From leaf at real-time.com Tue Dec 2 01:30:00 2014 From: leaf at real-time.com (Rick Tanner) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 01:30:00 -0600 Subject: [crossfire] Shop prices overhaul In-Reply-To: <547B6959.8010505@gmail.com> References: <547B6959.8010505@gmail.com> Message-ID: <547D6A78.3010709@real-time.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I share this info to make sure the patch is accomplishing what it's designed to do, and for any discussion and comments that others may have. I did some testing with the patch, and these are some of my observations with a level 4 character, 11 charisma and has the bargaining skill. Sale prices in shops for common items such as potions seem to decreased by about 10% in all stores tested (Scorn, Wolfsburg, Santo Dominion.) For instance, balm of minor healing went from 91 platinum to 80 platinum. When I would left click to examine items in the inventory, the character was 100% accurate on estimating the sell price to shops. For instance: You reckon they are worth 7 platinum coins and 8 server coins. You are offered 7 platinum coins and 8 server coins for them. You receive 7 platinum coins and 8 server coins for the sapphires. At the moment, my character is also 100% accurate on predicting the purchase price of items from shops as well. (Stand over the item, and left click to examine it.) NOTE: From a player perspective, this is really nice to know exactly how much money is needed to make a purchase. NOTE 2: Bargaining is still needed or used to on shop greed and items the shop pays higher prices on. Examples of output with use_skill bargaining: - From looking at the nearby shop you determine that it trades in: rings It won't trade in items worth less than 60 platinum coins. - From looking at the nearby shop you determine that it trades in: amulets, rings, potions, books, scrolls, spellbooks, skillscrolls and wands. It won't trade for items above 40 platinum coins. There is certainly much more that can be tested or experimented with. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) iD8DBQFUfWpqhHyvgBp+vH4RAgskAJ9BiT1F6+Jz/arlXfyEm0o9WrAwbQCdGb6k 5vtGGcWaEpUwNvN7bBy4WYk= =WRp0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From mwedel at sonic.net Tue Dec 2 01:48:31 2014 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 23:48:31 -0800 Subject: [crossfire] Shop prices overhaul In-Reply-To: <547B6959.8010505@gmail.com> References: <547B6959.8010505@gmail.com> Message-ID: <547D6ECF.6070701@sonic.net> On 11/30/14 11:00 AM, Kevin Zheng wrote: > Hi all, > > At the moment, Crossfire's shops aren't particularly useful. For > medium-level players, prices seem unreasonable, while new players can't > afford to buy from shops at all. Old players with high charisma and > bargaining, on the other hand, don't notice a huge discrepancy. The shops (and economy) in crossfire have many problems, many have been discussed before, so I won't restate them, but I think any change is just going to be one piece of the puzzle. > > The attached patch attempts to fix some of these issues: > > Charisma and bargaining now only affect the shop buy price, with > multipliers ranging from 2x for new players to 0.5x for very advanced > players. This is consistent with rogue-style shopkeeper greed but still > better than the existing situation. Bargaining is now significantly less > useful; the hope is that in the near future it is replaced with > interactive "haggling". If you are going to reduce the importance of bargaining, is there any reason to just not remove it all together then? The passive skills were always a little odd (passive skills being those that the player just automatically uses without any effort, and likewise, can't really focus much on improving them). I'm not quite sure how interactive haggling will work out - it will seem like someone would pretty quickly figure out how it works, write a plugin to the client to just do the work and get maximum value, at which point, one asks why not just skip all those steps and just give the player the best price to start with. I do think that having stats & skills affect buy price is a good improvement - high level players tend to have more money than they can do anything with and never buy anything, so therefor, don't really see the advantage. > > The sell price is clamped down to 0.5x base price, subject to additional > shop specialization and greed. This sell price is mostly better than the > existing prices, and at the very least prevents high level players from > buying and selling for a profit. One thing to be absolute sure to check is that it is never possible for a character to sell something for more than they can buy it (eg, buy for 100, sell for 101), because that clearly breaks the game. In fact, even doing it equal would probably break the game. For those not looking at the patch, it appears to be that the character will get best price if their charisma is 30 or they have maximum bargaining level (or some combination in between (level 20 bargaining and 25 charisma would appear to do it also) I'd personally rather that instad of shop_buy_multiplier() having a hardcoded formula that is used, that is instead stored in the stat_bonus file, and if not set there, perhaps fill in the array based on that formula. I'm not sure how many people actually use the stat_bonus file, but all the code is there so it is a pretty