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

Re: CF: Experiments



Mark Wedel wrote:
> 
>  Note that the CVS tree is not a place for experimentation.  If you are going to
> check something in, you should be pretty sure it works properly (this applies to
> all cvs checkins)

    Agreed.  That's why I'm experimenting with and testing these changes on
my own copy first.  If they work, I'll commit the ones everyone agrees with
to the CVS tree.


>  I personally don't see a problem with a max regen rate.  that magic +14 is
> still likely to help if you are wearing heavy armor.
> 
>  I don't really see it as a big issue either way, but having some max regen rate
> may be good just to keep some reasonable play balance.

    Since the maximum is one point per tick, or 8/second by default, it's a
pretty reasonable maximum.  And you need (+magic * maxsp > 2000) or (+regen
* maxhp > 1200) to reach that maximum.  That's why this was an experimental
change and not a suggestion or bugfix.  It looks like it was coded under the
assumption that those numbers just wouldn't be reached.  I make a habit of
challenging any and all assumptions, so otherwise trivial problems like that
annoy me.
    If a decision is made to place a maximum on regeneration rates, and
leave it where it already happens to be, that's fine with me.  I just wanted
to bring it up and offer an alternative to get it out of the "unintentional
feature" category.


> >     I made Glowing Crystals mergable such that a group of _n_ crystals, each
> > with _maxsp_ maximum capacity, has an effective maximum of _n_ * _maxsp_.
> > So a set of eight Glowing Crystals can hold 8000 sp.  Splitting them leaves
> > as much stored energy as possible in one group and the remainder in the
> > other group.  In this way, a mage in the middle of a battle only needs to
> > hit one key, bound to "apply Glowing Crystal" to tap the whole bunch of them
> > instead of scrolling through the inventory window to click on the one that's
> > still glowing.
> 
>  Seems like excess code for a specific item for player convenience.  If we
> follow this, I could see the same thing happening for rods, wands, and so on
> (you have 5 rods merged together, so you can fire them 5 times faster, and so
> on.)

    The glowing crystals already have a fair bit of item-specific code. 
They're the only object capable of performing either of their two functions,
so they're singled out in several places.  Of course, that may just seem
more specific than it is because they're rare and only occur in one form. 
Perhaps the reward at the end of the Wizard's Tower should include a glowing
emerald with a maxsp of 3000 instead of the normal 1000.

>  I'm not really sure where to go on that.  On the one hand, the difficulty of
> scrolling through the inventory list and finding the right crystal to apply in
> combat can be annoying and more time consuming than it really should be.  OTOH,
> crossfire at current time does not make any limitation in the number of items
> the player can hold (save for weight).  In reality, if you had 20 crystals, it
> may actually take a little time to figure out which one is drained/full and
> apply it.

    They must be pretty small, since they only weigh three grams each, but
even in a pouch full of them, how long could it take to grab one that's
glowing brightly instead of one that is barely glowing at all?  Then again,
in reality, how exactly does one apply a Glowing Crystal?  Do you just touch
it and get recharged?  Do you hold it while you cast your spell so it can
provide the power you need?  Do you replace the crystal in your staff with
it?  Do you cast a seperate spell on it, like transferrence to charge it and
magic drain to draw from it?

>  I personally dislike the games which limit you to some fixed number of objects
> in your inventory, so I don't want to go that route.  And I don't know if
> enforcing the realism through program interaction is the right way.
> 
>  I think a better solution to this problem would be a client side approach.
> Perhaps have a third window (split the current inventory window) which has your
> 'important' or 'at hand' items in this seperate list so you can always find them
> quickly.  The client has the necessary information (unique item tags) to do the
> right thing when you click on them, and could perhaps even be extended to
> keypresses (ie, quick use slot 1 is shift 1, slot 2 is shift 2, etc).
> 
>  I personally think that is a better approach, as there is often other stuff
> which you want to do in the heat of battle but don't want to have to search your
> inventory for (healing potion, different weapon, etc).  An interface for this
> could be easy (control left button or something adds/removes it from the quick
> inventory window, and also have something to shift the order of the quick item
> stuff.)

