From mwedel at sonic.net Sat May 1 00:51:04 2010 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 22:51:04 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] new character creation Message-ID: <4BDBC148.9000900@sonic.net> Now that 1.50 is released, I plan to start work on the new character creation method. This new method puts the creation in-client. This has several advantages - better interface for the end user, removes a lot of code from the server, and also moves some of the current character information from maps into archetypes. To do this, the client will request following information: stat points to spend race information (description, stat adjustments) class information (" ") starting map choices (description of those choices). Note that while there is currently race information in the archetypes (so other than perhaps some better descriptions), there is no class or map information in the archetypes - that would have to get added, but using the hallofselection provides a template for that. The client will then present the user with this information - I see a pulldown in one area for race, another pulldown for class, and a table for the status where player can increase/decrease them, and also see what adjustments the race/class is doing. After player makes there choices, the client sends this information (stat distribution, race choice, class choice, etc) to server, which then validates it is correct, and if so, play starts. One nice side effect of all of this is that classes will not be archetypes, so can be recorded in the player structure - right now, class information is basically lost. Am I missing anything? should we also present choice of god to the player? Related to this, should some of the classes/races get pruned down? Looking at: http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/class?s=class (I'm presuming that is mostly up to date), it seems some tuning could be done. If one goes for the typical 4 major class types (fighter, cleric, mage, thief), I could see some reductions: Ninja, Swashbuckler, Thief: While there are some subtle differences, I'm not sure if there are enough of them here to warrant 3 different classes, especially given the game isn't really well designed for sneaky types (most dungeons are too full of monsters to ever sneak around) Barbarian & warrior: barbarian is really the best pure fighter, but given hefty penalties, unlikely to ever pick up spell casting, where as the warrior code. But if that is someone plan, they might be better off choosing a spellcasting class in the first place - you're basically going to get all the same skills plus some by starting in wizard, just a minus in the stats. I almost wonder if adding some dead even class (no plusses, no minuses) simply for those that want to pick up other skills later on. I'm also not sure exactly how to do it, but it would be nice to somehow collapse down the different mage type classes to a single one, and then have the player choose what skill/focus they take - otherwise, evoker, summoner, wizard, sorcerer are all about the same. The races are a bit better: http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/race_guide All of them are fairly different, and other than northman perhaps being too close to human, don't see any real changes to make there. From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Sat May 1 03:24:05 2010 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Sat, 1 May 2010 10:24:05 +0200 Subject: [crossfire] Pickup Drop Event expansion In-Reply-To: <20100429154831.02f1a45f@angmar> References: <20100429154831.02f1a45f@angmar> Message-ID: <201005011024.09017.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Hello. > Quite a minor patch this, but one that has an impact on script/map > compatibility, so I figure it should probably go here. > > https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=13833&atid=313833 > > This patch changes the meaning of the return types from event_pickup > and event_drop. > > The initial motivation for this was in developing an implementation of > draughts (something which is still at quite an early stage) and needing > to be able to prevent an item from being picked up under certain > conditions (ie by the player playing the other colour). The current > behaviour of event pickup isn't helpful for this because the item > disappears if the pickup fails. > > So what I have done is altered the meaning of the return values, rather > than 0 meaning 'item may be picked up' and non-zero meaning 'item may > not be picked up' I have 0 meaning 'item may be picked up' negative > meaning 'item will disappear rather than being picked up' and positive > meaning 'item will stay where it is' That sounds ok for me, but it's actually a bugfix. The behaviour, up to some undefined time, was that a script returning non 0 to a pickup event would just mean the object stayed where it was. As for negative value, I think it should really be the same as positive, and object removal being done from the script itself, instead of from the main pickup routine. The reason is that you have anyway to consider the case where the script will remove the object, and must test accordingly - thus "don't pickup" and "make the item disappear" are actually handled the same way by the server, checked at plugin return through the FLAG_FREED or via the item tag. 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20100501/6da21957/attachment.pgp From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Sat May 1 09:40:57 2010 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Sat, 1 May 2010 16:40:57 +0200 Subject: [crossfire] new character creation In-Reply-To: <4BDBC148.9000900@sonic.net> References: <4BDBC148.9000900@sonic.net> Message-ID: <201005011641.05291.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Hello. > Now that 1.50 is released, I plan to start work on the new character > creation method. > > This new method puts the creation in-client. This has several advantages > - better interface for the end user, removes a lot of code from the > server, and also moves some of the current character information from maps > into archetypes. Yes, will clean many hacks, and remove some needs for queries. > To do this, the client will request following information: > stat points to spend > race information (description, stat adjustments) > class information (" ") > starting map choices (description of those choices). > > Note that while there is currently race information in the archetypes (so > other than perhaps some better descriptions), there is no class or map > information in the archetypes - that would have to get added, but using the > hallofselection provides a template for that. Actually, the classes are there through the archetypes with "CLASS" type. > The client will then present the user with this information - I see a > pulldown in one area for race, another pulldown for class, and a table for > the status where player can increase/decrease them, and also see what > adjustments the race/class is doing. Picture-list for races, nicer :) For class, some description will be needed. > After player makes there choices, the client sends this information (stat > distribution, race choice, class choice, etc) to server, which then > validates it is correct, and if so, play starts. Seems ok. > > One nice side effect of all of this is that classes will not be > archetypes, so can be recorded in the player structure - right now, class > information is basically lost. Or it could be added to the player's inventory. > Am I missing anything? should we also present choice of god to the > player? I would say no for god information, since converting to gods could be quests. Some gods have "hidden" altars, so letting select from the start isn't a good idea, IMHO. > Related to this, should some of the classes/races get pruned down? Well, before doing that, I would say we should define what kind of gameplays we want. Can a player reach the maximum level in all skills? Or do you need to specialize? Can you learn all skills? 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20100501/c71a20c3/attachment.pgp From mwedel at sonic.net Sat May 1 23:34:40 2010 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Sat, 01 May 2010 21:34:40 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] new character creation In-Reply-To: <201005011641.05291.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> References: <4BDBC148.9000900@sonic.net> <201005011641.05291.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Message-ID: <4BDD00E0.90602@sonic.net> On 05/ 1/10 07:40 AM, Nicolas Weeger wrote: > Hello. > >> Now that 1.50 is released, I plan to start work on the new character >> creation method. >> >> This new method puts the creation in-client. This has several advantages >> - better interface for the end user, removes a lot of code from the >> server, and also moves some of the current character information from maps >> into archetypes. > > Yes, will clean many hacks, and remove some needs for queries. Yes - at some point (not really related to character creation, but a starting point), I'd like to remove all the ST_ play state information - the server shouldn't really care about that - it is the client that should deal with confirmation on quit, changing party passwords, etc. In many cases, this may mean that the client will have to intercept the command in question and do the query. > > >> To do this, the client will request following information: >> stat points to spend >> race information (description, stat adjustments) >> class information (" ") >> starting map choices (description of those choices). >> >> Note that while there is currently race information in the archetypes (so >> other than perhaps some better descriptions), there is no class or map >> information in the archetypes - that would have to get added, but using the >> hallofselection provides a template for that. > > Actually, the classes are there through the archetypes with "CLASS" type. I forgot about that. But I don't think the class is actually copied into the players inventory like the race is, so that information is lost. > > >> The client will then present the user with this information - I see a >> pulldown in one area for race, another pulldown for class, and a table for >> the status where player can increase/decrease them, and also see what >> adjustments the race/class is doing. > > Picture-list for races, nicer :) > For class, some description will be needed. For both races & classes, I forsee need to change the description some so it is clearer to the end user. For example, both should explicitly list the skills they start out with, as well as equipment, as well as any special notes. For example, a format might be something like: --- Skills: Smithery, one handed weapons, ... Equipment: Sword, chain mail, .. Special: +10 cold resistance The class is a mixture .... --- The stat adjustments will be obvious in the window itself. But the main point here is to make it very easy and clear what the different things grant. While the descriptions are nice, when you have a dozen races and classes, reading through all that information can get tiring, especially for new players. > >> >> One nice side effect of all of this is that classes will not be >> archetypes, so can be recorded in the player structure - right now, class >> information is basically lost. > > Or it could be added to the player's inventory. Yep - that is what I meant - in this way, anything which is not sure what the class grants (monk denial of weapons always had issues), can look up the class information and see. >> Am I missing anything? should we also present choice of god to the >> player? > > I would say no for god information, since converting to gods could be quests. > Some gods have "hidden" altars, so letting select from the start isn't a good > idea, IMHO. Yes, I was thinking for gods, if added, a selection of 'none' would have to be a choice, and it may not list all gods given that some are secret. > > > >> Related to this, should some of the classes/races get pruned down? > > Well, before doing that, I would say we should define what kind of gameplays we > want. > Can a player reach the maximum level in all skills? Or do you need to > specialize? Can you learn all skills? Right, we need to decide that, but that starts to get beyond the scope of this discussion here, so maybe for short term, I'll just take the existing classes & races as is. From mwedel at sonic.net Sun May 2 00:02:44 2010 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Sat, 01 May 2010 22:02:44 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] races, classes, and play style Message-ID: <4BDD0774.4080104@sonic.net> As per note in thread about new login method, figuring out what classes/races should be present really comes down to what type of play we want to have. I know this has been discussed before, but opinions change, so I thought I'd restart the conversation. This much more drives classes and how they work than races. OTOH, some races are really aimed for a specific class - maybe not a bad thing, but if that gets tied too closely together, one can than start asking what the point is of having that race. As I see it, there are basically 3 different approaches to classes (note for now, I'm hoping more to focus on what style we want, and once that is decided, worry about the technical way to enforce this): 1) Classes really just determine the characters starting skill set (and stat bonuses), but the player can pick up most all other skills at later time, so that fighter could become a cleric or mage, etc. For all practical purposes, there is no limit on levels and or how good a mage that fighter is, save for any handicap based on stat points. This is way crossfire currently works. 2) Classes are strict - what you start out with is what you will be your entire life - picking up other class skills is impossible - that fighter will never learn spellcasting (there are some number of non class skills like smithery, jeweler which the character could learn). One could look at this as the AD&D model (ignoring the fact that AD&D has multiclassing) 3) Something in between - starting class is important - there may be some exclusive skills to the class, or maybe the quality of the skill (rate of exp gain, exp cap, etc) mean that the no matter how hard a player tried, that fighter would never be as good a wizard as that wizard is. I personally favor #3, #2, and #1 in that order (I like #3 the best). My thought is that as a player, it gives more reason to try a few different classes - if the first class I choose can do everything equally well, I'm not going to learn/see much new with a different class (I'd note that one of the things that drove some of the special races is just this). But perhaps this also goes back to my playing AD&D, and fact that most games have some for of class restriction. I also think that such a system may generate more player interaction - if I can do every class really well on one character, not as much reason to play with others. Likewise, if I can use every item I ever find, no reason to trade/sell things off. But if (as a mage) I couldn't use that 2-handed sword, well now I might want to try to trade it for something I could use. I think #2 is a bit too restrictive - while comment about player interaction above stands, at same time, a lot of play is probably solo, so not being able to do some other stuff probably gets too restrictive, but I'm not sure how that would really play out (presuming we still allow anyone to use wands, scrolls, potions, and a suitable supply is about, one could probably get around). It would certainly be a different game. From kbulgrien at att.net Sun May 2 08:13:40 2010 From: kbulgrien at att.net (Kevin Bulgrien) Date: Sun, 2 May 2010 08:13:40 -0500 Subject: [crossfire] races, classes, and play style In-Reply-To: <4BDD0774.4080104@sonic.net> References: <4BDD0774.4080104@sonic.net> Message-ID: <20100502081340.53271f7f@a850srvr.kbulgrien.att.net> > I personally favor #3, #2, and #1 in that order (I like #3 the best). My > thought is that as a player, it gives more reason to try a few different classes > - if the first class I choose can do everything equally well, I'm not going to > learn/see much new with a different class (I'd note that one of the things that > drove some of the special races is just this). What you said... :-) > But perhaps this also goes back to my playing AD&D, and fact that most games > have some for of class restriction. I also think that such a system may > generate more player interaction - if I can do every class really well on one > character, not as much reason to play with others. Likewise, if I can use every > item I ever find, no reason to trade/sell things off. But if (as a mage) I > couldn't use that 2-handed sword, well now I might want to try to trade it for > something I could use. Not what you said. I do not think Crossfire tends to get played cooperatively that much. This is based on opinion and personal play, bus also on the number of players on a public server at one time.. Once long ago in smallworld I used to have friends that would get together for Crossfire parties, but not anymore. Note: It seemed that cooperative play multiplied the chances of death enormously. Though I would like to do this again, it is with mixed feelings. I don't like dying, but I almost always do with others. > I think #2 is a bit too restrictive - while comment about player interaction > above stands, at same time, a lot of play is probably solo, so not being able to > do some other stuff probably gets too restrictive, but I'm not sure how that > would really play out (presuming we still allow anyone to use wands, scrolls, > potions, and a suitable supply is about, one could probably get around). It > would certainly be a different game. Yeah, I'd be careful about being too restricting... Kevin From om at iki.fi Sun May 2 13:15:32 2010 From: om at iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 21:15:32 +0300 Subject: [crossfire] new character creation In-Reply-To: <4BDBC148.9000900@sonic.net> References: <4BDBC148.9000900@sonic.net> Message-ID: <4BDDC144.3010608@iki.fi> Mark Wedel wrote: > This new method puts the creation in-client. This has several advantages - > better interface for the end user, removes a lot of code from the server, and > also moves some of the current character information from maps into archetypes. I see an opening here for special "character creator" client software, which keeps re-rolling the character to maximize stats and optimize point allocation, thus consistently always creating the best possible characters. Would this be a problem? -- /* * * Otto J. Makela * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */ /* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, FAX: +358 42 7655772, ICBM: 60N 25E */ /* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27, FI-00100 Helsinki, FINLAND */ /* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * * * * * * * */ From mwedel at sonic.net Sun May 2 22:54:35 2010 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 20:54:35 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] new character creation In-Reply-To: <4BDDC144.3010608@iki.fi> References: <4BDBC148.9000900@sonic.net> <4BDDC144.3010608@iki.fi> Message-ID: <4BDE48FB.3090807@sonic.net> On 05/ 2/10 11:15 AM, Otto J. Makela wrote: > Mark Wedel wrote: > >> This new method puts the creation in-client. This has several advantages - >> better interface for the end user, removes a lot of code from the server, and >> also moves some of the current character information from maps into archetypes. > > I see an opening here for special "character creator" client software, > which keeps re-rolling the character to maximize stats and optimize point > allocation, thus consistently always creating the best possible characters. > > Would this be a problem? > Stats will no longer be rolled - instead, you will just get X points to distribute how you want (IMO, re-rolling stats to get the distribution you want is a pain anyways). Note that nothing prevents anyone from creating a character creator plugin right now - in fact, a long time ago, someone sort of did that (wasn't a plug in - was a hard coded script IIRC) - aside from latency issues, it would work. Now will letting players distribute state points the way they like create some issue? Perhaps, since it will be that much easier to min/max than before. I don't have a good solution to this, simply because in some cases, you can really have low stats with minimal game play effect. For example, if you are playing a barbarian, and don't plan to get into spellcasting all that soon, all you really need is str, dex, con. And maybe cha to get some better prices. But you could care less about your int, wis, and pow. So if those are all 1, no big deal. What this means is that given some stat total, you could probably max out that str, dex, con. Later in the characters life, you can use stat potions to increase those bad stats - there have been discussions now and again about changing how stat potions work. Unfortunately, for spell casters, this isn't quite so simple - while you really want that Pow and Int/Wis (depending on type of caster), if you put a 1 in Str, you can probably carry very little, so not good. a 1 Con gives penalties for hp - also not good, and 1 dex makes you slower, so also not great. So for a spell caster, you need something at least partially decent for those other stats. And this basically makes any of the multi class type characters (like paladin) in really bad shape - you'll be middling either way. But this once again gets off topic on character creation, and is more a balance/play style issue. I will note that one interesting possibility about giving classes/races stat bonus/penalties: Instead of tying it to particular stats, one could say 'this class gets 5 more stats than other (or maybe some get 5 less because they are perceived as powerful) One way to perhaps minimize min/maxing is to change the cost of stat points based on the stat. Eg, for stat values 1-10, each point costs 1. For 11-15, each stat point costs 1 more (so a 15 stat would cost 20 points), for 16-20, 3 points (so a 20 stat now costs 30). but all this does is have players make more middling characters, and unless potion logic is changed, we're just talking about effects at time of creation. Maybe min/maxing at time of creation isn't bad - it more likely means that the fighter will have to remain a fighter for a longer timespan. From mwedel at sonic.net Sun May 2 23:00:28 2010 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 21:00:28 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] races, classes, and play style In-Reply-To: <20100502081340.53271f7f@a850srvr.kbulgrien.att.net> References: <4BDD0774.4080104@sonic.net> <20100502081340.53271f7f@a850srvr.kbulgrien.att.net> Message-ID: <4BDE4A5C.2070108@sonic.net> On 05/ 2/10 06:13 AM, Kevin Bulgrien wrote: >> But perhaps this also goes back to my playing AD&D, and fact that most games >> have some for of class restriction. I also think that such a system may >> generate more player interaction - if I can do every class really well on one >> character, not as much reason to play with others. Likewise, if I can use every >> item I ever find, no reason to trade/sell things off. But if (as a mage) I >> couldn't use that 2-handed sword, well now I might want to try to trade it for >> something I could use. > > Not what you said. I do not think Crossfire tends to get played cooperatively > that much. This is based on opinion and personal play, bus also on the number of > players on a public server at one time.. Once long ago in smallworld I used to > have friends that would get together for Crossfire parties, but not anymore. > Note: It seemed that cooperative play multiplied the chances of death > enormously. Though I would like to do this again, it is with mixed > feelings. I don't like dying, but I almost always do with others. I think it would be nice if crossfire had more player interaction, even if it is not adventuring. As it is now, it seems like it crossfire is an online game which most people play like a single player game. Why play on-line if there is no value (for lack of better word)? One could probably fix the killing friends while adventuring - peaceful mode fixes the melee attack problem, and if the server admin sets friendly fire to maximum (for lack of better term), you could make friends immune to damage spells. At that point, it gets pretty hard to kill each other. > >> I think #2 is a bit too restrictive - while comment about player interaction >> above stands, at same time, a lot of play is probably solo, so not being able to >> do some other stuff probably gets too restrictive, but I'm not sure how that >> would really play out (presuming we still allow anyone to use wands, scrolls, >> potions, and a suitable supply is about, one could probably get around). It >> would certainly be a different game. > > Yeah, I'd be careful about being too restricting... The hard part is perhaps finding the right balance point. But before going down trying to find it, I'd like to see some more opinions. From mwedel at sonic.net Sun May 2 23:44:17 2010 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 21:44:17 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] Also stats. In-Reply-To: <4BDD0774.4080104@sonic.net> References: <4BDD0774.4080104@sonic.net> Message-ID: <4BDE54A1.6090706@sonic.net> In the discussion about races and classes, stats certainly play a role in that. If one looks at some games, like AD&D, stats are pretty fixed (just like crossfire, there are some items that improve them, but the natural stats are hard to improve or have a limited number of improvements (AD&Dv3 added 1 stat gain every 4 levels) How stats, and stat gains work, clearly plays some role for how classes work. For example, if stats are really hard to improve in crossfire, then your starting class is basically the class you will play, simply because it may be difficult to get your stats good enough to be at all decent in another class. So going on that, I see several different aspects of stats worth discussing: 1) How easy/hard is it to increase the characters natural stats. Right now, I'd call crossfire 'easy', in the sense you only need to find stat gain potions, and that gain is linear. I'd call AD&D hard - its possible but hard. There is certainly middle ground here - if crossfire did a 1 every 5 levels, and max level is 110, that is 22 gains (not bad), and the 1/5 could be adjusted. Likewise, potions could be made to be less linear (so if your stats are already good, hard to make them better). 2) What the range of stats are, and the bonuses they give. Crossfire currently has max stat of 30, but the bonuses are not linear (for example, on most stats, the bonus you get (mana, damage, ac, etc) doubles between 25 and 30. Eg, dam bonus at 25 is 6, dam bonus at 30 is 10 - the difference for sp is much greater. Other games have a more linear bonus - high stats are always better, but not as much key to maximize stats (AD&Dv3 gives you 1 bonus every 2 stat points above 10 as an example). So going from 18 to 20 is still good (5 vs 4), but going from 28 to 30 is now 10 vs 9 - still one point, but from a percentage point, even less a gain. Related here is max stat - crossfire currently has 30, and it is clearly advantageous for the characters to try and get as close to that as possible. AD&Dv3 has no real limit (can always figure out the bonus) - there is the practical limit in that it will be difficult for characters to get very high. 3) Max stats related to character race: Right now, a key consideration in choosing race is that it determines what the maximum your natural stat can be - if your race has a -5 pow bonus, the max your natural stat in pow can be is 15. This has some effect on class playability, but still typically the natural stat is high enough that one can play as whatever class. This could be changed so that these maximums only pertain at first level - in a system that is hard to gain stats, if a troll barbarian really wanted to put all their stat gains into int and pow and be an OK spell caster, they perhaps could be (but will not be improving their str and dex). Likewise, if the stat range is increased, some difference on max stats is probably needed. My personal thoughts here: Make the max stat higher (50, 100, whatever), but make the stat bonus linear. Make increasing stats more difficult (maybe diminishing returns on potions) and related to the characters stat total, remove any actual race limits. This has a few effects: 1) Always has demand for stat gain potions - you won't have character piling them up in their apartment (one way I see of doing things is that chance of a potion increasing a stat is related to the characters stat total, so as your stats get better and better, less likely for potions to work). 2) By basing chance of success on total of stats, it gives some reason to focus your stat increases on the stats you care about - right now, characters will just use a potion whenever - they may not need the Wis stat, but increasing them doesn't do harm. But if it makes it less likely for them to increase their Str later on, well maybe you don't use it. 3) The racial limit has to get removed if there is a high stat total, otherwise character just reach that cap, and pile up potions. From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Mon May 3 14:53:05 2010 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 21:53:05 +0200 Subject: [crossfire] races, classes, and play style In-Reply-To: <4BDD0774.4080104@sonic.net> References: <4BDD0774.4080104@sonic.net> Message-ID: <201005032153.08814.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Hello. > As per note in thread about new login method, figuring out what > classes/races should be present really comes down to what type of play we > want to have. Related to gameplay, I'd like to propose a shift on the "aim of the game". Currently, the "aim" is to level up or find the best equipment, grinding again and again maps (Raffle for instance). I would like to have a quest-driven game, in which you happen to level when doing quests, as a "natural" side-effect. But the aim would be to explore the world. Of course, that would require many maps, much rebalancing, but I think that'd be worth it. 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20100503/cf119c9e/attachment.pgp From mwedel at sonic.net Mon May 3 23:28:56 2010 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 21:28:56 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] races, classes, and play style In-Reply-To: <201005032153.08814.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> References: <4BDD0774.4080104@sonic.net> <201005032153.08814.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Message-ID: <4BDFA288.9080007@sonic.net> On 05/ 3/10 12:53 PM, Nicolas Weeger wrote: > Hello. > > >> As per note in thread about new login method, figuring out what >> classes/races should be present really comes down to what type of play we >> want to have. > > Related to gameplay, I'd like to propose a shift on the "aim of the game". > > > Currently, the "aim" is to level up or find the best equipment, grinding again > and again maps (Raffle for instance). > > > I would like to have a quest-driven game, in which you happen to level when > doing quests, as a "natural" side-effect. But the aim would be to explore the > world. > > > Of course, that would require many maps, much rebalancing, but I think that'd > be worth it. I'd like to see that also - it certainly provides some better aim than just wander around and kill things (and lets be honest, even some of the very simple games like nethack, wizardry I, ultima I, etc at least had some goal). I think that leveling up may be seen as what you do in crossfire, when you lack any other goals. That said, a question is still what happens when you finish all the quests. Do you just call it quits? I haven't played many MMORPG's, but most seem to try and keep some interest. But under such a scheme, the question is still what should gameplay be like even under that system. From brenlally at gmail.com Tue May 4 04:12:09 2010 From: brenlally at gmail.com (Brendan Lally) Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 10:12:09 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] races, classes, and play style In-Reply-To: <4BDFA288.9080007@sonic.net> References: <4BDD0774.4080104@sonic.net> <201005032153.08814.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4BDFA288.9080007@sonic.net> Message-ID: <20100504101209.5dc097b5@angmar> On Mon, 03 May 2010 21:28:56 -0700 Mark Wedel wrote: > On 05/ 3/10 12:53 PM, Nicolas Weeger wrote: > > > > Related to gameplay, I'd like to propose a shift on the "aim of the > > game". > > > > > > Currently, the "aim" is to level up or find the best equipment, > > grinding again and again maps (Raffle for instance). > > > > > > I would like to have a quest-driven game, in which you happen to > > level when doing quests, as a "natural" side-effect. But the aim > > would be to explore the world. > > I'd like to see that also - it certainly provides some better aim > than just wander around and kill things (and lets be honest, even > some of the very simple games like nethack, wizardry I, ultima I, etc > at least had some goal). > > I think that leveling up may be seen as what you do in crossfire, > when you lack any other goals. > > That said, a question is still what happens when you finish all the > quests. Do you just call it quits? I haven't played many MMORPG's, > but most seem to try and keep some interest. I've not really played MMORPGs either, but from what I can determine, there seem to be different approaches here: 1) Have more quests than any sane person could complete: This is what WoW does - http://www.goblinworkshop.com/quest-search.html?words=&QuestCategory=0&OrderBy=0&OrderBy2=6&find=Search+for+Quests - has over 4000 quests. Despite this someone did 'finish' World of warcraft recently -http://www.destructoid.com/man-beats-world-of-warcraft-156593.phtml this however probably doesn't meet the 'sane' requirement however. 