From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Sat Dec 5 14:05:03 2009 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 21:05:03 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] Feature proposition: [img] tag In-Reply-To: <4B1216C9.8020307@sonic.net> References: <200911162229.02114.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <20091129000327.GA4287@akirschbaum.users.sourceforge.net> <4B1216C9.8020307@sonic.net> Message-ID: <200912052105.10366.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Hello. > I agree that you probably want other text - only popping up an image is > not useful. Up to the map designer putting the text :) > Older clients pose more an issue. If you are doing something like maps, > it seems fairly difficult to try to support that with old clients (you > could perhaps do an ASCII map). You also get the case of you probably > really don't want to display that ASCII map if you can display the actual > PNG image. We're talking about trunk, so let's forget older clients. We should take the opportunity to break things. > As long as the major clients support it, I think it is reasonable to > state that there is no requirement to be backwards compatible - I think > that adds a lot of complication, and it is simpler to just have the users > use the latest client. Yup. As for the rest, client side issues for most. Nicolas -- http://nicolas.weeger.org [Mon p'tit coin du web] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20091205/b3544c04/attachment.pgp From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Sat Dec 5 14:08:12 2009 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 21:08:12 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] How to integrate old stories in the game? In-Reply-To: <4B0CD5D0.6040908@sonic.net> References: <200911162232.05656.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <200911242310.12098.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4B0CD5D0.6040908@sonic.net> Message-ID: <200912052108.12233.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Hello. > Yeah, but as said, that looks likely script based garbling. In a more > real sense, if the character is not literate enough, they might not > understand the message or in fact misread it. And randomly replacing some > words may not do much - you could probably replace a fair number of words > with the message still being perfectly clear to the end user. Nice idea, but considering how many people work on content, it'll be hard to write decent texts :) Also, using script-based scrambling make it possible to have different versions for different players, so people can have fun comparing. > I'd almost rather just have the server dump all those to the messages > file, and then go through and so some cleanup. We need a way to generate messages from the archetypes, though, so when archetypes change we don't forget to update messages. > We don't have any way to uniquely identify a message. There are > different ways this could be done - a 256 bit hash of the message contents > would do a good enough job, but that leaves you with a value that is fairly > meaningless to look at (and if you fix a typo in the message, that no > longer identifies that as the same message) > > If we gave titles to each message, you could use that - however, who is > to say you might not want several things of the same title? Best would > probably be to make a unique identifier in the messages file, that could be > named to give some clue, but also be made differently (book_of_monsters1, > book_of_monsters2). Let's go for a hash solution for now. After all if you fix a typo, that is indeed NOT the same message :) > An interesting effect of giving each message a unique identifier is one > could use that to track literacy. One shouldn't really get experience for > reading the same message, even if just found in a dungeon. Likewise, there > really shouldn't be anything that prevents a player from giving/trading > something they read to someone else, and that new person getting exp. But > that is currently not allowed because otherwise the same player could read > it 100 times and get 100 times the exp. If you know if the character has > read that message, they could only get the exp once, and giving it to > someone else would only be useful if they haven't read it. Why not. But then we'll need *many* things to read, to level up. > This could almost be used to create real libraries within the game :) Someday, maybe :) Nicolas -- http://nicolas.weeger.org [Mon p'tit coin du web] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20091205/1326f759/attachment.pgp From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Sat Dec 5 14:16:19 2009 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 21:16:19 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] Player level vs monster level vs experience In-Reply-To: <4B121A0F.5000408@sonic.net> References: <200911282326.32196.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4B121A0F.5000408@sonic.net> Message-ID: <200912052116.19984.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> > That is how I see it - monster level and player level should roughly > match. But in this context, I'd sort of say a group of monsters and player > level should roughly match. > > For example, at first level, the character will be fighting typically > large groups of level 1 monsters, it's not a 1:1 battle. But that first > level character might be able to take on a level 4-5 monsters on a 1:1 > basis, but should die if he takes on a group of them. Then that's not "matching" :) A real match would be a level 5 monster being able to kill a level 5 players. > Except for the most part, there are not that many things to adjust for > monsters in crossfire - you do have level, hp, ac, sp, and skill levels. > But if all level 15 monsters had the same hp/ac/sp, it would be pretty > boring - you need to be able to have enemy wizard with a bunch of sp, but > maybe not as many hp, etc. Except you could say: monsters have 1 hp / ac / sp (whatever) for level 1. Each level can give 2 hp, or 1 ac, or 1 sp. Thus for level 15 you could have 31 hp / 1 ac / 1 sp. Or 1 hp / 16 ac / 1 sp. Or 1 hp / 8 ac / 9 sp. And so on. > In theory, monsters should have all the same skills as players, and those > be set at appropriate levels. Right now, I think a lot of the code just > uses monster level for skill level, which more or less works. I'm not even sure the skill level is really used in many cases. > When I was doing the rebalance, I was basically setting a monsters exp > based on its level, but there was still a range. > > That said, I think it would be completely reasonable to redo it - exp is > based solely on level of the monster. If a monster is too easy for that > exp, then it needs to be adjusted in some way (which could mean lowering > level). > > However, keeping it a monster attribute does allow for maximum > flexibility - for example, when redoing it, I basically had this as a exp > value based on level of monsters: > 1 <10 exp > 2 25 > 3 50 > 4 100 > 5 250 > > on so on. But in this model, there are some big gaps - one could > reasonably say a tough level 4 is maybe worth 125, and and easy level 5 > (but still harder than that level 4) is 200 Really depends on the view for higher levels. Will you have a level 100 player fighting 50 levels 99 monsters easily? Or player level 50 versus 10 monsters level 45 is ok, but 100 vs 99 is balanced on 1vs1? Nicolas -- http://nicolas.weeger.org [Mon p'tit coin du web] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20091205/8c1d869d/attachment.pgp From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Sat Dec 5 14:12:52 2009 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 21:12:52 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] Changing connection texts In-Reply-To: <4B121E53.2050607@sonic.net> References: <200911162312.02249.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <200911282012.23315.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4B121E53.2050607@sonic.net> Message-ID: <200912052112.52855.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Hello. > Should some game things maybe be made account wide properties and not > character properties? Off the top of my head, I could think of things like > apartments. KISS for now. Let's just make an account, we'll think about shared apartments later. Though I'd rather have shared apartments decided by players - so you can have one apartment shared by all your players, and also another shared by various people. Like a guild, that is :) > I don't really like an in-game solution. While easy to do, and easy for > all of us to deal with, its not great for new players. Menu driven is fine, then, and not too hard to do, I'd guess. > But I'm also not sure if your ingame comment refers to selecting a > character to play or creating a new one. For creating a new one, we could > perhaps leave the existing mechanism there since redoing is more work. But > making in game (map based) character selection I think would be more work > than just doing the appropriate dialogs. Current creation mechanism sucks. Yes. It's bad. It's evil. If only because first you choose stats then class - which then uses some stats more than others. So let's take the opportunity to rewrite the character generation mechanism. > Question on accounts: Where do we store this information? May be a flat > file or dbm file or something? After all, the only information associated > with an account is the name, password, and characters for that account - > not a lot of information here. But flat files don't work good if you have > thousands of entries. Flat file seems ok for me. Obviously, I could suggest an abstraction layer with a pluggable storage mechanism being DB/file/..., but in C that'd be a PITA to write :) > Step B: Character selection: > 1: Player can choose from existing characters (display names), create a new > character, or associate an existing character with this account (after all, > for all characters existing before this change, they won't be associated). > 2: If character selects existing character, just load up that character and > play - assume that if the character has been set up for account, there is > no need to check password, etc. > 3: If player creates new character, basically same as now, but we don't > need a password - like #2 above, since the character is associated with an > account, we use that password. > 4: If player needs to associated a character with this account, and for > character name and password. See if that is correct - if not, error out. > If so, verify that the character is not already associated with an account > (if so, give them an option to associate with this new account?). Once > player associates character with account, go back up to B.1 - player may > not want to play that character immediately - I could see a case when first > creating the account that you want to associate all your characters with > it. Seems ok. > Note also that within the client, in addition the existing logout, there > another option is needed. Logout could be as it is now - logout and go > back to metaserver selection. But also log out character and go back to > character selection - should make it somewhat easy for player to choose > which character to play. Yup. Nicolas -- http://nicolas.weeger.org [Mon p'tit coin du web] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20091205/0dd03122/attachment.pgp From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Sat Dec 5 15:33:12 2009 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 22:33:12 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] What to find in towns, what to find in the countryside In-Reply-To: <4B11ABBF.6040704@iki.fi> References: <200911192332.08732.