[crossfire] Old event system cleaning
Hello. Unless someone objects really much, I'd like to trash the old plugin/event system. It is based on the event_trigger and such lines in the archetype definition, and includes a few functions/fields (object-event for instance). With the archetype-based event system, it is obsolete. Currently, only artifacts of occidental mages (ring and weapon) still use it. Not even sure that works :) We'll need a way to add inventory through the artifacts, actually. I checked the maps, and none uses that system anywhere. Nicolas ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
[crossfire] Where would you put...
Hello. After some fun chat on the irc channel, I'm creating a talking fireplace which'll tell stories to players. Small Python scripts, that'll be all :) Now the question is, where should we put the stories? IMO, a good place is in the share directory, maybe in a 'stories' subdirectory. A story could be quite long, so using the msg field isn't the best way imo. Nicolas ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] Where would you put...
I've made a first version of that talking fireplace. Anyone minds if I commit it? It's an extra feature, though, but I'd find that fun to have :) It's basically: * 3 new archetypes (object + 2 events) * 1 new treasure list (to have the events in the object) * 4 Python scripts (3 to react to events, one main class doing all the work) and probably a storage directory for stories :) Nicolas ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] Old event system cleaning
Nicolas Weeger (Laposte) wrote: We'll need a way to add inventory through the artifacts, actually. Well, I think we've been needing to add inventory though the artifacts support for a long while now. *goes to add that to the feature requests list on the tracker* Alex Schultz ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
[crossfire] Spell path balance - Summoning
First, I recall that there has been some discussion about playing crossfire that suggests that specialization of skills is necessary to get extremely advanced characters, and that crossing disciplines will tend to limit how far a character can go, or how easy it is to level up. Second, in spite of the above, I have been playing a character that has tended toward trying to raise several disciplines in a somewhat consistant manner. This approach was taken so as to be able to more easily experience different aspects of Crossfire so as to be able to enjoy taking a go at playing different games, but all the while using a single character instead of multiple characters. All that being said, a few years ago there was a concentrated effort to enhance the concept of creating balanced spell paths. What I am interested in is whether or not there are players out there that concentrate in the summoning path. The reason is two-fold. One is that I wonder if I do not know how to play a summoner, and the other is whether summoning is completely out-of-balance. It seems like it is extremely difficult to level a summoner. What sort of game playing style is needed to make a summoner level the same way that the other path players can. If killing monsters with summoned creatures is the primary way of getting experience, then the path is completely unbalanced as it takes eons of mind-bendingly boring snooze, summon, attack, snooze until summoned character is dead cycles. Am I just missing the point of this path, or is it really not very well balanced? ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] Spell path balance - Summoning
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 14:05:55 -0500, Kevin R. Bulgrien wrote: completely unbalanced as it takes eons of mind-bendingly boring snooze, summon, attack, snooze until summoned character is dead cycles. Am I just missing the point of this path, or is it really not very well balanced? Generally, I think summoning needs high-level spells that summon strong critters, rather than just relying on pets becoming stronger and stronger with level. best, Lalo Martins -- So many of our dreams at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we summon the will, they soon become inevitable. -- personal: http://www.laranja.org/ technical:http://lalo.revisioncontrol.net/ GNU: never give up freedom http://www.gnu.org/ ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] Where would you put...
On 8/20/06, Nicolas Weeger (Laposte) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello. After some fun chat on the irc channel, I'm creating a talking fireplace which'll tell stories to players. Small Python scripts, that'll be all :) Now the question is, where should we put the stories? IMO, a good place is in the share directory, maybe in a 'stories' subdirectory. A story could be quite long, so using the msg field isn't the best way imo. Im thinking maps-bigworld/python/talkingfireplace and a data or stories directory inside that for the stories, unless someone objects. Latter it may be a good idea to tie the fireplace into lore/story colleciton scripts. -- Andrew Fuchs ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] Where would you put...
