps so much as it was the desire to clear the Fog of War. Because, by God, there was probably a monster or quest to be had underneath all that black stuff cluttering the map. I won't be using any Fog of War mechanic at all. The maps shouldn't drive you in my campaign. 

That said, Baldur's Gate I was great, no doubt - especially for it's time. The locations were memorable, the NPC's were the best, and it was a fun ride.

Baldur's Gate II exceeded my expectations. I have played it more than any other game. It was epic. I didn't care for the main story (I found Irenicus boring and annoying), but I absolutely loved so much of the rest of it; it was a game filled with nearly everything cool about Faerun: vampires, the Underdark, beholders, Illithids, Dragons and Liches.. Wow. 

The Dragon battles and Kangaxx especially were memorable encounters for me. Those were just epic fights and they taught me a lot about the usefulness of certain spells in the AD&D world. I remember those battles and the feeling you would get when your party would eak out the victory... Awesome. 


My desire is to create something in the Baldur's Gate II vein; something I consider a "sweeping epic"; something with a story that is worth getting caught up in, and battles that leave you breathless and pumped full of adreneline; something with NPC characters that are interesting to have in your party and color the game world a bit. 

The story I've had sitting in my head for a while is big and fits very nicely into a standard 3-Act Campaign. I've spent a good deal of time thinking about things that are important to me and the story I want to tell. A list of goals goes something like this: 

1) Single Player Campaign with recruitable NPC's: This was a difficult decision to reach, because I like both styles of play (I love creating my own full party). But I wanted a chance to create some interesting NPC's for the player, and like Baldur's Gate II, I want each one to have a fairly interesting side-quest attached. You don't have to do these quests or take the NPC's along in your party, but they should add some of the flavor I'm shooting for. I really liked how Baldur's Gate II did it with the NPC's they created, and I wanted to try my hand at it as well. 

There will, however, be one mandatory NPC companion (courtesy of the story - this NPC is kinda necessary)  - but this NPC will not count against your party limit, sort of like how Shandra was a free extra companion in the OC. The difference here is that I hope this NPC will actually be cool. I'[m really excited to tell this NPC's story in fact... because this NPC's story weaves very nicely into the overall story of the campaign. And the story, along with the NPC interaction, should make for some of the more memorable moments in the game (I hope). 

2) Tactical Combat: I like being challenged, but I don't like impossible fights. I like it when my entire spell book can be useful and give me a tactical edge in combat. I was disappointed with the OC because most battles were reduced to nothing more than charging in with your best offensive spells and laying waste. As such, a lot of neat spells sat dusty and unused in my spellbook through the OC. And that bothered me.

I want combat to be tactical and strategic (speaking mostly of mid-to-high level here); I want players who memorize AoE spells, True Sight, Sanctuary, Etherial Jaunt, Breach, Spell Mantle, Glove of Invulnerability, Assay Resistance, Dispel and Dismissal to be rewarded by keeping those things ready in their books. I want enemy spellcasters to be tricky and powerful, as they're supposed to be, instead of the weak, squishy bugs they are most of the time (basically, I want enemy spellcasters to scare me again, like they did in BGII -remember the dudes in the sewer?. 

And I want terrain to matter. 

Spells like Evard's Black Tentacles should be the kind of spell you'd want to keep memorized just for an occasion when the terrain is your ally, and you can impede a group of enemies (or reinforcements) with a well-placed AoE spell. Sadly, those opportunities rarely presented themselves in the OC for NWN2. I want encounters in this campaign to be different. Challenging: Yes. Impossible: No. 

3) Be Able To Prepare for Epic Battles: Something that drove me nuts about the OC was when I knew I'd be facing enemy spellcasters who are going to try and dispell all my buffs (I mostly play an EK BTW) and in preparation for this madness I have Spell Mantles and Globes of Invulnerability ready. I can cast those spells to protect myself, but the duration on those spells is short. And therein lies the problem with the OC - before every major battle there's a 20-minute conversation with the enemy. By the time the conversation is over and you get to the "Attack!" part, all my short-term anti-magic buffs are gone. That is annoying (it also makes me think of "The Incredibles" a bit too much, "Whoa, you almost caught me monologuing!")