    I'd settle for a way to specify the order things are listed in.  For
example, I'd really like to keep my keyring from getting mixed in with my
magic rings, and I find it terribly annoying that some weapons are listed at
the top of the inventory and others are listed at the bottom.  And the fact
that the order within each category is reversed every time I leave and
return is really getting on my nerves.


> > - nrof 1
> >
> >     I used a recursive find/grep "nrof" on the archetype tree to find all
> > the objects that were not mergable, and set "nrof 1" on the ones that should
> > be.  Artifact weapons, for example.  Unique is a seperate flag, and there
> > doesn't seem to be anything unique about artifact weapons yet anyway.  Other
> > examples include corpses, clocks, and books.  No reason to keep individual
> > copies of identical objects seperate.  Books will only merge if they contain
> > the same message (or lack thereof).  ...I just realized I'll have to change
> > the inscription skill code to only write in one book at a time, but that
> > should be pretty easy.
> 
>  unique is a completely different meaning than nrof 1 (or nrof 0).

    That's what I meant to say.  It appeared to me that artifact weapons
were probably set to (nrof 0) to signify their uniqueness, when they really
should have been set to (unique 1) for that.  The same way some were given
attacktype: magic when the creator most likely intended attacktype:
weaponmagic.

> I would test/double check the code for items of a type which were not mergable
> before (like flint and steel) to make sure the right thing still happen when
> they are applied (split apart, only one consumed, etc).  I would also double
> check and make sure the merge item function doesn't merge some stuff that is
> actually different.

    I'm doing that now.  I just added a nrof check to apply_lighter so that
only one flint and steel is used instead of subtracting a charge from each
one in the set.  Instead of doing the same for rods/wands/staves, (I haven't
checked, but I suspect they would have the same problem) I think I'll just
leave them unmergable, since it isn't very often one finds identical wands
with the same spell and the same number of charges, and as soon as you use
one, they'd have to unmerge already.  I'm still testing, but I can't think
of anything else that would have that particular problem.


> > - new attacktype: psionic
> >
> >     Used by new spells (listed below) and new artifact weapon, "Mindblade".
> > Will probably add new creatures with psionic attacks and/or spell
> > abilities.  Mind Flayer is a good place to start.
> >
> >     Psionic attacks do direct damage, like weaponmagic, but not very much of
> > it (damage is halved).
> 
>  Why halve the damage?  Why not just make the damage value lower for things that
> use psionic?  Things like that (code enforcing/changing aspects of items) makes
> things really confusing.

    I thought about that.  I made psionics do only half as much direct
damage because it will probably, at some point, be used in conjunction with
other attacktypes.  If that other attack can to full damage, it will.  If
the victim is either protected from or immune to that attack, but not from
psionics, they take half damage, plus the special effects.  If they're
protected from psionics _and_ immune to all other vectors in that attack,
they only take one quarter of the physical damage, and half strength special
effects.

> >     Psionics (medium sp cost, low damage, medium increase)
> > psionic bolt  (similar to firebolt)
> > psionic blast (similar to burning hands)
> > small/medium/large mindstorm  (similar to fireball)
> 
>  I have a little problem being able to create an area of psionic (mental energy)
> in an area far away from you.

    I was wondering about that, too.  The mindstorm spells were trivially
easy to code, and therefore easy to test, but I'm not sure I like them. 
Perhaps something more like a smite spell, so it doesn't fire any magical
object, it just manifests on (the head of) the single target creature.  That
way, you'd still have to have line of sight with your target.

> >     Magic - raw magic attacks - (high sp cost, medium damage, fast increase)
> > manabolt   (similar to firebolt)
> > banablast  (similar to burning hands)
> > small/medium/large manaball  (similar to fireball)
> 
>  I personally don't see any demand for these spells.  Not to say they may not be
> useful, but it seems to me that crossfire already has a lot of spells, too many
> of which do basically the same thing

    I threw these in because I wanted something that wasn't aligned with one
of the three usual elements, fire, ice, and lightning.  Raw magic will harm
any elementals, even in those odd places where you find a mixed group of all
different kinds, ignoring each other in their all-out effort to make you
dead.  It's just as effective against chinese dragons as it is against red
dragons.  The big drawback is that it's much more damaging to most
materials, too.  Except for adamnatium and those pesky magic-immune
creatures, raw magic attacks reduce pretty much everything to its component
atoms.


