Hello. > I think when things were changed a while back so that image size & > footprint of the creature were not tied together, making hill giants 1x1 > footprint (and other similar tall creatures have a square footprint) was > either done or investigated, but not done or reverted back. For players, > higher density monsters tends to be an advantage (those AoE spells hits > more targets). I can't remember if there might now have been some map > breakage by changing this, and monsters could now wander to places they > were not envisioned going, etc.
Don't remember those changes, but then I don't remember everything that happened on the project :) > There are also some other cases where monsters should be rectangular - > wyverns come to mind. But there really isn't good support for going from a > 1x2 monsters to a 2x1 monster as it changes direction. Note that "turning transports" actually fulfill that, in the sense that even if they are 2x2, they don't occupy all space depending on the orientation. Check the "/test/boat" map (just fixed a glitch there), the transport turns and can go through 1 height passage when horizontal even though it is 2x2. Granted, the code seems slightly hackish... So this could be expanded to monsters if needed and wanted, maybe making it even cleaner. > The gtk client at least supported resizing the images used for the map and > inventory. Good to know, then bigger pictures can be made for clients which would display bigger than 32x32 :) > As resolution has gone up (a 25x25 map at 32 pixels/image is > only 800x800), bigger images could certainly be done. I'm not sure the > correct size - whether 128x128 would be best, and then scale down would be > best way to future proof for a while? Disadvantage is size. Yes, really big pictures could be an issue... On the other hand, if we solve that size issue, then sounds may work the same way ;) > Multispace players will likely require lots of work (does every map now > need to expanded, because otherwise that 3x3 player won't fit down those > small passage or through small doors?) but things like what space does a > spell leave the player from? True. That's why it's idly thinking :) But as a first step current maps could be "tripled" at loading, to keep'em working... Not sure it'd be worth doing that, again :) > How about incoming spells, and does the > player end up taking more damage if many 4 of his spaces are hit by a spell > (I sort of recall this was the case for monsters) Yes, monsters take more damage per square hit, I think. > But I suppose it depends on what is the minimum reasonable 'unit' for most > things to me. For small monsters, I wonder if it would be easier to let > small creatures share a space - instead of the 'is there something alive on > this space', instead each creature could have how much of the space they > use. So small creatures might only use 25% of a space, so 4 of them could > be on the same space. Though I'm not sure how you deal with what image is > used for each of those creatures. That's an interesting idea. I'm not sure how easy it'd be to implement, and whether it is worth it or not... Best regards Nicolas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