This pehnomena the nasty side-effect of causing me, the player, to either want to rush through dialog (dumb) or use the pause button while I read the text (dumber) to slow down the decay on my buffs. 

I want to do a few things to remedy this situation. I'm not exactly sure how I plan to pull this off yet, but I do intend to keep the long drawn-out conversations prior to big battles at a minimum. I want players to be able to see danger coming and have a few seconds to throw on those last, crucial buffs before charging into battle. Of couse, Etherial Jaunt and Sanctuary are good spells for that sort of thing, but they're single-target caster and really leave the others in the party in a bind when you go missing like that; I want to minimize that if necessary. 

One idea I've had is to make use of the Clairaudience/Clairvoyance spell in conjuction with Spot/Listen/Lore. People in general have a sixth-sense about them; folks in real life have moments when they can sense danger and know something is coming, but they don't exactly know what it is.

I want to combine some of the Skills with C/C spell to give players an edge as to what's coming at certain moments. Like if a Ranger in your party has a high Spot/Listen skill and you're in a forest where that Ranger has traveled before, it would be kind of nice if the Ranger could speak up briefly before a particularly threatening encounter and say, "Hey, I know this area - we may see X creature, and they tend to do Y,a nd they're kind of vulnerable to Z." Likewise, I'd love for players to be able to cast C/C in a situation and combine it with their Lore check to determine, to a rough degree, what kind of enemy spellcasters await around the corner and what kind of spells they are likely to throw at your party. I don't know if this will work or if I can pull it off, but I want to give it a shot and see how it plays. 

4) Speaking of Epic Battles - Have Them: I want epic battles. The Dragons in BGII and Kangaxx come to mind. I want to pit the party against some truly epic encounters. 

You see, I'm an old school Everquest and EQII player. I particuarly loved EQII as they limited (and tuned) raids to 6, 12, 18 or 24 players. As a raid leader - and as a guy who loved to figure out the tactics on epic mobs and how to beat them - I loved how EQII handled epic fights. I loved raiding in that game. 

The AD&D combat system doesn't lend itself as easily to that sort of battle as some other systems (mostly because it  lacks any sort of crowd control - even Dragon Age got that right) but I think the chance is there to do something entertaining and fun with it. At least something more entertaining than what the OC did with it. I figure with some terrain adjustments and some enemy AI scripting, there has to be an opportunity to make big "boss" style encounters a bit more complex and entertaining than they were in the NWN2 OC. 

I'd really like players to walk away from this campaign and say that the battles were fun. Not too hard - just fun and epic. That they were big and complex and sometimes their enemies did unexpected things. That would be cool. 

5) Deviate as Little As Possible from the NWN2 Default Engine: I've already seen some really cool modules and scripts other players have put out there. But in the end, I just want to tell a story and spend the majority of my time designing cool areas, conversations and battles. Changing the mechanics of the engine isn't part of my overall goal. I would like to use Tchos' script to make door transitions one-click, but I think that sort of modification to the main engine is going to be few and far between for me. I really don't intend to stray far from the main OC engine. Players will be able to rest whenever, there will be a World Map (as opposed to the SoZ overland map), death will be the same as the OC, etc. I figure the less time I spend adjusting the game engine, the more time I can spend creating the actual content to tell this story. 

6) The Main Story Will Fit Into Faerun Lore: I was pleasantly surprised to learn of some Forgotten Realms lore that will provided me with the perfect sandbox to play in. So this doesn't have to be something I make up entirely on my own. I hope that players who are tuned into this particular lore enjoy the story and don't mark me down too harsly for some of the liberties I will certainly take. 

7) Work Consistenly: More than anything, I just want to plug away every day, consistently, on an area, a conversation, an NPC or an encounter. The Toolset has been easy to learn and the community here has been WONDERFUL. You all rock. 

I have no idea how long this will take to design or if anyone will be left when I finish it, but this has been something I've wanted to do for a while. If no one else plays this campaign but me, I'd still be happy.

And back to setting placeables... 

#2
rjshae

rjshae
  • Members
  • 4,477 posts

ColorsFade wrote...

I have no idea how long this will take to design or if anyone will be left when I finish it, but this has been something I've wanted to do for a while. If no one else plays this campaign but me, I'd still be happy.