2) Have something other than just quests to mark progress: Runescape doesn't have that many quests, 'only' 160-odd, http://runescape.salmoneus.net/quests/#freeplay but it does have a lot of scoreboards which run off the main game http://services.runescape.com/m=hiscore/overall.ws?table=5&category_type=1 which give a separate goal to just questing. Clearly the WoW approach isn't entirely feasible for crossfire - there would need to be a full-time development team of 6-7 people just making quests in order to create enough that players couldn't finish them all - That's not to say there shouldn't be as many as possible, but the final number is likely to be in the hundreds rather than thousands. Now, my view is that the runescape-style scoreboards are a little lame, they reportedly cause lots of players to spend hours clicking on trees for no other reason than to rise up a scoreboard. While I like the idea of multiple scoreboards, to keep count of 'trees clicked on' seems like accounting rather than gameplay. So, I have (a couple of weeks ago) started on creating an alternative approach, to have minor scoreboards which can be tied to specific events. http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/user:cavesomething:arenapoints <- this is the design I've been working to so far, I started out with the arena in mind, but I have deliberately sought to enable it to be extend to other types of contests as well, so that (for example) chess and draughts can have leaderboards in the same way. Hopefully, if there are enough leaderboards, then there there are more things to 'compete' for rather than just exp, and by having the scores decay over time, and points be exchanged between players, there isn't really a single 'win' state, and there shouldn't be lots of 'abandoned characters' at the top of the leaderboards for years on end. I don't pretend this is the entire answer, but I hope it may form part of it. Brendan. From robert at timetraveller.org Tue May 4 09:13:34 2010 From: robert at timetraveller.org (Robert Brockway) Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 10:13:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [crossfire] races, classes, and play style In-Reply-To: <4BDD0774.4080104@sonic.net> References: <4BDD0774.4080104@sonic.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 1 May 2010, Mark Wedel wrote: > I personally favor #3, #2, and #1 in that order (I like #3 the best). My I agree. Classs (or races) could have any combination of the following: * Exclusive skills * Skills with favourable XP tables * Skills with unfavourable XP tables * Prohibited skills > thought is that as a player, it gives more reason to try a few different > classes - if the first class I choose can do everything equally well, I've done a lot of boardgame design and one thing I learnt a long time ago - a game is as much about what you can't do, as what you can. Having skills that fall in to the above 4 categories will increase the playability of the game as people will have to play many different characters to experience all that the game has to offer. You can also see some interesting emergent behaviour (not all of it desirable). ie, players will dream up things the game designers never anticipated. Problems that arise can be fixed though. > I think #2 is a bit too restrictive - while comment about player > interaction above stands, at same time, a lot of play is probably solo, > so not being able to do some other stuff probably gets too restrictive, Right - being able to learn all (or almost all) skills but having some you are naturally better at is the best of both worlds, IMHO. Solo play is still viable but the player is encouraged to try different characters with different specialties. > but I'm not sure how that would really play out (presuming we still > allow anyone to use wands, scrolls, potions, and a suitable supply is > about, one could probably get around). It would certainly be a > different game. Some of these options might even work as runtime configuration options. This would mean that different CF servers would play very differently but that's ok too. Rob -- Email: robert at timetraveller.org IRC: Solver Web: http://www.practicalsysadmin.com Open Source: The revolution that silently changed the world From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Tue May 4 11:48:56 2010 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 18:48:56 +0200 Subject: [crossfire] races, classes, and play style In-Reply-To: <4BDFA288.9080007@sonic.net> References: <4BDD0774.4080104@sonic.net> <201005032153.08814.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4BDFA288.9080007@sonic.net> Message-ID: <201005041849.00676.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> > I'd like to see that also - it certainly provides some better aim than > just wander around and kill things (and lets be honest, even some of the > very simple games like nethack, wizardry I, ultima I, etc at least had > some goal). > > I think that leveling up may be seen as what you do in crossfire, when > you lack any other goals. > > That said, a question is still what happens when you finish all the > quests. Do you just call it quits? I haven't played many MMORPG's, but > most seem to try and keep some interest. Same thing you do when you reached maximum level in all skills :) Seriously, I would say two options: - invite people to contribute maps and such - design a way for those "end of game " players to be ingame gods and dynamically create a world > But under such a scheme, the question is still what should gameplay be > like even under that system. True. What I think we also need is a defined set of graphs for leveling up. What resistance around what level? What armor? How many HP or SP or GR? This way we could tailor players and monsters to be equivalent, and make level actually meaningful - something like "you need to kill ~100 monsters of your level to gain one level". But this wouldn't be too visible to the player, only through quests :) 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20100504/39255572/attachment.pgp From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Tue May 4 11:50:07 2010 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 18:50:07 +0200 Subject: [crossfire] races, classes, and play style In-Reply-To: References: <4BDD0774.4080104@sonic.net> Message-ID: <201005041850.07350.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> > > I personally favor #3, #2, and #1 in that order (I like #3 the best). > > My > > I agree. Classs (or races) could have any combination of the following: > > * Exclusive skills > * Skills with favourable XP tables > * Skills with unfavourable XP tables > * Prohibited skills +1 for choice #2. > Right - being able to learn all (or almost all) skills but having some you > are naturally better at is the best of both worlds, IMHO. Solo play is > still viable but the player is encouraged to try different characters with > different specialties. Yes, but class-specific skills are nice too - meditation for monks, for instance. > > but I'm not sure how that would really play out (presuming we still > > allow anyone to use wands, scrolls, potions, and a suitable supply is > > about, one could probably get around). It would certainly be a > > different game. Yes, but that's ok by me :) 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20100504/b5f8ae2b/attachment.pgp From mwedel at sonic.net Wed May 5 00:06:36 2010 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 22:06:36 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] races, classes, and play style In-Reply-To: <20100504101209.5dc097b5@angmar> References: <4BDD0774.4080104@sonic.net> <201005032153.08814.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4BDFA288.9080007@sonic.net> <20100504101209.5dc097b5@angmar> Message-ID: <4BE0FCDC.3010203@sonic.net> Having played guild wars a lot, and aside from the pvp combat aspect, another thing to do after completing the quests is to get titles. There are around 30-40 titles. For some titles, just completing all the quests will get you pretty close to maxing it out (most titles have different levels as you accomplish things). There is a mix of different titles - some you get a decent way along just by doing the main quests. Some more track progress - for example, one needs keys of varying value to open treasure chests (which themselves are fairly rare), and one title tracks how many 'high end' treasure chests you have opened Another corresponds to complete exploration of the campaign, another related to killing certain things in certain areas, etc. While most of these are really just grinding things out (going to map and killing things), it at least provides some progress indicator. In a sense, one reason many folks try to max out exp in crossfire I think is because it is the only real indicator of progress. Having alternative titles like this may provide something else for players to focus on. I imagine one could track all sorts of things in crossfire via plugins. Off the top of my head, one could have an alchemist type title track, which instead of just recording amount of exp in the alchemy skill, tracks instead the number of different alchemy formulas the character has successfully made. One could also have something like 'artifact finder' which tracks the number of unique artifacts the character has had (this would likely require some work to note what is a unique artifact). Now granted, these may just be titles that result in players slogging through dungeons, but it is up to the players if they want to do that. From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Thu May 6 16:58:28 2010 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 23:58:28 +0200 Subject: [crossfire] NPC dialog breakage Message-ID: <201005062358.32359.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Hello. I committed some changes to the NPC dialog handling, and doing so I accidentally messed script-based replies. What will happen is that scripts will display their text before the player actually talks. Not that evil, but weird :) If that's ok with everyone, I'll commit a fix in a few days, which will be not a revert, but a change to the plugin system to integrate replies and such, enabling hopefully the quest scripts being written to take advantage of the system. 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20100506/d05135c9/attachment.pgp From kbulgrien at att.net Fri May 7 02:05:16 2010 From: kbulgrien at att.net (Kevin Bulgrien) Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 02:05:16 -0500 Subject: [crossfire] Quest system - Error reporting needs work Message-ID: <20100507020516.02c71f9d@a850srvr.kbulgrien.att.net> I tried to play test some of the new quests tonight and nothing worked. None of the dialog paths did anything. I could not get past go. I looked in the server logs... no message whatsoever. Something needs work. So digging around, I find: python/dialog/dialog_check.py I decide to see what it does: $ python python/dialog/dialog_check.py scorn/kar/gork.msg Traceback (most recent call last): File "python/dialog/dialog_check.py", line 11, in import cjson ImportError: No module named cjson Ah... Yeah, that should be reported to the server admin as a major error. If the quest system is going to start depending on this, then packaging, etc. needs to make sure people know what is required to get basics of the game operational. So in my case, the package is probably python-cjson... So then I wonder if the player shouldn't also be told too... Let's try again... :-) # urpmi python-cjson [trunk]$ python python/dialog/dialog_check.py scorn/kar/gork.msg Error: No script to support action: settoken Expected: post/settoken.py ERROR: verification of action file post/settoken.py failed for rule 1 condition ['settoken', 'gork_speak', 'hoard'] ... Gaack! [trunk] cd python/dialog [dialog]$ python dialog_check.py ../../scorn/kar/gork.msg checked 9 rules from file ../../scorn/kar/gork.msg Found 0 errors and 0 warnings Ok... Umm... its a computer. Can't it figure out where to look for its stuff? It's only relative path... :-) Bleah... dialog still doesn't work... Maybe I need to restart the server? Going to bed... Have to do this later. From brenlally at gmail.com Fri May 7 09:50:28 2010 From: brenlally at gmail.com (Brendan Lally) Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 15:50:28 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] Quest system - Error reporting needs work In-Reply-To: <20100507020516.02c71f9d@a850srvr.kbulgrien.att.net> References: <20100507020516.02c71f9d@a850srvr.kbulgrien.att.net> Message-ID: <20100507155028.67b73953@angmar> On Fri, 7 May 2010 02:05:16 -0500 Kevin Bulgrien wrote: > I tried to play test some of the new quests tonight and nothing > worked. None of the dialog paths did anything. I could not get past > go. Having looked at this a couple of hours ago, the token check I had was bad, and failed with multiple token options, this was a regression caused by my breaking out the dialog actions into separate files and I've now fixed this. It isn't something I hadn't picked up before because not many dialogs use tokens in that way, thank you for reporting it. > Something needs work. So digging around, I find: > > python/dialog/dialog_check.py > > I decide to see what it does: > > $ python python/dialog/dialog_check.py scorn/kar/gork.msg > Traceback (most recent call last): > File "python/dialog/dialog_check.py", line 11, in > import cjson > ImportError: No module named cjson When you run the npc_dialog script as part of the server process then it runs through the cfpython plugin which includes cjson as part of the source tree, it gets be compiled at the same time the cfpython plugin is (if it weren't you'd see a similar message in your server output) This doesn't add cjson to the normally available pool of python libraries, so running the dialog_check.py script would require that you have cjson installed for python normally. (there isn't really a good way around this as far as I can see, from the maps/ folder there isn't a clear idea of where crossfire plugins are installed - I suppose crossfire could install cjson globally, but that will probably cause more problems than it would solve). > > Ah... > > Yeah, that should be reported to the server admin as a major error. > If the quest system is going to start depending on this, then > packaging, etc. needs to make sure people know what is required to > get basics of the game operational. So in my case, the package is > probably python-cjson... The dialog_check script isn't really part of the basics of the game, it is a tool I've created for my own purposes while writing dialogs which others may find useful too, anyone who isn't a map-maker writing npc dialog shouldn't need to care about it (and anyone running into characters with dialogs should find that the cfpython version of json works correctly). > So then I wonder if the player shouldn't also be told too... There may still be a question around player feedback on errors, I'm not sure what the best way to approach that is, mostly because it is sometimes difficult to define what an error is - in some cases having no matches to a set of rules is a bad thing, in others, it might be fine. > Let's try again... > > :-) > > # urpmi python-cjson > > [trunk]$ python python/dialog/dialog_check.py scorn/kar/gork.msg > Error: No script to support action: settoken Expected: > post/settoken.py ERROR: verification of action file > post/settoken.py failed for rule 1 condition ['settoken', > 'gork_speak', 'hoard'] ... > > Gaack! > > [trunk] cd python/dialog > [dialog]$ python dialog_check.py ../../scorn/kar/gork.msg > checked 9 rules from file ../../scorn/kar/gork.msg Found 0 errors > and 0 warnings > > Ok... > > Umm... its a computer. Can't it figure out where to look for its > stuff? It's only relative path... Yeah, that script does still need a bit of work in terms of figuring out where to look for things. (as well as extending the checking to verify that named quests exist, etc), I've committed it now because it is still a lot nicer than trying to navigate through maps to where a character is found, trying to speak to them and finding that there was a typo in the .msg file. Brendan. From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Sat May 8 06:04:52 2010 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 13:04:52 +0200 Subject: [crossfire] NPC dialog breakage In-Reply-To: <201005062358.32359.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> References: <201005062358.32359.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Message-ID: <201005081304.55761.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Hello. Breakage hopefully fixed, NPCs will talk after the player again. I added Crossfire.AddReply, Crossfire.SetPlayerMessage and Crossfire.NPCSay methods to Python to extend what NPCs can say, and give hints to the player on available replies. This can be used in the quests being improved, hopefully :) Nicolas > I committed some changes to the NPC dialog handling, and doing so I > accidentally messed script-based replies. > What will happen is that scripts will display their text before the player > actually talks. > Not that evil, but weird :) > > > If that's ok with everyone, I'll commit a fix in a few days, which will be > not a revert, but a change to the plugin system to integrate replies and > such, enabling hopefully the quest scripts being written to take advantage > of the system. > > > > 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20100508/2935d709/attachment.pgp From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Sat May 8 09:24:49 2010 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 16:24:49 +0200 Subject: [crossfire] Statistics and such Message-ID: <201005081624.52495.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Hello. To have some idea of the current game balance, I started a page at http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/user:ryo:stats listing various things like max and min WC, AC, and such. If anyone feels like helping figuring out things, feel free :) The aim is to have a view of the current game implementation, then see what can be adjusted how. 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20100508/355d5218/attachment.pgp From kbulgrien at att.net Sun May 9 22:51:45 2010 From: kbulgrien at att.net (Kevin Bulgrien) Date: Sun, 9 May 2010 22:51:45 -0500 Subject: [crossfire] NPC dialog breakage In-Reply-To: <201005081304.55761.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> References: <201005062358.32359.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <201005081304.55761.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Message-ID: <20100509225145.2968d011@a850srvr.kbulgrien.att.net> > Hello. > > Breakage hopefully fixed, NPCs will talk after the player again. > > I added Crossfire.AddReply, Crossfire.SetPlayerMessage and Crossfire.NPCSay > methods to Python to extend what NPCs can say, and give hints to the player on > available replies. > > This can be used in the quests being improved, hopefully :) svn up / recompile / restart server: Quest dialogs that worked yesterday are now broken... Quest NPCs are completely mute and do not respond to hi/hello. FYI. Kevin From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Mon May 10 01:57:18 2010 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 08:57:18 +0200 Subject: [crossfire] NPC dialog breakage In-Reply-To: <20100509225145.2968d011@a850srvr.kbulgrien.att.net> References: <201005062358.32359.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <201005081304.55761.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <20100509225145.2968d011@a850srvr.kbulgrien.att.net> Message-ID: <201005100857.22166.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Hello. > svn up / recompile / restart server: Quest dialogs that worked yesterday > are now broken... Quest NPCs are completely mute and do not respond to > hi/hello. Did you make install? There were some changes to the plugin interface. Any output in the server log? 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20100510/1957431c/attachment.pgp From mwedel at sonic.net Tue May 11 00:45:03 2010 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 22:45:03 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] Quest system - Error reporting needs work In-Reply-To: <20100507155028.67b73953@angmar> References: <20100507020516.02c71f9d@a850srvr.kbulgrien.att.net> <20100507155028.67b73953@angmar> Message-ID: <4BE8EEDF.8030005@sonic.net> A somewhat related question: Since the quest system (and some other core functionality) is using python/other plugins, should the configure check be changed so that configure errors out if the python libraries are not available (eg, will be unable to compile the plugin) Most of the plugins add functionality that is not 'core' (for lack of better term), but I would put quests into a core functionality area (especially if these replace the mechanisms currently in the game that do not require plugins). I have no issues making this a requirement - my main concern would be bug reports/questions along the line of 'my server compiled just fine, but quests are not working'. From kbulgrien at att.net Tue May 11 00:45:24 2010 From: kbulgrien at att.net (Kevin Bulgrien) Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 00:45:24 -0500 Subject: [crossfire] NPC dialog breakage In-Reply-To: <201005100857.22166.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> References: <201005062358.32359.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <201005081304.55761.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <20100509225145.2968d011@a850srvr.kbulgrien.att.net> <201005100857.22166.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Message-ID: <20100511004524.5a95dd12@a850srvr.kbulgrien.att.net> > Hello. > > > svn up / recompile / restart server: Quest dialogs that worked yesterday > > are now broken... Quest NPCs are completely mute and do not respond to > > hi/hello. > > Did you make install? There were some changes to the plugin interface. Yes, always. > Any output in the server log? None. Actually svn up / recompile / make install tonight... server was totally hosed. It got stuck before it could do any console or logfile output. strace was showing it had just loaded a bunch of the python stuff. To get out of the mess I did re-run the autogen.sh script, make clean, etc. The changes must have needed something more than svn up; make; make install. Dialogs are now working again. False alarm... Kevin From mwedel at sonic.net Tue May 11 01:17:58 2010 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 23:17:58 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] Class change summary & ideas Message-ID: <4BE8F696.5010502@sonic.net> The discussion on the previous thread has died out, so I thought I'd draw some conclusions and move the discussion forward. While not a lot of responses, the most votes seemed to come in on the idea of classes play an important roll - there are exclusive skills, a fighter can never be as good as a wizard as a straight wizard, etc. From a game perspective, this probably isn't a bad stepping point - it moves away from the current system some, but is not as radical. And as I think about it, a system with strict classes could basically start with this, and then just remove any ability (skill scrolls, quests, whatever) which grant skills in the game (different discussion, but it would perhaps be interesting to have conditional treasure lists based on settings in the game file). These are some ideas I have on making classes important, but still have ability to learn most skills in the game. Note that I do not mean to suggest that all these ideas be adopted - rather I'm putting some ideas I have out there that could make this happen and am seeking thoughts of others, as well as other ideas. - The characters starting skills have a good exp gain ratio (100%), and any learned skills have less good ratio (maybe 50%). In this way, a fighter which learns wizardry is at a pretty big disadvantage. - Put level caps on learned skills. Maybe level 50. For this to have much effect, skills must have meaning at all levels - for example, right now, the highest spell level is around 20, so if you could still get to level 50, you would have all spells. So putting caps in would presume that skills gain abilities up to level 100 (I have more ideas on this below) - Put level caps on learned skills based on starting skill. Eg, the skill level that fighter has in wizardry can not exceed one half the level they have in their best combat skill. - Add more abilities for all skills to higher levels. For spell casting skills, this may be spells at higher levels. For combat skills, it may mean certain special actions happen at higher levels (stun opponent, disarm, etc). Some of these could give stat bonuses - they would clearly give bonuses in the relevant stats (so combat skills would raise str, con, magic skills pow, int). Imagine for example a level 75 fighter getting +3 str and con from his combat skills - that is a pretty nice buff that makes it harder for mages to do as good. - Change sp/grace/hp starting values. Right now, all classes start with same values, except for any adjustments based on stats. But maybe barbarians should get +20 hp at start and -20 sp, reverse for wizards. This makes it more difficult to switch classes at low levels. - Change hp gain values. Right now, hp gain is based on total level - this means a high level wizard has just as many hp (given same con) as a fighter. At one point an experiment was done where hp was based on highest combat level (just as sp is based on highest mana level) - that made things too difficult, since wizards wouldn't have a high combat level. But one could do something like every combat level counts as a level for hp, but every 2 spellcasting levels counts as level for hp. Thus, a pure mage will will have fewer hp (otoh, as I type this, this doesn't seem like a great idea, as it now gives more reason for the mage to pick up combat levels) - Clean up/redo weapon skills. Right now, all classes start with the same weapon skills, so that wizard can pick up that 2 handed sword at first level and become a fighter. Wizards (and other classes) should get some lesser weapon skill that gives them fewer weapons they can use. Even classes like clerics get all weapons. A problem this creates is that spellcasting classes are good choices at first level (you get spellcasting skill + weapon skill). Changes I made a while ago allows a list of skills to be used, so one could add a bunch of different weapon skills (axe, hammer, sword, simple weapons) to limit the weapons some classes can use at first level without adding a bunch of new weapons to cover this. Another example here could be elves, which right now get missile weapons (every missile weapon) where as they should perhaps be limited to just bows. - Related to above, coming up with a description of each class and then figuring bonuses/skills may be in order - a lot of skills right now are given out for legacy reasons (everyone used to be able to do this, so everyone can do it now). An example of this would be barbarian - a savage non magic using class. As such, it probably should not start with use magical items skill - coming up with concepts for the classes and then balancing them may result in more interesting classes than trying to come up with a balanced class and saying "that's good", but doesn't have any real flavor. - For class/races, it would be nicer to have a list of skills which are disallowed than hard code values. For example, for classes not allowed to use weapons, it would be better to just disallow them from ever learning the skill than have arbitrary values. Related to this, maybe add skills to wear armor. Eg, everyone might start with a skill that lets them wear robes, but you need real combat skills to wear plate armor. Think that just about covers it. From mwedel at sonic.net Tue May 11 01:42:03 2010 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 23:42:03 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] Attributes/Stats Message-ID: <4BE8FC3B.20504@sonic.net> Never saw any response, but had some other musings. Changing subject to use attributes, since that is a bit less general than statistics, which can mean almost anything. I was thinking there is some disparity in the different classes and how many/what starts are important. These are my quick thoughts on the different attributes: Strength: used for hit bonus, damage bonus, as well as carry capacity. First to are only important in combat, later one is useful for everyone. Even spellcasters are likely to resort to combat once in a while, so this is a fairly important attribute for everyone. Dex: Gives AC bonus and speed bonus. These are equally useful to everyone. Con: Gives HP bonus for first 10 levels. Equally important to everyone. Wis: Major factor in amount of grace character has (Wis is 66%, Pow is 33% in terms of bonuses) for first 10 levels of characters life. Important for praying at altar can casting spells. As such, only folks using pray skill use this attribute a lot. Cha: Used for shop pricing and a few secondary skills (singing, oratory). While the shop pricing is equally important to all classes, overall this is a fairly unimportant stat. Int: Important for wizards. it is 33% of the bonus for sp (pow being 66%), used in stealing chance and learning spells. Important stat for wizards. Pow: Used for sp/grace bonuses, as described above. If not a spellcaster, stat holds no importance. If one looks at these descriptions, one can see that spellcasters have a tougher time on stats than fighters - for fighters, pretty simple - Str, Con, Dex, Cha, Wis, Int, Pow, and the last 4 could be 1 and it wouldn't hurt the fighter much. For spellcasters, this is tougher - there are more stats they care about. For a wizard, Pow, Int, Con, Str, Dex, Wis, Cha is probably the order. But because of penalties, a 1 Dex is a bad idea. The other thing to note is the relative unimportance of Cha here. For most characters, only real effect is on shop pricing, as a lot of characters probably do not use singing/oratory. Other than making some other skill use Cha as its key value, I'm not sure what can be done there - I'd almost be tempted to just drop Cha. From om at iki.fi Tue May 11 03:02:35 2010 From: om at iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 11:02:35 +0300 Subject: [crossfire] Attributes/Stats In-Reply-To: <4BE8FC3B.20504@sonic.net> References: <4BE8FC3B.20504@sonic.net> Message-ID: <4BE90F1B.3090807@iki.fi> Mark Wedel wrote: > The other thing to note is the relative unimportance of Cha here. For most > characters, only real effect is on shop pricing, as a lot of characters probably > do not use singing/oratory. Other than making some other skill use Cha as its > key value, I'm not sure what can be done there - I'd almost be tempted to just > drop Cha. This won't make a huge difference, but... I believe these days monsters are pretty much always either friendly or aggressive, there is no middle ground? How about having charisma affect how neutral monsters act towards you? How about the charm monsters and/or pacify spells, are they affected by this? PS. Now that I have your attention, could someone take a look at /pup_land/nurnberg/hq_training -- it seems there is something wrong with normally aggressive monsters, they seem to be asleep or something, making parts of these "training levels" surprisingly easy. Is this intentional? -- /* * * Otto J. Makela * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */ /* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, FAX: +358 42 7655772, ICBM: 60N 25E */ /* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27, FI-00100 Helsinki, FINLAND */ /* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * * * * * * * */ From brenlally at gmail.com Tue May 11 07:37:14 2010 From: brenlally at gmail.com (Brendan Lally) Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 13:37:14 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] Quest system - Error reporting needs work In-Reply-To: <4BE8EEDF.8030005@sonic.net> References: <20100507020516.02c71f9d@a850srvr.kbulgrien.att.net> <20100507155028.67b73953@angmar> <4BE8EEDF.8030005@sonic.net> Message-ID: <20100511133714.2f83d498@angmar> On Mon, 10 May 2010 22:45:03 -0700 Mark Wedel wrote: > Since the quest system (and some other core functionality) is using > python/other plugins, should the configure check be changed so that > configure errors out if the python libraries are not available (eg, > will be unable to compile the plugin) I think I would prefer that to happen, or at least require it to be specifically disabled if the server wants to run without it. (ie if a server admin wants to run "./configure --without-python", then I'd consider that to be ok, they can either ignore breakage or disable/replace maps. I don't think knotwork is making much use of python in his crossciv mapset for instance) > Most of the plugins add functionality that is not 'core' (for lack > of better term), but I would put quests into a core functionality > area (especially if these replace the mechanisms currently in the > game that do not require plugins). As it is, even ignoring the quest system, there are a number of maps in the standard set that don't behave sensibly without python - the mad monk in scorn, the banking system and the post offices are all obvious examples. Brendan From mwedel at sonic.net Wed May 12 00:53:36 2010 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 22:53:36 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] Attributes/Stats In-Reply-To: <4BE90F1B.3090807@iki.fi> References: <4BE8FC3B.20504@sonic.net> <4BE90F1B.3090807@iki.fi> Message-ID: <4BEA4260.50609@sonic.net> On 05/11/10 01:02 AM, Otto J. Makela wrote: > Mark Wedel wrote: > >> The other thing to note is the relative unimportance of Cha here. For most >> characters, only real effect is on shop pricing, as a lot of characters probably >> do not use singing/oratory. Other than making some other skill use Cha as its >> key value, I'm not sure what can be done there - I'd almost be tempted to just >> drop Cha. > > This won't make a huge difference, but... I believe these days monsters are > pretty much always either friendly or aggressive, there is no middle ground? > How about having charisma affect how neutral monsters act towards you? > How about the charm monsters and/or pacify spells, are they affected by this? I don't think the spells really affect it much. One could do more with charisma - NPCs offering/not offering quests, rewards, etc based on Cha also. But as I was thinking about this more, there is also a sort of odd situation with stats. When you create your character, you are going to try to maximize your stats for the class you are playing (so if a fighter, you put your best stats in Str, Dex, Con, and worse stats in other abilities). What this typically means is that your stats for your class are fairly close to their maximum values, but the other stats are not. So as you find potions, your character ends up improving stats that don't help their primary class much, but rather help them pick up other skills/classes, so probably not a big surprise on why many characters will pick up other classes. Now presuming random distribution of potions, it means that they will likely stock up on potions for their class and probably make an item out of them, so all is not lost, but that is a harder way to improve stats (needs more potions). From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Wed May 12 12:11:14 2010 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 19:11:14 +0200 Subject: [crossfire] Attributes/Stats In-Reply-To: <4BE8FC3B.20504@sonic.net> References: <4BE8FC3B.20504@sonic.net> Message-ID: <201005121911.17905.