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <200911282010.28743.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4B11ABBF.6040704@iki.fi> Message-ID: <200912052233.16016.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> > Well, Scorn also has an explanation on why neglected houses have monsters > in them: the situation with Old Town. Talking about that quest, would anyone have a description? That is what items one can find, clues there are, and so on? :) Nicolas -- http://nicolas.weeger.org [Mon p'tit coin du web] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20091205/c9ae1038/attachment.pgp From mwedel at sonic.net Sun Dec 6 00:29:36 2009 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 22:29:36 -0800 Subject: [crossfire] Player level vs monster level vs experience In-Reply-To: <200912052116.19984.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> References: <200911282326.32196.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4B121A0F.5000408@sonic.net> <200912052116.19984.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Message-ID: <4B1B4F50.9040501@sonic.net> Nicolas Weeger wrote: >> That is how I see it - monster level and player level should roughly >> match. But in this context, I'd sort of say a group of monsters and player >> level should roughly match. >> >> For example, at first level, the character will be fighting typically >> large groups of level 1 monsters, it's not a 1:1 battle. But that first >> level character might be able to take on a level 4-5 monsters on a 1:1 >> basis, but should die if he takes on a group of them. > > Then that's not "matching" :) > A real match would be a level 5 monster being able to kill a level 5 players. Maybe, but there are some other considerations. Under that matching, it means a level 1 character would have to do solo battles with monsters - most maps are not set up that way, or you have to have an idea of level 0 (or maybe even -1) monsters. One also has to take into account the AI we have to play the monsters. In theory, 2 evenly matched characters (or even a clone of the character) should result in a person winning only 50% of the time. However, with the AI of crossfire, I'd say the player would win 100% of the time. I'd also say that if a human actually controlled the monsters, than 1 level 1 monster might kill a level 1 player on 1:1 battle a fair amount of the time. >> Except for the most part, there are not that many things to adjust for >> monsters in crossfire - you do have level, hp, ac, sp, and skill levels. >> But if all level 15 monsters had the same hp/ac/sp, it would be pretty >> boring - you need to be able to have enemy wizard with a bunch of sp, but >> maybe not as many hp, etc. > > Except you could say: monsters have 1 hp / ac / sp (whatever) for level 1. > Each level can give 2 hp, or 1 ac, or 1 sp. > Thus for level 15 you could have 31 hp / 1 ac / 1 sp. Or 1 hp / 16 ac / 1 sp. > Or 1 hp / 8 ac / 9 sp. And so on. Note that if we look at the progression for the characters played by humans, it doesn't really go that way. We could certainly change things so it does (so class has much more impact on things like HP and SP). For the players, the amount they gain each level is about the same - what really gives a big delta is the stats - high constitution means many more hp, high pow means many for sp/grace, etc. Ideally, the monsters should match the mechanics the characters use - that helps keep things in balance. So maybe the stats for monsters should actually have the same meaning as they do for characters - right now, they are often treated special in certain ways (hp/sp regen, ac, etc). >> When I was doing the rebalance, I was basically setting a monsters exp >> based on its level, but there was still a range. >> >> That said, I think it would be completely reasonable to redo it - exp is >> based solely on level of the monster. If a monster is too easy for that >> exp, then it needs to be adjusted in some way (which could mean lowering >> level). >> >> However, keeping it a monster attribute does allow for maximum >> flexibility - for example, when redoing it, I basically had this as a exp >> value based on level of monsters: >> 1 <10 exp >> 2 25 >> 3 50 >> 4 100 >> 5 250 >> >> on so on. But in this model, there are some big gaps - one could >> reasonably say a tough level 4 is maybe worth 125, and and easy level 5 >> (but still harder than that level 4) is 200 > > Really depends on the view for higher levels. > Will you have a level 100 player fighting 50 levels 99 monsters easily? > Or player level 50 versus 10 monsters level 45 is ok, but 100 vs 99 is > balanced on 1vs1? Higher levels are tricky - the one flip side is that for many aspects, the delta between a level 90 and 100 character (in terms of percentages of sp, hp, damage, etc) is going to be much lower than that same delta of a level 5 vs 10. This is because in many places, a character starts reaching maximums - they get larger number of hp/sp/grace at lower levels than higher levels. At some point, the characters equipment starts getting to some maximum value, same for stats, etc. It's possible a complete rethink of how all that works should be done. There has been talk about making the stat range go much higher (up to 100 or perhaps more). Under such a system, however, the deltas would also be less - you wouldn't get a whole lot going from an 85 to 86 strength, but right now, there are some pretty big gaps. Note also that the experience table also flattens out a bit at higher levels - at low levels (<15 or so), the exp basically doubles for each level - 5,000, then 10K, 20K, 40K, etc). This sort of forces characters to move on to tougher targets - killing level 1 creatures means it will take a long time to work your way up. But at the higher levels, the gap, while increasing, isn't as big. On table D, the amount needed for level 51 is 4.5 M, Level 52 needs 4.8M more than that (characters total is about 80M at those levels). So there isn't as much push to be fighting those high level creatures, as presumable the rewards sort of match that - if your fighting level 45 creatures instead of level 50, it probably means you need to kill 25% more of them or something, but not 500% more like it is at low levels. From agschult at ucalgary.ca Sun Dec 6 01:38:42 2009 From: agschult at ucalgary.ca (Alex Schultz) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 00:38:42 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] Player level vs monster level vs experience In-Reply-To: <4B1B4F50.9040501@sonic.net> References: <200911282326.32196.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4B121A0F.5000408@sonic.net> <200912052116.19984.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4B1B4F50.9040501@sonic.net> Message-ID: <20091206003842.0ea7df4d@ucalgary.ca> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 22:29:36 -0800 Mark Wedel wrote: > Nicolas Weeger wrote: > > Then that's not "matching" :) > > A real match would be a level 5 monster being able to kill a level > > 5 players. > > Maybe, but there are some other considerations. > > Under that matching, it means a level 1 character would have to do > solo battles with monsters - most maps are not set up that way, or > you have to have an idea of level 0 (or maybe even -1) monsters. Or alternatively, make players start above level 1? I've seen a few games where players start at something more like level 5, in order to deal with that very issue. Alex From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Sun Dec 6 06:18:10 2009 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 13:18:10 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] Dragon ability bug Message-ID: <200912061318.13755.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Hello. On trunk, an interesting issue: a dragon praying on an altar to become follower of a god will lose burning hands / medium fireball abilities. The issue seems to be "become_follower" (server/gods.c), which removes the FLAG_STARTEQUIP spells - including those abilities. I'd say to exclude spells from this processing, as they are handled specifically by "check_special_prayers". Opinions? Nicolas -- http://nicolas.weeger.org [Mon p'tit coin du web] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20091206/4ec15c84/attachment.pgp From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Sun Dec 6 11:30:45 2009 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 18:30:45 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] Spell proposals Message-ID: <200912061830.48914.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Hello. Here are two proposals for spells. They are not totally incompatible, but well, even only one could fun IMO :) The aim is to reduce the number of spells, and also make it more customizable for players; I'll use the fireball spell as an example. Spells with options. -------------------------- Basic idea: level 1 fireball does x damage for y ticks on z squares. Each spell have defined bonus in damage, duration, range for one level. When casting a spell, you can add options, like: 1) /cast power 20% fireball 2) /cast range 15% fireball 3) cast damage 90 fireball 4) cast range 5% duration 2% fireball 1) means "add (20% of levels over 1) * y ticks to duration, the rest split between range and damage" 2) means "add (15% of levels over 1) * z to range, the rest split between duration and damage" 3) means "add (90 * x) to damage, extra levels above split between duration and range" 4) is left as an exercice to the reader :) Obviously, you could then have a client-side interface to tweak spells / help define your spells. Player-made spells -------------------------- Basic idea: get a spellbook for a standard level 1 fireball. Use alchemy (or other means) to tweak the parameters like range per level, duration, and such. Ingredients to customize could be costly, or different for spells, or whatever. Once leant, the spell has its own special parameters. What do you think of that? Nicolas -- http://nicolas.weeger.org [Mon p'tit coin du web] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20091206/a744b138/attachment.pgp From meflin at meflin.net Sun Dec 6 12:01:29 2009 From: meflin at meflin.net (James Lopeman) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 11:01:29 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] Spell proposals In-Reply-To: <200912061830.48914.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> References: <200912061830.48914.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Message-ID: <200912061101.29442.meflin@meflin.net> To complicated for the average user, also to abusable. Min-Maxing is and art .. never underestimate it. If fireball just got bigger/bader we could get rid of sizes and simplify the game and make it easyer to test/adjust the power of the spell. and OPTIONS after cast :P Meflin On Sunday 06 December 2009 10:30:45 am Nicolas Weeger wrote: > Hello. > > > Here are two proposals for spells. They are not totally incompatible, but > well, even only one could fun IMO :) > > The aim is to reduce the number of spells, and also make it more > customizable for players; > > I'll use the fireball spell as an example. > > > Spells with options. > -------------------------- > Basic idea: level 1 fireball does x damage for y ticks on z squares. > Each spell have defined bonus in damage, duration, range for one level. > > When casting a spell, you can add options, like: > > 1) /cast power 20% fireball > 2) /cast range 15% fireball > 3) cast damage 90 fireball > 4) cast range 5% duration 2% fireball > > 1) means "add (20% of levels over 1) * y ticks to duration, the rest split > between range and damage" > 2) means "add (15% of levels over 1) * z to range, the rest split between > duration and damage" > 3) means "add (90 * x) to damage, extra levels above split between duration > and range" > 4) is left as an exercice to the reader :) > > > Obviously, you could then have a client-side interface to tweak spells / > help define your spells. > > > > > Player-made spells > -------------------------- > Basic idea: get a spellbook for a standard level 1 fireball. > Use alchemy (or other means) to tweak the parameters like range per level, > duration, and such. > > Ingredients to customize could be costly, or different for spells, or > whatever. > > Once leant, the spell has its own special parameters. > > > > > > > What do you think of that? > > > Nicolas > From mwedel at sonic.net Sun Dec 6 23:40:05 2009 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 21:40:05 -0800 Subject: [crossfire] Spell proposals In-Reply-To: <200912061830.48914.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> References: <200912061830.48914.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Message-ID: <4B1C9535.8040904@sonic.net> Nicolas Weeger wrote: > Hello. > > > Here are two proposals for spells. They are not totally incompatible, but > well, even only one could fun IMO :) > > The aim is to reduce the number of spells, and also make it more customizable > for players; > > I'll use the fireball spell as an example. > > > Spells with options. > -------------------------- > Basic idea: level 1 fireball does x damage for y ticks on z squares. > Each spell have defined bonus in damage, duration, range for one level. > > When casting a spell, you can add options, like: > > 1) /cast power 20% fireball > 2) /cast range 15% fireball > 3) cast damage 90 fireball > 4) cast range 5% duration 2% fireball > > 1) means "add (20% of levels over 1) * y ticks to duration, the rest split > between range and damage" > 2) means "add (15% of levels over 1) * z to range, the rest split between > duration and damage" > 3) means "add (90 * x) to damage, extra levels above split between duration > and range" > 4) is left as an exercice to the reader :) > > > Obviously, you could then have a client-side interface to tweak spells / help > define your spells. I do agree with James' post that this could result in some level of min/maxing. That said, a lot of crossfire can result in that (best weapon, etc), so min/maxing is itself not bad. My concern would more be balancing this - I can think of all sorts of scenarios which may result in bad gameplay. 2 quick examples off the top of my head would be putting all the extra into damage, and now having a spell that one shots most monsters (or other players) - probably not good. Another would be putting all the extra into the area of affect, and having a spell that hits most/all of a dungeon level, letting you hit/kill monsters which have no way of hitting you. I'm sure players would come up with many more examples. One way to limit it is to put limits on max damage, area of effect, etc - but the end result may be it removes too much flexibility. It is also tricky because the importance of certain aspects (range, duration, damage) of a spell vary based on the type of spell it is - range and duration are fairly meaningless for bullet (non exploding) type spells. But range (area of affect) is also much more important for something like an exploding ball spell than say a bolt - increasing blast radius of one on a fireball gets you a lot more than increasing the length of a bolt by one. One other thought is that I doubt anyone would tweak spells realtime - instead, while in town (or sitting in an otherwise safe place) they would tweak the spells/set up keybindings (this is really true for any spell proposal, including mine at the bottom of this message) > > > > > Player-made spells > -------------------------- > Basic idea: get a spellbook for a standard level 1 fireball. > Use alchemy (or other means) to tweak the parameters like range per level, > duration, and such. > > Ingredients to customize could be costly, or different for spells, or > whatever. > > Once leant, the spell has its own special parameters. Like above, balancing that can be tricky - have to be careful what you let them tweak to once again not get overpowered stuff. Here is an idea I have, which takes some of these ideas into consideration. This is sort of an amalgam of the custom spell creation in the elder scrolls games as well as a rune idea a friend of mine used for a tabletop game. ---- Each spell is made up of various runes. Damage type rune (fire, cold, physical). Form of spell (cone, bullet, bolt, exploding ball). Players basically learn those runes. So a fireball is a fire + exploding ball rune combination. However, in addition to those, there are other runes. There is a base damage rune, which determines starting spellpoint cost (eg, 5 damage base may be 3 sp. 10 damage base is 8 sp). You could also have duration modifier runes (+1 duration). Because of balance, I'm reluctant to have area of affect modifiers (as noted above, +1 area to a fireball is much better than +1 range to a bolt). The other runes have a modifier, in percentage, to the base SP cost. Maybe most all of the elemental forms are now difference (100%), but because physical is weaker, it costs 75%. Likewise, the form would have cost. Bullets would be cheap (100%). Bolts are more costly (200%), cones more so (400%) with exploding balls being the most. So you take that base 5 damage rune (3 sp) put on a cone (X4) and do fire (X1), so that 5 damage cone (burning hands) cost 12 sp. This allows a fair amount of tuning - if cones seem too cheap, increase the cost (or reduce the area of effect) In terms of learning spells, characters would learn different runes. So at first level, the character may just have fire, 5 damage, bolt, and bullet. So he can do a 5 damage bolt and bullet. As he gains levels, adventures, etc, maybe he finds the small exploding ball rune - now can do small fireballs. Or maybe he finds the 10 damage rune, so does more damage, etc. Each rune, just like the current spells, would have some minimal level, so a level 10 character could not use a 50 hp damage rune even if they got it somehow. To make life simpler for new players/characters, many of the existing spells could basically be aliases for these runes. So a new player doesn't have to know how to set up the runes to cast burning hands, rather, he has a spell known to him called burning hands which has the right runes set up. Perhaps all such spells (a spell being a combination of runes) they player sets up are stored in this way as a per character attributes, so if he changes clients he still has access to these spells. The number of runes needed is probably considerably less in total than the number of spells. This is because 5 elemental runes + 5 form runes would make 25 spells, but is only 10 runes (those numbers are just for example), but one can see this multiple effect. The biggest addition to runes in this case would be the damage rune. Maybe that is intrinsic based on level so you don't need runes, but there is just a mapping that lists skill level, base damage, base sp cost. IMO, costs should go up non linearly - a 20 damage rune is more than twice as valuable as a 10 damage rune, and thus should cost more than twice as much mana. Reason for this is that time is worth something - a massive spell that does huge amounts of damage and kills everything in its path is safer for the caster, as he is exposed to danger for less time than if he has to cast 10 spells for the same effect. But under this idea, there probably needs to be some way to limit this so you don't always have to cast the spell as max efficiency. In fact, it is entirely conceivable that the spell point cost for something like large fireballs is beyond what the character can cast, so they have to cast it at a lower base damage. There are some number of spells that don't really fit well into this system - the detection spells, identify, etc come to mind. Maybe in those cases, they are just set up as unique runes which have a flag which says they are not combined with other runes, so they are single rune spells. From mwedel at sonic.net Sun Dec 6 23:41:53 2009 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 21:41:53 -0800 Subject: [crossfire] Dragon ability bug In-Reply-To: <200912061318.13755.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> References: <200912061318.13755.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Message-ID: <4B1C95A1.4060306@sonic.net> Nicolas Weeger wrote: > Hello. > > On trunk, an interesting issue: a dragon praying on an altar to become > follower of a god will lose burning hands / medium fireball abilities. > > > The issue seems to be "become_follower" (server/gods.c), which removes the > FLAG_STARTEQUIP spells - including those abilities. > > I'd say to exclude spells from this processing, as they are handled > specifically by "check_special_prayers". > > > Opinions? That seems a correct solution. If that doesn't work for some reason, the key/value lists could be used to denote the source of such spells instead of overloading FLAG_STARTEQUIP meaning. From mwedel at sonic.net Sun Dec 6 23:48:57 2009 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 21:48:57 -0800 Subject: [crossfire] How to integrate old stories in the game? In-Reply-To: <200912052108.12233.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> References: <200911162232.05656.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <200911242310.12098.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4B0CD5D0.6040908@sonic.net> <200912052108.12233.