Years. B)
  • kamal_ likes this

#3
Guest_Iveforgotmypassword_*

Guest_Iveforgotmypassword_*
  • Guests
Is this going to be just for casters as it sounds like you're a fan of wizards and their abilities. If it is that will save you a lot of work as catering for every class is quite hard.

Start making everything now as a campaign instead of converting modules later, prefab as many of your placeable groups as possible and good luck !

#4
ColorsFade

ColorsFade
  • Members
  • 1,267 posts

Iveforgotmypassword wrote...

Is this going to be just for casters as it sounds like you're a fan of wizards and their abilities. If it is that will save you a lot of work as catering for every class is quite hard.

Start making everything now as a campaign instead of converting modules later, prefab as many of your placeable groups as possible and good luck !


Thanks for the advice. I will start converting; been looking at doing that. 

It's not intended for just casters - it's intended to be for any class (but I do admit a very strong affinity for fighter/mage types). There will be recruitable NPC wizards for your party.

It's really meant to be a Baldur's Gate II style adventure. There should be enough NPC's for you to round out your party the way you see fit. 

You'll have NPC's available to you from the moment you step foot into the first town. One of my intentions was to playtest it as a warrior, rogue and wizard. Wizards being squishy, I want to make sure they can get through the first part of the game without dying a lot. 

#5
ColorsFade

ColorsFade
  • Members
  • 1,267 posts
 Well, that was fun. 
I got my first quest working. It's simple, but it works. The Conversation, Journal and Scripting all worked. There were a few conditionals in the Conversation and those worked well as soon as I figured out how to set them up. The rewarding of the quest XP and Gold was also straight forward.  Really, for the most part, the Toolset continues to be fairly easy to figure out and use. 
I had to customize an OnDeath script though, and that took a little bit of figuring out because I couldn't find a really comprehensive guide to scripting. The Wendersnaven Guide was about as good as I could find and got me started. But dang - there's a LOT of built-in functions and scripts and it's not always evident what they do or what you *can* do with them. And, of course, I am not sure just how powerful the scripting engine is. I found out right away that incrementing variables with ++ doesn't work :-) 

In the end, I took a default death script, commented out the parts that weren't relevant to this particular encounter, and then added my custom code and variables. A couple tests later and the whole thing worked. 

There's a lot of flexibility in this Toolset. I can see right now that a lot of the quality of a module is going to come down to the amount of care I put into the details. Not just visually, but everything. 


I also downloaded the Baldur's Gate PW prefabs today to give those a look over. There were some screen shots that really impressed me. It was interesting, to me, to see how they approached some of the area designs. 

I've been working on my second outdoor area, and it kind of bugs me in that if I lay it out the way I want to, the way it looks in my head, players can potentially "bump up" agains the area edge. At first, I thought it paramount that I make sure each one of the four "edges" is created in such a way that some obstable prevents the user from bumping up against the edge. I even opened up Shandra's Farm from the OC to get some ideas about how they did that. 

But then I took a look at the farms from the Baldur's Gate PW and noticed they don't do that. Sure, they put terrain and placeables beyond the walkable edge (something I had already done for my first area) to give it a good look, but they didn't bother to adjust the terrain to create unwalkable boundaries prior to running up against the area boundary. 

I'm thinking that's how I'm going to approach things. If players get annoyed at running up against the artificial edge of the area, so be it. But my areas are fairly focused anyway; players shouldn't feel compelled to wander around the area map just to test boundaries. And I don't want to spend days sculpting and shaping my areas just to prevent that. Especially when it actually detracts from the design I really want to do. 
Anyway - I have to say, writing the Conversation and Journal entries and setting up the first quest was the most fun of anything I've done so far with the Toolset. That is definitely going to be where I prefer to spend my time. 

#6
Tchos

Tchos
  • Members
  • 5,030 posts
Incrementing variables with ++ does work. I use it. You should post your code so we can see what the problem might be. The scripting engine is extremely powerful, and I daresay you can do virtually anything in it.

You can use the default On Death script, but have it fire an extra script on death containing all the variables and scripting you want, by specifying the script's name in a local variable called "DeathScript" on the creature.

#7
ColorsFade

ColorsFade
  • Members
  • 1,267 posts

Tchos wrote...