> >     Grenades - create a bomb and throw it - like a fireball, but psysical
> > grenade - wizard spell
> 
>  There is already a create bomb spell that basically does this.  I wonder if
> throwing bombs works?

    It does work, but not very well, and it depends on how much you're
carrying, your strength, and other things wizards aren't good at, like
throwing skill and physical experience.

> > holy handgrenade - priest spell (I couldn't pass up that one)

    Wait, it gets better- the god's name and attacktype get attached.  The
Holy Handgrenade of Mostrai gets weaponmagic, and Mostrai is attuned to
creation.  Now, if Mostrai's name were changed to Antioch...

>  Might be a cute name, but not sure if it works well in play balance.  If
> priests now have an attack spell that can kill anything, it makes them vastly
> easier to gain exp.

    Really?  What about wounding and summoning spells?  Those will kill
anything but the priest's friends.  (Including the priest!  Your avatar
might refuse to kill something that's attacking you, but if you get in its
way, it won't hesitate to  kill you!)  This is only a change for someone who
is denied wounding and summoning and stuck with turning, and in that case,
it would be currently too hard to gain experience.
    I haven't played with it enough to be sure, but I'm not convinced it
would be so bad for play balance.  I'll definitely keep an eye on that,
though.  If it is, setting it at a medium-high level where Holy Word is less
effective, Banishment isn't effective enough, and Holy Wrath is too
expensive might take care of it.  If not, it could be made book-less so that
only high-level priests of Mostrai would have it.  I'll have to remember to
place a scroll of holy handgrenade somewhere in Castle Aaaargh.


> >     Mournblade
> > Had (attack: magic,drain)
> > Changed to (attack: drain) which reverts to weaponmagic if target is immune
> 
>  Is that just a side effect, or done through coding?  If the later, I don't
> really like that solution much.  I don't see any problem with the attacktype
> being drain only (or drain and physical).  If a creature is immune to drain,
> grab another weapon.

    Apparently I was wrong.  I could have sworn I saw somewhere in the code
a check for drain-only attacks that switched it to weaponmagic if the target
was immune.  Judging by just how much sense that makes, I may not have been
awake at the time.  I think maybe I should change Mournblade to (attack:
weaponmagic, drain) so it will do _some_ damage.  You can't kill with just
drain.  All you can do is reduce its experience and absorb half of it. 
Nasty against players, but does experience loss even hurt monsters?  I don't
think they lose levels or hit points, and I'm pretty sure they don't lose
abilities.


>  Now, the objects below were probably in the maps before the switch of mages
> from int to pow.  I don't see a problem replace the Int with Pow.  But I don't
> really see a need to otherwise make them more powerful.

    Thanks for pointing that out.  When I made those changes, I was still
feeling cheated from finding these artifacts to not be what I expected. 
How's this:

    Staff of the Magi +5
(dam: 20, wc: 5) (prot: magic) (attack: physical, weaponmagic) (+2 magic)
Was (+2 Int, +1 Wis)
Now (+2 Pow, +1 Int)

    Wizard Hat
(ac: 1) (+5 magic) (prot: fire, cold, drain, slow, paralyze)
Was (+2 Int)
Now (+2 Pow)

    Midnight Robe +5
(ac: 5) (prot: magic, fire, cold, drain, slow, paralyze) (immune: acid)
(vuln: ghosthit, depletion) (reflect spells)
Was (+1 Dex, +2 Int, +2 Wis)
Now (+1 Wis, +2 Int, +2 Pow)


>  I would argue that the the artifact file probably needs a good look over and
> possible cleanout.  This has been discussed before, but the general problem is
> you get too many of these random artifacts that just are not very interesting
> and sort of end up polluting the name space.

    Agreed.  That was my impression of many of the weapons on that list. 
The potions seem to be pretty good, for the most part.  Mushrooms?  Lots of
different kinds of artifact mushrooms, and I never see them anywhere.  Maybe
when the world gets enlarged there will be scattered random mushrooms in the
fields and forests.

>  If nothing else, probably all artifacts should need to be on at least magical
> items since they do have somewhat magical effects.  That might make them at
> least a bit more interesting to use.  As it is now, how often does someone use
> the non magical artifact weapons (ie, club of lythander?)  PRobably not often at
> all, because chances are if you found that, you also found a +1 item, which is
> as good/better in almost all respects.

