From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net  Sun Jan  2 05:30:53 2011
From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger)
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 12:30:53 +0100
Subject: [crossfire] Happy new year
Message-ID: <201101021230.57891.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net>

Hello everyone, and happy new year.

May 2011 bring you and your family many good things.




Nicolas
-- 
Mon p'tit coin du web - http://nicolas.weeger.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20110102/ff260fdb/attachment.pgp 

From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net  Sun Jan  2 05:31:33 2011
From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger)
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 12:31:33 +0100
Subject: [crossfire] Balance ideas
Message-ID: <201101021231.33492.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net>

Hello.


A few ideas for game balance: 
http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/user:ryo:balance



Nicolas
-- 
Mon p'tit coin du web - http://nicolas.weeger.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20110102/12e2e1c9/attachment.pgp 

From mwedel at sonic.net  Mon Jan  3 00:02:14 2011
From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel)
Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2011 22:02:14 -0800
Subject: [crossfire] Balance ideas
In-Reply-To: <201101021231.33492.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net>
References: <201101021231.33492.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net>
Message-ID: <4D216666.4060106@sonic.net>

On 01/ 2/11 03:31 AM, Nicolas Weeger wrote:
> Hello.
>
>
> A few ideas for game balance:
> http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/user:ryo:balance

  Looks interesting - a few questions/thoughts:

Spells:
-------
Am I right in understanding that the modifiers only change the weight of 
damage/duration/radius?  This also means that the same actual effect could be 
achieved by different weights (eg, a long strong large fireball (presuming large 
is weight 9) would be the same the default or a small short weak fireball?  No 
problem with that, just trying to make sure I understand it.

It also seems that this doesn't necessarily change balance much in itself - it 
makes spells much more flexible, but the key for the balance on that is defining 
the right base values for things like damage, duration, radius and sp cost.

  I would guess that there would still be higher level spells out there with 
higher base damages, durations, etc (eg, large fireball as we have now) - am I 
right in that, or are you thinking of reducing number of spells and just letting 
players adjust the parameters to get desired results?

Resistances & Attacks:
----------------------
I personally think that there are too many attack types right now (26) and that 
should perhaps get reduced and cleaned up (maybe around 10?)  Many things that 
are attacktypes right now are really effects (cancellation, depletion, blind, 
etc) - as such, there is no corresponding resistance to it or it is not used much.

For many of them, maybe collapse the attacktype (and add items that provide 
resistance), but spell (or item) could still impart actual effect.

For example, confusion, slow, paralyze, fear could all be defined as mental 
attacks, so make that an attack type, and one could have items like 'Helm of 
mind protection (resist mental +50)'.

  Drain/depletion/death/life stealing could similar be put into a single 
category, and perhaps a few others could get combined.

  And some, like chaos, ghosthit, and perhaps a few others, are really effects 
(ghosthit means creature disappears after hitting, chaos means that the 
attacktype is supposed to shift around - it isn't supposed to be an attacktype 
actually encountered IMO) - those should be done in other ways.

Monsters and players:
---------------------
That looks pretty good - one thing I might add is 'should monsters use the same 
rules for stats as players?'  Right now, the meaning of stats for monsters is 
completely different than it is for players.

  If they followed the same rules, one could look at say a level 5 ogre and its 
stats and look at a level 5 character and have some idea if the fight might be 
anything close - right now, one can not really do that.  I think if one actually 
wants to add leveling rules to monsters, this makes it easier, as then monsters 
and players could basically use that same bit of code.

Lots of good ideas in all of that.





From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net  Mon Jan  3 15:27:27 2011
From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger)
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 22:27:27 +0100
Subject: [crossfire] Balance ideas
In-Reply-To: <4D216666.4060106@sonic.net>
References: <201101021231.33492.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net>
	<4D216666.4060106@sonic.net>
Message-ID: <201101032227.31208.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net>

Hello.


> Am I right in understanding that the modifiers only change the weight of
> damage/duration/radius?  This also means that the same actual effect could
> be achieved by different weights (eg, a long strong large fireball
> (presuming large is weight 9) would be the same the default or a small
> short weak fireball?  No problem with that, just trying to make sure I
> understand it.

Depends on the defined qualifiers, but possibly, yes.