Incrementing variables with ++ does work. I use it. You should post your code so we can see what the problem might be. The scripting engine is extremely powerful, and I daresay you can do virtually anything in it.

You can use the default On Death script, but have it fire an extra script on death containing all the variables and scripting you want, by specifying the script's name in a local variable called "DeathScript" on the creature.


Here's my script Tchos:

#include "x2_inc_compon"
#include "x0_i0_spawncond"

int iWarehouseRatDeathCount=0;

void main(){

string sDeathScript = GetLocalString(OBJECT_SELF, "DeathScript");
if (sDeathScript != "")
    ExecuteScript(sDeathScript, OBJECT_SELF);

iWarehouseRatDeathCount = iWarehouseRatDeathCount + 1;

if(iWarehouseRatDeathCount >= 10){
    object oPC = GetFirstPC(TRUE);
    AddJournalQuestEntry("q_warehouse_rats",11,oPC);
   }
}


When I wrote the increment as...

iWarhouseRatDeathCount++;


...it didn't work. I figured it was a limitation of the scrippting engine. 

I can see doing it the way you recommend though - having the default script call out to other scripts (if you specify it). That's flexible. How exactly does that work? (I'm still wrapping my head around how things are done). 

Edited by ColorsFade, 21 February 2013 - 10:28 PM.


#8
Guest_Iveforgotmypassword_*

Guest_Iveforgotmypassword_*
  • Guests
Well at least the rats weren't in a cellar. I thought of having a rat quest where you have to buy a dog instead and send it in because the rats are too fast.

#9
Lugaid of the Red Stripes

Lugaid of the Red Stripes
  • Members
  • 955 posts
RE area boundaries: As I remember, Shandra's farm was mostly an isolated plot point, the party entered, had it's cut scene and battle, and then left. Making clear area boundaries is only really important when the player is supposed to explore and move about, that's when the invisible wall of the area boundary really starts to bug players.

In practice, I mostly use cliff faces, deep water and buildings (including fences) to demarcate the area boundary. The trick is to not make it too obvious, where it distracts from the player's immersion. Part of this is disrupting the straight line of the boundary as much as possible, not just placing non-walkable features that jut into the area, but also creating terrain and roads that connect the walkable area with the non-walkable. It's easy enough to put a gate or something on the road to clue the player in.

A favorite trick of mine, though, is just a reverse-slope. Instead of having the player run smack into a cliff face, dig out the ground beneath them, so the cliff faces out into the unwalkable area. In an urban setting, the high curbs can be used in a similar fashion. You might want to check out my Wassau Prefab on the vault to get some ideas, you can even just look at the map on the download page to see how I handled the edge in a variety of different areas.

#10
ColorsFade

ColorsFade
  • Members
  • 1,267 posts

Iveforgotmypassword wrote...

Well at least the rats weren't in a cellar. I thought of having a rat quest where you have to buy a dog instead and send it in because the rats are too fast.


Here's a question for yo uTchos: 

This script worked when it was one warehouse. But I want the quest to work across two warehouses, and it apparently does not. 

When you transition from one area to another, does the variable get reset then? I'm trying to understand the scope of NWN2's scripting engine variables. I was hoping that since mine was declared outside the main() method, and since it's a Campaign level script, it would work. 

#11
Tchos

Tchos
  • Members
  • 5,030 posts

ColorsFade wrote...
I can see doing it the way you recommend though - having the default script call out to other scripts (if you specify it). That's flexible. How exactly does that work? (I'm still wrapping my head around how things are done). 

In the script you quoted, you see the lines that say:

string sDeathScript = GetLocalString(OBJECT_SELF, "DeathScript");
if (sDeathScript != "")
    ExecuteScript(sDeathScript, OBJECT_SELF);

That means if it finds a local string with the name "DeathScript", it'll execute whatever the string says the script's name is.  That's part of the default script, so the only thing you have to do to make it happen is to make a script, create a local string called "DeathScript" on the creature in the "variables" section of the creature's properties, and enter the name of the script you created as the string.

