Re: CF: incompatible objects (was Re: Experiments)

[David Andrew Michael Noelle <>]

> > Hwei Sheng TEOH wrote:
> >
> >  I will note that the big wizards don't really do anything players can't do -
> > players can cast spells of almost every type it rapid succession.  To counter
> > the big wizards, perhaps protection to magic potions might be in order - thes
> > would not do anything against dragons whose attacks are non magical, but big
> > wizards attacks should definately be magical, as should most of the dreads.

Peter Mardahl wrote:
> 
> Monsters can kill themselves with their own spells-- that's why so
> many of the higher-level, spellcasting ones, have so many immunities.
> It's been this way since I first looked at crossfire:  it hasn't
> been a matter of inflation, really.

    Maybe spells cast by monsters should use their "owner" pointer to
recognize and ignore their caster.  Then monsters could cast their spells
without hurting themselves, while still being vulnerable to the same spell
cast by someone else.  The problem, of course, is with large groups of
unintelligent casters, who could vaporize each other by accident.

    I've been thinking of making some spells automatically refuse to harm
their casters, such as the vast majority of priest attack spells.  If you
cast a Holy Wrath and hit an invisible creature adjacent to you, your god
just might misunderstand your prayer and kill you for it.  If you have a
particularly fast Avatar or Holy Servant, it's pretty easy to accidentally
get in its way and get yourself killed.  With a fireball or an elemental, I
could understand that.  Magic is dangerous.  Prayers shouldn't backfire like
that though, unless you offend your god somehow, but that's a different
story.


> >  There are probably too many maps that rely on making things tough by making
> > monsters immune to most everything and/or tossing in a whole mess of monsters
> >.
> 
> What makes you think you have to kill every monster?  :)  Why *should* you
> be able to kill every monster?

    Because it's a hack-and-slash game, descended from a long line of
hack-and-slash games based on the very simple and direct approach of killing
everything that can be killed?  Because gaining experience depends almost
entirely on killing things?  Because most maps are designed in such a way as
to not only encourage killing everything, but actually require it?  I, for
one, wouldn't mind seeing this change.  I'd prefer to see more role-playing
and less mindless slaughter, but as things stand right now, it is assumed
that every monster is either 1) an enemy to be destroyed before it gets a
chance to destroy you, 2) an opportunity to gain experience and/or treasure,
or 3) an annoyance suicidally interposing itself between you and your goal.


-- 
            -Dave Noelle,                 
            -the Villa Straylight,  http://www.straylight.org
Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email  ==  http://www.cauce.com

Disclaimer: Any similarities to the opinions of any real or hypothetical
entities, living, dead, or otherwise, are clearly the reader's own delusion.

Quote of the Day:
"Any nitwit can understand computers, and many do."
  - Ted Nelson, visionary and radical computerist, 1974
-
[you can put yourself on the announcement list only or unsubscribe altogether
by sending an email stating your wishes to ]