> It also seems that this doesn't necessarily change balance much in itself -
> it makes spells much more flexible, but the key for the balance on that is
> defining the right base values for things like damage, duration, radius
> and sp cost.

Yes. Though sp cost could either be fixed by level like now, or maybe a 
combination of duration, power and radius (for instance it costs more to make 
it stronger that to make it larger).



>   I would guess that there would still be higher level spells out there
> with higher base damages, durations, etc (eg, large fireball as we have
> now) - am I right in that, or are you thinking of reducing number of
> spells and just letting players adjust the parameters to get desired
> results?

I'm thinking of reducing the spells. Drastically.
Make 'small fireball', 'medium fireball' and 'large fireball' mere aliases to the 
'fireball' spell, with different weights roughly emulating the current 
behaviour.
Gaining power will be a matter of leveling, not finding a higher version of the 
same spell.




> Resistances & Attacks:
> ----------------------
> I personally think that there are too many attack types right now (26) and
> that should perhaps get reduced and cleaned up (maybe around 10?)  Many
> things that are attacktypes right now are really effects (cancellation,
> depletion, blind, etc) - as such, there is no corresponding resistance to
> it or it is not used much.

Maybe, yes, that could be reduced.
Especially, the exact effects should be defined.



> Monsters and players:
> ---------------------
> That looks pretty good - one thing I might add is 'should monsters use the
> same rules for stats as players?'  Right now, the meaning of stats for
> monsters is completely different than it is for players.

I would say 'yes'.
But maybe change the scale, have players start at level 5 on 150, make 
monsters from 1 to 500.


> Lots of good ideas in all of that.


Now we just have to implement them, he...




Nicolas
-- 
Mon p'tit coin du web - http://nicolas.weeger.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20110103/4b7b9d6b/attachment.pgp 

From mwedel at sonic.net  Mon Jan  3 23:31:38 2011
From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel)
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 21:31:38 -0800
Subject: [crossfire] Balance ideas
In-Reply-To: <201101032227.31208.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net>
References: <201101021231.33492.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net>	<4D216666.4060106@sonic.net>
	<201101032227.31208.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net>
Message-ID: <4D22B0BA.5090102@sonic.net>

On 01/ 3/11 01:27 PM, Nicolas Weeger wrote:

>> It also seems that this doesn't necessarily change balance much in itself -
>> it makes spells much more flexible, but the key for the balance on that is
>> defining the right base values for things like damage, duration, radius
>> and sp cost.
>
> Yes. Though sp cost could either be fixed by level like now, or maybe a
> combination of duration, power and radius (for instance it costs more to make
> it stronger that to make it larger).

  Yes - that is reasonable.  But I also wonder if there is/should be a way to 
increase potency at the expense of sp cost.

  Taking that fireball example, changing the weighting would more or less keep 
the sp cost the same - but the power of the fireball itself does not change all 
that much.  But maybe there are some modifiers which increase the power (eg, 
damage, duration, range), but also drastically increase the sp cost - if you 
want to try and emulate current spell effects, your sort of need this.

  Otherwise, just by changing weighting, you will never be able to get something 
as powerful as a large fireball currently is - but at the same time, the large 
fireball itself is higher level and costs considerably more sp (base 16 sp vs 6).

>
>
>
>>    I would guess that there would still be higher level spells out there
>> with higher base damages, durations, etc (eg, large fireball as we have
>> now) - am I right in that, or are you thinking of reducing number of
>> spells and just letting players adjust the parameters to get desired
>> results?
>
> I'm thinking of reducing the spells. Drastically.
> Make 'small fireball', 'medium fireball' and 'large fireball' mere aliases to the
> 'fireball' spell, with different weights roughly emulating the current
> behaviour.
> Gaining power will be a matter of leveling, not finding a higher version of the
> same spell.

  Fair enough, just see note above.

  But one other thought would be is there even higher level spells, or are 
pretty much all spells going to be first level, but it is the power of the spell 
that changes?

  This is just my preference, but at some level, it is nice to have things to 
try and achieve (once I get 10th level, I can cast this cool spell) - if number 
of spells is drastically reduced, I have a feeling that effect would also change.