simple matter to just keep using it - at also lets player admins adjust things more easily (with the formula as is, it is pretty much impossible to adjust things - at least with the old compiled in arrays, one could change those to get different behavior) Otherwise, looks good to me. From kevinz5000 at gmail.com Wed Dec 3 22:47:17 2014 From: kevinz5000 at gmail.com (Kevin Zheng) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 22:47:17 -0600 Subject: [crossfire] Shop prices overhaul In-Reply-To: <547D6ECF.6070701@sonic.net> References: <547B6959.8010505@gmail.com> <547D6ECF.6070701@sonic.net> Message-ID: <547FE755.3040402@gmail.com> On 12/02/2014 01:48, Mark Wedel wrote: > If you are going to reduce the importance of bargaining, is there any > reason to just not remove it all together then? The passive skills were > always a little odd (passive skills being those that the player just > automatically uses without any effort, and likewise, can't really focus > much on improving them). My intent is to keep bargaining around but re-implement it as interactive haggling. That way, it's no longer a passive skill. > I'm not quite sure how interactive haggling will work out - it will > seem like someone would pretty quickly figure out how it works, write a > plugin to the client to just do the work and get maximum value, at which > point, one asks why not just skip all those steps and just give the > player the best price to start with. Getting the details worked out will be difficult, but I don't think having it abused by a few players will prevent it from being useful to others. Randomizing well and making things probabilistic may help. > One thing to be absolute sure to check is that it is never possible for > a character to sell something for more than they can buy it (eg, buy for > 100, sell for 101), because that clearly breaks the game. In fact, even > doing it equal would probably break the game. I'll be careful to make sure this doesn't happen. At the moment, there are additional calculations made after the charisma/bargaining adjustment; the 0.5 ratio here is further decreased later on. > I'd personally rather that instad of shop_buy_multiplier() having a > hardcoded formula that is used, that is instead stored in the stat_bonus > file, and if not set there, perhaps fill in the array based on that > formula. The issue with using the file is that existing servers will not reflect the changes without admin intervention. And, it seems that anyone who is willing to modify the file might as well change the function. This approach doesn't seem to be new; plenty of calculations are delegated to Python scripts in the maps. If an admin is willing to customize the bonuses, changing a function doesn't seem difficult. > I'm not sure how many people actually use the stat_bonus file, but all > the code is there so it is a pretty simple matter to just keep using it > - at also lets player admins adjust things more easily (with the formula > as is, it is pretty much impossible to adjust things - at least with the > old compiled in arrays, one could change those to get different behavior) Same thing here: the calculation is split off into a function of its own, and with documentation should be straightforward to edit. Playing with different formulas may seem cumbersome, but it seems that being able to manipulate the formula directly is more useful. Having numbers without a formula makes analysis and future changes more difficult, and of course may just be a premature optimization. That said, using the stat_bonus is straightforward as well; I simply need to evaluate the function out and stick it in a file. Server admins will need to merge changes in manually. Thoughts? Kevin Zheng -- Kevin Zheng kevinz5000 at gmail.com | kevinz at kd0lgh.mooo.com | PGP: 0xC22E1090 From norkthedork at gmail.com Sat Dec 27 18:31:45 2014 From: norkthedork at gmail.com (DraugTheWhopper) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 19:31:45 -0500 Subject: [crossfire] Game change proposals In-Reply-To: <201406122036.00186.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> References: <201406122036.00186.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Message-ID: > > What about "mini-games"? > > For instance, instead of a mere lockpicking, you actually have to use the > picks in the right order in a limited time to pick a lock - if you fail, > you > trigger the traps, of course. > Don't think I like this. Maybe as some people suggested about using a minigame for important doors, but I don't think minigames are very conducive to CF's atmosphere. > What about changing alchemy (including the jeweler etc. variants)? > > For each formulae you start with a ~3% chance of success. You succeed? Get > 3 > to 5 points. Failure? Get 0-1 point (failure is a valuable lesson, after > all > :)). Capped to ~90%. And maybe not giving global experience. > > What about random (ie player-dependant) parameters? You have more success > during certain hours, or outside vs inside, or...? > Nice. I'm interested in ways to revamp crafting. Then reduce the dropped items. I mean, so much junk! > All part of the fun! After all, real adventurers would need to wade through corpses, body parts, and paraphernalia to find the valuables. > Then, slowing (a lot) combat, making it more tactical. Instead of a zillion > monsters, some hard to defeat monsters, where you can use all your skills > and > items, and attempt various combinations. > > Then various effects on weapons: stun, knock back, confuse, slow, etc. > > Reduce the zillion elemental attacks to a lower number (6? 