Re: CF: Object decay, wear, and repair (Was Re: World Map)

[David Andrew Michael Noelle <>]

Mark Wedel wrote:
> 
>  I don't think making the players suspicious is a big deal.  They can cast magic
> map and say 'what is that big area over there I can't get to?'.

    You mean like those secret passages in the walls of some dungeons, where
your X-Ray Vision lets you watch a couple zombies follow you around and step
on buttons?  You know, the ones that implement traps you can disable with a
Destruction spell?


>  Some maps actually had problems with this - they would do a map that uses may
> 60% of the map (or combine several small maps into one map with appropriately
> linked exits).  If no magic wasn't applied to the walls, you could dimension
> door into this no mans land so to speak.  And that will also be a problem with
> etheraelity.

    Wouldn't it be *much* better to just implement LOGIC objects so map
designers don't have to putz around with secret rooms full of monsters and
buttons and boulders and gates?  A few simple logic objects would simplify
that whole mess considerably.  Throw in "dice" objects, described in a
previous thread, and "insert" objects that can be connected to triggers and
can deploy a creature or produce an item from their inventory (so it doesn't
have to be an archetype), and a lot of the complicated, unstable
contraptions currently used for special effects could be replaced with fewer
objects that are much easier to use.


>  The other suggestion would be to add some extra information to walls in perhaps
> the form of a bitmask.  Thinks like:
> 
>  fly_over: If set, a player can fly over this wall
>  ethereal: If set, and ethereal creature can fly through this wall
>  digable: If set, a player can very slowly dig through this wall/use wands of
> digging (much slower than an earthwall, and perhaps needing proper tools).
>  minable:  Like digable, but wall may have some random mineral inside.
>  Also add the no_magic and other such flags here, so you don't need to stack
> other objects on top.

    no_magic is already a valid flag for walls.  I use it for my walls all
the time, so I don't need extra "dungeon_magic" objects under them.  I
haven't worked with crossedit yet, but if someone more familiar with it
could make "no magic" a switch for walls, it would be much appreciated.
    Rather than fly_over, how about height?  That would allow some walls to
be harder to climb or jump over than others.  And instead of just a
"minable" flag, use the diggable flag and a treasurelist.
    I was thinking of suggesting a "no teleport" flag for walls, but I
really don't think there's any difference between that and the no_magic flag
we already have.  Would no_aethereal be any different?  Is there any case in
which an aethereal creature should be allowed to pass through a wall that
blocks a Dimension Door, or vice versa?


>  It really depends on what aspects of the game are interesting.  Very few games
> deal with equipment deteriotation, and I think the reason is just that - having
> to deal with constant repairs really isn't that interesting.

    Good point.  Some people like micromanagement, and some don't.  So, make
it a server option.

>  That said, I see a couple interesting ideas related to this;
> 
>  1) Allow blacksmiths to repair damage that is currently done via acid attacks
> (and perhaps other type attacks).  So that piece of armor is not totally ruined
> because you get hit by a rust monster.

   Yea, verily yea!


>  2) Allow objects to have non inheritable protections.  For example, that
> platinum coated sword should be protected/immune to the affects of acid (and
> thus not rust when hit by acid), but should not give that same protection to the
> player, as it is not a magical manifestation.  This is actually pretty easy to
> do - just add a flag which determines if the attributes are inheritable.

    Choose a different example.  You can make a sword acid proof without
making the player acid proof by simply setting its material to 256
(Adamantium).  Only material 2 (Iron) can be rusted.  The materials list is
currently much too short to differentiate the properties of specific
metals.  If you want a sword that takes extra damage itself from fire, but
doesn't make it's user vulnerable to fire, that would be a use for
non-inheritable attributes.  If you're going to do that, you may as well
make it a pointer instead of a flag, so the item can have inheritable and
non-inheritable attributes.


>  3) With #1 above, and as been previously discussed, allow blacksmiths/magic
> users to enchant items.  The maximum enchantment should be set on both the
> blacksmith and the item archetype.  So for example, helmets could never be
> better than +2, but to get there, you also need to find a blacksmith that is
> that good.  This can reduce shop searching somewhat - if you know you want some
> item, but the shop happens to be out of it, you can pay the blacksmith to make,
> albeit at a higher cost compared to if it was actually in the shop.

   Yea, verily yea!


>  There are a couple reasons things last forever right now:
> 
>  1) Most all current artifacts have a non existant material, which basically
> makes them immune to any and all attacktypes (they can never be destroyed or
> damaged).  So once you find an artifact, it is good forever.
>  2) Except for acid, very few attacktypes (cancellation being another I can
> think of) will actually harm items in a players inventory.
> 
>  Both could pretty easily be changed.  Artifacts should have some material and
> be destructible - it would just be very unlikely for most artifacts due to their
> high magic value and the fact they tend to have various protections.

    Many of them would probably be Adamantium, in which case they're still
indestructible, but at least they're not made of nothing.
    I wonder how hard it would be to replace the material bitmask with an
archetype pointer and replace the various types of materials with archetypes
of type MATERIAL.  The material archetypes could specify all the various
properties of objects made from certain common combinations of materials,
and the more imaginative combinations could be added along the way.  For
that sword you described above, you could add an archetype for things made
of "platinum-plated iron and gems", assuming the hilt is encrusted with
various gems, as one would expect from something plated with platinum.
    This would allow interesting new materials with imaginative
descriptions, without eating up very much memory, since all the common
objects would point to the same few basic combinations, like flesh, wood and
iron, glass and liquid, iron and crystal, paper, and maybe a handful more.


>  The second one could have fairly big affects.  AD&D definately has a players
> items make saves if the character itself fails their saving through.  But with
> crossfire, where you have some attacks like fireball which hit you for a lot of
> attacks, that could result in a lot of destruction.  So that could be pretty
> harsh (get hit by a large fireball, and chances are you need to make a dozen
> saves, with at least a few you will fail so some items go toast).
> 
>  OTOH, this may add some playbalance to the game -  player won't carry every
> item he has simply because there will be some fear of that happening.  A player
> may also think about getting out of spell effects a little quicker then.

    I like it.  I'm sure it will be thoroughly aggravating, but there's
nothing wrong with that.  It would also increase the value of protection
magic, especially when protection becomes additive.  A flame-retardant
backpack (protects itself - and thus its contents - from fire, but not you)
would be a must-have.

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

Disclaimer: The above opinions aren't even mine
"The secret to happiness is short-term, stupid self-interest."  -Calvin

Quote of the Day:
The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
-
[you can put yourself on the announcement list only or unsubscribe altogether
by sending an email stating your wishes to ]