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Hello. > Never saw any response, but had some other musings. Changing subject to > use attributes, since that is a bit less general than statistics, which > can mean almost anything. Related, Brendan started a page at http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/user:cavesomething:possible_stat_values listing ideas for combat rewriting. > If one looks at these descriptions, one can see that spellcasters have a > tougher time on stats than fighters - for fighters, pretty simple - Str, > Con, Dex, Cha, Wis, Int, Pow, and the last 4 could be 1 and it wouldn't > hurt the fighter much. > > For spellcasters, this is tougher - there are more stats they care about. > For a wizard, Pow, Int, Con, Str, Dex, Wis, Cha is probably the order. > But because of penalties, a 1 Dex is a bad idea. What about rebalancing by making Wis or Int more useful for fighters? Something like 'your armor will communicate to you if you're intelligent enough, to help you more'. Or some way to make fighters "pay" if they have too low Wis or Int or Pow. Use Pow to resist some attacktypes? > The other thing to note is the relative unimportance of Cha here. For > most characters, only real effect is on shop pricing, as a lot of > characters probably do not use singing/oratory. Other than making some > other skill use Cha as its key value, I'm not sure what can be done there > - I'd almost be tempted to just drop Cha. I'd keep it for singing, oratory and other things :) Granted, shop prices should be less unbalanced for cha. But it's an interesting concept, that could be used for instance to convince NPCs to do something - imagine a quest where if you're lucky the NPC has a crush on you and doesn't ask for some artifact, if you're unlucky you need to find some powerful thingy. 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20100512/bbd1ab3d/attachment.pgp From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Wed May 12 12:19:19 2010 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 19:19:19 +0200 Subject: [crossfire] Class change summary & ideas In-Reply-To: <4BE8F696.5010502@sonic.net> References: <4BE8F696.5010502@sonic.net> Message-ID: <201005121919.20143.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> > The discussion on the previous thread has died out, so I thought I'd draw > some conclusions and move the discussion forward. While not a lot of > responses, the most votes seemed to come in on the idea of classes play an > important roll - there are exclusive skills, a fighter can never be as > good as a wizard as a straight wizard, etc. Agreed. > From a game perspective, this probably isn't a bad stepping point - it > moves away from the current system some, but is not as radical. And as I > think about it, a system with strict classes could basically start with > this, and then just remove any ability (skill scrolls, quests, whatever) > which grant skills in the game (different discussion, but it would perhaps > be interesting to have conditional treasure lists based on settings in the > game file). I think Brendan (and others) suggested to remove the skill scrolls totally, and have skills available through quests only. And of course some skills should be reserved to some classes :) > - The characters starting skills have a good exp gain ratio (100%), and any > learned skills have less good ratio (maybe 50%). In this way, a fighter > which learns wizardry is at a pretty big disadvantage. Or reduce damage and duration for spells you recently learned? > > - Put level caps on learned skills. Maybe level 50. For this to have much > effect, skills must have meaning at all levels - for example, right now, > the highest spell level is around 20, so if you could still get to level > 50, you would have all spells. So putting caps in would presume that > skills gain abilities up to level 100 (I have more ideas on this below) > > - Put level caps on learned skills based on starting skill. Eg, the skill > level that fighter has in wizardry can not exceed one half the level they > have in their best combat skill. Or reduce damage and duration and range? The idea being that you can be a decent spellcaster, but never as good as a spellcaster who spent his youth studying magic :) > - Add more abilities for all skills to higher levels. For spell casting > skills, this may be spells at higher levels. For combat skills, it may > mean certain special actions happen at higher levels (stun opponent, > disarm, etc). Some of these could give stat bonuses - they would clearly > give bonuses in the relevant stats (so combat skills would raise str, con, > magic skills pow, int). Imagine for example a level 75 fighter getting +3 > str and con from his combat skills - that is a pretty nice buff that makes > it harder for mages to do as good. Could be interesting, yes. Would need to be well documented :) > - Change sp/grace/hp starting values. Right now, all classes start with > same values, except for any adjustments based on stats. But maybe > barbarians should get +20 hp at start and -20 sp, reverse for wizards. > This makes it more difficult to switch classes at low levels. Yes. See http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/user:cavesomething:possible_stat_values and also http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/user:ryo:stats - far from complete. > - Change hp gain values. Right now, hp gain is based on total level - this > means a high level wizard has just as many hp (given same con) as a > fighter. At one point an experiment was done where hp was based on > highest combat level (just as sp is based on highest mana level) - that > made things too difficult, since wizards wouldn't have a high combat > level. But one could do something like every combat level counts as a > level for hp, but every 2 spellcasting levels counts as level for hp. > Thus, a pure mage will will have fewer hp (otoh, as I type this, this > doesn't seem like a great idea, as it now gives more reason for the mage > to pick up combat levels) What about giving hp for spellcasting points? As you study magic more and more, your magical mastering goes up, and you can unconsciously maintain some magical life enhancing spells all the time. > - Clean up/redo weapon skills. Right now, all classes start with the same > weapon skills, so that wizard can pick up that 2 handed sword at first > level and become a fighter. Wizards (and other classes) should get some > lesser weapon skill that gives them fewer weapons they can use. Even > classes like clerics get all weapons. A problem this creates is that > spellcasting classes are good choices at first level (you get spellcasting > skill + weapon skill). Changes I made a while ago allows a list of skills > to be used, so one could add a bunch of different weapon skills (axe, > hammer, sword, simple weapons) to limit the weapons some classes can use > at first level without adding a bunch of new weapons to cover this. > Another example here could be elves, which right now get missile weapons > (every missile weapon) where as they should perhaps be limited to just > bows. Again, I think the way is to cap the maximum reachable level or effect. And make it worth leveling in magic and NOT weapon for spellcasters. > - Related to above, coming up with a description of each class and then > figuring bonuses/skills may be in order - a lot of skills right now are > given out for legacy reasons (everyone used to be able to do this, so > everyone can do it now). An example of this would be barbarian - a savage > non magic using class. As such, it probably should not start with use > magical items skill - coming up with concepts for the classes and then > balancing them may result in more interesting classes than trying to come > up with a balanced class and saying "that's good", but doesn't have any > real flavor. Yes. > - For class/races, it would be nicer to have a list of skills which are > disallowed than hard code values. For example, for classes not allowed to > use weapons, it would be better to just disallow them from ever learning > the skill than have arbitrary values. Related to this, maybe add skills > to wear armor. Eg, everyone might start with a skill that lets them wear > robes, but you need real combat skills to wear plate armor. Interesting idea. Some "hidden" skill, maybe, enabling or not to wear such armor or weapons. Whatever we do, better make sure to document everything, put all down, to see the whole picture, and let us have some reference in the future if we don't remember ;) 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20100512/a899e40f/attachment.pgp From brenlally at gmail.com Wed May 12 17:58:34 2010 From: brenlally at gmail.com (Brendan Lally) Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 23:58:34 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] Attributes/Stats In-Reply-To: <201005121911.17905.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> References: <4BE8FC3B.20504@sonic.net> <201005121911.17905.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Message-ID: <20100512235834.37b04e08@angmar> On Wed, 12 May 2010 19:11:14 +0200 Nicolas Weeger wrote: > > Never saw any response, but had some other musings. Changing > > subject to use attributes, since that is a bit less general than > > statistics, which can mean almost anything. > > Related, Brendan started a page at > http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/user:cavesomething:possible_stat_values > listing ideas for combat rewriting. > > > If one looks at these descriptions, one can see that spellcasters > > have a tougher time on stats than fighters - for fighters, pretty > > simple - Str, Con, Dex, Cha, Wis, Int, Pow, and the last 4 could be > > 1 and it wouldn't hurt the fighter much. > > What about rebalancing by making Wis or Int more useful for fighters? > Something like 'your armor will communicate to you if you're > intelligent enough, to help you more'. > Or some way to make fighters "pay" if they have too low Wis or Int or > Pow. Use Pow to resist some attacktypes? Under the kind of idea I was describing there, then stats like Pow, Wis and Int could give bonuses to different resist points (including negative resistances). I've described that in more detail at: http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/user:cavesomething:resistances (this page is linked to from the one Nicolas referenced above) Hopefully a fighter character would think twice about putting 1 in INT or WIS if it guaranteed double or triple damage on almost every magic attack used against them. Brendan -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20100512/d5da7a39/attachment.pgp From mwedel at sonic.net Thu May 13 01:32:23 2010 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 23:32:23 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] Attributes/Stats In-Reply-To: <201005121911.17905.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> References: <4BE8FC3B.20504@sonic.net> <201005121911.17905.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Message-ID: <4BEB9CF7.6080103@sonic.net> On 05/12/10 10:11 AM, Nicolas Weeger wrote: >> If one looks at these descriptions, one can see that spellcasters have a >> tougher time on stats than fighters - for fighters, pretty simple - Str, >> Con, Dex, Cha, Wis, Int, Pow, and the last 4 could be 1 and it wouldn't >> hurt the fighter much. >> >> For spellcasters, this is tougher - there are more stats they care about. >> For a wizard, Pow, Int, Con, Str, Dex, Wis, Cha is probably the order. >> But because of penalties, a 1 Dex is a bad idea. > > What about rebalancing by making Wis or Int more useful for fighters? > Something like 'your armor will communicate to you if you're intelligent > enough, to help you more'. > Or some way to make fighters "pay" if they have too low Wis or Int or Pow. > Use Pow to resist some attacktypes? it is perhaps interesting to note that AD&Dv1 pretty much had same issue - fighters could care less about int, wis, cha. AD&Dv3 fixed a some of that by adding a bunch of minor skills, which get base bonus from those stats. So a low int means few skill points, and any int based skills have a penalty. Wis is used for some saving throws, so penalty there is bad. Cha is really only used for some skills. That doesn't quite work in crossfire, but one thought I had is to give fighters some abilities (really just like spells) that need grace/sp. This goes with giving special abilities at certain levels for skills. But imagine that for fighters, at 5th level of swordmanship, they get something like 'holy weapon', which gives them a holy attacktype + slaying of their gods enemy. However, to use that ability needs 25 grace. A character with average stats (no penalties, no bonuses) would have 25 grace, and perhaps a bit more. But if a character had put 1 in wis and pow, his grace is probably going to be <5, so won't be able to use that nice ability. Could also have things like 'flaming sword' which use mana instead. In a sense, you are giving fighters some need to have some sp and grace at average values at least. I'm not sure how to do that, but certain other skills could be affected. For example, I believe it is either Wis or Int which changes odds for finding traps for search. The problem right now is that you just search the door/chest 10 times, and just by random rolls, if you have a chance of finding the trap, you probably will. But would be better to somehow limit that, so if you have a bad Int, you won't find the trap and you can't search 10 times until you do. Another thought is to add stat requirements to use items. For example, you need a 10 pow to use a wand or rod. You need a 15 pow to use a scroll So once again, not a requirement for fighters to have a 10 pow, but not being able to use wands at all could be pretty annoying. Conversely, one could add strength requirements for certain items, eg, need strength 25 to wield boncrusher, strength 15 to wear plate armor, etc. >> The other thing to note is the relative unimportance of Cha here. For >> most characters, only real effect is on shop pricing, as a lot of >> characters probably do not use singing/oratory. Other than making some >> other skill use Cha as its key value, I'm not sure what can be done there >> - I'd almost be tempted to just drop Cha. > > I'd keep it for singing, oratory and other things :) > Granted, shop prices should be less unbalanced for cha. But it's an > interesting concept, that could be used for instance to convince NPCs to do > something - imagine a quest where if you're lucky the NPC has a crush on you > and doesn't ask for some artifact, if you're unlucky you need to find some > powerful thingy. I know there has been talk in the past about reputation/fame type of idea. That could also play in with Cha - it acts as a modifier to that. If you are moderately famous but still annoying (low Cha), folks still don't want to talk to you. The shop pricing is a bit harsh - that should probably be smoothed out - maybe at worst, you pay triple the best price you can ever get. And maybe it should really only affect selling of items, and not buying - after all, little enough stuff is bought from shops, the shopkeepers should be happy to find one that actually wants to buy something. There should probably be some skill to get certain NPC's to do something for you (for example, convince the gatehouse guards to open the gate for you, even if you don't know the password). Things like that would require map changes, but if done consistently and often enough, could make a high charisma useful. The counter to that could be that with a really bad charisma, the guards won't open the gates even if you do know the password, and only way through is with the gatepass. From mwedel at sonic.net Thu May 13 01:49:31 2010 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 23:49:31 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] Attributes/Stats In-Reply-To: <20100512235834.37b04e08@angmar> References: <4BE8FC3B.20504@sonic.net> <201005121911.17905.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <20100512235834.37b04e08@angmar> Message-ID: <4BEBA0FB.1080709@sonic.net> On 05/12/10 03:58 PM, Brendan Lally wrote: > On Wed, 12 May 2010 19:11:14 +0200 > Nicolas Weeger wrote: > >>> Never saw any response, but had some other musings. Changing >>> subject to use attributes, since that is a bit less general than >>> statistics, which can mean almost anything. >> >> Related, Brendan started a page at >> http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/user:cavesomething:possible_stat_values >> listing ideas for combat rewriting. >> >>> If one looks at these descriptions, one can see that spellcasters >>> have a tougher time on stats than fighters - for fighters, pretty >>> simple - Str, Con, Dex, Cha, Wis, Int, Pow, and the last 4 could be >>> 1 and it wouldn't hurt the fighter much. >> >> What about rebalancing by making Wis or Int more useful for fighters? >> Something like 'your armor will communicate to you if you're >> intelligent enough, to help you more'. >> Or some way to make fighters "pay" if they have too low Wis or Int or >> Pow. Use Pow to resist some attacktypes? > > Under the kind of idea I was describing there, then stats like Pow, Wis > and Int could give bonuses to different resist points (including > negative resistances). > > I've described that in more detail at: > http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/user:cavesomething:resistances > (this page is linked to from the one Nicolas referenced above) > > Hopefully a fighter character would think twice about putting 1 > in INT or WIS if it guaranteed double or triple damage on almost every > magic attack used against them. The one issue I sort of see with that is a lot of times fire/electricity/cold are not magical in nature. So use int/pow/wis for a resistance on them seems a bit misplaced. If I step into a lava pool, it is not magic. Now pow itself being used for magic makes sense (it is in a sense how in tune you are with the magic, so if you're really in tune, should take less damage). And lots of attacktypes are magic + something, so in those cases, taking the magic or fire (and maybe averaging them) could make sense. However, problem in that case is that if say fire is Dex, and magic is Pow, if I have a 20 dex and 1 pow, that is the same damage as if I have a 11 dex and 10 Pow. If I'm a fighter type, in that case, I'd probably still like the high dex/low pow - result is the same, but high dex would help me out more the rest of the time. However, that table is interesting, unfortunately it does no represent all the stats very well. Cha still has no role. One could quickly define different stats like: Strength: raw physical strength. Dex: Quickness/cat sense Con: Physical fitness/health/life force Int: Ability to think/reason - smarts Wis: Amount in touch with ones god, believe Pow: In touch with magic. Cha: ego, willpower, force of personality. With that, I would make some general changes: Magic: Pow Fire/Cold/Electricity: Dex (on idea nimbleness avoids damage). I don't really see how being smart (int) would make one take less damage Drain, Turn Undead, Fear, Death, Life Stealing: Cha - you resist the effect from happening. Acid: Probbly dex for same reason as fire. Poison: Con - healthy body less resistant. Note that some of the changes here are to give more importance to some other stats, like dex and cha. From mwedel at sonic.net Fri May 14 00:51:55 2010 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 22:51:55 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] Attributes/Stats In-Reply-To: <4BE8FC3B.20504@sonic.net> References: <4BE8FC3B.20504@sonic.net> Message-ID: <4BECE4FB.6080409@sonic.net> following up to myself. This is more some thoughts on how to handle stat points, improvements, and not as much about making all the stats useful. - Stat bonuses/penalties become linear (for example, (stat - 10)/2) instead of the exponential they are now. Depending on the stat and bonus, it could be /3, /4, etc. - Penalties are still linear, but at a higher value (10-stat). - Max stat is much higher (easy to do since bonuses are computed and not a table). - A character has no effective maximum stat through improvement (can get to 100) - rather, improving stats becomes more difficult/impossible at some point (based on total stat points) - Stat potions give the character a stat point to spend and don't increase a specific stat. Or maybe potions get removed all together. - Starting character gets 84 (or so) stat points. This allows a character to have a 12 in all 7 stats, but more likely they may do a distribution like 18, 14, 12, 10, 10, 10, 10, or maybe 18, 16, 14, 8, 8, 8, 8 (they could do 20, 20, 20, 6, 6, 6, 6, but hopefully the -4 penalties would make that too painful) - Stat bonuses for hp, sp, grace go across a larger range of levels (all 100 maybe) instead of the first 10 like it is now. ---- That covers my ideas. My thoughts on this: By reducing the stat bonuses (making them linear) and change how bonus for hp/sp/grace work, there is need to maximize the stats at first level - it means a few extra spellpoints. Right now, a 25 stat vs a 20 means 6 extra spellpoints/level, under the revised system, that might be 2 extra/level. Con actually has a greater difference - 20 con is 10 hp/level, 25 con is 20 hp/level - that really makes it so you want a really high con if you can do it, and at 5th level already amounts to 50 extra hp. Increasing the max stat is related to changing stat gain. Under current system, characters reach maximum stats for their high starting stats pretty soon, and those are probably your class stats. So they start improving the non class stats (fighters start improving pow, int, wis,etc because they have nothing else to improve). Under this system, a fighter could keep increasing his str, dex, con, etc to the end up time. So this means that level 40 fighter may have a 30 str, dex, con, but his int, wis, pow are still 8 because he is trying to be a fighter, not mage, and increasing the appropriate stats. This sort of cements him into being a fighter, which from other discussions is something we want. But at the same point, a character that is trying to be a fighter/mage (of which there are some classes like that), can do so - they have more stats to improve, so he may have 20-25 in most his stats. This means he is not as good as a fighter with 40 in the fighters key stats, and probably not as good as a straight mage, with probably 40 in his key stats, but with the bonuses more linear, is not hopeless outclassed (can still be a somewhat effective fighter or wizard) However, for that to work, he needs better control of what potions do than random luck. Because a lot of play is solo, if potions increase a specific attribute, the player will probably use it - not much else to do. Exactly how potion improvement works is a bit different discussion. One thought is a characters first 10 potions are sure to work, and potions after that have some reduced chance (maybe -10% for each potion, so potion 11 is 90%, potion 12 is 80%, etc, to a minimum chance of 20%). These numbers could be adjusted for what is considered appropriate (number of potions sure to work, reduction in probability, etc). Potions could also just go away completely, and maybe the character gets some number of stat points to spend as they advance levels, do quests, etc, which puts some effective limit on their stat total. Those are just my thoughts - it seems to fix some number of issues, but I'm sure also creates new ones. From mwedel at sonic.net Fri May 14 01:11:28 2010 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 23:11:28 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] races Message-ID: <4BECE990.8050809@sonic.net> Lost in some of the other discussion is races. For the most part, they don't need a lot of work - they give some stat bonuses and some skills, but generally not weapon skills. But one thing I was thinking about is what are appropriate races, from a game view standpoint, to make available. For example, dwarves, elves, humans, half orcs, dragons, trolls, gnomes, northmen, and wraiths are all fairly common creatures in the world that the player will meet/fighter (not half orcs directly, but orcs). However, some, like fenx, fireborn, halfling, quetzalcoatl and serpentmen are uncommon or non existent in the world/maps. The only fireborn in the world are those that are characters. Now in some cases, this may just be the fact that maps have not been created - there is no reason there couldn't be a lot of halflings about in various places - I think that is more a case of the race being added later (same for most of the other ones). But from a world perspective, it is also a bit odd. If the only fireborns in the world are floating about town, I think as a towns person I'd be a bit concerned/freaked out about that. But there are also some fairly common monsters that are not represented: beholders - way back when these were a custom addition for one server. But these are also different in various ways. devils/demon: Fairly common, but townspeople probably wouldn't like them much either. But maybe angels (something like god touched) creatures instead? pixies: fairly common, and probably a race that could exist more commonly in towns without as much concern. one could add more humanoid races (goblins, ogre, kobold), but I think as it stands now, half orc and troll pretty much cover everything (but as a townperson, I'd be concerned with trolls wandering about) Maybe add some plant/tree type creature? There are deathrees and ents in the world, so one could imagine having a tree creature. My general thought here is that it is hard to have a believable world if some of the starting races themselves don't really fit in/are not all that believable. Now I suppose in many cases it would take new players a while to realize this, but I sometimes think that many new player races/classes are added more on the idea 'this is a neat idea' vs it actually fitting into the world that much. From brenlally at gmail.com Fri May 14 11:22:26 2010 From: brenlally at gmail.com (Brendan Lally) Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 17:22:26 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] Attributes/Stats Message-ID: <20100514172226.50d3c3cb@angmar> Sorry, just noticed that my reply to this originally was sent to the wrong place.... On Wed, 12 May 2010 23:49:31 -0700 Mark Wedel wrote: > On 05/12/10 03:58 PM, Brendan Lally wrote: > > On Wed, 12 May 2010 19:11:14 +0200 > > Nicolas Weeger wrote: > > > >>> Never saw any response, but had some other musings. Changing > >>> subject to use attributes, since that is a bit less general than > >>> statistics, which can mean almost anything. > >> > >> Related, Brendan started a page at > >> http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/user:cavesomething:possible_stat_values > >> listing ideas for combat rewriting. > > > > Under the kind of idea I was describing there, then stats like Pow, > > Wis and Int could give bonuses to different resist points (including > > negative resistances). > > > > I've described that in more detail at: > > http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/user:cavesomething:resistances > > (this page is linked to from the one Nicolas referenced above) > > > > Hopefully a fighter character would think twice about putting 1 > > in INT or WIS if it guaranteed double or triple damage on almost > > every magic attack used against them. > > The one issue I sort of see with that is a lot of times > fire/electricity/cold are not magical in nature. So use int/pow/wis > for a resistance on them seems a bit misplaced. Yeah, I can see why that'd be the case, I guess really it is a question of balancing what makes sense with what makes the stats work sensibly, it might be that part of the answer to that is to alter some attack types for existing weapons/spells etc. > However, problem in that case is that if say fire is Dex, and magic > is Pow, if I have a 20 dex and 1 pow, that is the same damage as if I > have a 11 dex and 10 Pow. If I'm a fighter type, in that case, I'd > probably still like the high dex/low pow - result is the same, but > high dex would help me out more the rest of the time. Could do something like the geometric rather than arithmetic mean, in that case, the 'average' of 11 and 10 is still roughly 10 1/2, the average of 20 and 1 is 4 1/2 (substantially worse). If that isn't an extreme enough effect, could use the harmonic mean, that would really punish having uneven stats. > However, that table is interesting, unfortunately it does no > represent all the stats very well. Cha still has no role. Yeah, I don't think that's anything like a final table, and certainly don't think it's properly balanced for the attack types that are in use. Probably there needs to be some proper analysis done of the monsters currently in the game (don't know if CRE can help with that - something like total damage dealt by type for all instances of all monsters in all static maps would give a good idea of the relative importance of each attack type for the player). > With that, I would make some general changes: > Magic: Pow Or maybe separate magic attacks into arcane and divine magic, with one based on the average of Pow & Int the other Pow & Wis? (This'd require *lots* of item changes, but then so would most everything else item-related). > Fire/Cold/Electricity: Dex (on idea nimbleness avoids damage). I The reason I avoided using Dex mostly is because it is tied to the idea of armour class. The full description of how I would redefine combat is on the first wiki page linked above, but the short version is: 1) Roll an attack number (based on the object doing the attacking) and a defence number (based on armour class) 2) Consider a hit when the attack number is greater than the defence number. 