8?), other > things > are side effects. > > Interesting, but I fondly remember the twitchy, fastpaced nature of CF in the old days(think monochrome cfclient). Granted, I was playing that on a LAN server rather than internet, and that was before spell casting took time, etc. Just my two cents. I have strong feelings about many things, so I have to be careful how I let them out. :) --Nathan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From norkthedork at gmail.com Sat Dec 27 18:38:12 2014 From: norkthedork at gmail.com (DraugTheWhopper) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 19:38:12 -0500 Subject: [crossfire] Version bump request? In-Reply-To: <5339EF7F.1060608@tanners.org> References: <533824E8.3050807@gmail.com> <53390F7A.3080301@sonic.net> <5339EF7F.1060608@tanners.org> Message-ID: Now that some more time has passed with (I assume) more mainline changes, is there a chance of cutting a new release again? Wouldn't hurt to have a Windoze release this time too, since it looks the last one may have been at 1.60. More thoughts: What is the current dominant client? I heard someone say once that GTKV2client had fallen by the wayside in favor of JXClient, but I hope that's not the case, as I much prefer the cfclient layout, etc. Has any thought been given to using GTK vs QT? Are there any thoughts on portability to Wayland/Weston? --Nathan On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Richard Tanner wrote: > On 3/31/14 1:47 AM, Mark Wedel wrote: > > > > I'm pretty sure I wrote a wiki doc on > > the release process that describes all the steps. > > Yes, it was documented at: > > http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/crossfire_release_guide > > And some info on release numbers: > > http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/crossfire_release_cycle > > As always.. updates, clarifications and updates are always welcome. > > > _______________________________________________ > crossfire mailing list > crossfire at metalforge.org > http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevinz5000 at gmail.com Sat Dec 27 23:16:33 2014 From: kevinz5000 at gmail.com (Kevin Zheng) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 23:16:33 -0600 Subject: [crossfire] Version bump request? In-Reply-To: References: <533824E8.3050807@gmail.com> <53390F7A.3080301@sonic.net> <5339EF7F.1060608@tanners.org> Message-ID: <549F9231.8000706@gmail.com> On 12/27/14 18:38, DraugTheWhopper wrote: > Now that some more time has passed with (I assume) more mainline > changes, is there a chance of cutting a new release again? Wouldn't hurt > to have a Windoze release this time too, since it looks the last one may > have been at 1.60. The latest release is 1.71.0, available from SourceForge. For some reason the JXClient is stuck at 1.60, I'm not sure why. We haven't been keeping up with Windows builds for various reasons. Windows support in the GTKv2 client has greatly improved since the last build. You can find some experimental client binaries here: http://partmedia.users.sourceforge.net/ They're not official because they're missing important pieces; in this particular client build it's because metaserver support is missing. > More thoughts: What is the current dominant client? I heard someone say > once that GTKV2client had fallen by the wayside in favor of JXClient, > but I hope that's not the case, as I much prefer the cfclient layout, > etc. Has any thought been given to using GTK vs QT? Are there any > thoughts on portability to Wayland/Weston? Both are well-supported. We generally point Windows users to the JXClient, but soon this will change. Best, Kevin Zheng -- Kevin Zheng kevinz5000 at gmail.com | kevinz at kd0lgh.mooo.com | PGP: 0xC22E1090 From norkthedork at gmail.com Sun Dec 28 14:48:04 2014 From: norkthedork at gmail.com (DraugTheWhopper) Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 15:48:04 -0500 Subject: [crossfire] Version bump request? In-Reply-To: <549F9231.8000706@gmail.com> References: <533824E8.3050807@gmail.com> <53390F7A.3080301@sonic.net> <5339EF7F.1060608@tanners.org> <549F9231.8000706@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 12:16 AM, Kevin Zheng wrote: > On 12/27/14 18:38, DraugTheWhopper wrote: > > Now that some more time has passed with (I assume) more mainline > > changes, is there a chance of cutting a new release again? Wouldn't hurt > > to have a Windoze release this time too, since it looks the last one may > > have been at 1.60. > > The latest release is 1.71.0, available from SourceForge. For some > reason the JXClient is stuck at 1.60, I'm not sure why. > > We haven't been keeping up with Windows builds for various reasons. > Windows support in the GTKv2 client has greatly improved since the last > build. You can find some experimental client binaries here: > > http://partmedia.users.sourceforge.net/ > > They're not official because they're missing important pieces; in this > particular client build it's because metaserver support is missing. > > Thanks, I hadn't even checked SF. crossfire.real-time.com only lists the new client for Linux, I assume this is leaf's responsibility? --Nathan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: