On Wed, 16 Aug 1995, Daniel [Trice] Koepke wrote: > > Wouldn't this just make the PC one notch hungrier? You'd need to > > GET_COND(ch, FULL) = -1 for that... if any FULL condition of < 0 is no > > hunger, then a mod of -25 would work fine.. but I'm not sure if that's > > the case. It could easily be done tho.. just change = -1 to <= -1 in the > > appropriate spot. > > > What? What planet did you come from? Better yet, what kind of C > compiler do you use? > > GET_COND(ch, FULL) = -1 makes someone not get hungry. Exactly what I was saying. Perhaps I didn't make myself very clear, because a number of people seem to have been confused by what I said ;) What I meant to say was, using a mod of -1 for APPLY_HUNGER (or whatever the precise bit is) would do GET_COND(ch, FULL) += -1... which would make the person 1 notch hungrier, not eliminate their hunger. To eliminate their hunger, you would need GET_COND(ch, FULL) = -1. > Changing GET_COND(ch, FULL) = -1 to GET_COND(ch, FULL) <= -1 > isn't a suggested method. ^^ not meant to be an assignment in this case, but rather a simple equals... sorry if this caused even more confusion ;) I was proposing to set the condition of elimination of hunger to GET_COND(ch, FULL) <= -1 instead of GET_COND(ch, FULL) == -1 , if the latter is what it currently is. I haven't looked into this, but the reason I suggested it was so that you could set your mod to -25, and so have GET_COND(ch, FULL) -= 25.. regardless of your hunger at the time of wearing the item or whatever, it would be <= -1 with the APPLY_HUNGER.. Graham Gilmore
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/18/00 PST