3) Then damage is scaled to the ratio [attack-defence]:[resist points] Under such a setup then a high dex gives a higher armour class which should typically increase the defence roll, and reduce the number and 'strength' of the hits that are taken. (and this would be true for all attack types) Actually avoid damage from them once a hit is scored, should probably be based on another stat (otherwise Dex counts twice). > Drain, Turn Undead, Fear, Death, Life Stealing: Cha - you resist the > effect from happening. Ok, those are probably attack types where Cha could be made to matter, (although there might need to be some lore changes to justify some of those in game-terms) Brendan From brenlally at gmail.com Fri May 14 11:41:06 2010 From: brenlally at gmail.com (Brendan Lally) Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 17:41:06 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] Attributes/Stats In-Reply-To: <4BECE4FB.6080409@sonic.net> References: <4BE8FC3B.20504@sonic.net> <4BECE4FB.6080409@sonic.net> Message-ID: <20100514174106.0bde14b6@angmar> On Thu, 13 May 2010 22:51:55 -0700 Mark Wedel wrote: > Exactly how potion improvement works is a bit different > discussion. One thought is a characters first 10 potions are sure to > work, and potions after that have some reduced chance (maybe -10% for > each potion, so potion 11 is 90%, potion 12 is 80%, etc, to a minimum > chance of 20%). These numbers could be adjusted for what is > considered appropriate (number of potions sure to work, reduction in > probability, etc). Currently, improvement potions are useless once a given number have been used and level array has been met. One suggestion for how to handle improvement potions which wouldn't have that issue, is as follows: Firstly, don't roll primary stat improvements, simply generate them to always be the same, (so something like gain (Con/4) HP/level, (Pow/7)+(Int/7) SP/Level, (Wis/7)+(Pow/7) Grace/Level With plus 1 when remainder < level% (4 or 7 as appropriate)) Those figures may well need adjusting depending on how many stat points are available in practice, and it may be worth defining a starting bonus, so level 1 characters aren't extremely weak. I am thinking of two effects: Firstly, there are the h/s/g points that the player has, and the points they would have if their stats had been high all along - So for example, If I play a level 1 character with 6 Con, reach level 10, then boost up to 14 con, I would have 20 less HP than if I had started with 15 con. Improvement potions could then rectify the gap there, so boosting the primary stats as though the gain were retrospective. - This would mean that any time a player gained a stat, they would want improvement potions. At high levels, (say when a player is level 80-odd and gained a stat), they would want /lots/ of improvement potions. Secondly, at every level up, have a bonus 1 HP/SP/Grace that could be gained, store this as 'potential Max HP/SP/Grace' (probably as an extra living struct on the player) and then when an improvement potion is used, have a chance (based on how much potential has already been granted) to transfer 1 point of potential Max HP/SP/Grace into 'real' Max HP/SP/Grace. (use the current potential 'current' HP/SP/Grace figures to store the amount that was transferred)). This removes the need for the level array tracking and gives pretty well defined results for characters, there is never any need for luck in character development, and boosting Con later rather than earlier is not much worse in the long term (other than affecting how many improvement potions are needed). Brendan. From mwedel at sonic.net Fri May 14 22:06:18 2010 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 20:06:18 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] Attributes/Stats In-Reply-To: <20100514174106.0bde14b6@angmar> References: <4BE8FC3B.20504@sonic.net> <4BECE4FB.6080409@sonic.net> <20100514174106.0bde14b6@angmar> Message-ID: <4BEE0FAA.9050900@sonic.net> On 05/14/10 09:41 AM, Brendan Lally wrote: > On Thu, 13 May 2010 22:51:55 -0700 > Mark Wedel wrote: > >> Exactly how potion improvement works is a bit different >> discussion. One thought is a characters first 10 potions are sure to >> work, and potions after that have some reduced chance (maybe -10% for >> each potion, so potion 11 is 90%, potion 12 is 80%, etc, to a minimum >> chance of 20%). These numbers could be adjusted for what is >> considered appropriate (number of potions sure to work, reduction in >> probability, etc). > > Currently, improvement potions are useless once a given number have > been used and level array has been met. Note when talking about 'potion improvement', I was meaning the potions that improve stats, not those that maximize rolls for hp/sp/grace. > > One suggestion for how to handle improvement potions which wouldn't have > that issue, is as follows: > > Firstly, don't roll primary stat improvements, simply generate them to > always be the same, (so something like gain > (Con/4) HP/level, > (Pow/7)+(Int/7) SP/Level, > (Wis/7)+(Pow/7) Grace/Level > With plus 1 when remainder< level% (4 or 7 as appropriate)) > > Those figures may well need adjusting depending on how many stat points > are available in practice, and it may be worth defining a starting > bonus, so level 1 characters aren't extremely weak. Many games do in fact have fixed gains per level and not random like crossfire currently does. > > I am thinking of two effects: > > Firstly, there are the h/s/g points that the player has, and the > points they would have if their stats had been high all along > > - So for example, If I play a level 1 character with 6 Con, reach level > 10, then boost up to 14 con, I would have 20 less HP than if I had > started with 15 con. So you are talking about storing away the generated values for each level. In current crossfire method, any stat improves are retroactive. For some things, that is sort of needed. If I put on a ring of Con+2 and it doesn't get anything, its value is diminished. If all I really need to do is make sure I wear it when I'm about to level, also not what I'd really consider an improvement. All that said, I don't consider the improvement potions much an issue right now. Sure, they become useless at some point, but so does lots of other stuff. At the same time, going to fixed gains per level, and just removing improvement potions from the game wouldn't be terrible either. From mwedel at sonic.net Sat May 15 02:00:11 2010 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 00:00:11 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] Fwd: Re: Attributes/Stats Message-ID: <4BEE467B.7090808@sonic.net> Resending back on the list -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [crossfire] Attributes/Stats Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 21:07:55 -0700 From: Mark Wedel To: Brendan Lally >> The one issue I sort of see with that is a lot of times >> fire/electricity/cold are not magical in nature. So use int/pow/wis >> for a resistance on them seems a bit misplaced. > > Yeah, I can see why that'd be the case, I guess really it is a question > of balancing what makes sense with what makes the stats work sensibly, > it might be that part of the answer to that is to alter some attack > types for existing weapons/spells etc. probably - but since you are proposing redoing the attack system totally, changing other aspects is probably going to be needed in any case. > >> However, problem in that case is that if say fire is Dex, and magic >> is Pow, if I have a 20 dex and 1 pow, that is the same damage as if I >> have a 11 dex and 10 Pow. If I'm a fighter type, in that case, I'd >> probably still like the high dex/low pow - result is the same, but >> high dex would help me out more the rest of the time. > > Could do something like the geometric rather than arithmetic mean, in > that case, the 'average' of 11 and 10 is still roughly 10 1/2, the > average of 20 and 1 is 4 1/2 (substantially worse). > > If that isn't an extreme enough effect, could use the harmonic mean, > that would really punish having uneven stats. Maybe - I'm always a bit concerned about making things too complicated. I realize a geometric mean isn't all that complicated, but when you start trying to explain and document this to new players, it can start to get confusing. One thought I had, which I'll probably post in a separate message, is that penalties are greater than bonus. For example, the bonus you get would be (stat - 10) / 2. So a stat of 20 gives a 5 bonus. But penalties would be (10-stat). So a 1 stat gives a 9 penalty. In this case, your net is -4, where has having it be a 10/11 stats would be a 0. >> With that, I would make some general changes: >> Magic: Pow > > Or maybe separate magic attacks into arcane and divine magic, with one > based on the average of Pow& Int the other Pow& Wis? (This'd require > *lots* of item changes, but then so would most everything else > item-related). It is really spell changes. Right now, spells are just set to have magic as one of the attacktypes - there are a few special spells that don't. There are very few weapons that have a magic attacktype - generally not desirable. So to change it for spells would just mean replacing magic with something else. But I suppose the real question is what do you do when an attack has multiple attacktypes. The use of magic right now is not really correct - it is really there to denote it is a magical attack (it is similar to ghosthit to note that the monster dies after hitting). In a sense for magic, it doesn't make a lot of sense for an attack to just hit with magic - it almost always goes with something else. > >> Fire/Cold/Electricity: Dex (on idea nimbleness avoids damage). I > > The reason I avoided using Dex mostly is because it is tied to the idea > of armour class. > The full description of how I would redefine combat is on the first wiki > page linked above, but the short version is: > 1) Roll an attack number (based on the object doing the attacking) and a > defence number (based on armour class) > 2) Consider a hit when the attack number is greater than the defence > number. > 3) Then damage is scaled to the ratio [attack-defence]:[resist > points] > > Under such a setup then a high dex gives a higher armour class which > should typically increase the defence roll, and reduce the > number and 'strength' of the hits that are taken. (and this would be > true for all attack types) > > Actually avoid damage from them once a hit is scored, should probably > be based on another stat (otherwise Dex counts twice). Are hit rolls needed for spells? Under the current system (and most game systems), spells just hit - if you are in the effect, you take damage. This works under the current system pretty well, since in general mages will not have very good chances to hit, but because spells always hit, not a problem. And one could argue that it is hard to miss with a fireball that fills an entire room. This actually splits damage into a couple cases then - that from melee attacks (flaming sword), where dex would help, and that from area of effect attacks (dragon breath), which dex doesn't make a difference. I'm not actually sure in many cases if having stats give bonuses to defenses make sense. Dex improving ac, but no stat would really make you more resistant to fire - the best you can do is avoid it in the first place, or be smart enough to wear items that protect you. If one looks at the AD&D model, it basically works something like: - For melee attacks or some other attacks, a hit roll is needed. If the hit happens, character takes full damage from hit. - If it is an area of effect, character is hit automatically, but character gets a saving through to reduce damage. Under that system, dex plays a role in each one - in the first case, improves AC, in the second case, improves the saving throw. Crossfire doesn't really have saving throws however. > >> Drain, Turn Undead, Fear, Death, Life Stealing: Cha - you resist the >> effect from happening. > > Ok, those are probably attack types where Cha could be made to matter, > (although there might need to be some lore changes to justify some > of those in game-terms) Certainly - but you are talking lots of changes. It is interesting to note that AD&Dv3 uses charisma for a clerics ability to turn undead. I'm not trying to suggest that crossfire turn into an AD&D implementation, but a lot of it seemed based on it in various ways, like the original 6 stats matched the 6 stats from AD&D. From mwedel at sonic.net Sat May 15 02:13:51 2010 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 00:13:51 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] Attributes/Stats In-Reply-To: <20100514172242.08ff7fec@angmar> References: <4BE8FC3B.20504@sonic.net> <201005121911.17905.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <20100512235834.37b04e08@angmar> <4BEBA0FB.1080709@sonic.net> <20100513140428.57131e5e@angmar> <4BECCC9B.8050307@sonic.net> <20100514172242.08ff7fec@angmar> Message-ID: <4BEE49AF.6040006@sonic.net> On 05/14/10 09:22 AM, Brendan Lally wrote: > On Thu, 13 May 2010 21:07:55 -0700 > Mark Wedel wrote: > >>> >>>> However, problem in that case is that if say fire is Dex, and >>>> magic is Pow, if I have a 20 dex and 1 pow, that is the same >>>> damage as if I have a 11 dex and 10 Pow. If I'm a fighter type, >>>> in that case, I'd probably still like the high dex/low pow - >>>> result is the same, but high dex would help me out more the rest >>>> of the time. >>> >>> Could do something like the geometric rather than arithmetic mean, >>> in that case, the 'average' of 11 and 10 is still roughly 10 1/2, >>> the average of 20 and 1 is 4 1/2 (substantially worse). >>> >>> If that isn't an extreme enough effect, could use the harmonic mean, >>> that would really punish having uneven stats. >> >> Maybe - I'm always a bit concerned about making things too >> complicated. I realize a geometric mean isn't all that complicated, >> but when you start trying to explain and document this to new >> players, it can start to get confusing. >> >> One thought I had, which I'll probably post in a separate message, >> is that penalties are greater than bonus. > > Ok, I like that approach, it's fairly simple and obvious. > >> >>>> With that, I would make some general changes: >>>> Magic: Pow >>> >>> Or maybe separate magic attacks into arcane and divine magic, with >>> one based on the average of Pow& Int the other Pow& Wis? (This'd >>> require *lots* of item changes, but then so would most everything >>> else item-related). >> >> It is really spell changes. Right now, spells are just set to have >> magic as one of the attacktypes - there are a few special spells that >> don't. >> >> There are very few weapons that have a magic attacktype - generally >> not desirable. > > Aren't they mostly weaponmagic instead? There used to be a few artifact weapons that just used magic - they were specially designed for that. > >> So to change it for spells would just mean replacing magic with >> something else. >> >> But I suppose the real question is what do you do when an attack >> has multiple attacktypes. The use of magic right now is not really >> correct - it is really there to denote it is a magical attack (it is >> similar to ghosthit to note that the monster dies after hitting). In >> a sense for magic, it doesn't make a lot of sense for an attack to >> just hit with magic - it almost always goes with something else. > > I think there are probably 3 different cases here: > > * an attack is magical, and causes damage through magic (things like > cause wounds-type spells tend to be in that category) > * an attack is magical, but clearly causes damage in some other way > (things like fireballs) > * an attack is magical, but causes damage through some hybrid of magic > and another effect (I guess comet might fall into that category, if it > is a magical comet rather than just a big lump of rock) > > At the moment, everything assumes the third approach, even when it > doesn't make sense. > > One way around this might be to separate attack types from damage - so > if you strike with a magical sword, it is going to hit because it is > magical, so hard to avoid, but will actually do physical* damage. To some extent, the attacktype flag should go away, and the discrete damage types used instead. Thus, in the cases you dictate, one could clearly see how the damage is happending. In first case, cause wounds, it may be something like 'dam_magic 15'. In the second case, it may be something like 'dam_fire 15', but some attribute to note that magic is involved. For the third case, there is nothing that says you could do 'dam_fire 10; dam_magic 10' The entire special handling of magic could perhaps be removed. The idea probably goes back to AD&D where creatures had magic resistance - for such creatures, a fireball (magic + fire) wouldn't harm them, but something like flaming oil (just fire) would. There is no reason crossfire has to follow that same logic. And the fact that there are certain spells that do not hit with magic is questionable - the main purpose of those spells was to basically be able to hit creatures otherwise immune to magic. weaponmagic is a similar case - it follows the AD&D of 'need a magical weapon to hit'. But the problem is that things like armor should still count, but typically don't. And the fact that crossfire has armor that reduces damage is something that AD&D doesn't have, so some of the assumptions crossfire uses may not be really well grounded. > > * would be more interesting to say 'slicing' as distinct from crushing, > or piercing damage - would allow more choices for armour, weapons etc. Yes - one can look at the AD&D example where skeletons take full damage from blunt, but 1 point from piercing and half damage from slashing. I wouldn't want to put in too many different types of physical attacktypes, but it would add some interest - reason to perhaps have a few different weapons. > >> Certainly - but you are talking lots of changes. It is interesting >> to note that AD&Dv3 uses charisma for a clerics ability to turn >> undead. >> >> I'm not trying to suggest that crossfire turn into an AD&D >> implementation, but a lot of it seemed based on it in various ways, >> like the original 6 stats matched the 6 stats from AD&D. >> > > I'm yet to see any RPG anywhere that both has stats and isn't in some > way inspired by/based on D&D, this is more due to the scale of it's > influence than anything else. > > OTOH, there are elements modern D&D has that CF doesn't, things > like attacks of opportunity spring to mind, I'm not certain what would > be listed on the other side there, I've not really played D&D since > they got rid of THAC0 The removal of of THAC0 (so higher value for ac and hit rolls (wc in crossfires case)) makes a lot of sense. I'd say a lot of crossfire is based more on AD&Dv1 or v2 than v3, which came out long after crossfire had been around. And what works for a table top game is often different in a real time game. A big difference between crossfire and AD&D is the resistance system crossfire has - armor reduces damage by some percentage, and same for things like fire. In AD&D, armor just makes you harder to hit, and resistance system is a bit different. From kbulgrien at worldnet.att.net Sat May 15 23:02:41 2010 From: kbulgrien at worldnet.att.net (Kevin R. Bulgrien) Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 23:02:41 -0500 Subject: [crossfire] CRE (no luck building successfully) Message-ID: <201005152302.41317.kbulgrien@worldnet.att.net> Having never built cre before, I gave it a try tonight because I saw some advance made in quest support. I had some trouble with the README instructions to just qmake && make as I have a KDE 3 system. The project will not build with Qt 3, so I added that pithy detail to the README. After getting Qt 4, the project builds, but get: $ ./cre Aborted $ If I run it out of GDB, the back trace is: (gdb) bt #0 0x00007f7a54a48955 in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #1 0x00007f7a54a4a183 in abort () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #2 0x000000000045a506 in init_dynamic () at init.c:405 #3 0x0000000000459d59 in init_library () at init.c:216 #4 0x000000000040d05c in main (argc=1, argv=0x7fff5ec84d18) at cre.cpp:31 I have no idea where to go from here. Hints? Kevin From mwedel at sonic.net Sat May 15 23:28:14 2010 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 21:28:14 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] CRE (no luck building successfully) In-Reply-To: <201005152302.41317.kbulgrien@worldnet.att.net> References: <201005152302.41317.kbulgrien@worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <4BEF745E.6040101@sonic.net> On 05/15/10 09:02 PM, Kevin R. Bulgrien wrote: > Having never built cre before, I gave it a try tonight because I saw some > advance made in quest support. > > I had some trouble with the README instructions to just qmake&& make as > I have a KDE 3 system. The project will not build with Qt 3, so I added > that pithy detail to the README. > > After getting Qt 4, the project builds, but get: > > $ ./cre > Aborted > $ > > If I run it out of GDB, the back trace is: > > (gdb) bt > #0 0x00007f7a54a48955 in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6 > #1 0x00007f7a54a4a183 in abort () from /lib64/libc.so.6 > #2 0x000000000045a506 in init_dynamic () at init.c:405 > #3 0x0000000000459d59 in init_library () at init.c:216 > #4 0x000000000040d05c in main (argc=1, argv=0x7fff5ec84d18) at cre.cpp:31 > > I have no idea where to go from here. Hints? I had a similar stack trace/core dump when the binary version of qt did not match crossfire (eg, 32 bit qt with 64 bit compiled crossfire or vice versa) I was a bit surprised that qt didn't complain at some point about the library not matching - for most things it will. I don't know if that will help you at all or not, just passing on my experience. From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Sun May 16 02:33:14 2010 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 09:33:14 +0200 Subject: [crossfire] CRE (no luck building successfully) In-Reply-To: <201005152302.41317.kbulgrien@worldnet.att.net> References: <201005152302.41317.kbulgrien@worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <201005160933.17800.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Hello. > I had some trouble with the README instructions to just qmake && make as > I have a KDE 3 system. The project will not build with Qt 3, so I added > that pithy detail to the README. Indeed, I should have mentioned that earlier, sorry. > After getting Qt 4, the project builds, but get: > > $ ./cre > Aborted > $ > > If I run it out of GDB, the back trace is: The precise section is: LOG(llevError, "Initial map %s can't be found! Please ensure maps are correctly installed.\n", first_map_path); LOG(llevError, "Unable to continue without initial map. \n"); abort(); So there is an issue with the installation or the build :) To correctly use CRE, you need to build it from a correctly ./configure'd and installed Crossfire server source, with the correct --prefix line, the same as used for installation. As a quick check, if you can run the server built from those sources, it should be ok. CRE uses the same installed files than the server itself. Note that at first run it will ask for a cache directory that you must choose to be able to use it, then it will parse the maps to collect archetype use, exits relationships and various information. Parsing is done in the background, and you can close the application during that - though it may lag a few seconds while saving data collected up to this point. Hope this helps. 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20100516/698892d4/attachment.pgp From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Sun May 16 02:40:43 2010 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 09:40:43 +0200 Subject: [crossfire] Attributes/Stats In-Reply-To: <4BEBA0FB.1080709@sonic.net> References: <4BE8FC3B.20504@sonic.net> <20100512235834.37b04e08@angmar> <4BEBA0FB.1080709@sonic.net> Message-ID: <201005160940.43800.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> > The one issue I sort of see with that is a lot of times > fire/electricity/cold are not magical in nature. So use int/pow/wis for a > resistance on them seems a bit misplaced. > > If I step into a lava pool, it is not magic. Now pow itself being used > for magic makes sense (it is in a sense how in tune you are with the > magic, so if you're really in tune, should take less damage). And lots of > attacktypes are magic + something, so in those cases, taking the magic or > fire (and maybe averaging them) could make sense. Again, you could argue that if you're really tuned to magic, you can maintain a protection field that slightly reduces damage :) > However, problem in that case is that if say fire is Dex, and magic is > Pow, if I have a 20 dex and 1 pow, that is the same damage as if I have a > 11 dex and 10 Pow. If I'm a fighter type, in that case, I'd probably > still like the high dex/low pow - result is the same, but high dex would > help me out more the rest of the time. > > However, that table is interesting, unfortunately it does no represent > all the stats very well. Cha still has no role. > > One could quickly define different stats like: > Strength: raw physical strength. > Dex: Quickness/cat sense > Con: Physical fitness/health/life force > Int: Ability to think/reason - smarts > Wis: Amount in touch with ones god, believe > Pow: In touch with magic. > Cha: ego, willpower, force of personality. Then Cha could be used to resist various things? Like resist paralyze? Or poison ("you concentrate to not be too affected by the poison running in your blood). > With that, I would make some general changes: > Magic: Pow > Fire/Cold/Electricity: Dex (on idea nimbleness avoids damage). I don't > really see how being smart (int) would make one take less damage > Drain, Turn Undead, Fear, Death, Life Stealing: Cha - you resist the effect > from happening. > Acid: Probbly dex for same reason as fire. > Poison: Con - healthy body less resistant. > > Note that some of the changes here are to give more importance to some > other stats, like dex and cha. I'd also tie Cha to NPC interaction, maybe a higher role than other stats. That would be a way to penalise chars with low Cha. 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20100516/856e1b78/attachment.pgp From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Sun May 16 02:45:46 2010 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 09:45:46 +0200 Subject: [crossfire] Attributes/Stats In-Reply-To: <4BEB9CF7.6080103@sonic.net> References: <4BE8FC3B.20504@sonic.net> <201005121911.17905.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4BEB9CF7.6080103@sonic.net> Message-ID: <201005160945.46558.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> > AD&Dv3 fixed a some of that by adding a bunch of minor skills, which get > base bonus from those stats. So a low int means few skill points, and any > int based skills have a penalty. Wis is used for some saving throws, so > penalty there is bad. Cha is really only used for some skills. > > That doesn't quite work in crossfire, but one thought I had is to give > fighters some abilities (really just like spells) that need grace/sp. > > This goes with giving special abilities at certain levels for skills. > But imagine that for fighters, at 5th level of swordmanship, they get > something like 'holy weapon', which gives them a holy attacktype + slaying > of their gods enemy. However, to use that ability needs 25 grace. Yes, skills that improve the attack or defense in some way, and use up spell points, or grace points. Note that grace could probably be changed a lot. Right now it's really easy to gain your points back, just praying - which you can do any time. It could be interesting to change praying and meditation to require you to for instance not have been hit for 10s - arguably, if you're in the middle of a battle, you're in no condition to concentrate! > A character with average stats (no penalties, no bonuses) would have 25 > grace, and perhaps a bit more. But if a character had put 1 in wis and > pow, his grace is probably going to be <5, so won't be able to use that > nice ability. > > Could also have things like 'flaming sword' which use mana instead. Yes, or spell points for each hit, things like that. Or hp improving spells - drain 2sp per second to get a 10% hp raise. > I'm not sure how to do that, but certain other skills could be affected. > For example, I believe it is either Wis or Int which changes odds for > finding traps for search. The problem right now is that you just search > the door/chest 10 times, and just by random rolls, if you have a chance of > finding the trap, you probably will. But would be better to somehow limit > that, so if you have a bad Int, you won't find the trap and you can't > search 10 times until you do. Sounds ok. > Another thought is to add stat requirements to use items. > For example, you need a 10 pow to use a wand or rod. > You need a 15 pow to use a scroll Yes. Or there could be a penalty for using a 15 pow scroll with only 5, reduced damage, chance of backfire, and such. > So once again, not a requirement for fighters to have a 10 pow, but not > being able to use wands at all could be pretty annoying. > > Conversely, one could add strength requirements for certain items, eg, need > strength 25 to wield boncrusher, strength 15 to wear plate armor, etc. That definitely makes sense. > I know there has been talk in the past about reputation/fame type of > idea. That could also play in with Cha - it acts as a modifier to that. > If you are moderately famous but still annoying (low Cha), folks still > don't want to talk to you. Yes. > The shop pricing is a bit harsh - that should probably be smoothed out - > maybe at worst, you pay triple the best price you can ever get. And maybe > it should really only affect selling of items, and not buying - after all, > little enough stuff is bought from shops, the shopkeepers should be happy > to find one that actually wants to buy something. Agreed for price fixing. > There should probably be some skill to get certain NPC's to do something > for you (for example, convince the gatehouse guards to open the gate for > you, even if you don't know the password). Things like that would require > map changes, but if done consistently and often enough, could make a high > charisma useful. Since there's work on questification, that's the right time to look and change those maps :) > The counter to that could be that with a really bad charisma, the guards > won't open the gates even if you do know the password, and only way > through is with the gatepass. Good idea :) 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20100516/2d6377c9/attachment.pgp From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Sun May 16 02:51:12 2010 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 09:51:12 +0200 Subject: [crossfire] Attributes/Stats In-Reply-To: <4BECE4FB.6080409@sonic.net> References: <4BE8FC3B.20504@sonic.net> <4BECE4FB.6080409@sonic.net> Message-ID: <201005160951.12808.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> > - A character has no effective maximum stat through improvement (can get to > 100) - rather, improving stats becomes more difficult/impossible at some > point (based on total stat points) Or less interesting. > - Stat potions give the character a stat point to spend and don't increase > a specific stat. Or maybe potions get removed all together. Removing them seems ok. Or they are at the end of a perillous quest, something like that ;) Another option is to improve stats as you use an associated skill. For instance, if you fight a lot of tough opponents, you could gain one point in dex. > Increasing the max stat is related to changing stat gain. Under current > system, characters reach maximum stats for their high starting stats > pretty soon, and those are probably your class stats. So they start > improving the non class stats (fighters start improving pow, int, wis,etc > because they have nothing else to improve). Under this system, a fighter > could keep increasing his str, dex, con, etc to the end up time. So this > means that level 40 fighter may have a 30 str, dex, con, but his int, wis, > pow are still 8 because he is trying to be a fighter, not mage, and > increasing the appropriate stats. I'd also link stats total to global level. After all both depend on your (life) experience, so how could you be high Int if you just came in the world? Something like no more 5 stats improvement per level, or such. > Exactly how potion improvement works is a bit different discussion. One > thought is a characters first 10 potions are sure to work, and potions > after that have some reduced chance (maybe -10% for each potion, so potion > 11 is 90%, potion 12 is 80%, etc, to a minimum chance of 20%). These > numbers could be adjusted for what is considered appropriate (number of > potions sure to work, reduction in probability, etc). Considering the current potion abundance, 20% is still too high :) > Potions could also just go away completely, and maybe the character gets > some number of stat points to spend as they advance levels, do quests, > etc, which puts some effective limit on their stat total. Yep, sounds good too. Maybe a mix of both - potions can help some, like 2 points per level, the rest is based on quests. One point not totally related to this thread, but to keep in mind: gaining stats points or equipment or levels or such should probably by a result of playing quests, not grinding over and over. If you play the quests, you "naturally" level up and gain equipment, no grinding required unless you want the ultimate items. 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20100516/29c6d380/attachment.pgp From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Sun May 16 02:53:45 2010 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 09:53:45 +0200 Subject: [crossfire] Attributes/Stats In-Reply-To: <4BEE49AF.6040006@sonic.net> References: <4BE8FC3B.20504@sonic.net> <20100514172242.08ff7fec@angmar> <4BEE49AF.6040006@sonic.net> Message-ID: <201005160953.45496.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> > The removal of of THAC0 (so higher value for ac and hit rolls (wc in > crossfires case)) makes a lot of sense. > > I'd say a lot of crossfire is based more on AD&Dv1 or v2 than v3, which > came out long after crossfire had been around. And what works for a table > top game is often different in a real time game. > > A big difference between crossfire and AD&D is the resistance system > crossfire has - armor reduces damage by some percentage, and same for > things like fire. In AD&D, armor just makes you harder to hit, and > resistance system is a bit different. I'd say it doesn't matter where we get inspiration, as long as the result is fun :) 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20100516/edfe02b5/attachment.pgp From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Sun May 16 02:58:34 2010 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 09:58:34 +0200 Subject: [crossfire] races In-Reply-To: <4BECE990.8050809@sonic.net> References: <4BECE990.8050809@sonic.net> Message-ID: <201005160958.35202.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> > But one thing I was thinking about is what are appropriate races, from a > game view standpoint, to make available. > > For example, dwarves, elves, humans, half orcs, dragons, trolls, gnomes, > northmen, and wraiths are all fairly common creatures in the world that the > player will meet/fighter (not half orcs directly, but orcs). > > However, some, like fenx, fireborn, halfling, quetzalcoatl and serpentmen > are uncommon or non existent in the world/maps. The only fireborn in the > world are those that are characters. > > Now in some cases, this may just be the fact that maps have not been > created - there is no reason there couldn't be a lot of halflings about in > various places - I think that is more a case of the race being added later > (same for most of the other ones). > > But from a world perspective, it is also a bit odd. If the only > fireborns in the world are floating about town, I think as a towns person > I'd be a bit concerned/freaked out about that. Or there could be some bonuses for that. A Fenx would draw attention, and get more hints of quests than a human. Or things like that. > But there are also some fairly common monsters that are not represented: > > beholders - way back when these were a custom addition for one server. But > these are also different in various ways. > > devils/demon: Fairly common, but townspeople probably wouldn't like them > much either. But maybe angels (something like god touched) creatures > instead? Considering the Crossfire pantheon, angels aren't better than devils here :) So both would be ok. > pixies: fairly common, and probably a race that could exist more commonly > in towns without as much concern. > > one could add more humanoid races (goblins, ogre, kobold), but I think as > it stands now, half orc and troll pretty much cover everything (but as a > townperson, I'd be concerned with trolls wandering about) It really depends on the world history. If for centuries goblins lived in Scorn, then no issue. Side proposal: race could change your starting town. Also, some towns could be more used to various races. > Maybe add some plant/tree type creature? There are deathrees and ents in > the world, so one could imagine having a tree creature. Could be fun, and add specific attacks. As a plant-like being, you can use tentacles to slow down your opponent. On the other hand, you are really vulnerable to fire. > My general thought here is that it is hard to have a believable world if > some of the starting races themselves don't really fit in/are not all that > believable. Now I suppose in many cases it would take new players a while > to realize this, but I sometimes think that many new player races/classes > are added more on the idea 'this is a neat idea' vs it actually fitting > into the world that much. That could be said of so many things it isn't fun :) Most artifacts, map rewards or map themselves are put just because, not integrating in a grand schema of things. But that can be fixed, of course ;) 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20100516/432b168c/attachment.pgp From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Sun May 16 05:08:14 2010 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 12:08:14 +0200 Subject: [crossfire] Monster dump Message-ID: <201005161208.18312.