I don't see how your script worked at all for updating the quest (unless you changed it to look for only the death of 1 rat).  The variable iWarehouseRatDeathCount only remains inside the script, and is not saved anywhere.  It would be lost after the script ends, even if you didn't declare it to be 0 at the beginning of the script, which is run fresh when another rat dies.  You need to save the information in the variable somewhere outside the script, like in a local int, global int, or the journal.  I recommend the journal.

Edited by Tchos, 22 February 2013 - 12:04 AM.


#12
ColorsFade

ColorsFade
  • Members
  • 1,267 posts

Tchos wrote...


In the script you quoted, you see the lines that say:

string sDeathScript = GetLocalString(OBJECT_SELF, "DeathScript");
if (sDeathScript != "")
    ExecuteScript(sDeathScript, OBJECT_SELF);

That means if it finds a local string with the name "DeathScript", it'll execute whatever the string says the script's name is.  That's part of the default script, so the only thing you have to do to make it happen is to make a script, create a local string called "DeathScript" on the creature in the "variables" section of the creature's properties, and enter the name of the script you created as the string.


Thanks. I see how that works. 

I don't see how your script worked at all for updating the quest (unless you changed it to look for only the death of 1 rat).  The variable iWarehouseRatDeathCount only remains inside the script, and is not saved anywhere.  It would be lost after the script ends, even if you didn't declare it to be 0 at the beginning of the script, which is run fresh when another rat dies.  You need to save the information in the variable somewhere outside the script, like in a local int, global int, or the journal.  I recommend the journal.


Ah, yes, I had it checking for > 0, so the first kill triggered the Journal update. 

Where/How can I save it to a global variable? I can't seem to figure that part out. 

#13
ColorsFade

ColorsFade
  • Members
  • 1,267 posts
Nevermind, I found it!

#14
Dann-J

Dann-J
  • Members
  • 3,161 posts

Tchos wrote...

You can use the default On Death script, but have it fire an extra script on death containing all the variables and scripting you want, by specifying the script's name in a local variable called "DeathScript" on the creature.


Be warned, though, that the SoZ version of the default death script comments out the ability to run a custom death script via a local variable. The MotB version allows it though. 

SoZ dumbed-down quite a few scripts.

#15
Dann-J

Dann-J
  • Members
  • 3,161 posts

Iveforgotmypassword wrote...

Well at least the rats weren't in a cellar. I thought of having a rat quest where you have to buy a dog instead and send it in because the rats are too fast.


I've thought about a similar quest, where arcane spellcasters have to possess their familiar in order to kill rats. Familiars also have the benefit of being able to cast touch-ranged spells their masters have memorised. A well-timed Burning Hands (Burning Paws?) could take care of an entire group of rats all at once.

The problem with a lot of rat quests is that the rats usually attack the player (conveniently coming within striking range). Real rats would be unlikely to do that. It might make things far more interesting if rats were set to use the coward behaviour, so they actively ran away from the player in all directions. Make them faster than the average player, and watch the farce begin (cue 'Yakety Sax', Benny Hill style).

Edited by DannJ, 22 February 2013 - 12:44 AM.


#16
ColorsFade

ColorsFade
  • Members
  • 1,267 posts

DannJ wrote...

Be warned, though, that the SoZ version of the default death script comments out the ability to run a custom death script via a local variable. The MotB version allows it though. 

SoZ dumbed-down quite a few scripts.


Good to know!

#17
Tchos

Tchos
  • Members
  • 5,030 posts
Dann: I just opened up the copy of NW_C2_DEFAULT7 from the scripts_X2.zip, and it does not have those lines commented out. Nor do I see it commented out if I open any of the three copies of the script from the toolset. Can you explain further?

ColorsFade: I personally recommend against using global variables. The journal is global enough for our purposes, or you can store the variables on the questgiver, or the player object.

#18
ColorsFade

ColorsFade
  • Members
  • 1,267 posts

DannJ wrote...

The problem with a lot of rat quests is that the rats usually attack the player (conveniently coming within striking range). Real rats would be unlikely to do that. It might make things far more interesting if rats were set to use the coward behaviour, so they actively ran away from the player in all directions. Make them faster than the average player, and watch the farce begin (cue 'Yakety Sax', Benny Hill style).



I noticed this on my first pass through the quest. I only had two rats setup in the large warehouse, and right after I got into the door they were both on me. So, I adjusted their perception range to short and that made it better; at least the player has to get close before they attack. 

