[Freaksken]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crayder This is pretty badass, I love the work you put into it. The function names could be more generalised. Less World of Warcraft. Less "Boss", more (a word for special, controllable player... but not "NPC", maybe "Bot"). Less "Spell", more "Ability". That's just how I would've did it. That would help people understand what this include can do besides your WOW example. It is capable of much more than WOW.

I have to agree with you there.
Unfortunately the naming part could've been done better. "World of Warcraft", "Boss" and "Spell" might be a bit off putting for some, even though you can do a lot more things with this include than what the title might encompass. The reason I first thought of WOW and Boss-like mechanics, is because, well that's where I got the idea from to make this include.

I decided to create this second example to show that indeed you can do a lot if you want to, but you don't have to utilize every function (getter/setter). In fact, you can create a "Boss" with just one line and let the inlcude handle everything else:

Code:

new npc = WOW_CreateBoss("BigSmoke");

I am working on a zombie-like script in which sometimes a special infected spawns (see L4D2). Could you do this by writing everything yourself? Yes, but using this include would reduce the code you would write to just a few lines.

I agree that the naming should be changed. Although I can't really come up with anything that would encompass everything this include is capable of, without generalizing too much. This include adds functionality to FCNPC, just using "Special NPC" is in my opinion a bit too vague, because that could mean anything.