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Hello. I've put a dump of monsters at http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/monster_dump Opinion: too many low level monsters, not enough middle ones :) Also, some have ridiculous wc, -100 - almost unable to hit them, and if they have hp regeneration, game over :) 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20100516/e5f721d5/attachment.pgp From mwedel at sonic.net Sun May 16 22:34:07 2010 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 20:34:07 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] Attributes/Stats In-Reply-To: <201005160940.43800.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> References: <4BE8FC3B.20504@sonic.net> <20100512235834.37b04e08@angmar> <4BEBA0FB.1080709@sonic.net> <201005160940.43800.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Message-ID: <4BF0B92F.5080407@sonic.net> (I'm probably going to screw up threading somewhat, but responding to multiple messages from Nicolas in this one reply) On 05/16/10 12:40 AM, Nicolas Weeger wrote: >> One could quickly define different stats like: >> Strength: raw physical strength. >> Dex: Quickness/cat sense >> Con: Physical fitness/health/life force >> Int: Ability to think/reason - smarts >> Wis: Amount in touch with ones god, believe >> Pow: In touch with magic. >> Cha: ego, willpower, force of personality. > > Then Cha could be used to resist various things? > Like resist paralyze? Or poison ("you concentrate to not be too affected by the > poison running in your blood). That was my thought - make Cha relevant for some things, like paralyze, slow. I'm not sure about poison (if you are poisoned and it is interfering with the body functions, not sure what willpower could do). However, one could also add some new abilities - for example a beserk type attack mode (faster, do more damage, etc), but duration is based on Cha or something - basically the idea is that you are pushing your body (or mind for perhaps some spell related ones) beyond the point where most people would just quit. >> > - Stat potions give the character a stat point to spend and don't increase >> > a specific stat. Or maybe potions get removed all together. > Removing them seems ok. Or they are at the end of a perillous quest, something > like that ;) > > Another option is to improve stats as you use an associated skill. > For instance, if you fight a lot of tough opponents, you could gain one point > in dex. That was sort of related to my idea in the skills discussion that character get certain bonuses to their attributes at certain levels. It is really a semantic difference between the skill giving a +1 to dex, or giving the character a real stat increase. Also possible that maybe grant stat point in associated skills - eg, for combat, could be str, dex, con attributes (player choice), and for magic is is pow, int, ws, etc. > > >> > Increasing the max stat is related to changing stat gain. Under current >> > system, characters reach maximum stats for their high starting stats >> > pretty soon, and those are probably your class stats. So they start >> > improving the non class stats (fighters start improving pow, int, wis,etc >> > because they have nothing else to improve). Under this system, a fighter >> > could keep increasing his str, dex, con, etc to the end up time. So this >> > means that level 40 fighter may have a 30 str, dex, con, but his int, wis, >> > pow are still 8 because he is trying to be a fighter, not mage, and >> > increasing the appropriate stats. > I'd also link stats total to global level. > After all both depend on your (life) experience, so how could you be high Int > if you just came in the world? > Something like no more 5 stats improvement per level, or such. That makes a lot of sense - it also means a high level character can't give a new character a pile of potions to get 30 stats. >> > Exactly how potion improvement works is a bit different discussion. One >> > thought is a characters first 10 potions are sure to work, and potions >> > after that have some reduced chance (maybe -10% for each potion, so potion >> > 11 is 90%, potion 12 is 80%, etc, to a minimum chance of 20%). These >> > numbers could be adjusted for what is considered appropriate (number of >> > potions sure to work, reduction in probability, etc). > Considering the current potion abundance, 20% is still too high :) It would probably be nice for stat potions to be very rare - they are hardly common now (IMO), but I think some of the issue is that at some point, players don't have a lot of use for them (stats are maxed), so they just get piled up. I wonder if there was always potential for characters to improve their stats if that would effectively reduce the seemingly high numbers of them. It's a tricky balancing point - if the percent was 1% of it working, then folks probably wouldn't take those odds. But I think the real fix is to reduce the frequency - make them really rare. Or maybe do something like potions of life - have different level versions? So you have a less stat improvement potion, that works for the first 10 improvements, a moderate one for the first 20, etc, with the top one (unlimited stats) being incredibly rare? In this way, low level characters can fix any deficiencies/mistakes when they made their character, but it just gets harder and harder to get really high stats. > One point not totally related to this thread, but to keep in mind: gaining > stats points or equipment or levels or such should probably by a result of > playing quests, not grinding over and over. > If you play the quests, you "naturally" level up and gain equipment, no > grinding required unless you want the ultimate items. While I'm not a fan of grinding, if players want to do it, I don't have issues with it. However, I think there is a somewhat fine line there - hopping around the world to do all the quests and get cool rewards is really just a different form of grinding - sure, the player is not hitting the same map over and over. I also note that grinding, going deep into random dungeons, or other non general quest stuff really needs to be part of crossfire, and there should be some rewards for it. Simply put, I'm not sure if we could keep making enough quests with custom rewards to satisfy demand. So I wouldn't want every good item to be a quest reward - some might just be things you find in random treasure - it might be incredibly rare, and it should be core to the game, but if a player really wants it, he doesn't have a lot of choice but to basically grind. >> > That doesn't quite work in crossfire, but one thought I had is to give >> > fighters some abilities (really just like spells) that need grace/sp. >> > >> > This goes with giving special abilities at certain levels for skills. >> > But imagine that for fighters, at 5th level of swordmanship, they get >> > something like 'holy weapon', which gives them a holy attacktype + slaying >> > of their gods enemy. However, to use that ability needs 25 grace. > Yes, skills that improve the attack or defense in some way, and use up spell > points, or grace points. > > Note that grace could probably be changed a lot. Right now it's really easy to > gain your points back, just praying - which you can do any time. > It could be interesting to change praying and meditation to require you to for > instance not have been hit for 10s - arguably, if you're in the middle of a > battle, you're in no condition to concentrate! Yes, grace could probably get redone in many ways - a bit different discussion. The way to regain it, ability to go negative grace, etc. >> > A character with average stats (no penalties, no bonuses) would have 25 >> > grace, and perhaps a bit more. But if a character had put 1 in wis and >> > pow, his grace is probably going to be <5, so won't be able to use that >> > nice ability. >> > >> > Could also have things like 'flaming sword' which use mana instead. > Yes, or spell points for each hit, things like that. > Or hp improving spells - drain 2sp per second to get a 10% hp raise. Yep - there are lots of different possibilities here - if we go this method, it will be an exercise to come up with all these different abilities >> > Another thought is to add stat requirements to use items. >> > For example, you need a 10 pow to use a wand or rod. >> > You need a 15 pow to use a scroll > Yes. > Or there could be a penalty for using a 15 pow scroll with only 5, reduced > damage, chance of backfire, and such. Yes - I suppose effect of trying to use an item with lack of ability could depend on the item itself (maybe for weapons, it is reduced damage, etc) From mwedel at sonic.net Sun May 16 22:55:12 2010 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 20:55:12 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] races In-Reply-To: <201005160958.35202.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> References: <4BECE990.8050809@sonic.net> <201005160958.35202.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Message-ID: <4BF0BE20.5020502@sonic.net> On 05/16/10 12:58 AM, Nicolas Weeger wrote: >> But one thing I was thinking about is what are appropriate races, from a >> game view standpoint, to make available. >> >> For example, dwarves, elves, humans, half orcs, dragons, trolls, gnomes, >> northmen, and wraiths are all fairly common creatures in the world that the >> player will meet/fighter (not half orcs directly, but orcs). >> >> However, some, like fenx, fireborn, halfling, quetzalcoatl and serpentmen >> are uncommon or non existent in the world/maps. The only fireborn in the >> world are those that are characters. >> >> Now in some cases, this may just be the fact that maps have not been >> created - there is no reason there couldn't be a lot of halflings about in >> various places - I think that is more a case of the race being added later >> (same for most of the other ones). >> >> But from a world perspective, it is also a bit odd. If the only >> fireborns in the world are floating about town, I think as a towns person >> I'd be a bit concerned/freaked out about that. > > Or there could be some bonuses for that. > A Fenx would draw attention, and get more hints of quests than a human. > Or things like that. Maybe - certainly the quest giver may vary information based on how he likes other races. >> But there are also some fairly common monsters that are not represented: >> >> beholders - way back when these were a custom addition for one server. But >> these are also different in various ways. >> >> devils/demon: Fairly common, but townspeople probably wouldn't like them >> much either. But maybe angels (something like god touched) creatures >> instead? > > Considering the Crossfire pantheon, angels aren't better than devils here :) > So both would be ok. True, but probably the two would be a bit too similar to have both (just like northman + human, while there are some differences, are probably too similar to really warrant them). >> pixies: fairly common, and probably a race that could exist more commonly >> in towns without as much concern. >> >> one could add more humanoid races (goblins, ogre, kobold), but I think as >> it stands now, half orc and troll pretty much cover everything (but as a >> townperson, I'd be concerned with trolls wandering about) > > It really depends on the world history. If for centuries goblins lived in > Scorn, then no issue. > > Side proposal: race could change your starting town. Also, some towns could be > more used to various races. Yes - it would be nice to have towns for the different races (a dwarven town in the underworld, elf town in the forest, etc). It adds a bit more believability to the world. The only hard part here is that this is now a lot more towns that need some set of starting quests/maps. I also think that there at least needs to be an option for different races to start in the same town, even if it is not their native town. For example, if a friend and I decide to play and make new characters, and he plays a dwarf and I play an elf, it would still be nice for us to be in the same starting place so we can play together. > > > >> Maybe add some plant/tree type creature? There are deathrees and ents in >> the world, so one could imagine having a tree creature. > > Could be fun, and add specific attacks. > As a plant-like being, you can use tentacles to slow down your opponent. On > the other hand, you are really vulnerable to fire. And probably denied fire spells. Figuring out what items a tree could use would also be interesting. > > >> My general thought here is that it is hard to have a believable world if >> some of the starting races themselves don't really fit in/are not all that >> believable. Now I suppose in many cases it would take new players a while >> to realize this, but I sometimes think that many new player races/classes >> are added more on the idea 'this is a neat idea' vs it actually fitting >> into the world that much. > > > That could be said of so many things it isn't fun :) > Most artifacts, map rewards or map themselves are put just because, not > integrating in a grand schema of things. > But that can be fixed, of course ;) There are lots of things done in the past which we would not consider good now (lots of old maps are not good maps). My general thoughts/rules for player races: - The race should be fairly different from other races (so race X isn't just like race Y) - Race needs to be balanced. A lot of this depends on other efforts to balance things, but in many cases it is too easy to just take a look at stat adjustments and resistances and say 'they balance out', ignoring fact some stats/resistances are more important than others. - The race should be on that already exists in crossfire but as a non player race (or something close, like half orc is a combo of orc & human). The first instance of the race showing up should not be race for players. Now for that last point, it may just mean that some map updates are needed. For example, for fireborns, maybe it means adding a small town/collection of fireborns at the bottom of a volcano. Put a small/hard to find village of fenx in the great forest, etc. Just add a little more background/believability to them. From mwedel at sonic.net Thu May 20 01:26:06 2010 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 23:26:06 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] Attacktypes Message-ID: <4BF4D5FE.4010108@sonic.net> I was thinking over attacktypes some, and while I do not have any plans to work on this, thought I'd at least record these thoughts before I forget :) The general basis here is to make attacktypes that are somewhat balanced, that will be used by both players and monsters, that are used somewhat frequently (an attacktype that only 2 monsters use isn't all that interesting) and are not really annoying. Some was to also clean up some of the attacktypes. I'm only going to include attacktypes which I think need changing. Confusion: Problem with this attacktype is that you don't want to use it on monsters, because it makes them move in random ways, making them _harder_ to kill. If a player gets hit with it, same thing happens, but player can generally eliminate the effects with spell, scroll or potion. My thought for this one is to change it so that confused creatures can not do actions that require thought, eg, cast spells, use scrolls (and maybe wands) - this makes it less powerful than now, but does make this a bit of a counter for mages. Fear: Not as bad as confusion, but it makes monsters run away, which makes them harder to chase down and kill. As a player, fairly annoying in that it takes the control of the character away from the player (character will move for X time running away). Thought here is to change it so recipient suffers AC/WC penalties (eg, easier to hit feared creature, and harder for feared creature to hit you). This is sort of the counter for fighters, so something that does fear + confusion would counter most classes. Paralyzation: Problem is if characters get affected, they just have to hope they survive - there is nothing they can do until it runs out. The result of this is that most characters will have a immunity to paralyzation item, which sort of makes this attacktype meaningless. I don't have a good solution hear, but given how little this is used, it could probably just get removed all together. Drain: Like paralyzation, more annoying - once you are hit and lose exp, other than killing stuff, no way to get it back, so once again, most characters just get some immunity item. Players having drain attacks are not that useful, because the character will get the exp if they kill the creature - only real use is against other players. Thought here is to perhaps merge it/replace it with life stealing, so that drain also drains sp and grace. This makes it a fairly nasty attack if you are losing hp/sp/grace while fighting a creature, but not so nasty that immunity items need to exist. Poison: While good now, this could be extended in many ways. AD&Dv3 made an interesting change in that most poisons don't do hp damage, but instead damage stats for a while. So in crossfire, one could have poisons that drain con by 5 points until cured, or drain pow by 10 points, etc. Makes poisons fairly nasty, and fact that there are multiple poisons makes things more interesting. I think one way to do this is that items with a poison attacktype also have an inventory of the poison they do. This then means that for characters, you could have bottles of poison about you could apply to your sword (sword gets additional poison attacktype, and poison effect is moved from bottle inventory to sword inventory) - when you hit, the code finds the poison in the inventory of the sword, and removes it, and there is some mechanism which says how many doses/what chance of poison wearing off the blade is. Ghosthit: Should be removed, replaced by revised drain/life stealing, and a flag added to note creature only survives some number of hits. Turn undead: Should perhaps get renamed since I think this operates on the gods enemies, and not just undead. Depletion: no real problems, just not anything all that terrible either. You may fight some creatures that has it, realize a few stats are depleted and go get a potion of life. Probably more interesting to replace creatures that use this with life stealing/revised dragin. Death: Generally not useful, should probably get removed (not used many places) - the all or nothing death approach just doesn't work very well in a game like crossfire. Chaos: Not really an attacktype - this is just a special attacktype which then hits with a random elemental attacktype. Cancellation - maybe gets removed - this non hp damaging attacktype just removes +magic from items, but is not used much. counterspell: another one that does no damage, and probably should not be an attacktype- IIRC what this is really used for is that if a spell hits a space with this attacktype, the spell doesn't go any further. Than in itself is a neat feature, but using an attacktype probably is not the right approach. Blind: with fog of war, I'm not sure how relevant this really is, plus it seems to be used in very few places/monsters. From mwedel at sonic.net Sat May 22 02:40:48 2010 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 00:40:48 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] races In-Reply-To: <4BF0BE20.5020502@sonic.net> References: <4BECE990.8050809@sonic.net> <201005160958.35202.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4BF0BE20.5020502@sonic.net> Message-ID: <4BF78A80.9060107@sonic.net> I've created a wiki page which is a summary and table of changes: http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/user:mwedel:characters This is not final yet. I also plan to do something similar for classes when I have time. After doing that, things that pop out to me: There are a couple good races for thieves, but IMO crossfire does not have good thief support yet. Until such time it does, I don't think I want to present those choices (and so likewise, thief type classes will get removed). Simply put, I don't want to present players with what may amount to be a very difficult to play combo, or a combo which you play as something different (eg fighter), at which point you are better off as a fighter. Other interesting thing to note is that a lot of the classes make good fighters (by my count, any of 6 races would make for excellent fighters), but there are only 2 really good choices for clerics. The one issue with all of this is that if you take the 3 main classes that work well in crossfire now (cleric, fighter, mage), for almost every race, you could assign what class you should play. Dwarf: Fighter/Cleric combo. Elf: wizard Fighter/wizard combo Fireborn: cleric/wizard combo gnome: cleric Dragon: fighter or fighter/wizard half orc: fighter Quetzal: Fighter Serpentman: Fighter Troll: Fighter Wraith: wizard I almost wonder if maybe one of the fighter races should get pruned out. From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Sat May 22 06:14:21 2010 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 13:14:21 +0200 Subject: [crossfire] Attributes/Stats In-Reply-To: <4BF0B92F.5080407@sonic.net> References: <4BE8FC3B.20504@sonic.net> <201005160940.43800.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4BF0B92F.5080407@sonic.net> Message-ID: <201005221314.24854.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> > That was my thought - make Cha relevant for some things, like paralyze, > slow. I'm not sure about poison (if you are poisoned and it is interfering > with the body functions, not sure what willpower could do). > > However, one could also add some new abilities - for example a beserk > type attack mode (faster, do more damage, etc), but duration is based on > Cha or something - basically the idea is that you are pushing your body > (or mind for perhaps some spell related ones) beyond the point where most > people would just quit. Maybe, then, "Cha" could be renamed to "Willpower", or something like that, to better reflect such uses. Nitpick :) "you impress your enemy so much it forgets to try avoiding your attack and gets hit with a critical attack" > That was sort of related to my idea in the skills discussion that > character get certain bonuses to their attributes at certain levels. It > is really a semantic difference between the skill giving a +1 to dex, or > giving the character a real stat increase. > > Also possible that maybe grant stat point in associated skills - eg, for > combat, could be str, dex, con attributes (player choice), and for magic is > is pow, int, ws, etc. Or something like 'each successfully cast spell gives you a 0.0001% chance of improving your Wis' - for hardcore playing characters, they'd have some increase. > That makes a lot of sense - it also means a high level character can't > give a new character a pile of potions to get 30 stats. Another option is to have potions at the end of a quest, given by a NPC specifically for you, no one else can use it. > It would probably be nice for stat potions to be very rare - they are > hardly common now (IMO), but I think some of the issue is that at some > point, players don't have a lot of use for them (stats are maxed), so they > just get piled up. I wonder if there was always potential for characters > to improve their stats if that would effectively reduce the seemingly high > numbers of them. Make them alchemy-only items, with rare ingredients and high level requirement? > It's a tricky balancing point - if the percent was 1% of it working, then > folks probably wouldn't take those odds. > > But I think the real fix is to reduce the frequency - make them really > rare. > > Or maybe do something like potions of life - have different level > versions? So you have a less stat improvement potion, that works for the > first 10 improvements, a moderate one for the first 20, etc, with the top > one (unlimited stats) being incredibly rare? Yes, a level range, why not. > While I'm not a fan of grinding, if players want to do it, I don't have > issues with it. Neither do I. But historically Crossfire is mostly that, so there's an unbalanced biais :) So trying now to fix it isn't too bad an idea, IMHO ;) > However, I think there is a somewhat fine line there - hopping around the > world to do all the quests and get cool rewards is really just a different > form of grinding - sure, the player is not hitting the same map over and > over. Yes, but it's not the same as doing the 5894th time Raffle - if there are enough things to discover and such, that should be mostly ok. > I also note that grinding, going deep into random dungeons, or other non > general quest stuff really needs to be part of crossfire, and there should > be some rewards for it. Simply put, I'm not sure if we could keep making > enough quests with custom rewards to satisfy demand. So I wouldn't want > every good item to be a quest reward - some might just be things you find > in random treasure - it might be incredibly rare, and it should be core to > the game, but if a player really wants it, he doesn't have a lot of choice > but to basically grind. Sure, no issue with that for me. > Yep - there are lots of different possibilities here - if we go this > method, it will be an exercise to come up with all these different > abilities But a fun challenge to imagine weird things :) > Yes - I suppose effect of trying to use an item with lack of ability > could depend on the item itself (maybe for weapons, it is reduced damage, > etc) Will need to get defined. 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20100522/6247d606/attachment.pgp From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Sat May 22 06:19:59 2010 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 13:19:59 +0200 Subject: [crossfire] races In-Reply-To: <4BF0BE20.5020502@sonic.net> References: <4BECE990.8050809@sonic.net> <201005160958.35202.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4BF0BE20.5020502@sonic.net> Message-ID: <201005221320.00170.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> > Maybe - certainly the quest giver may vary information based on how he > likes other races. And that could make it more interesting to play in parties, to share quest knowledge. > True, but probably the two would be a bit too similar to have both (just > like northman + human, while there are some differences, are probably too > similar to really warrant them). As a rule, I would say that having similar races are ok. Not saying we should make 100 times the same, but 3 or 4, why not. > Yes - it would be nice to have towns for the different races (a dwarven > town in the underworld, elf town in the forest, etc). It adds a bit more > believability to the world. > > The only hard part here is that this is now a lot more towns that need > some set of starting quests/maps. I also think that there at least needs > to be an option for different races to start in the same town, even if it > is not their native town. For example, if a friend and I decide to play > and make new characters, and he plays a dwarf and I play an elf, it would > still be nice for us to be in the same starting place so we can play > together. That can be fixed someway, maybe through parties, and NPCs - talk to the Reincarnation Employee, explain you want to be with your friend (whose was your lover in a previous incarnation), and he'll agree to let you both together. > And probably denied fire spells. Figuring out what items a tree could > use would also be interesting. Yes... > There are lots of things done in the past which we would not consider > good now (lots of old maps are not good maps). > > My general thoughts/rules for player races: > - The race should be fairly different from other races (so race X isn't > just like race Y) As I said, I'm ok with 2 or 3 variants of the same race. But having only one, why not either. > - Race needs to be balanced. A lot of this depends on other efforts to > balance things, but in many cases it is too easy to just take a look at > stat adjustments and resistances and say 'they balance out', ignoring fact > some stats/resistances are more important than others. Correct. Note also that items can play a role - you could have race-specific items, those need to balance too. All in all, pretty hard :) > - The race should be on that already exists in crossfire but as a non > player race (or something close, like half orc is a combo of orc & human). > The first instance of the race showing up should not be race for players. Why? "Today, a really strange race set foot in Scorn for the first time in centuries. Royal guards are carefully keeping an eye on the weird creature, wishing it to not try to invad some place in the world." > Now for that last point, it may just mean that some map updates are > needed. For example, for fireborns, maybe it means adding a small > town/collection of fireborns at the bottom of a volcano. Put a small/hard > to find village of fenx in the great forest, etc. Just add a little more > background/believability to them. And lore, stories, and such. And artifacts, why not. 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20100522/581aff34/attachment.pgp From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Sat May 22 06:22:13 2010 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 13:22:13 +0200 Subject: [crossfire] races In-Reply-To: <4BF78A80.9060107@sonic.net> References: <4BECE990.8050809@sonic.net> <4BF0BE20.5020502@sonic.net> <4BF78A80.9060107@sonic.net> Message-ID: <201005221322.14024.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> > I've created a wiki page which is a summary and table of changes: > > http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/user:mwedel:characters Nice, thanks :) > There are a couple good races for thieves, but IMO crossfire does not > have good thief support yet. Until such time it does, I don't think I > want to present those choices (and so likewise, thief type classes will > get removed). Simply put, I don't want to present players with what may > amount to be a very difficult to play combo, or a combo which you play as > something different (eg fighter), at which point you are better off as a > fighter. If the combination is clearly indicated as difficult, then let the players use it :) "since your birth, you have been a rebel, disregarding many rules and customs. Therefore it is not surprising that you, a Fireborn, choose to work as an Ice Mage in the Arctic region." > Other interesting thing to note is that a lot of the classes make good > fighters (by my count, any of 6 races would make for excellent fighters), > but there are only 2 really good choices for clerics. > > The one issue with all of this is that if you take the 3 main classes > that work well in crossfire now (cleric, fighter, mage), for almost every > race, you could assign what class you should play. > > Dwarf: Fighter/Cleric combo. > Elf: wizard Fighter/wizard combo > Fireborn: cleric/wizard combo > gnome: cleric > Dragon: fighter or fighter/wizard > half orc: fighter > Quetzal: Fighter > Serpentman: Fighter > Troll: Fighter > Wraith: wizard > > I almost wonder if maybe one of the fighter races should get pruned out. I'd rather try to balance those out too - but well, that's a really hard part :) 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20100522/8c5f38a1/attachment.pgp From mwedel at sonic.net Sat May 22 17:15:12 2010 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 15:15:12 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] races In-Reply-To: <201005221322.14024.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> References: <4BECE990.8050809@sonic.net> <4BF0BE20.5020502@sonic.net> <4BF78A80.9060107@sonic.net> <201005221322.14024.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Message-ID: <4BF85770.2040609@sonic.net> On 05/22/10 04:22 AM, Nicolas Weeger wrote: >> There are a couple good races for thieves, but IMO crossfire does not >> have good thief support yet. Until such time it does, I don't think I >> want to present those choices (and so likewise, thief type classes will >> get removed). Simply put, I don't want to present players with what may >> amount to be a very difficult to play combo, or a combo which you play as >> something different (eg fighter), at which point you are better off as a >> fighter. > > If the combination is clearly indicated as difficult, then let the players use > it :) > "since your birth, you have been a rebel, disregarding many rules and customs. > Therefore it is not surprising that you, a Fireborn, choose to work as an Ice > Mage in the Arctic region." I think there are two different points here: 1) Option for players to choose a race/class combo that is difficult to play - I don't see anyway to present that, other than to make it fairly obvious it is a bad combination. 2) Races/classes, which even with the best choices, are very difficult to play. Eg, anything thief right now, and races for those. That is my bigger concern - I'd rather pull out the thief type classes and races that go along with it until such time we can make thieves a real playable class - I'm not even sure how to do that right now. The basic concern I have for point #2 is that if you present it, players will try it and get frustrated/upset and just quit playing the game (they may not try another race/class). In a sense, since we are talking about significant changes and rebalancing efforts, I'd rather limit that scope to fewer races/classes, and then once we consider those good, start adding more than having a huge number right now which become impossible to get right. >> Other interesting thing to note is that a lot of the classes make good >> fighters (by my count, any of 6 races would make for excellent fighters), >> but there are only 2 really good choices for clerics. >> >> The one issue with all of this is that if you take the 3 main classes >> that work well in crossfire now (cleric, fighter, mage), for almost every >> race, you could assign what class you should play. >> >> Dwarf: Fighter/Cleric combo. >> Elf: wizard Fighter/wizard combo >> Fireborn: cleric/wizard combo >> gnome: cleric >> Dragon: fighter or fighter/wizard >> half orc: fighter >> Quetzal: Fighter >> Serpentman: Fighter >> Troll: Fighter >> Wraith: wizard >> >> I almost wonder if maybe one of the fighter races should get pruned out. > > I'd rather try to balance those out too - but well, that's a really hard part > :) It' a tricky issue - the fact there is a near 1:1 mapping from race to class is fairly understandable - if you are giving stat bonuses/penalties, it is clearly going to influence what class it is good for. But if you don't give stat bonuses, then they blur together a lot. OTOH, a lot of the races adjust all the stats one way or another, which really fences them in. However, that is perhaps less true now than way back when, since many monsters have more unique abilities/bodies (what a serpentman can wear is a bit different than a human). I'd be tempted to drop the Quetzal - it predates the dragon playable race, and I think the dragon race takes a lot that the Quetzal used to have and extended it - the dragon is certainly a unique playing experience. Likewise, there have been lots of additions over time, and each addition tends to be more extreme - Troll certainly isn't one of the original playable races, but is now, but is an fairly extreme fighter. fireborn is a pretty extreme cleric/wizard. But you look at some of the older races, like Dwarf, while it is aimed to be a good fighter (but dex penalty hurts), it has minimal disadvantage for a cleric, and while a bit handicapped, could do an ok fighter/mage combo (there are better choices, but a dwarf could pull it off). But for something like the Quetzal or Troll, can't imagine being anything by a fighter. From mwedel at sonic.net Sat May 22 17:36:54 2010 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 15:36:54 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] races In-Reply-To: <201005221320.00170.