> I could also argue that the monster has to be smart enough to not > destroy its treasure. Why should the monster hoard treasure if every > treasure hunter will be killed by suffering the hoard? ;-)
Because the monster prefers destroying its treasure than seeing it fall into other's hands/claws? :) But yes, improving monster intelligence, in general, is a task to do someday. > Easy and most obvious is to not mix the enemy races like angels with > devils, faeries and goblins / trolls, ... > > But indeed, we need a list of coexisting monster types. Yep. *points to the wiki* feel free to start writing ;) > Is there just a single map implementing such a restriction? > > Anyway, I would say it should be part of policy. Maybe with coding > support to clear the quest map if someone enters who already solved the > quest. It's already a confession to the game that every player is able > to do the same quest. How often needs someone to be rescued, or a chief > be killed, ...? But then you run into content issues. That would require way much content that we had if only one player could do a quest (unless I'm wrong, that's what you are suggesting?). That would also cause space issues - all finished dungeons still exist, in their "completed" form, taking space (granted, we have quite free space for now). I'm not aware of maps implementing this, but you could possibly by two ways. Have the treasure map unique, so a player can get items only once (beware creation of dummy characters that'll get town portaled to the treasure entrance). Or set the final quest item on a 'unique' ground tile. This ensures only one player can get the item. Or set the 'unique' flag on the item, too, that'd work (but please note currently such items can possibly be lost by various means, like alchemy, destruction, ...) > It's a role playing game, right? What's wrong on having a focus on role > playing instead of monster slaying? Well, IMO we need both. You're right we've been mostly focused on the monster slaying part - probably because it's easier than adding complex interaction mechanisms. > It's all about rewards. If you get better and better catching weapons, > which are more and more effective against monsters, you'll have a lot of > players catching monsters. ;-) > > Or just hard to get ingredients for formulae as a payment for monsters. > But you're right, would be hard to balance. Anyway, wouldn't it a way to > improve gameplay? Maybe. I'd say we have enough room in the world to have some maps with that idea implemented :) > Yep, but most maps shouldn't contain a big demon... Why? Didn't you hear of the Other Dimension, where fire monster roam the plains of the devasted world? :) > Not really, after you gave the quest item to the one who has sent you, > you finished the quest. > > Or if nobody has sent you, after you got the quest item. There are ways > to define the end of a quest. I don't think this would be a problem at > all. Yes, but workarounds are always possible - create a junk char to get the item instead of your regular char, and so on. Please note that I'm not saying your ideas aren't worth trying :) Just that so far no one tried, I guess ^_- Nicolas -- http://nicolas.weeger.free.fr [Petit site d'images, de textes, de code, bref de l'aléatoire !]
pgp2E7dSLsuhd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ crossfire mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
