Re: CF: Map Generation

[Matt Cortes <>]

This has nothing to do with the thread "Map Generation", but the subject 
made me think of something I think we should have implemented a long time 
ago.  I think we should start to focus on random generated dungeons, 
towns, etc.  I don't think its hard to do, its very easy to setup rules 
to make the random map generator generate "sensable" maps, etc.  But 
doing something like this will make the landscapes new and long time 
players will have a higher level of exploring. :>

I thought about this when I see that map generations are currently kinda 
low for the game, there is alot of quests, and maps that aren't even 
finished yet, let alone any new maps.  But I think if we take a random 
generation approach, like Nethack,  It would pay off big.  Nethack never 
gets tiring for this reason.  

And no I don't think we should go COMPLETELY RANDOM like nethack.  I 
believe in the standard locations of towns, etc.  Especially for the 
quests.  Its kinda hard to do a completely laid out quest if things are 
random (Actually, no..  with a certain set of rules, it would be possible 
for some of the search/locate/destroy/recover quests to be random..  we 
do that on the MUD called MoonGate we run here matter a fact.).  But what 
I was basicly thinking of is using a random map/town/dungeon generator as 
a filler for empty space.  We could call it the unmapped wilderness or 
something.  Basicly, we have our basic maps in crossfire and constantly 
add upon that, but on the outer rim of the maps would continue on into a 
random world.  This world is generated whenever the random map generator 
util or whatever is ran.  

At any rate..  Its a rough idea, I'm writting this pretty darn late in 
the day so the above may seem a bit "blah blah blah..", but basicly we 
need some things to allow VERY easy expansion, etc.  It might not be a 
bad idea to take on alot of the ideas/spells/items from Nethack.  Nothing 
wrong with engulfing a game into another game.   It could only improve 
it.  :>

Ok, thats it.  I'll shut up now.  Thanks,

-Matt