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> References: <4BECE990.8050809@sonic.net> <201005160958.35202.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4BF0BE20.5020502@sonic.net> <201005221320.00170.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Message-ID: <4BF85C86.4040708@sonic.net> On 05/22/10 04:19 AM, Nicolas Weeger wrote: >> Maybe - certainly the quest giver may vary information based on how he >> likes other races. > > And that could make it more interesting to play in parties, to share quest > knowledge. It could certainly be interesting if alternate towns are added. While trolls may not be liked in scorn, if humans visit the troll village, same thing happens and the troll player actually gets good prices, etc, there. >> True, but probably the two would be a bit too similar to have both (just >> like northman + human, while there are some differences, are probably too >> similar to really warrant them). > > > As a rule, I would say that having similar races are ok. Not saying we should > make 100 times the same, but 3 or 4, why not. As noted in other message, I like fewer races/classes, at least for now, because that is fewer things to balance. But also it is a choice for players. Imagine if you are a new player and you get a list of 40 races to choose from - that is just too much - you are likely to just choose whatever is first. So I'd rather the number of choices be limited to some amount, and that the choices be different so that players can see why they would choose one thing or another. If you have 2 races and the only difference is a stat point, one sort of has to ask what is the point there. >> Yes - it would be nice to have towns for the different races (a dwarven >> town in the underworld, elf town in the forest, etc). It adds a bit more >> believability to the world. >> >> The only hard part here is that this is now a lot more towns that need >> some set of starting quests/maps. I also think that there at least needs >> to be an option for different races to start in the same town, even if it >> is not their native town. For example, if a friend and I decide to play >> and make new characters, and he plays a dwarf and I play an elf, it would >> still be nice for us to be in the same starting place so we can play >> together. > > That can be fixed someway, maybe through parties, and NPCs - talk to the > Reincarnation Employee, explain you want to be with your friend (whose was > your lover in a previous incarnation), and he'll agree to let you both > together. Yes - there are ways to fix this. But until there are at least towns for the major races (I'd note that some, like half orc and trolls may share an uncivilized type village as their starting point), probably not a major concern. >> There are lots of things done in the past which we would not consider >> good now (lots of old maps are not good maps). >> >> My general thoughts/rules for player races: >> - The race should be fairly different from other races (so race X isn't >> just like race Y) > > As I said, I'm ok with 2 or 3 variants of the same race. > But having only one, why not either. I noted my reasons above - too many choices and too much stuff to balance. I'd probably want to limit things to about a dozen choices (right now we are at 14). OTOH, a server admin could create new races as he sees fit - if they wanted to have lots of races with minimal differences, that is up to them. But from a default setup, I'd rather limit the number of races. >> - Race needs to be balanced. A lot of this depends on other efforts to >> balance things, but in many cases it is too easy to just take a look at >> stat adjustments and resistances and say 'they balance out', ignoring fact >> some stats/resistances are more important than others. > > Correct. > Note also that items can play a role - you could have race-specific items, > those need to balance too. > > All in all, pretty hard :) Yes - but when looking at the races, some things do stand out. Lots of races have big Cha penalties, so when you add up the stat adjustments, they come out zero. Of course, Cha is a fairly unimportant stat, so that is hardly balanced. > > > >> - The race should be on that already exists in crossfire but as a non >> player race (or something close, like half orc is a combo of orc& human). >> The first instance of the race showing up should not be race for players. > > Why? > "Today, a really strange race set foot in Scorn for the first time in > centuries. Royal guards are carefully keeping an eye on the weird creature, > wishing it to not try to invad some place in the world." IMO, it makes the world more believable/interesting if you are playing a race found in the world and not exclusive to players. There is no technical reason it has to be so. If one does enough backstory and/or quests, different matter, but that tends not to be the case. What tends to be the case is someone creating an archetype for it and nothing else, so you have a race that in some ways seems out of place because it does not exist in the crossfire world and there is not any really good explanation for it. From mwedel at sonic.net Sat May 22 22:26:12 2010 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 20:26:12 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] Attributes/Stats In-Reply-To: <201005221314.24854.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> References: <4BE8FC3B.20504@sonic.net> <201005160940.43800.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4BF0B92F.5080407@sonic.net> <201005221314.24854.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Message-ID: <4BF8A054.9090807@sonic.net> On 05/22/10 04:14 AM, Nicolas Weeger wrote: >> That was my thought - make Cha relevant for some things, like paralyze, >> slow. I'm not sure about poison (if you are poisoned and it is interfering >> with the body functions, not sure what willpower could do). >> >> However, one could also add some new abilities - for example a beserk >> type attack mode (faster, do more damage, etc), but duration is based on >> Cha or something - basically the idea is that you are pushing your body >> (or mind for perhaps some spell related ones) beyond the point where most >> people would just quit. > > Maybe, then, "Cha" could be renamed to "Willpower", or something like that, to > better reflect such uses. > Nitpick :) Maybe - certainly the original 6 attributes followed the AD&D naming, then at some point Pow was added. There isn't any reason that the names have to be the same. Some games do have a stat like personality. I suspect no matter what we do, Cha will be a secondary stat - not critical for anyone, but like most stats, handy to have higher. This even more so if maps/quests require minimum Cha or Cha + fame type check. I suppose one could add a bard type class, in which spells (songs) work a bit different and which Cha is a key stat, but that is not a simple change. And I'm not quite sure how that would work as a class in crossfire. What works for a table top game, or even other CRPG's where you have player controlled NPCs is different. Since crossfire by in large is a solo play game, it means that the class has to be able to stand up on its own - something that really complements a fighter has limited value if you also have to be the fighter. >> That was sort of related to my idea in the skills discussion that >> character get certain bonuses to their attributes at certain levels. It >> is really a semantic difference between the skill giving a +1 to dex, or >> giving the character a real stat increase. >> >> Also possible that maybe grant stat point in associated skills - eg, for >> combat, could be str, dex, con attributes (player choice), and for magic is >> is pow, int, ws, etc. > > Or something like 'each successfully cast spell gives you a 0.0001% chance of > improving your Wis' - for hardcore playing characters, they'd have some > increase. One has to be careful about such schemes - just results in one casting spells at every opportunity. I've played some games like that, and so while I'm wandering through the countryside, I'm casting a spell because it will slowly improve my skill. You can try to control it - they spell has to do damage to creature, etc, but then you get the case of the 30th level character sitting in the starting house with a bunch of orcs so the spell damages something (if it doesn't kill the orcs, they can do it all day). And if the requirement does become it has to kill them, now you fall back into an exp based system. >> That makes a lot of sense - it also means a high level character can't >> give a new character a pile of potions to get 30 stats. > > Another option is to have potions at the end of a quest, given by a NPC > specifically for you, no one else can use it. Yes - that could be done, but would require some new logic (otoh, if the npc is going to give a potion, why not just add logic instead like 'he trains you to be stronger' instead?) >> It would probably be nice for stat potions to be very rare - they are >> hardly common now (IMO), but I think some of the issue is that at some >> point, players don't have a lot of use for them (stats are maxed), so they >> just get piled up. I wonder if there was always potential for characters >> to improve their stats if that would effectively reduce the seemingly high >> numbers of them. > > Make them alchemy-only items, with rare ingredients and high level > requirement? I'd hate to make them alchemy only - that tosses more balance issues into the mix (by the very redesign of classes, some classes will have a hard time being able to do alchemy, so they are effectively deprived of potions). One could add something like an NPC alchemist - you bring him the components, pay some amount of money, and he'll make the potion for you. >> While I'm not a fan of grinding, if players want to do it, I don't have >> issues with it. > > Neither do I. > But historically Crossfire is mostly that, so there's an unbalanced biais :) > So trying now to fix it isn't too bad an idea, IMHO ;) For certain rare items, like potions, treasure lists and treasure chest could also be changed. Right now, at some difficulty level, any random chest can have a potion in it. One could instead add different quality of chests (common, rare, etc), and only rare ones might generate potions, and those chests should be used sparing - to an extent that random maps may contain only one such quest every 5-10 levels or something (and fact it may show up in the potion does not mean it would - it might still only be a 10% chance, so it means if you clear out a level 100 dungeon, you get 1 potion) >> However, I think there is a somewhat fine line there - hopping around the >> world to do all the quests and get cool rewards is really just a different >> form of grinding - sure, the player is not hitting the same map over and >> over. > > Yes, but it's not the same as doing the 5894th time Raffle - if there are enough > things to discover and such, that should be mostly ok. True, but anything that has random determination of reward (Raffle being an extreme example, but even rewards at end of dungeons) adds potential for doing repeats to get the item you want. One could make many of the rewards static (and many items are), but that also isn't ideal - it means one knows exactly where to go to get some item - I'm not sure that is a good thing either. Some middle ground may be better - not sure. From mwedel at sonic.net Sat May 22 23:00:24 2010 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 21:00:24 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] Attributes/Stats In-Reply-To: <4BF8A054.9090807@sonic.net> References: <4BE8FC3B.20504@sonic.net> <201005160940.43800.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4BF0B92F.5080407@sonic.net> <201005221314.24854.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4BF8A054.9090807@sonic.net> Message-ID: <4BF8A858.3080701@sonic.net> Just a note - in order to record these thoughts, I've updated: http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/user:mwedel:characters To include a section on attributes - hopefully I captured what has been discussed - and as I was typing that up, came up with a few new ones. As note on the page, not a final document - mostly wanted a more centralized place to record that than in e-mail messages. If I forgot anything, please let me know. From kbulgrien at att.net Sun May 23 08:12:47 2010 From: kbulgrien at att.net (Kevin Bulgrien) Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 08:12:47 -0500 Subject: [crossfire] races In-Reply-To: <4BF85C86.4040708@sonic.net> References: <4BECE990.8050809@sonic.net> <201005160958.35202.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4BF0BE20.5020502@sonic.net> <201005221320.00170.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4BF85C86.4040708@sonic.net> Message-ID: <20100523081247.74f57724@a850srvr.kbulgrien.att.net> > >> Maybe - certainly the quest giver may vary information based on how he > >> likes other races. > > > > And that could make it more interesting to play in parties, to share quest > > knowledge. > > It could certainly be interesting if alternate towns are added. While trolls > may not be liked in scorn, if humans visit the troll village, same thing happens > and the troll player actually gets good prices, etc, there. > > >> True, but probably the two would be a bit too similar to have both (just > >> like northman + human, while there are some differences, are probably too > >> similar to really warrant them). > > > > As a rule, I would say that having similar races are ok. Not saying we should > > make 100 times the same, but 3 or 4, why not. > > As noted in other message, I like fewer races/classes, at least for now, > because that is fewer things to balance. > > But also it is a choice for players. Imagine if you are a new player and you > get a list of 40 races to choose from - that is just too much - you are likely > to just choose whatever is first. > > So I'd rather the number of choices be limited to some amount, and that the > choices be different so that players can see why they would choose one thing or > another. If you have 2 races and the only difference is a stat point, one sort > of has to ask what is the point there. Random thought: accounts might allow for some creativity along the lines of rewards. Some games only allow you to play certain characters after you have met some goal. Some of the newer Gauntlet's did this. Other games unlocked features if you finished the game. I have no idea of what would be involved to do something like this, but one could allow access to other races, etc. only to an account that had a character that had much some goal. On balancing, this might allow some types of imbalance to remain since the rational that people would quit if dissatisfied, or that character setup would be confusing to a newbie, might not really apply as much. Kevin From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Sun May 23 12:03:02 2010 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 19:03:02 +0200 Subject: [crossfire] Stats and level advancement proposal Message-ID: <201005231903.07330.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Hello. I made a small idea dump for level progression, at http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/dev:levels Comments welcome :) 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20100523/56df5eeb/attachment.pgp From kbulgrien at att.net Mon May 24 04:43:24 2010 From: kbulgrien at att.net (Kevin Bulgrien) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 04:43:24 -0500 Subject: [crossfire] Stats and level advancement proposal In-Reply-To: <201005231903.07330.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> References: <201005231903.07330.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Message-ID: <20100524044324.4d30c9a7@a850srvr.kbulgrien.att.net> > Hello. > > I made a small idea dump for level progression, at > http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/dev:levels > > Comments welcome :) It is not at all clear whether the XP tables are still controlling level advancement or if they are replaced. Such should be stated. I don't know. I'm not much of a stats guy to figure how such things play, but to be honest, I am skeptical about narrowing the range where you can harvest xp (that hard). I think this has a lot of potential to kill the game for the not-that-great player. As I am one of those, it is hard not to view this as a potential game-burner. The XP tables already pretty much mean low level monsters are almost useless. Is this is going to make it even more extreme? Why? What fun does that add? I don't see a problem with advancement requirements per se. I do have a a bit of a problem with some rule somewhere that says if you don't play a certain way, this game is not for you. I play crossfire because even though I am not a hardcore gamer, it has things for me to do. Onemay not even know what its like to have not broken 30-40 something in over 10 years of play, or how such rules would feel if one weren't in that category. Sometimes I can be away for the game from a (long) while, and might come back kind of wanting to play the old familiar maps instead of the ones that "suit my level". This is fun for me. I'm not sure I'm a fan of taking the measly reward out of that kind of fun. I think there is a feeling that CF should be more of a quest game than a hack-n-slash, and ironically, I think that killing off XP for mobs on a schedule like this means making it more of a hack-n-slash from some perspective, and think it needs a lot more thought before putting in such a narrow band. If I am doing quests in a quest-rich game, or fill in some holes of quests I have not done, what satisfaction is there from going through the quest for some dinky reward at the end only, just because someone thinks I am too high level for these mobs? It seems like basically this doesn't remove abuse, it just changes the maps it occurs on as you play, so again, I'm not sure I get the point. On the other hand, like I said. I'm not much of a stats guy... and I don't want to be too hard on new ideas either, but this XP slimming aspect feels a bit off kilter. From kbulgrien at att.net Mon May 24 05:07:36 2010 From: kbulgrien at att.net (Kevin Bulgrien) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 05:07:36 -0500 Subject: [crossfire] Stats and level advancement proposal In-Reply-To: <20100524044324.4d30c9a7@a850srvr.kbulgrien.att.net> References: <201005231903.07330.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <20100524044324.4d30c9a7@a850srvr.kbulgrien.att.net> Message-ID: <20100524050736.3da1625f@a850srvr.kbulgrien.att.net> On Mon, 24 May 2010 04:43:24 -0500 Kevin Bulgrien wrote: > > Hello. > > > > I made a small idea dump for level progression, at > > http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/dev:levels > > > > Comments welcome :) > > > It is not at all clear whether the XP tables are still controlling level > advancement or if they are replaced. Such should be stated. > > I don't know. I'm not much of a stats guy to figure how such things play, > but to be honest, I am skeptical about narrowing the range where you can > harvest xp (that hard). I think this has a lot of potential to kill the > game for the not-that-great player. As I am one of those, it is hard not > to view this as a potential game-burner. The XP tables already pretty > much mean low level monsters are almost useless. Is this is going to > make it even more extreme? Why? What fun does that add? > > I don't see a problem with advancement requirements per se. I do have a > a bit of a problem with some rule somewhere that says if you don't play > a certain way, this game is not for you. I play crossfire because even > though I am not a hardcore gamer, it has things for me to do. Onemay not > even know what its like to have not broken 30-40 something in over 10 > years of play, or how such rules would feel if one weren't in that > category. Sometimes I can be away for the game from a (long) while, and > might come back kind of wanting to play the old familiar maps instead of > the ones that "suit my level". This is fun for me. I'm not sure I'm a > fan of taking the measly reward out of that kind of fun. Level HP SP GR Main skill level 40 350 150 90 35 Spells Armor Attack Resistances 20 200 200 almost immune to 1 type So, case in point, _if_ I make it to level forty I am maxed out for the rest of my game life at 20 spells? I might be able to get immunity for one thing up to the point where I can survive a hard monster battle, and poor me if I choose the wrong one (because somewhere along the line I am being forced to fight different creatures). More realistically, I spend months from 20 to thirty and even more months from 30 to 40 (even if I grind). I don't know. I guess there is a move afoot to help people have fun at high levels, but basically CF is already stacked against lowbies in many many ways. This looks like it has potential to make several more reasons not to play if you can't play "well" by someone else's judgement. So now to learn the game, I must make more characters and take years to get all of them to a slightly useful state? /me votes for adding content with a little lower priority on limiting access to content. Help me here. Am I missing something. BTW, I think value to fun ratio would be a lot better for slowing skills acquisition, which would have an impact a little along the lines of concern. Skill scrolls are way too cheap. It is crazy that you can get a skill scroll for less than a weak rod or other useful item. From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Mon May 24 06:03:40 2010 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 13:03:40 +0200 Subject: [crossfire] Stats and level advancement proposal In-Reply-To: <20100524044324.4d30c9a7@a850srvr.kbulgrien.att.net> References: <201005231903.07330.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <20100524044324.4d30c9a7@a850srvr.kbulgrien.att.net> Message-ID: <201005241303.43236.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> > It is not at all clear whether the XP tables are still controlling level > advancement or if they are replaced. Such should be stated. Sorry, the aim of the page wasn't clearly stated :) The aim of the page is to estimate, based on the player's level, what abilities, hp, sp, gr, and such the player approximately has or knows at this level. It does NOT replace experience-based leveling up. This is more a guideline to help design maps and balance monsters, make items adapted to the level, enforce restrictions. So for instance (using my arbitrarily decided values), a player reaching level 30 is expected to have around 150 armor (armor + bracers + shield + whatever). Therefore, if I want to have monsters suitable for such level in a map, I will try to have around 150 attack - not 10, not 500, but 100 or 200 can of course be ok. And not do 1000 damage per attack, more around 40 or 50, so the player can get hit a few times before needing to heal. Or an armor giving 200 defense means it probably isn't suitable before level around 30. This kind of things. This isn't supposed to be a mathematical formulae, just an arbitrarily decided scale, helping to make monsters and items for various levels. And helping balance hp progression by level. The ultimate goal is to try to balance monsters, to avoid weird things like a monster level 90 being easier to kill than a level 40 and giving less exp. Note that by principle this could happen, but right now it looks more like 'I have no idea what statistics to give to a level 90 monster, let's just say this and this will be ok'. This should also help figure what level is suitable for items and quest rewards. If I have a sword doing 500 damage per hit, from what level are monsters able to sustain that kind of damage, so what kind of level will I require the player to have to use it? And what kind of monsters can I have to guard the reward? I hope this answers your questions :) Don't mistake my goal, I WANT to have quests, content, and such. But if there is no notion of level, no balance, what's the point? What is the point of inventing a level 30 monsters if I have no idea what kind of equipment the player will have? What is the point of making an armor, if I have no idea what level to ask the player to have to wear it? It is my opinion that we need a kind of scale of the player's progression in game, to balance accordingly monsters, items. Of course, if you have other suggestions to reach that goal, I'd be glad to hear those :) 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20100524/053c8262/attachment.pgp From om at iki.fi Mon May 24 10:25:27 2010 From: om at iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 18:25:27 +0300 Subject: [crossfire] Stats and level advancement proposal In-Reply-To: <20100524050736.3da1625f@a850srvr.kbulgrien.att.net> References: <201005231903.07330.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <20100524044324.4d30c9a7@a850srvr.kbulgrien.att.net> <20100524050736.3da1625f@a850srvr.kbulgrien.att.net> Message-ID: <4BFA9A67.7090305@iki.fi> By the way, could someone in the know explain to me what is the magic with level 108, why was the difficulty jump put at that specific point? -- /* * * Otto J. Makela * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */ /* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, FAX: +358 42 7655772, ICBM: 60N 25E */ /* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27, FI-00100 Helsinki, FINLAND */ /* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * * * * * * * */ From mwedel at sonic.net Tue May 25 23:53:20 2010 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 21:53:20 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] races In-Reply-To: <20100523081247.74f57724@a850srvr.kbulgrien.att.net> References: <4BECE990.8050809@sonic.net> <201005160958.35202.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4BF0BE20.5020502@sonic.net> <201005221320.00170.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4BF85C86.4040708@sonic.net> <20100523081247.74f57724@a850srvr.kbulgrien.att.net> Message-ID: <4BFCA940.3050503@sonic.net> On 05/23/10 06:12 AM, Kevin Bulgrien wrote: >>>> True, but probably the two would be a bit too similar to have both (just >>>> like northman + human, while there are some differences, are probably too >>>> similar to really warrant them). >>> >>> As a rule, I would say that having similar races are ok. Not saying we should >>> make 100 times the same, but 3 or 4, why not. >> >> As noted in other message, I like fewer races/classes, at least for now, >> because that is fewer things to balance. >> >> But also it is a choice for players. Imagine if you are a new player and you >> get a list of 40 races to choose from - that is just too much - you are likely >> to just choose whatever is first. >> >> So I'd rather the number of choices be limited to some amount, and that the >> choices be different so that players can see why they would choose one thing or >> another. If you have 2 races and the only difference is a stat point, one sort >> of has to ask what is the point there. > > Random thought: accounts might allow for some creativity along the lines of > rewards. Some games only allow you to play certain characters after you have > met some goal. Some of the newer Gauntlet's did this. Other games unlocked > features if you finished the game. I have no idea of what would be involved > to do something like this, but one could allow access to other races, etc. > only to an account that had a character that had much some goal. > > On balancing, this might allow some types of imbalance to remain since the > rational that people would quit if dissatisfied, or that character setup would > be confusing to a newbie, might not really apply as much. Yes - I was thinking something similar could be done (either as advanced option or some goal like you describe). More player input would probably be desirable. I'm not sure how much/appreciated it would be that after you complete some goal, a new race/class is open to you, but only because it is a sucky/hard to play race or class. I could see some players going 'huh? WTF?' In many cases, such 'rewards' are supposed to be just that - something that makes the game better/more enjoyable/new ability. Now some players may find the option of playing a hard to play race something they want to do, but I have a feeling that would be the minority. And I will note that even in these cases, balancing work is still needed. If the character is completely unplayable, then probably no one would find it interesting. I still also stand by my point that the more options/combinations, the harder it is for things to balance. Imagine a game that only has 4 classes, 1 race, and only 30 monsters. While not a very complicated game (and thus not a lot of gameplay), it is something fairly easy to balance. But when you have 15 different races, 20 different classes, you start to get into a huge number of combinations, and that is just in terms of playable combinations. I'd rather just work on a smaller set, and once that gets balanced (under some determination of balance), then start adding in more races/classes and see how it works out. Even as is now, the number of tests needed is probably large. From mwedel at sonic.net Wed May 26 00:11:52 2010 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 22:11:52 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] Stats and level advancement proposal In-Reply-To: <201005231903.07330.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> References: <201005231903.07330.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Message-ID: <4BFCAD98.1080800@sonic.net> On 05/23/10 10:03 AM, Nicolas Weeger wrote: > Hello. > > I made a small idea dump for level progression, at > http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/dev:levels It would be useful to add to the page what the different columns mean. For example, you have armor going from 30 -> 1500. However, under the current gaming system, max value for armor is 100, so that computing method is something completely new (I'm guessing that it may be cavehippos page, but there is no link there, and since that is still a concept, it is perhaps hard to judge/understand how that really affects thing. Does the fact that a level 50 person does 300 damage, and a level 40 person has 200 armor (delta 100) and the level 40 person has 350 hp means that 3.5 hits will kill a level 40 person? I'd also note that the values for hp/sp/grace are likely to vary a lot based on class and profession. Are those values targets for the character where that state is key to their profession (hp for fighters, sp for wizards, grace for priests) or something different? I would imagine if someone is playing a priest, they may not care much about sp, but a lot about grace and would focus on increasing stats which increase their grace, and may not care much about HP. It is probably also worth documenting what starting values (level 1) are as a basis point. At a quick glance, the hp increases in a fairly bumpy fashion - from level 40 to 50, you get 50 hp. From 50 to 600, 200 hp. From 60 to 70, 100 hp. I'm guessing that some of those values are based on expected stat increases in that level range - but if so, worth documenting that is the basis, and that is the expected progressing in stat increases (1 every 10 levels?) From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Wed May 26 01:35:19 2010 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 08:35:19 +0200 Subject: [crossfire] races In-Reply-To: <4BFCA940.3050503@sonic.net> References: <4BECE990.8050809@sonic.net> <20100523081247.74f57724@a850srvr.kbulgrien.att.net> <4BFCA940.3050503@sonic.net> Message-ID: <201005260835.22411.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Hello. > Yes - I was thinking something similar could be done (either as advanced > option or some goal like you describe). > > More player input would probably be desirable. I'm not sure how > much/appreciated it would be that after you complete some goal, a new > race/class is open to you, but only because it is a sucky/hard to play > race or class. I could see some players going 'huh? WTF?' In many > cases, such 'rewards' are supposed to be just that - something that makes > the game better/more enjoyable/new ability. > > Now some players may find the option of playing a hard to play race > something they want to do, but I have a feeling that would be the > minority. What about putting a big warning when such a hard combination is chosen, something like 'This combo is pretty hard to play, and should be used only by courageous adventurers - you have been warned!'? > And I will note that even in these cases, balancing work is still needed. > If the character is completely unplayable, then probably no one would > find it interesting. Don't understimate players' feeling of challenge :) > I still also stand by my point that the more options/combinations, the > harder it is for things to balance. Imagine a game that only has 4 > classes, 1 race, and only 30 monsters. While not a very complicated game > (and thus not a lot of gameplay), it is something fairly easy to balance. > > But when you have 15 different races, 20 different classes, you start to > get into a huge number of combinations, and that is just in terms of > playable combinations. I'd rather just work on a smaller set, and once > that gets balanced (under some determination of balance), then start > adding in more races/classes and see how it works out. Even as is now, > the number of tests needed is probably large. Indeed. So one solution is to balance for some combinations, and put a big warning 'this combo hasn't been really balanced, please help us fix it if you are courageous enough to play it'. 