After I took a look at the default OnDeath script, I was wondering if you couldn't just make the rats Commoners? If the script had the lines commented out regarding faction, that would probably be okay eh?

#19
ColorsFade

ColorsFade
  • Members
  • 1,267 posts

Tchos wrote...

ColorsFade: I personally recommend against using global variables. The journal is global enough for our purposes, or you can store the variables on the questgiver, or the player object.


I'm storing on the Player Object. Seems safest. This is designed to be a Single Player campaign anyway. Whenever I read anything related to "if you're on a server" or "for multiplayer" I'm doing the single-player version instead. Most of the time it's easier. 

#20
Dann-J

Dann-J
  • Members
  • 3,161 posts

Tchos wrote...

Dann: I just opened up the copy of NW_C2_DEFAULT7 from the scripts_X2.zip, and it does not have those lines commented out. Nor do I see it commented out if I open any of the three copies of the script from the toolset. Can you explain further?


I created a modified version of default7 a couple of days ago. My X2 version certainly has those lines commented out, so I used the X1 version instead (rather than have to waste precious seconds of my life deleting backslashes).

#21
Tchos

Tchos
  • Members
  • 5,030 posts
Dann: I've gone and checked each of the three zip files housing the original copies of NW_C2_DEFAULT7.nss. None of them have the lines commented out. Are you looking at the files as they are stored in the three script zip files? There's some discrepancy here.

#22
kamal_

kamal_
  • Members
  • 5,235 posts

ColorsFade wrote...

DannJ wrote...

The problem with a lot of rat quests is that the rats usually attack the player (conveniently coming within striking range). Real rats would be unlikely to do that. It might make things far more interesting if rats were set to use the coward behaviour, so they actively ran away from the player in all directions. Make them faster than the average player, and watch the farce begin (cue 'Yakety Sax', Benny Hill style).



I noticed this on my first pass through the quest. I only had two rats setup in the large warehouse, and right after I got into the door they were both on me. So, I adjusted their perception range to short and that made it better; at least the player has to get close before they attack. 

After I took a look at the default OnDeath script, I was wondering if you couldn't just make the rats Commoners? If the script had the lines commented out regarding faction, that would probably be okay eh?

If you make them commoners instead of vermin they will flee, but many spells and magic items work based on creature type (+2 vs vermin for instance) so you don't really want to do that. There is a herbivore tag (or variable, I forget) that makes things flee without being the commoner class, look at the deer creature.

#23
ColorsFade

ColorsFade
  • Members
  • 1,267 posts
[quote]kamal_ wrote...

[/quote]
If you make them commoners instead of vermin they will flee, but many spells and magic items work based on creature type (+2 vs vermin for instance) so you don't really want to do that. There is a herbivore tag (or variable, I forget) that makes things flee without being the commoner class, look at the deer creature.

[/quote]

I was thinking only of changing their faction, not their race/type. 

I tried it out - I created a new faction for the rats that was neutral. My character couldn't attack them; he could only engage in conversation. I figure there has to be a way to do this because some characters in the game arenon-hostile until attacking. 

On a side note, I did add waypoints for all the rats so they would scurry about the warehouse, up and down the walkways, etc. Wow, did THAT ever liven the area up! Little touches like that are really cool and so easy to do.

#24
rjshae

rjshae
  • Members
  • 4,477 posts

ColorsFade wrote...

Tchos wrote...
iWarhouseRatDeathCount++;


...it didn't work. I figured it was a limitation of the scrippting engine. 

I can see doing it the way you recommend though - having the default script call out to other scripts (if you specify it). That's flexible. How exactly does that work? (I'm still wrapping my head around how things are done).


War != Ware

I.e. you're missing an 'e'. You can also use:

iWarehouseRatDeathCount += 1;

Edited by rjshae, 22 February 2013 - 04:33 PM.


#25
ColorsFade

ColorsFade
  • Members
  • 1,267 posts

rjshae wrote...


War != Ware

I.e. you're missing an 'e'. You can also use:

iWarehouseRatDeathCount += 1;


Ah yes! 

See... I'm a spoiled programmer; I am accustomed to the IDE catching those errors (oh ReSharper, how I love you...)