>> Monsters and players:
>> ---------------------
>> That looks pretty good - one thing I might add is 'should monsters use the
>> same rules for stats as players?'  Right now, the meaning of stats for
>> monsters is completely different than it is for players.
>
> I would say 'yes'.
> But maybe change the scale, have players start at level 5 on 150, make
> monsters from 1 to 500.

  Maybe - but presumably, just as stats help out a player, under basis of same 
rules, one could adjust power of monsters by their stats.

  For example, the average new character is going to have a stat average of 12 
or so, decent armor, decent weapon, etc.  If those kobolds have a stat average 
of 4, and no armor and crappy weapon, it should still be pretty easy for the 
character to kill those kobolds.

  Just like characters, level isn't everything - a level 100 character with no 
items and no spells would likely be a fairly easy target for a much lower 
character to take out.

  I've also thought of the idea of changing stats so the range is much greater - 
say 1 to 100 - in some ways, it is easier for players to improve stats (stat 
potions work better) - but under such a system it may still be very difficult 
for a character to get one stat above 75, let alone 3 or 4 stats.  But powerful 
monsters might very well have several stats above that.


From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net  Sat Jan  8 04:35:21 2011
From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger)
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2011 11:35:21 +0100
Subject: [crossfire] GTK crash
Message-ID: <201101081135.24972.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net>

Hello.


Someone reported a crash with GTK under Debian.

Backtrace is at http://forum.metalforge.net/viewtopic.php?p=11698#11698


It looks like some issue with SCIM (from the backtrace), but I'm no 
specialist...



Nicolas
-- 
Mon p'tit coin du web - http://nicolas.weeger.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20110108/bf62735d/attachment.pgp 

From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net  Sat Jan  8 04:54:09 2011
From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger)
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2011 11:54:09 +0100
Subject: [crossfire] Balance ideas
In-Reply-To: <4D22B0BA.5090102@sonic.net>
References: <201101021231.33492.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net>
	<201101032227.31208.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net>
	<4D22B0BA.5090102@sonic.net>
Message-ID: <201101081154.13555.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net>

>   Yes - that is reasonable.  But I also wonder if there is/should be a way
> to increase potency at the expense of sp cost.
> 
>   Taking that fireball example, changing the weighting would more or less
> keep the sp cost the same - but the power of the fireball itself does not
> change all that much.  But maybe there are some modifiers which increase
> the power (eg, damage, duration, range), but also drastically increase the
> sp cost - if you want to try and emulate current spell effects, your sort
> of need this.
> 
>   Otherwise, just by changing weighting, you will never be able to get
> something as powerful as a large fireball currently is - but at the same
> time, the large fireball itself is higher level and costs considerably
> more sp (base 16 sp vs 6).

Which is why I mention that possibly the sp cost is a weighted combination of 
the various weights, so you can make "power" more expensive that "radius", for 
instance.




>   Fair enough, just see note above.
> 
>   But one other thought would be is there even higher level spells, or are
> pretty much all spells going to be first level, but it is the power of the
> spell that changes?
> 
>   This is just my preference, but at some level, it is nice to have things
> to try and achieve (once I get 10th level, I can cast this cool spell) -
> if number of spells is drastically reduced, I have a feeling that effect
> would also change.

So make fireball a level 1, comet a level 47, meteor storm a level 80. That's a 
challenge to reach 80 to get really powerful meteor storm spell :)

Or there could be steps in increase, ie from level 1 to 10, fireball has a base 
power of 3, from 11 to 20 5, and such, with some "big" steps along the way.

Or add a "fire mastery" skill, that will increase the power or radius when you 
gain it.




>   Maybe - but presumably, just as stats help out a player, under basis of
> same rules, one could adjust power of monsters by their stats.
> 
>   For example, the average new character is going to have a stat average of
> 12 or so, decent armor, decent weapon, etc.  If those kobolds have a stat
> average of 4, and no armor and crappy weapon, it should still be pretty
> easy for the character to kill those kobolds.
> 
>   Just like characters, level isn't everything - a level 100 character with
> no items and no spells would likely be a fairly easy target for a much
> lower character to take out.
> 
>   I've also thought of the idea of changing stats so the range is much
> greater - say 1 to 100 - in some ways, it is easier for players to improve
> stats (stat potions work better) - but under such a system it may still be
> very difficult for a character to get one stat above 75, let alone 3 or 4
> stats.  But powerful monsters might very well have several stats above
> that.