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20100526/11fc8466/attachment.pgp From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Wed May 26 01:38:48 2010 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 08:38:48 +0200 Subject: [crossfire] Stats and level advancement proposal In-Reply-To: <4BFCAD98.1080800@sonic.net> References: <201005231903.07330.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4BFCAD98.1080800@sonic.net> Message-ID: <201005260838.48893.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> > It would be useful to add to the page what the different columns mean. > > For example, you have armor going from 30 -> 1500. However, under the > current gaming system, max value for armor is 100, so that computing > method is something completely new (I'm guessing that it may be cavehippos > page, but there is no link there, and since that is still a concept, it is > perhaps hard to judge/understand how that really affects thing. Does the > fact that a level 50 person does 300 damage, and a level 40 person has 200 > armor (delta 100) and the level 40 person has 350 hp means that 3.5 hits > will kill a level 40 person? > > I'd also note that the values for hp/sp/grace are likely to vary a lot > based on class and profession. Are those values targets for the character > where that state is key to their profession (hp for fighters, sp for > wizards, grace for priests) or something different? I would imagine if > someone is playing a priest, they may not care much about sp, but a lot > about grace and would focus on increasing stats which increase their > grace, and may not care much about HP. > > It is probably also worth documenting what starting values (level 1) are > as a basis point. > > At a quick glance, the hp increases in a fairly bumpy fashion - from > level 40 to 50, you get 50 hp. From 50 to 600, 200 hp. From 60 to 70, > 100 hp. > > I'm guessing that some of those values are based on expected stat > increases in that level range - but if so, worth documenting that is the > basis, and that is the expected progressing in stat increases (1 every 10 > levels?) The page was created because right now there is absolutely no way (apart playing all levels) of knowing such information, at least none I know :) Seriously, do you know what AC or WC a level 15 character usually has? Or how much eg fire resist at level 20? This page is a first draft for a middle player, whether fighter or mage or whatever, page that should be completed for the various classes and races :) So it is expected to be modified by people who have ideas, to improve it ^_- 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20100526/55b1f574/attachment.pgp From igniz.revolver at googlemail.com Wed May 26 05:28:46 2010 From: igniz.revolver at googlemail.com (igniz revolver) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 11:28:46 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] Attacktypes In-Reply-To: <4BF4D5FE.4010108@sonic.net> References: <4BF4D5FE.4010108@sonic.net> Message-ID: As a victim of many of these attacks, i'd agree with some of these changes but not others. Confusion and Paralyse are nice CC's for a creature or player to use, but their duration is so long and the effects so potent that it's something a player should endeavor to become immune to. If the duration could be reduced, that would be better. The sorcery spell, confusion is also largely useless as a melee attack, it'd be much better if it was the cone attack monsters throw out. Though I take it, that's covered by the mass confusion spell? Poison changing to stat damage would be horrific to deal with. The only thing I'd like to see changed about it is the duration of poison and also disease. It seems impossible to overcome disease and poison can last so long. From a player perspective, poison does too little damage over too long a time to be effective against monsters, but for a player - poison can stack up to horrendous levels. Blind is okay, imo, but fog doesn't seem to work for a lot of things. So spells like Steamball are less useful than they should be. On 20 May 2010 07:26, Mark Wedel wrote: > > I was thinking over attacktypes some, and while I do not have any plans to > work on this, thought I'd at least record these thoughts before I forget :) > > The general basis here is to make attacktypes that are somewhat balanced, > that > will be used by both players and monsters, that are used somewhat > frequently (an > attacktype that only 2 monsters use isn't all that interesting) and are not > really annoying. Some was to also clean up some of the attacktypes. > > I'm only going to include attacktypes which I think need changing. > > Confusion: Problem with this attacktype is that you don't want to use it > on > monsters, because it makes them move in random ways, making them _harder_ > to > kill. If a player gets hit with it, same thing happens, but player can > generally eliminate the effects with spell, scroll or potion. My thought > for > this one is to change it so that confused creatures can not do actions that > require thought, eg, cast spells, use scrolls (and maybe wands) - this > makes it > less powerful than now, but does make this a bit of a counter for mages. > > Fear: Not as bad as confusion, but it makes monsters run away, which makes > them > harder to chase down and kill. As a player, fairly annoying in that it > takes > the control of the character away from the player (character will move for > X > time running away). Thought here is to change it so recipient suffers > AC/WC > penalties (eg, easier to hit feared creature, and harder for feared > creature to > hit you). This is sort of the counter for fighters, so something that does > fear > + confusion would counter most classes. > > Paralyzation: Problem is if characters get affected, they just have to hope > they > survive - there is nothing they can do until it runs out. The result of > this is > that most characters will have a immunity to paralyzation item, which sort > of > makes this attacktype meaningless. I don't have a good solution hear, but > given > how little this is used, it could probably just get removed all together. > > Drain: Like paralyzation, more annoying - once you are hit and lose exp, > other > than killing stuff, no way to get it back, so once again, most characters > just > get some immunity item. Players having drain attacks are not that useful, > because the character will get the exp if they kill the creature - only > real use > is against other players. Thought here is to perhaps merge it/replace it > with > life stealing, so that drain also drains sp and grace. This makes it a > fairly > nasty attack if you are losing hp/sp/grace while fighting a creature, but > not so > nasty that immunity items need to exist. > > Poison: While good now, this could be extended in many ways. AD&Dv3 made > an > interesting change in that most poisons don't do hp damage, but instead > damage > stats for a while. So in crossfire, one could have poisons that drain con > by 5 > points until cured, or drain pow by 10 points, etc. Makes poisons fairly > nasty, > and fact that there are multiple poisons makes things more interesting. I > think > one way to do this is that items with a poison attacktype also have an > inventory > of the poison they do. This then means that for characters, you could have > bottles of poison about you could apply to your sword (sword gets > additional > poison attacktype, and poison effect is moved from bottle inventory to > sword > inventory) - when you hit, the code finds the poison in the inventory of > the > sword, and removes it, and there is some mechanism which says how many > doses/what chance of poison wearing off the blade is. > > Ghosthit: Should be removed, replaced by revised drain/life stealing, and a > flag > added to note creature only survives some number of hits. > > Turn undead: Should perhaps get renamed since I think this operates on the > gods > enemies, and not just undead. > > Depletion: no real problems, just not anything all that terrible either. > You > may fight some creatures that has it, realize a few stats are depleted and > go > get a potion of life. Probably more interesting to replace creatures that > use > this with life stealing/revised dragin. > > Death: Generally not useful, should probably get removed (not used many > places) > - the all or nothing death approach just doesn't work very well in a game > like > crossfire. > > Chaos: Not really an attacktype - this is just a special attacktype which > then > hits with a random elemental attacktype. > > Cancellation - maybe gets removed - this non hp damaging attacktype just > removes > +magic from items, but is not used much. > > counterspell: another one that does no damage, and probably should not be > an > attacktype- IIRC what this is really used for is that if a spell hits a > space > with this attacktype, the spell doesn't go any further. Than in itself is > a > neat feature, but using an attacktype probably is not the right approach. > > Blind: with fog of war, I'm not sure how relevant this really is, plus it > seems > to be used in very few places/monsters. > > > > _______________________________________________ > crossfire mailing list > crossfire at metalforge.org > http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20100526/6f253c4f/attachment.htm From igniz.revolver at googlemail.com Wed May 26 05:43:31 2010 From: igniz.revolver at googlemail.com (igniz revolver) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 11:43:31 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] races In-Reply-To: <201005260835.22411.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> References: <4BECE990.8050809@sonic.net> <20100523081247.74f57724@a850srvr.kbulgrien.att.net> <4BFCA940.3050503@sonic.net> <201005260835.22411.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Message-ID: I haven't been folowing this entire thread but I made some comments on the classes (specifically caster classes) that may be relevant to the discussion. I think the maths of the caster classes could be addressed, specifically how their mana regeneration is handled and their mana levels. Also, the races suited to casting classes could be changed. It seems to me that to be a successful mage you either need to have a ridiculous pow and choose a race like fireborn, or become some kind of hybrid mage/fighter so you going OOM isn't such an issue. Then there's the issue of spell tables and how useful they are. Sorcery is clearly the most useful, but without reliable aoe it is difficult to level up. Pyromancy and Evoker tree's are obviously easier and Summoning becomes better once you get the pet spells, however Sorcery remains poor and largely utility for a good portion of it's career. What's more, because you can't increase the skill without killing things, magic items become a good and potentially better alternative. There's an inverse problem with warrior classes, magic is just so useful it becomes ridiculous to not invest in it if you can. You certainly won't be wearing heavy armour and casting magic, but praying will likely provide good alternatives. I think a number of classes need to be assessed for internal logic. Imagine if you could't learn other skills via scrolls, talismans or holy symbols and imagine the problems you'd face. IMO there should be class feature's to handle each classes problems. I'm intending to present a longer assessment dossier on the classes and races of crossfire, along with suggestions, but I haven't had much time to play crossfire or write about it. On 26 May 2010 07:35, Nicolas Weeger wrote: > Hello. > > > Yes - I was thinking something similar could be done (either as > advanced > > option or some goal like you describe). > > > > More player input would probably be desirable. I'm not sure how > > much/appreciated it would be that after you complete some goal, a new > > race/class is open to you, but only because it is a sucky/hard to play > > race or class. I could see some players going 'huh? WTF?' In many > > cases, such 'rewards' are supposed to be just that - something that makes > > the game better/more enjoyable/new ability. > > > > Now some players may find the option of playing a hard to play race > > something they want to do, but I have a feeling that would be the > > minority. > > What about putting a big warning when such a hard combination is chosen, > something like 'This combo is pretty hard to play, and should be used only > by > courageous adventurers - you have been warned!'? > > > > > > And I will note that even in these cases, balancing work is still > needed. > > If the character is completely unplayable, then probably no one would > > find it interesting. > > Don't understimate players' feeling of challenge :) > > > > > > I still also stand by my point that the more options/combinations, the > > harder it is for things to balance. Imagine a game that only has 4 > > classes, 1 race, and only 30 monsters. While not a very complicated game > > (and thus not a lot of gameplay), it is something fairly easy to balance. > > > > But when you have 15 different races, 20 different classes, you start > to > > get into a huge number of combinations, and that is just in terms of > > playable combinations. I'd rather just work on a smaller set, and once > > that gets balanced (under some determination of balance), then start > > adding in more races/classes and see how it works out. Even as is now, > > the number of tests needed is probably large. > > > Indeed. > So one solution is to balance for some combinations, and put a big warning > 'this combo hasn't been really balanced, please help us fix it if you are > courageous enough to play it'. > > > > Nicolas > -- > Mon p'tit coin du web - http://nicolas.weeger.org > > _______________________________________________ > crossfire mailing list > crossfire at metalforge.org > http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20100526/b27c2852/attachment.htm From igniz.revolver at googlemail.com Wed May 26 05:58:17 2010 From: igniz.revolver at googlemail.com (igniz revolver) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 11:58:17 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] Stats and level advancement proposal In-Reply-To: <201005260838.48893.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> References: <201005231903.07330.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4BFCAD98.1080800@sonic.net> <201005260838.48893.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Message-ID: It might be possible to examine the characters on the server, seeing what stats they have. It might be best if rather than rolling and then assigning stats, stats could be calculated exclusively by race and class. So if everyone has a basic 14 stat in everything, then race and class + and - to those stats and that's your stats for your character. You can then know the average of players. This would also require the refinement of races so their benefits are more in-line with others. One of the main issues I see is that you have races with large +'s and -'s and odd restrictions or benefits that can make or break a character. I'd suggest minimalising the deviance from the base deviation of 0 for statistical benefits from race. E.G. make the Fireborn mage focused but less obviously so. Then decrease the degree of stats needed to run a successful character Then refine the degree of +stats you can give to a character. So rather than have everyone with a 30 in everything, you have everyone with a more uniform increase in stats relative to their starting values. Imagine if you gained +1 to all stats every 10 levels, but gained a further +1 to a key stat dependant on class. So a Halfling Thief would get a +1 to all stats at 10, but with a further +1 to dex due to his class. If he started at: Str 14, Con 14, Dex 16, Int 15, Wis 13, Pow 14, Cha 12 (or whatever). At 10th he'd be Str 15, Con 15, Dex 18, Int 16, Wis 14, Pow 14, Cha 12 By 100th, he might be ~35 in most of his stats but over 40 in dex. Or perhaps a different formulae, like +1 dex every 20 or whatever. Then you could have the classes changing titles whenever they gained a stat. You'd then have a more uniform idea of what to expect from a player. On 26 May 2010 07:38, Nicolas Weeger wrote: > > It would be useful to add to the page what the different columns mean. > > > > For example, you have armor going from 30 -> 1500. However, under the > > current gaming system, max value for armor is 100, so that computing > > method is something completely new (I'm guessing that it may be > cavehippos > > page, but there is no link there, and since that is still a concept, it > is > > perhaps hard to judge/understand how that really affects thing. Does the > > fact that a level 50 person does 300 damage, and a level 40 person has > 200 > > armor (delta 100) and the level 40 person has 350 hp means that 3.5 hits > > will kill a level 40 person? > > > > I'd also note that the values for hp/sp/grace are likely to vary a lot > > based on class and profession. Are those values targets for the > character > > where that state is key to their profession (hp for fighters, sp for > > wizards, grace for priests) or something different? I would imagine if > > someone is playing a priest, they may not care much about sp, but a lot > > about grace and would focus on increasing stats which increase their > > grace, and may not care much about HP. > > > > It is probably also worth documenting what starting values (level 1) > are > > as a basis point. > > > > At a quick glance, the hp increases in a fairly bumpy fashion - from > > level 40 to 50, you get 50 hp. From 50 to 600, 200 hp. From 60 to 70, > > 100 hp. > > > > I'm guessing that some of those values are based on expected stat > > increases in that level range - but if so, worth documenting that is the > > basis, and that is the expected progressing in stat increases (1 every 10 > > levels?) > > > The page was created because right now there is absolutely no way (apart > playing all levels) of knowing such information, at least none I know :) > Seriously, do you know what AC or WC a level 15 character usually has? Or > how > much eg fire resist at level 20? > > This page is a first draft for a middle player, whether fighter or mage or > whatever, page that should be completed for the various classes and races > :) > So it is expected to be modified by people who have ideas, to improve it > ^_- > > > > Nicolas > -- > Mon p'tit coin du web - http://nicolas.weeger.org > > _______________________________________________ > crossfire mailing list > crossfire at metalforge.org > http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20100526/c0b86496/attachment.htm From mwedel at sonic.net Wed May 26 23:35:38 2010 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 21:35:38 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] Stats and level advancement proposal In-Reply-To: <201005260838.48893.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> References: <201005231903.07330.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4BFCAD98.1080800@sonic.net> <201005260838.48893.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Message-ID: <4BFDF69A.3030605@sonic.net> On 05/25/10 11:38 PM, Nicolas Weeger wrote: >> It would be useful to add to the page what the different columns mean. >> >> For example, you have armor going from 30 -> 1500. However, under the >> current gaming system, max value for armor is 100, so that computing >> method is something completely new (I'm guessing that it may be cavehippos >> page, but there is no link there, and since that is still a concept, it is >> perhaps hard to judge/understand how that really affects thing. Does the >> fact that a level 50 person does 300 damage, and a level 40 person has 200 >> armor (delta 100) and the level 40 person has 350 hp means that 3.5 hits >> will kill a level 40 person? >> >> I'd also note that the values for hp/sp/grace are likely to vary a lot >> based on class and profession. Are those values targets for the character >> where that state is key to their profession (hp for fighters, sp for >> wizards, grace for priests) or something different? I would imagine if >> someone is playing a priest, they may not care much about sp, but a lot >> about grace and would focus on increasing stats which increase their >> grace, and may not care much about HP. >> >> It is probably also worth documenting what starting values (level 1) are >> as a basis point. >> >> At a quick glance, the hp increases in a fairly bumpy fashion - from >> level 40 to 50, you get 50 hp. From 50 to 600, 200 hp. From 60 to 70, >> 100 hp. >> >> I'm guessing that some of those values are based on expected stat >> increases in that level range - but if so, worth documenting that is the >> basis, and that is the expected progressing in stat increases (1 every 10 >> levels?) > > > The page was created because right now there is absolutely no way (apart > playing all levels) of knowing such information, at least none I know :) > Seriously, do you know what AC or WC a level 15 character usually has? Or how > much eg fire resist at level 20? Sorry, perhaps a misunderstanding. I took that page to be a proposal of what the different values at different levels should be. Perhaps the fact that the subject states it is a stats and level advancement proposal gave me that idea :) But from what you say above, it sounds like you are looking more for recorded (eg, real) values. So as of now, I'm a little confused on what it is a page of. If it is of recorded values (so as you state, you know what the wc/ac/hp/sp/grace/resistances of a level 40 character is), then explanations of the different fields are not really needed, since they are just recorded from what you see as a player. But if you are making a proposal, then I think some of those fields need more explanation, as they don't match what is in the game right now (as noted, armor currently maxes at 100, and damage values are also lower) > This page is a first draft for a middle player, whether fighter or mage or > whatever, page that should be completed for the various classes and races :) > So it is expected to be modified by people who have ideas, to improve it ^_- Right now, it seems a little hard to me because there are so many variables floating out there, and all play a part. While several ideas have been put out there (I've put some out for stats, others for different parts), I find it hard to really fill in many values there. If stat increases are 'easy', those values are likely to be different than if stat increases are very hard as an example. Since those discussions were very recent (and some perhaps still ongoing), hard to know what will be realistic values. I certainly think such a page is a good idea (so just from designing dungeons/maps, one can know what target level is), but I'm not sure if it may be a little premature until other aspects are nailed down. From mwedel at sonic.net Wed May 26 23:45:22 2010 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 21:45:22 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] races In-Reply-To: <201005260835.22411.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> References: <4BECE990.8050809@sonic.net> <20100523081247.74f57724@a850srvr.kbulgrien.att.net> <4BFCA940.3050503@sonic.net> <201005260835.22411.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Message-ID: <4BFDF8E2.1070301@sonic.net> On 05/25/10 11:35 PM, Nicolas Weeger wrote: > Hello. > >> Yes - I was thinking something similar could be done (either as advanced >> option or some goal like you describe). >> >> More player input would probably be desirable. I'm not sure how >> much/appreciated it would be that after you complete some goal, a new >> race/class is open to you, but only because it is a sucky/hard to play >> race or class. I could see some players going 'huh? WTF?' In many >> cases, such 'rewards' are supposed to be just that - something that makes >> the game better/more enjoyable/new ability. >> >> Now some players may find the option of playing a hard to play race >> something they want to do, but I have a feeling that would be the >> minority. > > What about putting a big warning when such a hard combination is chosen, > something like 'This combo is pretty hard to play, and should be used only by > courageous adventurers - you have been warned!'? My problem right now isn't as much combos that are hard to play, but races in which any choice of class is hard to play (aka unplayable races). If a troll tries to play a mage, he is in bad shape. While putting warnings up might be nice, I'm not sure of a good mechanic to do that. Perhaps in those cases, just having the class description make it clear, something like 'Power is a key attribute for wizards, and any starting wizard should have at least a 20 power' or the like. So when the player chooses a troll and sees a -4 pow penalty (or whatever it is), maybe realizes that isn't a good choice. Another possibility I just thought of is going back to old AD&D, which is minimum stat requirements. So maybe a wizard has a 15 pow and 15 int requirement. If you don't meet those, you just can't play that class until the stats are increased. In any case, as stated above, my issue right now for some of the races is that they are not very playable for any class. > >> I still also stand by my point that the more options/combinations, the >> harder it is for things to balance. Imagine a game that only has 4 >> classes, 1 race, and only 30 monsters. While not a very complicated game >> (and thus not a lot of gameplay), it is something fairly easy to balance. >> >> But when you have 15 different races, 20 different classes, you start to >> get into a huge number of combinations, and that is just in terms of >> playable combinations. I'd rather just work on a smaller set, and once >> that gets balanced (under some determination of balance), then start >> adding in more races/classes and see how it works out. Even as is now, >> the number of tests needed is probably large. > > > Indeed. > So one solution is to balance for some combinations, and put a big warning > 'this combo hasn't been really balanced, please help us fix it if you are > courageous enough to play it'. But some danger can be a race/class combination that is too powerful. Balance is an overall achievement - that all classes & races are basically on-par with each other. So while having lots of races is likely to lead to some cases of the race not being very powerful, and thus hard to play, you may get other cases where the race is too powerful, and too easy to play. But balance can be hard to achieve in many areas. One might say 'this spell is just to powerful - that is why that class is too good', but tuning down that spell affects every class that uses it, as well as items, so may have more consequences than intended. This is one reason why balance is so hard. From mwedel at sonic.net Wed May 26 23:58:23 2010 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 21:58:23 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] Attacktypes In-Reply-To: References: <4BF4D5FE.4010108@sonic.net> Message-ID: <4BFDFBEF.5040604@sonic.net> On 05/26/10 03:28 AM, igniz revolver wrote: > As a victim of many of these attacks, i'd agree with some of these > changes but not others. > > Confusion and Paralyse are nice CC's for a creature or player to use, > but their duration is so long and the effects so potent that it's > something a player should endeavor to become immune to. If the duration > could be reduced, that would be better. this may change with other changes, but one issue for most spells is expected lifetime of the creatures. So the problem here is that if duration is too short, the player using it against monster doesn't happen much, since the monster is not expected to last very long anyways. Confusion is at least survivable - its annoying, but if you have potions of healing, word of recall, or other items, one can get out of it. But to me, the problem for a player is having monsters wonder around aimlessly tends not to make them much easier to kill - it typically makes them harder. So it almost becomes a purely used monster attribute - maybe not a bad thing. paralyze can be effective on monsters, but problem is generally that if you can paralyze them, you can hit them with something else instead that will do damage and kill them. And if duration is too short, that is even a bigger issue. > Poison changing to stat damage would be horrific to deal with. The only > thing I'd like to see changed about it is the duration of poison and > also disease. It seems impossible to overcome disease and poison can > last so long. From a player perspective, poison does too little damage > over too long a time to be effective against monsters, but for a player > - poison can stack up to horrendous levels. disease is more an effect, so I didn't include it here. It also is something that is much more effective for players to use against monsters than vice versa, simply because it spreads to other monsters, and in most maps, you have mobs of monsters. It perhaps shoul Poison is nastier now, but if one is paying attention, usually not deadly - if one can heal any amount of damage, one can typically survive it. A general change I would like to see is just a bit slower combat in general. So in the case of poison, it may be it drops your stat for 5 points for 20 seconds, but spreads it out over that time, so initially you are at -1, two seconds later, -2, -3, etc. If a message/indicator shows up, this gives the player time to do something - drink potion of cure poison, run away, whatever. > > Blind is okay, imo, but fog doesn't seem to work for a lot of things. So > spells like Steamball are less useful than they should be. I stated the issue was with fog of war, blind isn't that nasty. If I know where the walls are and where the exit is, even when blinded, I can probably get to safety. From igniz.revolver at googlemail.com Thu May 27 05:18:58 2010 From: igniz.revolver at googlemail.com (igniz revolver) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 11:18:58 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] Attacktypes In-Reply-To: <4BFDFBEF.5040604@sonic.net> References: <4BF4D5FE.4010108@sonic.net> <4BFDFBEF.5040604@sonic.net> Message-ID: Because of the pace of the game, Paralysis becomes quite useful if you're being swarmed and as it falls under sorcery, it becomes a useful tool and you don't have good AOE to throw back at people unless you have a talisman from another school. Poison doing ability damage could be attrocious. A weak character could have their mobility crushed because their strength is now 1. Or their HP reduced to nothing because their Con is now low, or their MP reserve killed. The only problem I have with poison now is how long it lasts and how long you might be expecting to deal with it. Not to mention that it comes from so many sources. Then there's the player side in that it's useless to kill things with, but the sorcery tree has it as a primary offensive tool. On 27 May 2010 05:58, Mark Wedel wrote: > On 05/26/10 03:28 AM, igniz revolver wrote: > > As a victim of many of these attacks, i'd agree with some of these > > changes but not others. > > > > Confusion and Paralyse are nice CC's for a creature or player to use, > > but their duration is so long and the effects so potent that it's > > something a player should endeavor to become immune to. If the duration > > could be reduced, that would be better. > > this may change with other changes, but one issue for most spells is > expected > lifetime of the creatures. > > So the problem here is that if duration is too short, the player using it > against monster doesn't happen much, since the monster is not expected to > last > very long anyways. > > Confusion is at least survivable - its annoying, but if you have potions > of > healing, word of recall, or other items, one can get out of it. > > But to me, the problem for a player is having monsters wonder around > aimlessly > tends not to make them much easier to kill - it typically makes them > harder. So > it almost becomes a purely used monster attribute - maybe not a bad thing. > > paralyze can be effective on monsters, but problem is generally that if > you > can paralyze them, you can hit them with something else instead that will > do > damage and kill them. And if duration is too short, that is even a bigger > issue. > > > > Poison changing to stat damage would be horrific to deal with. The only > > thing I'd like to see changed about it is the duration of poison and > > also disease. It seems impossible to overcome disease and poison can > > last so long. From a player perspective, poison does too little damage > > over too long a time to be effective against monsters, but for a player > > - poison can stack up to horrendous levels. > > disease is more an effect, so I didn't include it here. It also is > something > that is much more effective for players to use against monsters than vice > versa, > simply because it spreads to other monsters, and in most maps, you have > mobs of > monsters. It perhaps shoul > > Poison is nastier now, but if one is paying attention, usually not deadly > - if > one can heal any amount of damage, one can typically survive it. > > A general change I would like to see is just a bit slower combat in > general. > So in the case of poison, it may be it drops your stat for 5 points for 20 > seconds, but spreads it out over that time, so initially you are at -1, two > seconds later, -2, -3, etc. If a message/indicator shows up, this gives > the > player time to do something - drink potion of cure poison, run away, > whatever. > > > > > Blind is okay, imo, but fog doesn't seem to work for a lot of things. So > > spells like Steamball are less useful than they should be. > > I stated the issue was with fog of war, blind isn't that nasty. If I > know > where the walls are and where the exit is, even when blinded, I can > probably get > to safety. > > > _______________________________________________ > crossfire mailing list > crossfire at metalforge.org > http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20100527/5d10b514/attachment.htm From mwedel at sonic.net Fri May 28 00:03:50 2010 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 22:03:50 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] Classes Message-ID: <4BFF4EB6.4000004@sonic.net> Been thinking about classes some. I'll eventually record all this on the wiki, but thought I'd start some discussion first. A few general thoughts/questions: Should everyone actually get search and disarm skills? While these are fairly important, they are perhaps not critical and in most games, these are reserved for thief characters, and by giving them to everyone, it diminishes the value of thieves in crossfire. One thought is to give characters versions of these skills which advance really slowly, so at first level they are usable, but as character gains levels, they will lag, so if there ever does become a thief character, it now becomes somewhat useful for those skills. I figure at higher levels, characters perhaps have other ways to deal with traps - either with spells, or fact they just have enough HP to survive. For starting skills, should skill tools be done away with (eg, talismans, holy symbols?) My take, which may be wrong, is more often than not they are annoying/disliked, and I'm not sure what is really gained by having them vs giving the characters the native skills. Thoughts? Related to the skills discussion, maybe sense magic & sense curse skills go away, and instead become special bonuses of praying and wizardry skills? --- As the game stands now, there are more or less 3 main playable types - fighter, wizard, cleric. There are some subtypes, like monk, barbarian, etc. But if one takes that main types and combinations (fighter + cleric, fighter + wizard, wizard + cleric), there is not a huge number of choices, which is probably a good thing. However, since there are 4 magic skills, this number multiplies. I'm thinking what would be convenient is some way to give the player the choice of what magic skill they get, so that number of classes stays a more reasonable level (instead of needing to do cleric + evoker, cleric + pyromancer, etc, one just does cleric + wizard, and player chooses what specific skill). I'm just not sure how to do that. I also think that as a general rule, the stat adjustments for classes should be in a narrower ranger (?2 or ?3). In a sense, after the person grows up, choosing a class may focus some of the attributes (eg, a wizard focusing on arcane arts is likely to get smarter and not be as strong), but race should still play a more important roll. At the bottom, I note removal of a few classes. The main focus for the key class is what combat skills the character starts with. Rather than try to add more classes for some of the minor skills (like alchemy), I think it might be more interesting to add quests to get those skills, and maybe by way things are set up, you have only a choice of getting one (eg, you either help out the alchemist guild or thieves guild, and depending who you help out determines what skill you are taught) General note on info below: Every class/race can use potions, so magic items is referring to scrolls, wands, rods. Unless otherwise noted, everyone has literacy. In any case, quick rundown on different classes: Barbarian: Armor & weapons: All Magic items: no Other notes: No literacy skill, woodsman skill, moutaineering Description: Hardened warriors from uncivilized areas who don't like magic. Assessment: Probably needs some other bonus to make this better to play than the fighter below. Note sure woodsman & mountaineering are good enough. Fighter: Armor & weapons: All Magic items: wands/rods/staves Other notes: None Description: Skilled warriors trained in civilized lands. Assessment: Basic fighter Monk: Armor & weapons: No armor, maybe allow a limited set of monk weapons Magic Items: All Other notes: Gets karate, meditation Assessment: most useful for races that can not use armor & weapons since that is no disadvantage, and you get a nice advantage. Addition of a limited set of monk weapons is to give some more options, and really, who else in the game is going to use nunchukas? Priest: Armor & Weapons: Light & medium armor, maybe limited set of weapons (but still pretty broad) Magic Items: All Other notes: gets praying skill Assessment: Playability really depends on spells - some gods give much better low level spells than other gods, likewise for higher levels. Wizard: Armor & Weapons: Light armor, limited set of weapons (no bow, maybe only small/simple melee weapons) Magic Items: All Other Notes: Pure wizard would get 2 of the 4 magic skills. Assessment: Key for this class is to stay away from enemies, so distance damage spell is important. Paladin (fighter + cleric combo) Armor & Weapons: All armor, limited weapon (maybe no missile weapon) Magic Items: All Other notes: Gets praying skill Assessment: It might need more differentiation to make this less desirable to play - otherwise everyone plays this instead of of either the priest or the fighter - if it gets all the same abilities, why not? Warlock (fighter + mage) Armor & Weapons: Light & medium armor, limited weapon Magic Items: All OTher notes: Gets a magic skill Assessment: By getting only 1 magic skill, this is less desirable then the wizard. The choice of armor and weapons make it less desirable than a fighter - they key here is the combination of abilities that hopefully makes it better to play - disadvantage is that exp is split among 2 skills (magic + weapons) Devotee (cleric + mage) Armor & Weapons: Light & medium armor, very limited weapon (maybe same as mage) Magic items: All Other notes: Gets magic skill + praying skill Assessment: like warlock above, value is in using both abilities - if one were to go pure mage, better of as a wizard, if pure cleric, better of as a priest. Swashbuckler: Removed - not distinctive enough from a fighter. Ninja: Use of hiding, sneak attacks & karate may make it interesting, but I think more work is needed to make sneak attacks really work. Removed for now Thief: Playability of thief needs work - as it is now, it is basically a less good fighter with a bonus non combat skill. As noted at very top, it might be more interesting to let fighters do some quest to get this non combat skill. I think making thieves playable is an entire discussion - a discussion worth having, but beyond scope of this message. Sorcerer, Evoker, Summoner: Distinction of magic profession can hopefully be removed in some way - instead, character choose what magic skill they want as noted at top of message. Alchemist: Really just an old wizard (single skill) with alchemy skill. While alchemy is interesting, I don't think it warrants and entire class (if so, should we add smith, baker, etc?) I think the item creation skills would be good skills to give out as part of quests. From brenlally at gmail.com Fri May 28 19:48:51 2010 From: brenlally at gmail.com (Brendan Lally) Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 01:48:51 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] Classes In-Reply-To: <4BFF4EB6.4000004@sonic.net> References: <4BFF4EB6.4000004@sonic.net> Message-ID: <20100529014851.4ef4f84b@angmar> On Thu, 27 May 2010 22:03:50 -0700 Mark Wedel wrote: > For starting skills, should skill tools be done away with (eg, > talismans, holy symbols?) My take, which may be wrong, is more often > than not they are annoying/disliked, and I'm not sure what is really > gained by having them vs giving the characters the native skills. > Thoughts? I'd agree with the skill tools bit, mostly they are just clutter in my character's inventory until I find a 'proper' skill scroll (which I would typically buy anyway because they are cheap enough). Maybe talismans could remain as a form of amulet that gives a skill boost to the spell schools in question? If they were made rare enough*, then this would be a way to make it much easier to 'start' a wizard-style character. Give a talisman as starting equipment to each mage that increases the effective level of their skill by 3 levels (probably capped at level 15 or so). They would then immediately be able to cast 4th level spells whereas non-specialists are forced to start with first level spells. If the first area of effect spells are made available at levels 3 or 4 then it will be very slow going for anyone who isn't a wizard by trade. * with appropriately high-level quests which fighter-style characters could attempt when they are strong enough to think about generalising. > Related to the skills discussion, maybe sense magic & sense curse > skills go away, and instead become special bonuses of praying and > wizardry skills? Or maybe they should just become an extension of the identification skills? So if I have an enchanted sword and use my smithery skill on it, there are three possible outcomes: 1) I fail completely and think it is a mundane sword. 2) I know there is something magical about it but don't know what. 3) I find out everything there is to know about it. If the skill is lacking, then you could still have an unmodified roll against INT and WIS to try and determine 2. Brendan. From mwedel at sonic.net Fri May 28 22:23:56 2010 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 20:23:56 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] Classes In-Reply-To: <20100529014851.4ef4f84b@angmar> References: <4BFF4EB6.4000004@sonic.net> <20100529014851.4ef4f84b@angmar> Message-ID: <4C0088CC.7050001@sonic.net> On 05/28/10 05:48 PM, Brendan Lally wrote: > On Thu, 27 May 2010 22:03:50 -0700 > Mark Wedel wrote: > >> For starting skills, should skill tools be done away with (eg, >> talismans, holy symbols?) My take, which may be wrong, is more often >> than not they are annoying/disliked, and I'm not sure what is really >> gained by having them vs giving the characters the native skills. >> Thoughts? > > I'd agree with the skill tools bit, mostly they are just clutter in my > character's inventory until I find a 'proper' skill scroll (which I > would typically buy anyway because they are cheap enough). > > Maybe talismans could remain as a form of amulet that gives a skill > boost to the spell schools in question? If they were made rare enough*, > then this would be a way to make it much easier to 'start' a > wizard-style character. > Give a talisman as starting equipment to each mage that increases the > effective level of their skill by 3 levels (probably capped at level > 15 or so). They would then immediately be able to cast 4th level > spells whereas non-specialists are forced to start with first level > spells. > If the first area of effect spells are made available at levels 3 > or 4 then it will be very slow going for anyone who isn't a wizard by > trade. That could be done. One thought is to have the talismans/holy symbols be attuned as now, but add something more to attunement. While attunement is certainly useful right now, I don't think it is especially so. It means that the effective casting level is slightly higher, and sp cost slightly lower. But casting level typically doesn't have a huge impact on spell ability - it may mean an extra point or two of damage. What is really useful is making real level of the skill effectively higher, so you have access to more powerful spells. >> Related to the skills discussion, maybe sense magic& sense curse >> skills go away, and instead become special bonuses of praying and >> wizardry skills? > > Or maybe they should just become an extension of the identification > skills? So if I have an enchanted sword and use my smithery skill on > it, there are three possible outcomes: > 1) I fail completely and think it is a mundane sword. > 2) I know there is something magical about it but don't know what. > 3) I find out everything there is to know about it. > > If the skill is lacking, then you could still have an unmodified roll > against INT and WIS to try and determine 2. Having it tied to to the skill for the item is a good idea. It does make sense that depending on your skill, you would learn different things out, or perhaps nothing at all for powerful items. The one issue here, relative to curse, is that it is often handy to be able to detect curse on item because you can still sell it for money. I say this in the sense that the player doesn't have any control of it being identified as cursed. But a reasonable change may just be that cursed items, whether known cursed or not, are considered worth 0 value in shops - shopkeeper should at least know what it is. Otherwise, one could argue that a player should be able to erase any signs of its true nature (how does the shopkeeper know what it is if I identify it away from him?) But cursed items could perhaps still be decomposed into raw materials, so you could use a cursed sword to make a normal sword (just as melting down a +1 sword results in a pile of ordinary steel, same would be true for a -1 sword). From igniz.revolver at googlemail.com Sat May 29 03:05:49 2010 From: igniz.revolver at googlemail.com (igniz revolver) Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 09:05:49 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] Classes In-Reply-To: <4C0088CC.7050001@sonic.net> References: <4BFF4EB6.4000004@sonic.net> <20100529014851.4ef4f84b@angmar> <4C0088CC.7050001@sonic.net> Message-ID: This is just a short reply to the general idea. 1) Please don't take away search and disarm as base skills 2) Perhaps classes could be inherently attuned to skills? I like skill tools as a general way to access skills but a class shouldn't rely on them. IMO more classes should have inherent talents. If you want to make a class that focuses on particularly skills, inherent attunement makes sense. 3) I like thief classes, hiding is good. 4) The Sorcery tree is rubbish to level and talismans provide a cheaper way of getting a skill you can level with. On 29 May 2010 04:23, Mark Wedel wrote: > On 05/28/10 05:48 PM, Brendan Lally wrote: > > On Thu, 27 May 2010 22:03:50 -0700 > > Mark Wedel wrote: > > > >> For starting skills, should skill tools be done away with (eg, > >> talismans, holy symbols?) My take, which may be wrong, is more often > >> than not they are annoying/disliked, and I'm not sure what is really > >> gained by having them vs giving the characters the native skills. > >> Thoughts? > > > > I'd agree with the skill tools bit, mostly they are just clutter in my > > character's inventory until I find a 'proper' skill scroll (which I > > would typically buy anyway because they are cheap enough). > > > > Maybe talismans could remain as a form of amulet that gives a skill > > boost to the spell schools in question? If they were made rare enough*, > > then this would be a way to make it much easier to 'start' a > > wizard-style character. > > Give a talisman as starting equipment to each mage that increases the > > effective level of their skill by 3 levels (probably capped at level > > 15 or so). They would then immediately be able to cast 4th level > > spells whereas non-specialists are forced to start with first level > > spells. > > If the first area of effect spells are made available at levels 3 > > or 4 then it will be very slow going for anyone who isn't a wizard by > > trade. > > That could be done. One thought is to have the talismans/holy symbols be > attuned as now, but add something more to attunement. > > While attunement is certainly useful right now, I don't think it is > especially > so. It means that the effective casting level is slightly higher, and sp > cost > slightly lower. But casting level typically doesn't have a huge impact on > spell > ability - it may mean an extra point or two of damage. What is really > useful is > making real level of the skill effectively higher, so you have access to > more > powerful spells. > > > >> Related to the skills discussion, maybe sense magic& sense curse > >> skills go away, and instead become special bonuses of praying and > >> wizardry skills? > > > > Or maybe they should just become an extension of the identification > > skills? So if I have an enchanted sword and use my smithery skill on > > it, there are three possible outcomes: > > 1) I fail completely and think it is a mundane sword. > > 2) I know there is something magical about it but don't know what. > > 3) I find out everything there is to know about it. > > > > If the skill is lacking, then you could still have an unmodified roll > > against INT and WIS to try and determine 2. > > Having it tied to to the skill for the item is a good idea. > > It does make sense that depending on your skill, you would learn different > things out, or perhaps nothing at all for powerful items. > > The one issue here, relative to curse, is that it is often handy to be > able to > detect curse on item because you can still sell it for money. I say this > in the > sense that the player doesn't have any control of it being identified as > cursed. > > But a reasonable change may just be that cursed items, whether known > cursed or > not, are considered worth 0 value in shops - shopkeeper should at least > know > what it is. Otherwise, one could argue that a player should be able to > erase > any signs of its true nature (how does the shopkeeper know what it is if I > identify it away from him?) > > But cursed items could perhaps still be decomposed into raw materials, so > you > could use a cursed sword to make a normal sword (just as melting down a +1 > sword > results in a pile of ordinary steel, same would be true for a -1 sword). > > _______________________________________________ > crossfire mailing list > crossfire at metalforge.org > http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20100529/cae74171/attachment.htm From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Sat May 29 03:45:01 2010 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 10:45:01 +0200 Subject: [crossfire] Attributes/Stats In-Reply-To: <4BF8A054.9090807@sonic.net> References: <4BE8FC3B.20504@sonic.net> <201005221314.24854.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4BF8A054.9090807@sonic.net> Message-ID: <201005291045.04455.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> > I suppose one could add a bard type class, in which spells (songs) work a > bit different and which Cha is a key stat, but that is not a simple > change. And I'm not quite sure how that would work as a class in > crossfire. What works for a table top game, or even other CRPG's where > you have player controlled NPCs is different. Since crossfire by in large > is a solo play game, it means that the class has to be able to stand up on > its own - something that really complements a fighter has limited value if > you also have to be the fighter. Cha could be used for charm monster, oratory, singing, to influence the outcome. > One has to be careful about such schemes - just results in one casting > spells at every opportunity. I've played some games like that, and so > while I'm wandering through the countryside, I'm casting a spell because > it will slowly improve my skill. > > You can try to control it - they spell has to do damage to creature, etc, > but then you get the case of the 30th level character sitting in the > starting house with a bunch of orcs so the spell damages something (if it > doesn't kill the orcs, they can do it all day). And if the requirement > does become it has to kill them, now you fall back into an exp based > system. Sure, it needs balancing. > Yes - that could be done, but would require some new logic (otoh, if the > npc is going to give a potion, why not just add logic instead like 'he > trains you to be stronger' instead?) New logic isn't hard to add - a simple Python script in the quest mechanism would work. > I'd hate to make them alchemy only - that tosses more balance issues into > the mix (by the very redesign of classes, some classes will have a hard > time being able to do alchemy, so they are effectively deprived of > potions). One could add something like an NPC alchemist - you bring him > the components, pay some amount of money, and he'll make the potion for > you. Yup, or that's make multiplayer a more interesting thing - one is a warrior, the other an alchemist. > For certain rare items, like potions, treasure lists and treasure chest > could also be changed. Right now, at some difficulty level, any random > chest can have a potion in it. One could instead add different quality of > chests (common, rare, etc), and only rare ones might generate potions, and > those chests should be used sparing - to an extent that random maps may > contain only one such quest every 5-10 levels or something (and fact it > may show up in the potion does not mean it would - it might still only be > a 10% chance, so it means if you clear out a level 100 dungeon, you get 1 > potion) Yep, treasure lists need rebalancing too. > True, but anything that has random determination of reward (Raffle being > an extreme example, but even rewards at end of dungeons) adds potential > for doing repeats to get the item you want. > > One could make many of the rewards static (and many items are), but that > also isn't ideal - it means one knows exactly where to go to get some item > - I'm not sure that is a good thing either. Some middle ground may be > better - not sure. Random is fine. After all, grinding for items is a playing objective. But maybe we need to also add quest-based grinding ;) 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20100529/89ce9a63/attachment.pgp From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Sat May 29 04:11:50 2010 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 11:11:50 +0200 Subject: [crossfire] races In-Reply-To: <4BFDF8E2.1070301@sonic.net> References: <4BECE990.8050809@sonic.net> <201005260835.22411.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4BFDF8E2.1070301@sonic.net> Message-ID: <201005291111.54430.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> > My problem right now isn't as much combos that are hard to play, but > races in which any choice of class is hard to play (aka unplayable races). Then let's have those races with a big "not checked for balance!" warning :) > If a troll tries to play a mage, he is in bad shape. While putting > warnings up might be nice, I'm not sure of a good mechanic to do that. > Perhaps in those cases, just having the class description make it clear, > something like 'Power is a key attribute for wizards, and any starting > wizard should have at least a 20 power' or the like. So when the player > chooses a troll and sees a -4 pow penalty (or whatever it is), maybe > realizes that isn't a good choice. Manually put warnings in the race description, and when you select a class - since you already know the race. I think the character creation logic will be changed, correct? So if one can select at the same time race and class, just put a big warning when the race is not balanced, or when the class isn't adapted at all to the race. > Another possibility I just thought of is going back to old AD&D, which is > minimum stat requirements. So maybe a wizard has a 15 pow and 15 int > requirement. If you don't meet those, you just can't play that class until > the stats are increased. Could be done, yes, and would solve some issues. > But some danger can be a race/class combination that is too powerful. > Balance is an overall achievement - that all classes & races are basically > on-par with each other. > > So while having lots of races is likely to lead to some cases of the race > not being very powerful, and thus hard to play, you may get other cases > where the race is too powerful, and too easy to play. > > But balance can be hard to achieve in many areas. One might say 'this > spell is just to powerful - that is why that class is too good', but > tuning down that spell affects every class that uses it, as well as items, > so may have more consequences than intended. This is one reason why > balance is so hard. So what? If the combo is too powerful, people who use it obviously don't want a challenge, and they like the game like it is, so that's good :) Others who like challengs will just use another combo. 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20100529/dac2e0b0/attachment.pgp From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Sat May 29 04:15:14 2010 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 11:15:14 +0200 Subject: [crossfire] Attacktypes In-Reply-To: References: <4BF4D5FE.4010108@sonic.net> <4BFDFBEF.5040604@sonic.net> Message-ID: <201005291115.14794.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> > Because of the pace of the game, Paralysis becomes quite useful if you're > being swarmed and as it falls under sorcery, it becomes a useful tool and > you don't have good AOE to throw back at people unless you have a talisman > from another school. Yes, paralysis is nice in many cases :) > Poison doing ability damage could be attrocious. A weak character could > have their mobility crushed because their strength is now 1. Or their HP > reduced to nothing because their Con is now low, or their MP reserve > killed. Would that be really bad? There could be various types of poisons, reducing hp or sp or gr and such, and for high level monsters reduce attributes. I would argue players should take some precautions when fighting high level monsters, and check for this kind of attacks. Which would be an interesting use of the knowledge stuff, btw - when you spot a monster, if you know things about it, just popup information or give big traits - poison attack, warning! > The only problem I have with poison now is how long it lasts and how long > you might be expecting to deal with it. Not to mention that it comes from > so many sources. As does fire attacks, or other things. > Then there's the player side in that it's useless to kill things with, but > the sorcery tree has it as a primary offensive tool. Then it should be rebalanced for players :) 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20100529/b38c8335/attachment.pgp From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Sat May 29 04:18:01 2010 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 11:18:01 +0200 Subject: [crossfire] Stats and level advancement proposal In-Reply-To: <4BFDF69A.3030605@sonic.net> References: <201005231903.07330.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <201005260838.48893.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4BFDF69A.3030605@sonic.net> Message-ID: <201005291118.01678.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> > Sorry, perhaps a misunderstanding. I took that page to be a proposal of > what the different values at different levels should be. Perhaps the fact > that the subject states it is a stats and level advancement proposal gave > me that idea :) > > But from what you say above, it sounds like you are looking more for > recorded (eg, real) values. > > So as of now, I'm a little confused on what it is a page of. If it is of > recorded values (so as you state, you know what the > wc/ac/hp/sp/grace/resistances of a level 40 character is), then > explanations of the different fields are not really needed, since they are > just recorded from what you see as a player. > > But if you are making a proposal, then I think some of those fields need > more explanation, as they don't match what is in the game right now (as > noted, armor currently maxes at 100, and damage values are also lower) Actually, I started a page to figure the various values at http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/user:ryo:stats But then I realised it was really hard to figure many things, so I made a proposal-like page... > I certainly think such a page is a good idea (so just from designing > dungeons/maps, one can know what target level is), but I'm not sure if it > may be a little premature until other aspects are nailed down. Maybe it is premature, yes. But at some point we'll need something like that for balance, IMHO. 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20100529/e36ebfa8/attachment.pgp From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Sat May 29 04:21:00 2010 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 11:21:00 +0200 Subject: [crossfire] Stats and level advancement proposal In-Reply-To: References: <201005231903.07330.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <201005260838.48893.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Message-ID: <201005291121.00793.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> > It might be possible to examine the characters on the server, seeing what > stats they have. Yes, that just needs an admin to extract statistics... Or maybe just checking the highscore would help, after all it gives sp/hp/gr I think. > It might be best if rather than rolling and then assigning stats, stats > could be calculated exclusively by race and class. > > So if everyone has a basic 14 stat in everything, then race and class + and > - to those stats and that's your stats for your character. > > You can then know the average of players. Indeed, that would work. Another option is to use an idea Mark proposed in another thread, start with some fixed statistics and each level get points to distribute. > This would also require the refinement of races so their benefits are more > in-line with others. > > One of the main issues I see is that you have races with large +'s and -'s > and odd restrictions or benefits that can make or break a character. I'd > suggest minimalising the deviance from the base deviation of 0 for > statistical benefits from race. > > E.G. make the Fireborn mage focused but less obviously so. But then you need to take into account for instance a fireborn's natural fire immunity, which can play a significant role. > Then decrease the degree of stats needed to run a successful character > > Then refine the degree of +stats you can give to a character. > > So rather than have everyone with a 30 in everything, you have everyone > with a more uniform increase in stats relative to their starting values. > > Imagine if you gained +1 to all stats every 10 levels, but gained a further > +1 to a key stat dependant on class. > Then you could have the classes changing titles whenever they gained a > stat. > > You'd then have a more uniform idea of what to expect from a player. Yes, that'd work too. Just need to decide the exact figures and formulae :) 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20100529/7a468a3d/attachment.pgp From mwedel at sonic.net Mon May 31 00:44:58 2010 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 22:44:58 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] races In-Reply-To: <201005291111.54430.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> References: <4BECE990.8050809@sonic.net> <201005260835.22411.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4BFDF8E2.1070301@sonic.net> <201005291111.54430.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Message-ID: <4C034CDA.6060808@sonic.net> On 05/29/10 02:11 AM, Nicolas Weeger wrote: >> If a troll tries to play a mage, he is in bad shape. While putting >> warnings up might be nice, I'm not sure of a good mechanic to do that. >> Perhaps in those cases, just having the class description make it clear, >> something like 'Power is a key attribute for wizards, and any starting >> wizard should have at least a 20 power' or the like. So when the player >> chooses a troll and sees a -4 pow penalty (or whatever it is), maybe >> realizes that isn't a good choice. > > Manually put warnings in the race description, and when you select a class - > since you already know the race. > > I think the character creation logic will be changed, correct? > So if one can select at the same time race and class, just put a big warning > when the race is not balanced, or when the class isn't adapted at all to the > race. Yes - could be done. Main thing in that case is to make sure it stays up to date, eg, if a new class is added, all the races for which that class is not a good fit needs to be updated. >> But some danger can be a race/class combination that is too powerful. >> Balance is an overall achievement - that all classes& races are basically >> on-par with each other. >> >> So while having lots of races is likely to lead to some cases of the race >> not being very powerful, and thus hard to play, you may get other cases >> where the race is too powerful, and too easy to play. >> >> But balance can be hard to achieve in many areas. One might say 'this >> spell is just to powerful - that is why that class is too good', but >> tuning down that spell affects every class that uses it, as well as items, >> so may have more consequences than intended. This is one reason why >> balance is so hard. > > So what? > If the combo is too powerful, people who use it obviously don't want a > challenge, and they like the game like it is, so that's good :) > Others who like challengs will just use another combo. If it was that simple, no problem :) But balance is all inter related. If some combo is too powerful, it probably means they can clear out dungeons that much more easily, which leads to a proliferation of more stuff in shops. Conversely, map makers may design maps to challenge the powerful combos, which leaves the normal/average characters a map that is nearly impossible to complete. Some of this can get fixed by having good 'reference' characters that mapmakers can use to see how the map plays. But you probably still don't want to have things that are too powerful. But with a potentially revised stat systems, the higher stats shouldn't be as much an improvement. Probably best to change things around, and then see outcome (just by looking at highscore file, one can see what races/classes get played a lot, and if all the top characters are a selection of just one or two races/classes, may be sign they need some balance). From mwedel at sonic.net Mon May 31 00:49:42 2010 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 22:49:42 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] Attributes/Stats In-Reply-To: <201005291045.04455.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> References: <4BE8FC3B.20504@sonic.net> <201005221314.24854.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <4BF8A054.9090807@sonic.net> <201005291045.04455.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Message-ID: <4C034DF6.8010605@sonic.net> On 05/29/10 01:45 AM, Nicolas Weeger wrote: >> I suppose one could add a bard type class, in which spells (songs) work a >> bit different and which Cha is a key stat, but that is not a simple >> change. And I'm not quite sure how that would work as a class in >> crossfire. What works for a table top game, or even other CRPG's where >> you have player controlled NPCs is different. Since crossfire by in large >> is a solo play game, it means that the class has to be able to stand up on >> its own - something that really complements a fighter has limited value if >> you also have to be the fighter. > > Cha could be used for charm monster, oratory, singing, to influence the > outcome. I think it is right now, but those are hardly 'key' skills/spells - many players could go through the entire game never using those. Maybe a class could survive on just those skills, but not sure (by survive, I mean use those skills as the main method to gain exp, and not just a side experiment)