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

Re: Misc notes/thoughts.




> Player interactivity I think is the biggest focus we should have on 
> crossfire.  I love the fact we keep adding to it, it keeps the game 
> alive, but as fun as new features are for us, we need to start cleaning 
> up some stuff.  Make crossfire easier to install/upgrade/addto.  Make it 
> available, like you just stated, on other OSes like WIn95 (I think Java 
> is a superb idea!).  Optimize the the game for smaller bandwidth so we
> can get modem players, etc.  Also lets put more into the party idea and 
> other player to player interaction.

I agree with this.  I think the greatest feature of crossfire is its
multi-player ability, and adding clients for non-UN*X OS's could help
add a *lot* of new players (hopefully not appearing overnight, though,
so those people running servers would have a chance to upgrade the
memory on their machines ;).  To this end it would seem to make sense
to have a well-defined client-server model (the server code being
maintained in C or C++, say) with the clients relatively easily
recodable in whatever language you want (having read the propaganda on
Sun's Web site, Java does indeed sound like a good option for a
crossfire client).

Now, I admit to knowing practically nothing about how the current
client/server stuff works.  However, IMHO, the client should handle
the game window(s), including keeping a list of the players inventory
and position.  When there is an input event (key, mouse, etc.), the
event gets processed by the client and is forwarded to the server if
appropriate.  The client should be in charge of managing map/item
graphics and any scrolling of windows (as recently suggested--I think
just making the spell list pageable like shop inventories would be the
best quick (?) option).  Some people requested the ability to play
over a modem.  I don't think that is reasonable unless the client has
its own copy of the bitmaps/pixmaps (and sounds, if desired), the way
many games like Doom achieve great multi-player speed).  Sending the
pixmaps over the network is just too slow without Ethernet speeds
(even with Ethernet it would make things faster).  The only data
that should have to pass between the client and server include updates
on positions, item pickups/drops, etc, i.e. information that
corresponds to an interaction between the player and the crossfire
world.  If a player resorts his inventory, for example, the server
need not know this (have the client handle it).  Then if the player
wants to apply an "Enchant Weapon" scroll to the weapon he just moved
to the top of this inventory, the client tells the server that player
such-and-such is trying to apply the scroll, and that weapon X is the
first item in his inventory.  Does this sound feasible?  Right now it
seems to me that the server has so much to do that a good client could
handle instead that the server would not be able to support a very
large number of players (when in fact it could if the client took on a
much larger share of the work).

> Also, why make the player disappear when you save for the day?  I 
> remember playing RPG type games on BBSes, some of you might remember 
> them..  "Land of Devestation (LOD)", "Operation OverKill", etc.  They 
> were pretty fun, allowed teams, also allowed the build of forts which 
> would be a cool idea for crossfire.  If a player saves in a inn, fine, 
> can't touch him.  But allow for camping out.  Be able to save anywhere, 
> but if your not in a well built inn (like in Scorn city, not like in port 
> joesph where you have to watch your back <G>), leave some chances to at 
> least get something stolen from the player if another player finds him in 
> a not well protected area.  Also, allow fighting when the other player is 
> not on, assign some AI values to the otherwise inactive player.  Sound 
> cruel?  Not if its not made to penilize the player that is not on.  Make 
> it so the active player can gain exp, etc from the player he killed, but 
> still maintain the players save file, changing little if at all.

Well, for starters, crossfire is currently such that you must use a
"bed to reality" to sleep/save your character.  So at this time you
can't save your guy just anywhere (anyone tried carrying a bed to
reality around?).  If people really want this feature, perhaps someone
could create a "bedroll to reality" or something similar which you
could easily carry.  But when you use it your guy would "disappear"
under the current code while sleeping, so you couldn't steal stuff or
kill him.  At any rate, I would not save *my* character in the woods
if he could be attacked.  Supposedly, you do get experience for
killing other characters at this time, but not that much (and the risk
may not be worth it--ever try to kill a 60+ level character?  It's not
easy!).  Which brings up another thought I had. In AD&D, the
experience required for higher levels was much larger than in
crossfire (e.g. a 20+ level wizard had a *lot* of experience and was a
*very* powerful character).  Some people have recently suggested that
experience for monsters might be too high, making it easy to get a 50+
level character "overnight". I would suggest instead raising the
experience required for the levels.  Right now the game experience
table starts off exponentially, base 2, effectively (i.e. 1000, 2000,
4000, 8000, etc.).  I think this is fine, but by around 10th level or
so it starts leveling off dramatically (too much, I think).  Keeping
it close to roughly twice the previous level's experience for each new
level would make 30+ characters much less common.  This would also
probably effect a greater "split" in the classes (my 77th level
barbarian is now as powerful as any mage, with over 500 sp, but this
could not have happened if he were currently only, say, 27th level
instead--he would still be a powerful fighter but not that good with
magic).  This would also eliminate some of the concerns about
enchanting mega-weapons (like my barbarian has), since the number of
enchantments is proportial to the character's level.  Does anyone else
agree?

-Michael