Note that the whole global balance requires some heavy work on item_power.
I'd definitely see good weapons over 30, just to require a player to be high 
level and not a low one.
Same would be for armors, a 1-40 item power doesn't seem too weird. This would 
force players to compromise on the equipment.



Nicolas
-- 
Mon p'tit coin du web - http://nicolas.weeger.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20110108/1a9d02bd/attachment.pgp 

From mwedel at sonic.net  Tue Jan 11 23:31:44 2011
From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel)
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:31:44 -0800
Subject: [crossfire] Balance ideas
In-Reply-To: <201101081154.13555.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net>
References: <201101021231.33492.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net>	<201101032227.31208.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net>	<4D22B0BA.5090102@sonic.net>
	<201101081154.13555.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net>
Message-ID: <4D2D3CC0.6000306@sonic.net>

On 01/ 8/11 02:54 AM, Nicolas Weeger wrote:
>>    Yes - that is reasonable.  But I also wonder if there is/should be a way
>> to increase potency at the expense of sp cost.
>>
>>    Taking that fireball example, changing the weighting would more or less
>> keep the sp cost the same - but the power of the fireball itself does not
>> change all that much.  But maybe there are some modifiers which increase
>> the power (eg, damage, duration, range), but also drastically increase the
>> sp cost - if you want to try and emulate current spell effects, your sort
>> of need this.
>>
>>    Otherwise, just by changing weighting, you will never be able to get
>> something as powerful as a large fireball currently is - but at the same
>> time, the large fireball itself is higher level and costs considerably
>> more sp (base 16 sp vs 6).
>
> Which is why I mention that possibly the sp cost is a weighted combination of
> the various weights, so you can make "power" more expensive that "radius", for
> instance.

  Right, but I think for that to really work (get desired effect), you may need 
to do something beyond weighting - adjusting the weighting itself may not change 
some parameters enough.  You might almost need some modifier which does 
something like (range+1) at some increased cost of SP.


>>    This is just my preference, but at some level, it is nice to have things
>> to try and achieve (once I get 10th level, I can cast this cool spell) -
>> if number of spells is drastically reduced, I have a feeling that effect
>> would also change.
>
> So make fireball a level 1, comet a level 47, meteor storm a level 80. That's a
> challenge to reach 80 to get really powerful meteor storm spell :)
>
> Or there could be steps in increase, ie from level 1 to 10, fireball has a base
> power of 3, from 11 to 20 5, and such, with some "big" steps along the way.

  Yes - that might work.  I was more just thinking about the idea of learning 
spells.

  On a similar note, I think it would be interesting to have most all skills 
give some new benefit once in a while, eg, for melee skills, maybe at higher 
level, there is a chance of stunning on opponent - for thieves, extra damage 
would make sense, and so on.

  Those wouldn't as much be about balance (those extra effects a fighter has may 
make things a little easier, but not a lot), but more about cool new things - 
eg, 'that is something I couldn't do before'.

>
> Or add a "fire mastery" skill, that will increase the power or radius when you
> gain it.

  That might also work.  I wonder if one could even do something like that for 
spells - have a 'beginners version', 'expert version', 'master version', 
'grandmaster version' type of things.  Maybe the higher versions have an 
increase in base damage or something else - I don't know.

  On a side note, I think it might be better to remove the sp adjustment based 
on level.  Eg, that basic fireball will only cast 5 sp, whether you are level 1 
or 50 - presuming no modifiers.  It is just odd now that based on when cost 
increases, one could gain a level but effectively cast fewer spells because 
their cost has gone up.


>
> Note that the whole global balance requires some heavy work on item_power.
> I'd definitely see good weapons over 30, just to require a player to be high
> level and not a low one.
> Same would be for armors, a 1-40 item power doesn't seem too weird. This would
> force players to compromise on the equipment.

  Yes - in some places, this is easy to fix - any pre-defined weapon (eg, it is 
set in a map) can have the item power set appropriately.

  A problem is for the random items that are generated - it can generate things 
with potentially wrong values (wrong in the sense it is too high or too low) - 
that is because it uses a fairly basic formula which is always hard to adjust to 
be perfect (some attacks are more important than others, etc).

  On a vaguely related idea would be to change the entire basis on how weapons 
are improved (armor also, but that is more limited right now).