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Message-ID: <4B1C9749.8060404@sonic.net> Nicolas Weeger wrote: > Hello. >> I'd almost rather just have the server dump all those to the messages >> file, and then go through and so some cleanup. > > We need a way to generate messages from the archetypes, though, so when > archetypes change we don't forget to update messages. I agree. Unfortunately, a lot of the messages that are generated automatically from archetypes look like they are automatically generated. Maybe just a better function for writing the descriptions is needed - I think right now it just calls something like describe_object(), which works fine for describe stuff in your inventory, but doesn't look that great when describing monsters in books. >> An interesting effect of giving each message a unique identifier is one >> could use that to track literacy. One shouldn't really get experience for >> reading the same message, even if just found in a dungeon. Likewise, there >> really shouldn't be anything that prevents a player from giving/trading >> something they read to someone else, and that new person getting exp. But >> that is currently not allowed because otherwise the same player could read >> it 100 times and get 100 times the exp. If you know if the character has >> read that message, they could only get the exp once, and giving it to >> someone else would only be useful if they haven't read it. > > Why not. But then we'll need *many* things to read, to level up. Literacy skill rebalance is still needed. There are many areas where it is broken (including no/few high level books, so literacy effectively gets capped at some point. But maybe that is reasonable). If we know roughly how many unique messages there are in the game, one could use that to balance it. Lets suppose there are 2,000 unique messages in the game. If we also make the assumption that level 20 is about as high as you can go in literacy, that averages to 100/level. Of course, the character isn't going to find every message in the game, some may not get max exp (characters literacy is higher level than the book he is reading). But you could perhaps say based on that criteria that 20 unique readables should amount to a level, and thus set the exp on that basis. From mwedel at sonic.net Sun Dec 6 23:53:48 2009 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 21:53:48 -0800 Subject: [crossfire] Player level vs monster level vs experience In-Reply-To: <20091206003842.0ea7df4d@ucalgary.ca> References: <200911282326.32196.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4B121A0F.5000408@sonic.net> <200912052116.19984.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4B1B4F50.9040501@sonic.net> <20091206003842.0ea7df4d@ucalgary.ca> Message-ID: <4B1C986C.1000806@sonic.net> Alex Schultz wrote: > On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 22:29:36 -0800 > Mark Wedel wrote: > >> Nicolas Weeger wrote: >>> Then that's not "matching" :) >>> A real match would be a level 5 monster being able to kill a level >>> 5 players. >> Maybe, but there are some other considerations. >> >> Under that matching, it means a level 1 character would have to do >> solo battles with monsters - most maps are not set up that way, or >> you have to have an idea of level 0 (or maybe even -1) monsters. > > Or alternatively, make players start above level 1? I've seen a few > games where players start at something more like level 5, in order to > deal with that very issue. Maybe. Or just say that the level basing is that a character of level X can reasonably take on a group of 5 monsters also of level X. But as said, I think some of the failure is the AI in crossfire, so the make up for stupid monsters, there are just more of them. From mwedel at sonic.net Mon Dec 7 00:05:27 2009 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 22:05:27 -0800 Subject: [crossfire] Changing connection texts In-Reply-To: <200912052112.52855.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> References: <200911162312.02249.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <200911282012.23315.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4B121E53.2050607@sonic.net> <200912052112.52855.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Message-ID: <4B1C9B27.5020402@sonic.net> Nicolas Weeger wrote: >> But I'm also not sure if your ingame comment refers to selecting a >> character to play or creating a new one. For creating a new one, we could >> perhaps leave the existing mechanism there since redoing is more work. But >> making in game (map based) character selection I think would be more work >> than just doing the appropriate dialogs. > > Current creation mechanism sucks. Yes. It's bad. It's evil. > > If only because first you choose stats then class - which then uses some stats > more than others. > > > So let's take the opportunity to rewrite the character generation mechanism. Maybe I'll finally get around to do that in the next few weeks, given X-mas break and fact I've finished up all my home improvements. > > > > >> Question on accounts: Where do we store this information? May be a flat >> file or dbm file or something? After all, the only information associated >> with an account is the name, password, and characters for that account - >> not a lot of information here. But flat files don't work good if you have >> thousands of entries. > > Flat file seems ok for me. > Obviously, I could suggest an abstraction layer with a pluggable storage > mechanism being DB/file/..., but in C that'd be a PITA to write :) Its a different topic than this, but having such a pluggable interface would be nice. The biggest pain would be having to emulate it if a real database is not available (emulation would probably mean a flat file with fields separated by something or another) I can think of all sorts of stuff to record. And if it was stored in an SQL database, one could then do analysis. What are people really buying from the stores? What spells are characters using? Where are people killing monsters, etc. For crossfire, I was thinking something like dbm (or other native file based method) could be used, but I don't know how portable such methods are on non unix systems. But looking at that, other than fast fetching of the keys, the data for that key is all stored in one field, so the server would still need to parse that out. So doesn't gain as much as one would like. I also suspect that for most servers, the size of this file wouldn't be very large, so even parsing a flat file wouldn't be that costly. From om at iki.fi Mon Dec 7 03:31:00 2009 From: om at iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 11:31:00 +0200 Subject: [crossfire] What to find in towns, what to find in the countryside In-Reply-To: <200912052233.16016.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> References: <200911192332.08732.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <200911282010.28743.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4B11ABBF.6040704@iki.fi> <200912052233.16016.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Message-ID: <4B1CCB54.3000108@iki.fi> Nicolas Weeger wrote: >> Well, Scorn also has an explanation on why neglected houses have monsters >> in them: the situation with Old Town. > > Talking about that quest, would anyone have a description? That is what items > one can find, clues there are, and so on? > :) Sorry, my mistake, "Old City". I played it through for the most part last night (kinda hard to tell, as it is a quite large adventure). Different clues are spread around the city, but the general idea is that you have to make your way through the monster- infested under-city areas, find three artifacts (crown, cup and dagger), bring them to the old underground temple where they will open a route to the underworld, where you can block the hell-hole through which the monsters infesting the Old City have been coming through. I don't think there actually are items to be gained on this one, as the three artifacts are destroyed in the process. General treasure abounds, though. Suitable for adventurers level 20+, I'd say. -- /* * * Otto J. Makela * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */ /* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, FAX: +358 42 7655772, ICBM: 60N 25E */ /* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27, FI-00100 Helsinki, FINLAND */ /* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * * * * * * * */ From mwedel at sonic.net Mon Dec 7 23:04:21 2009 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 21:04:21 -0800 Subject: [crossfire] What to find in towns, what to find in the countryside In-Reply-To: <4B1CCB54.3000108@iki.fi> References: <200911192332.08732.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <200911282010.28743.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4B11ABBF.6040704@iki.fi> <200912052233.16016.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4B1CCB54.3000108@iki.fi> Message-ID: <4B1DDE55.8080000@sonic.net> Otto J. Makela wrote: > Nicolas Weeger wrote: >>> Well, Scorn also has an explanation on why neglected houses have monsters >>> in them: the situation with Old Town. >> Talking about that quest, would anyone have a description? That is what items >> one can find, clues there are, and so on? >> :) > > Sorry, my mistake, "Old City". > > I played it through for the most part last night (kinda hard to tell, as it > is a quite large adventure). Different clues are spread around the city, but > the general idea is that you have to make your way through the monster- > infested under-city areas, find three artifacts (crown, cup and dagger), > bring them to the old underground temple where they will open a route to > the underworld, where you can block the hell-hole through which the monsters > infesting the Old City have been coming through. > > I don't think there actually are items to be gained on this one, as the three > artifacts are destroyed in the process. General treasure abounds, though. > Suitable for adventurers level 20+, I'd say. I haven't played it for a while, but one thing I recall is that the level range is pretty broad. Some of the undercity maps are suitable for low level characters (less than 5), while others are much tougher, with things like wyverns. So I'd probably say the level range is 0-20, but it really depends on what area you are in. One problem perhaps is that there is not enough exp to be gained here to start at say level 5 (easier area) and work your way through, to the point where at the end you are sufficient exp to complete it. If you start at high enough level to complete it, you may find some areas too easy. If you start at a level where the area is a challenge, you may find you can't complete it, and need to go adventuring elsewhere to get sufficient exp. From mwedel at sonic.net Tue Dec 8 00:37:22 2009 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 22:37:22 -0800 Subject: [crossfire] Getting rid of AC/WC Message-ID: <4B1DF422.8000508@sonic.net> With the recent discussions on spells and this or that, tossing out this one - get rid of AC and WC (one goes with the other really). There are a few reasons for this that I found from my rebalance work: - Going on a rough target of opponents should hit each other about 25% of the time (fighter against monster), getting various bonuses can really shift this around since the range is D20. Pick up a few +ac items, and that chance can reduce to 5-10%. Likewise, pick up a few items that increase your WC (magic weapon, increase strength, etc) and your hit odds could perhaps double. - Since WC gets better as a character melee skill gets better, the monsters AC also tends to get better. This basically mean that non melee characters have no chance of hitting higher level monsters, even if their overall level is also higher. And while going back to work up your melee exp on low level monsters may be realistic, it is pretty boring. - Compounding the above, fighters will tend to have better stats to give them a leg up in WC, so while a first level fighter may have a 25-35% chance to hit monsters, a mage may only have 10-15%. That said, just getting rid of it would make the game a bit less interesting IMO. So instead, I propose what is currently just physical attack/damage type gets split into a few pieces: Blunt, Piercing, Slashing. Most player armor would have different values for this - one could imagine some types of armor may be pretty good against blunt, but not so good against piercing. A better example of this for monsters would be skeletons, following the D&D model. They might be something like: resist_piercing 90 (piercing doesn't do much if you are just a bunch of bones) resist_slashing 50 (slashing isn't bad, but not great) resist_blunt -50 (blunt objects pulverize them) Most weapons would have just one attacktype, since they can only be used in one way (a hammer is only going to do blunt damage, a spear can only really be used for piercing). There may be a few that has some combos. To still make fighters worth playing, they'd get various bonuses based on their skill - more damage, faster attack times. Perhaps even extend this to some special effects (slow, weakness, etc, although we don't have a good mechanism for some of that right now). This doesn't fix all the problems, but does reduce the number of variables for damage. For game play, I see these as some positive effects: - Simpler to understand - those not familiar with D&D may be a little confused with AC and WC (and the fact you want those lower, not higher) - Anyone at any level can pick up a weapon and do at least some damage. That mage may not be as effective - I'd forsee a level 20 melee skill be twice as effective as a level one (based on speed of weapon, extra damage, etc) - This perhaps reduces the handicap for non armor wearing classes some - right now, the 1 or 2 AC points a mage gets for the mage robes is fairly meaningless anyways. - More likely to have more combinations of items - less likely to have a best weapon/armor (in that skeleton example, a non magical hammer is likely to still do better than a +4 longsword) - A bit easier to correlate damage that spells can do with physical attacks - one doesn't have to guess the chance of an attack hitting, since spells always do - a spell that does 10 damage and can be cast once a tick is pretty easily comparable to an attack that does 10 damage and can be done once a tick (presuming both of those hit one target) Downsides: - Work to redo this all - that said, scripts can find everything that needs to be updated, and since rebalancing is needed in various areas anyways, this can go with it. For most things, a base conversion of resist_{slashing|piercing|blunt} = current resist_physical could simplify that, with additional adjustments. - It does remove an aspect of the game that has existed for a long time. Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions? From mwedel at sonic.net Tue Dec 8 00:44:39 2009 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 22:44:39 -0800 Subject: [crossfire] Changing connection texts In-Reply-To: <200912052112.52855.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> References: <200911162312.02249.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <200911282012.23315.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4B121E53.2050607@sonic.net> <200912052112.52855.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Message-ID: <4B1DF5D7.1070501@sonic.net> Nicolas Weeger wrote: > Hello. > >> Should some game things maybe be made account wide properties and not >> character properties? Off the top of my head, I could think of things like >> apartments. > > KISS for now. Let's just make an account, we'll think about shared apartments > later. > Though I'd rather have shared apartments decided by players - so you can have > one apartment shared by all your players, and also another shared by various > people. > Like a guild, that is :) One thing I did think of might be DM access - maybe the dm_file should use account name instead of/in addition to character name? It strikes me that if you are going to trust a player with dm access, you probably don't really care what character they are playing. From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Sat Dec 12 04:53:58 2009 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:53:58 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] Dragon ability bug In-Reply-To: <4B1C95A1.4060306@sonic.net> References: <200912061318.13755.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4B1C95A1.4060306@sonic.net> Message-ID: <200912121154.01597.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Hello. > That seems a correct solution. If that doesn't work for some reason, the > key/value lists could be used to denote the source of such spells instead > of overloading FLAG_STARTEQUIP meaning. Hopefully fixed, and cleaned/tweaked some related code. Nicolas -- http://nicolas.weeger.org [Mon p'tit coin du web] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20091212/68ba92e7/attachment.pgp From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Sat Dec 12 06:28:34 2009 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 13:28:34 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] Changing connection texts In-Reply-To: <4B1DF5D7.1070501@sonic.net> References: <200911162312.02249.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <200912052112.52855.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4B1DF5D7.1070501@sonic.net> Message-ID: <200912121328.38114.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Hello. > One thing I did think of might be DM access - maybe the dm_file should > use account name instead of/in addition to character name? > > It strikes me that if you are going to trust a player with dm access, you > probably don't really care what character they are playing. Yes, makes sense. Nicolas -- http://nicolas.weeger.org [Mon p'tit coin du web] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20091212/0f2100a4/attachment.pgp From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Sat Dec 12 06:29:57 2009 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 13:29:57 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] Changing connection texts In-Reply-To: <4B1C9B27.5020402@sonic.net> References: <200911162312.02249.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <200912052112.52855.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4B1C9B27.5020402@sonic.net> Message-ID: <200912121329.57155.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> > Its a different topic than this, but having such a pluggable interface > would be nice. The biggest pain would be having to emulate it if a real > database is not available (emulation would probably mean a flat file with > fields separated by something or another) > > I can think of all sorts of stuff to record. And if it was stored in an > SQL database, one could then do analysis. What are people really buying > from the stores? What spells are characters using? Where are people > killing monsters, etc. > > For crossfire, I was thinking something like dbm (or other native file > based method) could be used, but I don't know how portable such methods are > on non unix systems. But looking at that, other than fast fetching of the > keys, the data for that key is all stored in one field, so the server would > still need to parse that out. So doesn't gain as much as one would like. > I also suspect that for most servers, the size of this file wouldn't be > very large, so even parsing a flat file wouldn't be that costly. SQLITE is already used by my logger and newspaper (alpha) plugins. Seems ok for me. As for statistics, I don't really care actually for now, better to develop content and such :) And maybe Zebulon (Ragnor's bot) could actually give statistics, if needed. Nicolas -- http://nicolas.weeger.org [Mon p'tit coin du web] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20091212/4229d528/attachment.pgp From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Sat Dec 12 07:00:47 2009 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:00:47 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] Spell proposals In-Reply-To: <4B1C9535.8040904@sonic.net> References: <200912061830.48914.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4B1C9535.8040904@sonic.net> Message-ID: <200912121400.52421.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Hello. > Like above, balancing that can be tricky - have to be careful what you > let them tweak to once again not get overpowered stuff. > > Here is an idea I have, which takes some of these ideas into > consideration. This is sort of an amalgam of the custom spell creation in > the elder scrolls games as well as a rune idea a friend of mine used for a > tabletop game. Has tweaking issues like other proposals :) Anyway, my guess is that the first to implement something will define the new spell system. So feel free to implement your ideas, they are as good as others :) Nicolas -- http://nicolas.weeger.org [Mon p'tit coin du web] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20091212/746624e9/attachment.pgp From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Sat Dec 12 07:02:42 2009 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:02:42 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] Getting rid of AC/WC In-Reply-To: <4B1DF422.8000508@sonic.net> References: <4B1DF422.8000508@sonic.net> Message-ID: <200912121402.42619.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Hello. > With the recent discussions on spells and this or that, tossing out this > one - get rid of AC and WC (one goes with the other really). So what is the rule for hitting/defending? Will there still be sword+2? +3? what about armor? What is the difference between a chain mail and a plate mail? And if we go this route (which seems good as long as we simplify the rules), let's enforce the separate attacktypes damage for weapons - there is a skeleton for that, not sure it really works. Nicolas -- http://nicolas.weeger.org [Mon p'tit coin du web] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20091212/174653bd/attachment.pgp From mwedel at sonic.net Sat Dec 12 16:23:35 2009 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:23:35 -0800 Subject: [crossfire] Getting rid of AC/WC In-Reply-To: <200912121402.42619.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> References: <4B1DF422.8000508@sonic.net> <200912121402.42619.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Message-ID: <4B2417E7.7080301@sonic.net> Nicolas Weeger wrote: > Hello. > >> With the recent discussions on spells and this or that, tossing out this >> one - get rid of AC and WC (one goes with the other really). > > > > > So what is the rule for hitting/defending? Basically like spells - if you aim at something, you hit it. Aim in this context may just mean standing next to a monster and moving in that direction. For arrows it would be a lot like bullets, etc. One could think of it like always rolling a 20 on the attack roll (there is special coding that a 20 always hits right now). There isn't really any defending, but right now, there really isn't any defending either. There has been talk about redoing things so you have various attack options and defense options. With a slower combat method, one could make a greater case for these - in a sense, they might be like spells but for warriors - you do an action and your next attack does something special. You do more damage, but your armor rating is lower (and there could be actions that are reverse of that). Or an attack takes longer, etc. But removal of AC/WC doesn't really change the attack options and need to implement them - it just changes what some of those actions might be. > Will there still be sword+2? +3? what about armor? Right now the pluses for the weapons/armor do more than just AC/WC. For both types, it makes the item lighter. This means for weapons it also makes them a little faster. For weapons, the magic of the weapon is also used as a bonus for damage. For armor, this increases the armor rating slightly (+1 armor/plus). that increase is fairly insignificant since the armor rating might by +30/+40, so adding +5 more from magic of your various items doesn't make much difference. But that could be adjusted to make it +2 or +3 per plus. > What is the difference between a chain mail and a plate mail? Right now, they do have different armor ratings. Plate is +40, chain is +30 IIRC. In getting rid of WC/AC, I'm not advocating getting rid of the armor ratings - in fact, I'd consider those much more important as that is the only thing that will give you protection. However, it is much easier to predict/control what those values are, especially because it uses the method of diminishing returns (2 +40 items don't give you +80,they give you .64). However, with this change, the usefulness of many items that give trivial armor ratings lack much meaning - those boots at resist physical 3 don't get you too much, same for non artifact gloves, etc > > > > And if we go this route (which seems good as long as we simplify the rules), > let's enforce the separate attacktypes damage for weapons - there is a > skeleton for that, not sure it really works. Yes - attacktype should go away and be replaced by the discrete damage types. Even if it is simply writing a script that updates all the archetypes. Doing a grep, while there are 541 references to attacktype, the vast majority appear to be setting a single bit, so are trivial to convert - the ones that have multiple attacktypes are harder. The discrete attacktypes do work, but have a limitation. IIRC, they are set up to emulate the existing attacktype logic - thus, if you have something like: dam_physical 10 dam_fire 5 It will see what attacktype would do more damage to your opponent, and use that one. That emulates existing logic, but suppose in that example above, you want to note it is a flaming sword - that the damages are additive. There isn't any way to do that right now, and that is a missing piece. There are ways (not too difficult) to do this - having a bitmask to denote which ones are bonus damage types wouldn't be hard to add (and one could limit things such you can't have a damage type that is a bonus to an attacktype that is also its base) - in that way, one could just do something like add a + to denote it is bonus damage. So if we had: dam_physical 10 dam_fire +5 This means it does 10 physical damage and 5 fire damage. And the example up above means it does 10 phyiscal damage or 5 fire damage - whichever is better. But I don't really like using the plus sign, so maybe having something like 'dam_bonus_fire' is better. From mwedel at sonic.net Sat Dec 12 17:50:41 2009 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:50:41 -0800 Subject: [crossfire] quest/storyline ideas Message-ID: <4B242C51.6090304@sonic.net> Recording for posterity a discussion in IRC about quests. I've probably forgotten a few things, but hopefully I got most of. One of the issues right now is that for most maps, there is no storyline. You have a bunch of maps which you go and kill things and serve no other purpose. In addition, there tends not be any storyline the moves the player through the game. The player may pick up snippets of information from different NPCs, but there isn't any good method to track that. One of the thoughts here is to try to take these various unconnected pieces and make larger storylines. The idea being that it will help move the player throughout the game. But also hopefully new players get interested in the story and keep on playing. For the most part, the game right now is going out killing a few things and getting treasure - very easy to stop playing. In a sense, it is like reading a book - if you've read the first 5 pages, easier to stop reading it than halfway through. Rather than have a huge storyline that takes the character from level 1 to 100, instead this would be broken in smaller pieces. The one in scorn may take the player up to level 15 or so before they finish it up. There may be various hooks that then moves the player to navar city and start up the storyline there. A character could have any number of active quests at one time. Some quests may have dependencies on other quests being completed. There would be many side quests which are outside the larger storylines (and in fact, I would expect that side quests would outnumber the main storylines). Some quests could be done out of order. Some quests may get completed even without the character having the quest (but if returning an item to the giver of that quest is needed for reward, the player may not know to do so). To plot this out, the main things needed would be: - quest giver/rewarder of the quest. - level range of the character to take on the quest. - reward for the quest. - what background info character needs for quest - hopefully for this last case, the quest steps leading up here will give them the information they need. The first step in all this is writing out an outline of the quests. In practical terms, all of the above could probably be done with existing code - it is just map, script, and archetype updates. The next piece of this is recording this information. I advocate that quest information should be automatically recorded for the player, and some way for the player to get this information. There are different ways this could be done - doing a 'quests' type command, having a quest log item in the inventory that gets automatically updated, or perhaps even a GUI mechanism in the client. I'd say that at first pass, one of the first 2 would be easier. In fact, I think adding a new 'quests' command would be best. First, since quest tracking information would presumably be stored as objects in the players inventory, a description/status of the quest could be stored in that same object. So quests just has to find those and print them out. Pretty simple - probably simpler than having a book automatically updated (unless it is a new type of item that basically calls that same code). It also means that down the road, if a GUI is added on the client, it uses a similar logic - server finds those items and sends them to client as quest information. If it was stored in a book, it means that the client is doing some special logic to get that data. A different point of view is that the player should just record quest information. There may be new ways to do this - 'notes' type command being one. This is certainly more realistic, and player may record information not part of a quest. My concerns here would be that player may record so much information (not knowing what is important and what isn't) that any such records are not very useful. Or the flip side is they don't record anything and thus don't realize that they have a bunch of quests they could be doing. That last one is probably my bigger concern, as now new players are less likely to get involved into the story. A question that remains is how to find all the quests in the first place. Having more NPC's redirect players to quest givers may be a method to do. but that may still require that players just talk to the NPC's more. From mwedel at sonic.net Sun Dec 13 00:59:50 2009 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 22:59:50 -0800 Subject: [crossfire] Character names, was Re: Changing connection texts In-Reply-To: <200912121328.38114.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> References: <200911162312.02249.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <200912052112.52855.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4B1DF5D7.1070501@sonic.net> <200912121328.38114.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Message-ID: <4B2490E6.8010602@sonic.net> Nicolas Weeger wrote: > Hello. > >> One thing I did think of might be DM access - maybe the dm_file should >> use account name instead of/in addition to character name? >> >> It strikes me that if you are going to trust a player with dm access, you >> probably don't really care what character they are playing. > > Yes, makes sense. Looking at the code, something vaguely related here is character naming standards. Right now, character names are limited to letters and - or _, and the - or _ can not be the first letter. Spaces and numbers are not allowed. I can certainly understand spaces, as on unixlike systems, spaces in file names are a pain to deal with. But not sure why restrictions on numbers (like the - or _, I could perhaps see why we wouldn't want a character to start with number. But why shouldn't Mark99 be allowed? The other oddity (IMO) is that names are case sensitive. Thus, Mark and mark are 2 different characters. That to me isn't great. If I was adventuring with a person, I might remember their name, but probably wouldn't remember the details on its capitalization - it could be odd to find out the 'dave' I'm not adventuring with is not the same player as the 'Dave' I adventure with last week. So my suggestions on this: - Allow numbers in names - just the name can not start with a number. - Going forward, names should be unique in a case insensitive manner. The player can still choose variations on capitalization, you just can't have a 'mark' and 'Mark'. To handle that last one, simplest thing is to just store all character related files in a lower case version of the name (so Mark would be stored as mark/mark.pl for example). That's easy to do and solves the problem. The thing that is harder to solve is existing player files. Writing a script to rename them is straightforward. The hard part is dealing with any names that conflict (eg, server has existing Mark and mark). > > > Nicolas > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > crossfire mailing list > crossfire at metalforge.org > http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Thu Dec 17 15:49:31 2009 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 22:49:31 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] Getting rid of AC/WC In-Reply-To: <4B2417E7.7080301@sonic.net> References: <4B1DF422.8000508@sonic.net> <200912121402.42619.