    Actually, my wizard's favorite weapon is a dagger of Lythander, since +1
luck doesn't prevent enchantment, so he's improved it to +1 luck, +4 Int, +4
Pow.  Still, starting with a dagger of Lythander +1 would have been
marginally better.

> >     club of Slay Dragon???
> > weapon of Slay Dragon changed to sword of dragon slaying
> > (not to be confused with Dragonslayer artifact weapon)
> 
>  I don't see a problem with a club.  Maybe like above, not very useful, but
> could be there for some color.

    Okay.  Sure.  Spears and polearms work.  (Dragonlance, anyone?)  Axes
make sense.  Throwing daggers I'm not so sure about, but if nothing else,
they'd be amusing.  Rather than picking out which weapons can or can't slay
a dragon, it's probably better to just leave it to the dice.


>  I don't necessarily see a need for the rename, and in many cases, I actually
> prefer the first name as it more immediately tells me what the item is

    I think we need to make a decision there and be consistant.  Should the
name of an item tell you its function, or should you have to examine it and
get its stats to find out?  Skill scrolls are a one example: which is for
jewelery skill and which is for bargaining?  Scroll of shopping or scroll of
appraisement?  How does a scroll of literacy work, anyway?


>  I will note that the missile of dragon slaying is a good example - the second
> case would be really confusing.  The assassinating items were given that for a
> good name - they attack via death magic, so either the creature survives or it
> dies.

    Ahh... I see.  I hadn't thought of it that way.  That makes sense.  I
was reading it as just a random synonym for slaying, to tell the two apart.

    I abandoned most of the name changes.  I still think some of them are
necessary, like spelling aethereality the same way on each item.  Instead of
changing weapon of Magic Hitting to weapon of Mostrai, both should be
available, so that priests of other cults can use Magic Hitting weapons
without offending their gods.  I'll make weapons of Mostrai a little less
powerful and a little more common than the unaligned version.  Minimum magic
2 instead of 3 should do it.


> >     weapon of Banishment +3
> > (dam: x2.5, wc: +3) (slay undead, demon, devil) (Attack: physical, holy
> > word)
> 
>  You know of course that things that slay already do 2 (or is it 3) times damage
> against those specific creatures.  So this artifact will do very serious
> damage.

    Yes, I know.  Slaying is triple damage.  But the x2.5 modifier is
applied to the archetype, before any strength.  This means a dagger of
Banishment would have a base damage of 5, a sword would have 15 to 22, and a
poleaxe 32.  Even after you triple that, you'll have to get in several good
hits to take down the undead, demons, and devils you'll be fighting when
you've just found a +3 weapon.
    I don't think the 2.5 is too high, but I could lower it a little
anyway.  Would 2.0 be better?  Dagger *2.0 = 4, long sword *2.0 = 16,
poleaxe *2.0 = 26.


> >     sword of Sharpness +3
> > (dam: x2, wc: +2) (Attack: weaponmagic, death)
> > Chance of slaying outright, perhaps that's what a Vorpal Blade should do?
> 
>  The chances are either good or bad, depending on hopefully the level of the
> blade (hopefully meaning that the code picks up the weapons level and not the
> players).  I personally think this could have severe play balance issues - if
> useful on somewhat tough monsters, a player could gain a lot of exp very quickly
> by slicing them at a very rapid rate.

    I just checked the code.  Unfortunately it does use the weapon's level. 
For a melee weapon that's bad, since level has been assigned to mean how
much it can be enchanted.  I'll have to change this one to just weaponmagic,
at least until the object structure is redone.  No wonder there weren't any
attacktype: death weapons.

-- 
            -Dave Noelle,                 dave@Straylight.org
            -the Villa Straylight,  http://www.straylight.org
Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email  ==  http://www.cauce.com

Disclaimer:Stop asking me what's going on!  If I knew I wouldn't be here!

Quote of the Day:
Jargon:        "Compatible"
Translation:   "Gracefully accepts erroneous data from any source."
-
[you can put yourself on the announcement list only or unsubscribe altogether
by sending an email stating your wishes to crossfire-request@ifi.uio.no]