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

Re: CF: BUG in spell_effect.c?



(Oops, sorry, lost the credit for the included text bits from the 
previous message.  I think it was Dave.)

> Agreed.  Perhaps some code to beef up the monsters a bit as level
> increases(to some preset maximum), would work.  I know that it's fairly
> easy for a low level char to get up in levels fairly quickly if you know
> the right places to go.  Would be nice to see even orcs stay a challenge
> to a level 3 character when you are wandering around looking for more
> things to kill without too high a risk.

IMHO, making monsters more powerful is not necessary.  The real problem is
that players can become way too powerful.  For example, I once had a
barbarian which I got up to level 77 before I gave up on him due to
boredom.  He had an enchanted Bonecrusher +25 (with 150 dam and 14
combined stat bonuses), over 450 hp, over 500 sp, and over 400 grace (with
the ring of Elrond--or was it two of them?).  Needeless to say, his stats
were quite high (more than one 30 with the Bonecrusher wielded) and the
rest of his inventory was just as powerful.  He could practically wade
through dragons (well, any kind except electric) and the only thing really
challenging was Jessy.  While it might be fun to try playing such a
powerful character for a little while, the game really should not make it
so easy (if allowed at all). 

Most of this seems to me to result from the experience/level table (in
common/living.c).  For the earlier levels a new level is gained by
(approximately) doubling the experience of the last level.  But after
about level 12 or so, it flattens out.  For example, it takes 900000 exp
to get to level 12, but only another 500000 (roughly 50%) to get to level
13.  I would suggest changing this so that levels require something much
closer to a doubling of experience.  This would dramatically cut down on
the number of ultra-powerful characters, and in turn the nasty monsters
would still be nasty. 

> I agree here, mana blast SHOULD perhaps do more a percentage of damage
> than a fixed amount.

It makes sense to me to have the failure effect "proportional" to the
difference in levels between the spell and the spellcaster.  If a
12th-level mage botches a 1st-level spell, no big deal (maybe lots of
flowers appear ;).  But if he botches a 12th-level spell, look out!
Likewise, if a 1st-level caster screws up a 1st-level spell, the
consequences could also be severe.  Also, you could allow (I don't think
the game does this right now) a spellcaster to try to cast a spell with a
level higher than his (e.g. the 12th-level mages tries to cast
destruction, which I think is 18th-level).  There would a very substantial
chance of failure (depending on their relative levels), and if he fails
that effects should be (potentially) disasterous.  (Anyone remember the
head "explosions" from trying use "transferrence" to overcharge on mana?)
How about loss of an Int or Pow point or some sp as a possible *bad* spell
failure effect?

> I've hit some nasty scroll failure effects on occasion, and didn't notice
> where it came from for a week.  Turned out that a failure effect
> disenchanted my sword from a +7, and it wouldn't let me re-prepare it so I
> could charge it back up again.  Definately not fun when you have a 5th
>level Wizard with no weapon worth talking about. ;)

Well, in principle a wizard should be able to get by with mostly just
spells.  In practice, he will need a good weapon.  It seems to me that 
having weapon magic draining as a failure effect is a bit strong (it 
should only happen if something nasty goes wrong).

>  It might make sense to have a list of 'failure effects' that happen instead of
> randomly choosing a spell.  Certainly, if you mess up a spell, and a detection
> spell is cost instead, that is no big deal. (as a side note, if you flub a
> spell, and it turns into something that kills the monsters, I don't think you
> should get exp for that - not sure if you do right now, however.)

This sounds pretty good.  Something like a detection spell is almost
certainly going to be beneficial (as opposed to detrimental), so I
wouldn't think it'd make a good failure effect.  It seems to me that if 
the magic "gets out of hand", a good light-moderate failure effect might 
be a ball lightning.  It could seriously damage the spellcaster, or maybe 
not (it could instead damage nearby enemies, but the point is that you 
don't know exactly what'll happen).  I think I'd have to agree that the 
spellcaster should not get experience for any kills resulting from a 
botched spell (not because he wasn't responsible for the death, but 
because it was accidental).

Does anyone else agree with this?

-Michael

(BTW, Brian, I like the lighting code.  Too bad more maps don't make use
of it.)