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4B2417E7.7080301@sonic.net> Message-ID: <200912172249.35390.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Hello. > Basically like spells - if you aim at something, you hit it. Aim in this > context may just mean standing next to a monster and moving in that > direction. For arrows it would be a lot like bullets, etc. One could think > of it like always rolling a 20 on the attack roll (there is special coding > that a 20 always hits right now). There isn't really any defending, but > right now, there really isn't any defending either. > > There has been talk about redoing things so you have various attack > options and defense options. With a slower combat method, one could make a > greater case for these - in a sense, they might be like spells but for > warriors - you do an action and your next attack does something special. > You do more damage, but your armor rating is lower (and there could be > actions that are reverse of that). Or an attack takes longer, etc. But > removal of AC/WC doesn't really change the attack options and need to > implement them - it just changes what some of those actions might be. Well, that sounds ok for me. Let's implement that, and see what it gives :) Could you maybe write that down "formally", with simple rules, so it can serve as reference? Nicolas -- http://nicolas.weeger.org [Mon p'tit coin du web] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20091217/de2e7b09/attachment.pgp From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Thu Dec 17 15:53:30 2009 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 22:53:30 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] Character names, was Re: Changing connection texts In-Reply-To: <4B2490E6.8010602@sonic.net> References: <200911162312.02249.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <200912121328.38114.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4B2490E6.8010602@sonic.net> Message-ID: <200912172253.30346.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> > Looking at the code, something vaguely related here is character naming > standards. > > Right now, character names are limited to letters and - or _, and the - > or _ can not be the first letter. > > Spaces and numbers are not allowed. I can certainly understand spaces, > as on unixlike systems, spaces in file names are a pain to deal with. But > not sure why restrictions on numbers (like the - or _, I could perhaps see > why we wouldn't want a character to start with number. > > But why shouldn't Mark99 be allowed? Ok by me to allow numbers. > The other oddity (IMO) is that names are case sensitive. Thus, Mark and > mark are 2 different characters. That to me isn't great. If I was > adventuring with a person, I might remember their name, but probably > wouldn't remember the details on its capitalization - it could be odd to > find out the 'dave' I'm not adventuring with is not the same player as the > 'Dave' I adventure with last week. Well, could make sense too, yes. > So my suggestions on this: > - Allow numbers in names - just the name can not start with a number. > - Going forward, names should be unique in a case insensitive manner. The > player can still choose variations on capitalization, you just can't have a > 'mark' and 'Mark'. > > To handle that last one, simplest thing is to just store all character > related files in a lower case version of the name (so Mark would be stored > as mark/mark.pl for example). That's easy to do and solves the problem. > > The thing that is harder to solve is existing player files. Writing a > script to rename them is straightforward. The hard part is dealing with > any names that conflict (eg, server has existing Mark and mark). Unless I'm mistaking, there is no 1.x => 2.0 migration script for players, meaning people will have to restart their character. So name collision issues shouldn't matter. Nicolas -- http://nicolas.weeger.org [Mon p'tit coin du web] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20091217/2abce34a/attachment.pgp From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Thu Dec 17 15:51:17 2009 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 22:51:17 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] Player level vs monster level vs experience In-Reply-To: <4B1C986C.1000806@sonic.net> References: <200911282326.32196.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <20091206003842.0ea7df4d@ucalgary.ca> <4B1C986C.1000806@sonic.net> Message-ID: <200912172251.17479.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> > Maybe. Or just say that the level basing is that a character of level X > can reasonably take on a group of 5 monsters also of level X. > > But as said, I think some of the failure is the AI in crossfire, so the > make up for stupid monsters, there are just more of them. That's part of the game genre, no? Many monsters, not smart. Should we try to go towards less monsters smarter? Nicolas -- http://nicolas.weeger.org [Mon p'tit coin du web] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20091217/9cd15a97/attachment.pgp From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Thu Dec 17 15:50:39 2009 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 22:50:39 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] quest/storyline ideas In-Reply-To: <4B242C51.6090304@sonic.net> References: <4B242C51.6090304@sonic.net> Message-ID: <200912172250.39598.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Hello. > Recording for posterity a discussion in IRC about quests. I've probably > forgotten a few things, but hopefully I got most of. Seems ok for me. Some steps: - check existing quests, required level, existing hints - fix stuff so there is a real storyline - add hints at many places Nicolas -- http://nicolas.weeger.org [Mon p'tit coin du web] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20091217/4cb11b6a/attachment.pgp From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Thu Dec 17 15:52:03 2009 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 22:52:03 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] What to find in towns, what to find in the countryside In-Reply-To: <4B1DDE55.8080000@sonic.net> References: <200911192332.08732.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4B1CCB54.3000108@iki.fi> <4B1DDE55.8080000@sonic.net> Message-ID: <200912172252.03547.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> > I haven't played it for a while, but one thing I recall is that the level > range is pretty broad. > > Some of the undercity maps are suitable for low level characters (less > than 5), while others are much tougher, with things like wyverns. So I'd > probably say the level range is 0-20, but it really depends on what area > you are in. > > One problem perhaps is that there is not enough exp to be gained here to > start at say level 5 (easier area) and work your way through, to the point > where at the end you are sufficient exp to complete it. If you start at > high enough level to complete it, you may find some areas too easy. If you > start at a level where the area is a challenge, you may find you can't > complete it, and need to go adventuring elsewhere to get sufficient exp. Well, that quest could be integrated in a storyline, as per the advocated idea on another thread. So that'd be an opportunity to fix/balance the various maps. Nicolas -- http://nicolas.weeger.org [Mon p'tit coin du web] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20091217/c54cb6e2/attachment.pgp From mwedel at sonic.net Thu Dec 17 22:14:01 2009 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:14:01 -0800 Subject: [crossfire] Player level vs monster level vs experience In-Reply-To: <200912172251.17479.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> References: <200911282326.32196.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <20091206003842.0ea7df4d@ucalgary.ca> <4B1C986C.1000806@sonic.net> <200912172251.17479.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Message-ID: <4B2B0189.4090705@sonic.net> Nicolas Weeger wrote: >> Maybe. Or just say that the level basing is that a character of level X >> can reasonably take on a group of 5 monsters also of level X. >> >> But as said, I think some of the failure is the AI in crossfire, so the >> make up for stupid monsters, there are just more of them. > > > That's part of the game genre, no? > Many monsters, not smart. Maybe. But many monsters may have abilities/items they don't effectively use. I'm not sure how much is historical relative to CRPGs vs tabletop - for tablestop, the monsters often would be smart (as they are played by a real person). I don't know for sure, but I could imagine that in early computer based games, the system just didn't have a lot of resources to have a really good AI (if you have memory and cpu speed constraints, you make do with what you have). So I guess it depends on how far ones go back into the genre. > > > Should we try to go towards less monsters smarter? I think so - not every monster has to be an expert tactician, but at least having some of them be so would be reasonable. It would certainly be nice for the end of map/quest boss monsters. From mwedel at sonic.net Thu Dec 17 22:19:17 2009 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:19:17 -0800 Subject: [crossfire] Character names, was Re: Changing connection texts In-Reply-To: <200912172253.30346.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> References: <200911162312.02249.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <200912121328.38114.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4B2490E6.8010602@sonic.net> <200912172253.30346.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Message-ID: <4B2B02C5.1090803@sonic.net> Nicolas Weeger wrote: >> So my suggestions on this: >> - Allow numbers in names - just the name can not start with a number. >> - Going forward, names should be unique in a case insensitive manner. The >> player can still choose variations on capitalization, you just can't have a >> 'mark' and 'Mark'. >> >> To handle that last one, simplest thing is to just store all character >> related files in a lower case version of the name (so Mark would be stored >> as mark/mark.pl for example). That's easy to do and solves the problem. >> >> The thing that is harder to solve is existing player files. Writing a >> script to rename them is straightforward. The hard part is dealing with >> any names that conflict (eg, server has existing Mark and mark). > > > Unless I'm mistaking, there is no 1.x => 2.0 migration script for players, > meaning people will have to restart their character. > So name collision issues shouldn't matter. True - there is no migration plan/support. However, there are some number of servers right now that running trunk bits. But maybe we just state all trunk servers must convert over, and let them deal with any conflicts they have on their own. From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Sun Dec 20 14:13:27 2009 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:13:27 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] Darcap tweaking Message-ID: <200912202113.32020.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Hello. I'm currently tweaking Darcap, to add some (I hope) interesting things to the town. My plans include: - move quest-related stuff outside the town - no monsters in town houses (but maybe through wells or holes) - linked characters, based on player's behaviour - improved NPC interaction For this, I'm writing a full plugin to handle various behaviours. Do you guys prefer I checkin my work now and then while in progress, or should I wait to have all finished? Please note I won't discuss the actual implementation (plugin or maps or archetypes), but I'm ok to discuss the town content itself. Nicolas -- http://nicolas.weeger.org [Mon p'tit coin du web] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20091220/4868181c/attachment.pgp From leaf at real-time.com Wed Dec 23 15:35:53 2009 From: leaf at real-time.com (Rick Tanner) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:35:53 -0600 Subject: [crossfire] Darcap tweaking In-Reply-To: <200912202113.32020.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> References: <200912202113.32020.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Message-ID: <4B328D39.8050801@real-time.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/20/09 2:13 PM, Nicolas Weeger wrote: > > I'm currently tweaking Darcap, to add some (I hope) interesting things to the > town. > > My plans include: > - move quest-related stuff outside the town > - no monsters in town houses (but maybe through wells or holes) > - linked characters, based on player's behaviour > - improved NPC interaction Sounds like a good test city to work with. Does, or will, your work also include /darcap/town2/* maps? > Do you guys prefer I checkin my work now and then while in progress, or should > I wait to have all finished? If your changes will have a major impact on the existing guilds in Darcap for the trunk servers already out there, then it might be preferred to check in the work when it is all finished. Keep in mind the file paths for all the players who have a "big chest" in one of the guilds there. ;-) Otherwise, for tracking purposes - numerous & smaller changes is preferred IMO. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iD8DBQFLMo05hHyvgBp+vH4RAhPEAJ9RrytodbPZUdUDZoNUfKmLGSOCiACfZNRc VMfuxhs17CtF1a4f2TtALyM= =bYlf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From mwedel at sonic.net Thu Dec 24 00:13:47 2009 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:13:47 -0800 Subject: [crossfire] Darcap tweaking In-Reply-To: <200912202113.32020.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> References: <200912202113.32020.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Message-ID: <4B33069B.3080907@sonic.net> Nicolas Weeger wrote: > Hello. > > > I'm currently tweaking Darcap, to add some (I hope) interesting things to the > town. > > My plans include: > - move quest-related stuff outside the town > - no monsters in town houses (but maybe through wells or holes) > - linked characters, based on player's behaviour Not sure what that means - do you mean linked quests, or something else. > - improved NPC interaction > > > For this, I'm writing a full plugin to handle various behaviours. I'm presuming/hoping this plugin will not be darcap specific, and can be used for other maps as the need/desire arises? > > > Do you guys prefer I checkin my work now and then while in progress, or should > I wait to have all finished? I guess it depends on the status of the work in progress maps. If it is the type of thing this map/quest has been fixed, then I see no issue checking that portion in. I'd be more concerned in the case where a map is half done, such that if a player goes to that map, they would consider it broken. From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Fri Dec 25 05:13:50 2009 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2009 12:13:50 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] Merry Christmas Message-ID: <200912251213.50123.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Merry Christmas to everyone :) Nicolas -- http://nicolas.weeger.org [Mon p'tit coin du web] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20091225/fd15553c/attachment.pgp From crystalmir at gmail.com Fri Dec 25 08:41:17 2009 From: crystalmir at gmail.com (Dany Talbot) Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2009 09:41:17 -0500 Subject: [crossfire] Merry Christmas In-Reply-To: <200912251213.50123.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> References: <200912251213.50123.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Message-ID: <9739c5510912250641u36a481bal731c6cefb9a6a9af@mail.gmail.com> Toi aussi! J'ai vu qu'il y avait pas mal d'activit?e r?cemment sur la liste de distribution, je crois qu'il va y avoir pas mal de changements dans les nouvelles versions de crossfire... Bonne chance! On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 6:13 AM, Nicolas Weeger wrote: > Merry Christmas to everyone :) > > > Nicolas > -- > http://nicolas.weeger.org [Mon p'tit coin du web] > > _______________________________________________ > crossfire mailing list > crossfire at metalforge.org > http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire > > -- Dany Talbot, Quebec, Canada [ Crystalmir at gmail.com ] "Per aspera ad astra" From leaf at real-time.com Fri Dec 25 12:25:01 2009 From: leaf at real-time.com (Rick Tanner) Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2009 12:25:01 -0600 Subject: [crossfire] Merry Christmas In-Reply-To: <200912251213.50123.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> References: <200912251213.50123.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Message-ID: <4B35037D.30509@real-time.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/25/09 5:13 AM, Nicolas Weeger wrote: > Merry Christmas to everyone :) Yes, Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iD8DBQFLNQN9hHyvgBp+vH4RAqDLAJ0aTxIQxkSA/cBxnA5PfFHqYHYvHQCgt1ny okkneSsKP6+CSgD89rtPnxA= =FnwB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Fri Dec 25 13:23:15 2009 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2009 20:23:15 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] Merry Christmas In-Reply-To: <9739c5510912250641u36a481bal731c6cefb9a6a9af@mail.gmail.com> References: <200912251213.50123.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <9739c5510912250641u36a481bal731c6cefb9a6a9af@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200912252023.19169.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> > Toi aussi! J'ai vu qu'il y avait pas mal d'activit?e r?cemment sur la > liste de distribution, je crois qu'il va y avoir pas mal de > changements dans les nouvelles versions de crossfire... Bonne chance! Hum, pourrais-tu me rappeler ton pseudonyme ? ^.^;;; (je suis mauvais en ? vrais ? nom, des fois) Quant aux changements, ?a d?pendra bien des gens et du ? soutien ? que j'ai - aussi de mon humeur, disons ;) ++ Nicolas -- http://nicolas.weeger.org [Mon p'tit coin du web] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20091225/dfd155c4/attachment.pgp From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Sun Dec 27 12:22:35 2009 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:22:35 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] Darcap tweaking In-Reply-To: <4B328D39.8050801@real-time.com> References: <200912202113.32020.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4B328D39.8050801@real-time.com> Message-ID: <200912271922.39026.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Hello. > Sounds like a good test city to work with. > > Does, or will, your work also include /darcap/town2/* maps? Yes, probably. Rewriting the elemental quest could be on my TODO list. > If your changes will have a major impact on the existing guilds in > Darcap for the trunk servers already out there, then it might be > preferred to check in the work when it is all finished. Keep in mind > the file paths for all the players who have a "big chest" in one of the > guilds there. ;-) > > Otherwise, for tracking purposes - numerous & smaller changes is > preferred IMO. I won't change the guilds/apartments, so that should be ok :) I guess I'll commit often, then, even if experimental. Nicolas -- http://nicolas.weeger.org [Mon p'tit coin du web] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20091227/e75ae472/attachment.pgp From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Sun Dec 27 12:24:08 2009 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:24:08 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] Darcap tweaking In-Reply-To: <4B33069B.3080907@sonic.net> References: <200912202113.32020.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4B33069B.3080907@sonic.net> Message-ID: <200912271924.08210.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Hello. > Not sure what that means - do you mean linked quests, or something else. Linked characters. So you'll only get hints from T if you talked beforehand to Z. Or things like that. > I'm presuming/hoping this plugin will not be darcap specific, and can be > used for other maps as the need/desire arises? First I'll make it work. Then we'll see for reusing. > I guess it depends on the status of the work in progress maps. > > If it is the type of thing this map/quest has been fixed, then I see no > issue checking that portion in. > > I'd be more concerned in the case where a map is half done, such that if > a player goes to that map, they would consider it broken. I'll try to do atomic things - right now, the tavern's barman is almost done. Nicolas -- http://nicolas.weeger.org [Mon p'tit coin du web] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20091227/da8ed373/attachment.pgp From crystalmir at gmail.com Sun Dec 27 22:25:12 2009 From: crystalmir at gmail.com (Dany Talbot) Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:25:12 -0500 Subject: [crossfire] Merry Christmas In-Reply-To: <200912252023.19169.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> References: <200912251213.50123.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <9739c5510912250641u36a481bal731c6cefb9a6a9af@mail.gmail.com> <200912252023.19169.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Message-ID: <9739c5510912272025q5f86d5cayab907f45bd1f478b@mail.gmail.com> Je suis Cybersoft sur le canal. J'ai pas contribu? grand chose pour crossfire, mais si ?a l'a aid? c'est ce qui compte. 2009/12/25 Nicolas Weeger : >> Toi aussi! J'ai vu qu'il y avait pas mal d'activit?e r?cemment sur la >> liste de distribution, je crois qu'il va y avoir pas mal de >> changements dans les nouvelles versions de crossfire... Bonne chance! > > Hum, pourrais-tu me rappeler ton pseudonyme ? ^.^;;; > (je suis mauvais en ? vrais ? nom, des fois) > > > > Quant aux changements, ?a d?pendra bien des gens et du ? soutien ? que j'ai - > aussi de mon humeur, disons ;) > > > ++ > Nicolas > > -- > http://nicolas.weeger.org [Mon p'tit coin du web] > > _______________________________________________ > crossfire mailing list > crossfire at metalforge.org > http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire > > -- Dany Talbot, Quebec, Canada [ Crystalmir at gmail.com ] "Per aspera ad astra"