  Many games have the idea of runes/sigils/whatever that improve items, but the 
item has a limited number of slots to hold these.  These sigils are also 
found/recovered from items during adventuring.

  In some ways, this is more interesting than current method which just requires 
large amounts of wealth - you need to find both the base item you want to 
improve (better one may have more slots, as well as just have more base slots) 
as well as the sigils themselves.  But that probably starts to stray away from 
balance, other than the fact that the current weapon improvement scheme probably 
has balance issues right now.


From mwedel at sonic.net  Wed Jan 12 00:06:28 2011
From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel)
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:06:28 -0800
Subject: [crossfire] Crossfire release?
In-Reply-To: <4CE0C2FC.80107@sonic.net>
References: <4CE0C2FC.80107@sonic.net>
Message-ID: <4D2D44E4.7060807@sonic.net>

On 11/14/10 09:19 PM, Mark Wedel wrote:
>
>    Been a little more than 6 months since last official release, and I was
> thinking that trying to get one out before end of the year might be nice.
>
>    Thoughts/comments?
>
>    Any list of bugs or other things that must be fixed before a release is made?
>
>    Likewise, any list of the major changes since last release?  Looking at
> changelog can be a little problematic, as it may not be readily apparent from
> the notes whether it is a significant/meaningful change.
>
>    I figure release should probably be called 1.51, but could do 1.60 - not sure
> if that makes much difference.

  Got a bit sidetracked on this, but still thinking about getting it out - maybe 
in the next week or two.

  In short summary of the things to do or related notes:

call release 1.60
gtk2 client: Change default layout to something else (what?)
Changelog: Keep summary short
verify 1.50/1.60 client/server interoperability
have windows client (who to make?)
remove metaserver1 support (very easy to turn it off, but only 2 servers are 
using metaserver2 right now, despite at least 4 supporting it)





From mwedel at sonic.net  Sat Jan 29 00:25:53 2011
From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel)
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 22:25:53 -0800
Subject: [crossfire] Skill thoughts
Message-ID: <4D43B2F1.1070100@sonic.net>


  I finally got around to recording my thoughts on a revised skill system:

http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/user:mwedel:skills

  Take a look, let me know what you think - as the bottom of the article says, I 
have no immediate plans to implement it - it is mostly thoughts that have been 
bouncing around my head that I wanted to record someplace.

From kbulgrien at att.net  Sat Jan 29 21:24:34 2011
From: kbulgrien at att.net (Kevin R. Bulgrien)
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 21:24:34 -0600
Subject: [crossfire] crossfire-mapper
Message-ID: <201101292124.34182.kbulgrien@att.net>

I wonder if I have forgotten how to run mapper, or if maybe something is
broken.  I was trying to update the website that has the generated data.

Initializing Crossfire data...
Unable to open /var/log/crossfire/logfile as the logfile - will use stderr 
instead
Unable to open /var/log/crossfire/logfile as the logfile - will use stderr 
instead
[Error]   invalid smoothed face: fog_S.111
[Error]   invalid smoothed face: grassmedium_S.111
[Error]   Spell archetype abil_ball_lightning [ball lightning ability] has no 
skill defined!
[Error]   Spell archetype abil_burning_hands [burning hands ability] has no 
skill defined!
[Error]   Spell archetype abil_fear [fear ability] has no skill defined!
[Error]   Spell archetype abil_create_fire_wall [create fire wall ability] has 
no skill defined!
[Error]   Spell archetype abil_frostbolt [frostbolt ability] has no skill 
defined!
[Error]   Spell archetype abil_icestorm [icestorm ability] has no skill 
defined!
[Error]   Spell archetype abil_large_icestorm [large icestorm ability] has no 
skill defined!
[Error]   Spell archetype abil_medium_fireball [medium fireball ability] has no 
skill defined!
[Error]   Spell archetype abil_poison_cloud [poison cloud ability] has no 
skill defined!
[Error]   Spell archetype abil_slow [slow ability] has no skill defined!
[Error]   Spell archetype spell_shell [cannon shell] has no skill defined!
Fatal: See last error
Exiting...

If anyone can confirm results or get different ones, I'd be interested in
hearing about them.

I'm thinking a readme file in the utils folder might be helpful.

Kevin