Crossfire Mailing List Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CF: RE: Footprints (was: Long term experimental ideas)

> From: Peter Mardahl <>
> Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 13:06:33 -0700
> I agree that your alternate cone system makes sense, but the
> effect of it will be to weaken mages.  Do we really want to do
> that?

I'm currently working on balancing the modified cone spells so that
they'll still be approximately as powerful, but the damage will be
distributed differently.  And remember that this change affects
monsters the same way it does players.  Monsters just tend to have
fewer targets.  Spellcasters will most likely even benefit from this
change, because it will do more damage to the closest monsters, which
are the ones posing the greatest threat of physical damage.

> Secondly, I propose that a graded protection scheme would work
> better for tuning the damage big monsters take from area-effect
> spells.  Right now, we can have 2x, 1x, 50%, and 0% damage being
> taken from a spell.  If a big monster can take 5% or 15% damage from
> area-effect spells, we can tune how well they work against him
> very finely.

I never meant this as an alternative to graded protection or a means
to fine-tune balance.  This will work perfectly well with graded
protection.  The conflict would be with altering area affect spells to
damage each monster only once.

            -Dave Noelle,                 
            -the Villa Straylight,
Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email  ==

Quote of the Day:
"This passion for verbing nouns really fingernails my blackboard."
  - Mark P. Nelson
[you can put yourself on the announcement list only or unsubscribe altogether
by sending an email stating your wishes to ]