Nicolas Weeger (Laposte) wrote: Hello. After some fun chat on the irc channel, I'm creating a talking fireplace which'll tell stories to players. Small Python scripts, that'll be all :) Now the question is, where should we put the stories? IMO, a good place is in the share directory, maybe in a 'stories' subdirectory. A story could be quite long, so using the msg field isn't the best way imo. Are the stories going to be 'general' stories, meaning other objects (whatever) on other maps may use them? If so, then a stories directory may be appropriate (OTOH, we already have a messages file - wonder if it would be better to extend that logic to cover types of messages/where they show up). If these stories will be unique to the object, then they should be associated with that object/script, and not clutter up the lib directory (presumably that is where the stories will be stored in CVS at least). ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] About a feature request
Nicolas Weeger (Laposte) wrote: Hello. I'm looking at https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detailaid=656191group_id=13833atid=363833 historical feature request to have blessed/cursed scrolls and books. Here's what I see as effects (copied from the page) * cursed scroll: ill effect, depending on spell - identify would make player forget about an identified item, and such. Would require some work to define ill effects for all spells, though. Option fast is to cast some mana explosion, of course. Or leech player's mana? Could be fun :) It may be easiest to to do something like 'look for special spell effect, otherwise use random results table'. Or even if there is special spell effect, maybe only use it 50% of the time so player can not rely on what may happen with cursed scrolls. For some spells, like bullets, bolts, cones, could have the direction not be what the player wants (random direction, invoked on player, etc). * blessed scroll: add 2 levels to casting. Other option: more exp when used? IIRC, casting scrolls isn't a 100% sure thing is it? If not, may increase casting odds? Scrolls already come in different levels, so adding a couple levels may not be that much of a benefit. Getting more exp when used would I think be a more complicated change (there isn't any way to record that right now - since the scroll may be long gone by the time the spell kills the monster, you'd need to record this exp bonus in the spell effect - right now, it records caster and skill used. * cursed spellbook: forget a spell (ideally, spell you are trying to learn - if you don't know that spell, something random) * blessed spellbook: bonus to learn a spell Of course, blessed/cursed should be rare occurrances. Codewise, cursed we got a flag. For blessed, I don't know the best way to signal that. I'm not too eager to add a flag just for that, on the other hand using an existing flag for something else that its destination is weird. Flags are cheap - easy to do, use one bit. I think if we add blessed objects, it could be extended to more than just scrolls/spellbooks (potions maybe? Note sure about other equipment as harder to say effect). That said, while I didn't submit that RFE, my thought was that since there are other cursed objects, it would make sense for scrolls spellbooks to also be cursed. For spellbooks at least, you can know longer try to read it as a safe identification method. I think focusing on the cursed aspect would be fine - if we want to added blessed items, as said, it should probably extend to a lot more than just these objects. ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] Death attack question
Alex Schultz wrote: Nicolas Weeger (Laposte) wrote: I fixed a bug preventing death attack from working correctly, but there are a few things to decide concerning that: * what should happen in the case of friendly fire? Right now, damage dealt through death attack will be reduced, so player won't be killed. Should player be killed anyway? I'm not really sure about that issue, on one hand it might seem harsh to accidentally pk so easily with that, on the other hand there are pk allowed servers where it may seem silly to have the death attacktype not do what it says on players. Maybe could change effect, based on if the players are in a party together or not? * if death_attack is combined with AT_MAGIC, a monster can survive if the save throw is successful. Is that a good behaviour? It depends, when the saving throw is successful, does it take any damage, or just not do anything? If not do anything, that is desirable IMHO considering AT_MAGIC is supposed to be only on spells and similar, and the saving throw is supposed to affect all spells. If it's currently causing partial damage with that, then I would say it's bad behavior. It is intended design that if an attacktype also has AT_MAGIC, then the creature gets any benefit from protections it has to magic, etc. The basic idea is that if a creature is immune to magic, you shouldn't be able to kill it with a death attack spell - otherwise, what does being immune to magic really mean? I think the problem here is that in the current system, if an attack has some damage value, there is no way to know what that damage is for. So I guess what is happening here is something like a spell having AT_MAGIC | AT_DEATH and damage 40. Creature makes its death saving throw, no damage from that (it either damages you or doesn't). But now there is a magic attack with 40 damage - what should happen with that? I'd probably say that it should be ignored - the magic in this case isn't suppose to do damage, it is just noting that this is a magic effect. However, if you had a spell like deathfire (AT_FIRE | AT_DEATH), then if the death attack doesn't kill them, the creature should still take damage from the fire. This would get all fixed up in the proposal of discrete damage types, as then there would be no question what the damage is from/for, but where not there at this time. * death attack can success only if hitter level is twice the victim level. That sounds pretty arbitrary, no? It does seem pretty arbitrary, but IMHO some limit is needed and that seems like as reasonable a place as any. IIRC, that limit was put in so that low level players couldn't kill high level creatures with a death attack and get lots of exp. So yes, some limit is needed, and twice is as good as any. One thought might be to adjust that based on current damage to creature. Eg, a creature normally has 1000 maxhp. It is currently at 400 hp from other damage. Thus, its effectively level to resist a death attack is only 40% of its normal level. This borrows from other games, but the idea being if a creature is already beat up and near to death, a death attack should have an easier time killing it. ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] Clothing
ERACC Subscriptions wrote: I propose that robes and other cloth items (not cloaks) should be a new class of item called clothing not armor. A new body spot created for that and archetypes updated. Special robes that may impart armor-like characteristics could then be adjusted in the archetypes for prevention of abuse (if that appears to become a problem). technically, this is pretty easy to do. But balance wise, this is more an issue. Whenever new body positions are added, it basically means the player becomes more powerful. Ignoring artifacts or other special quest items, just from a basic low level character point of view - in addition to what I was able to wear before, I'm able to add a robe on top of that. So if I can find a robe +2 in the shop, I now have 2 AC points I didn't have before. If I'm a fighter, that extra weight isn't likely to be an issue. Given that CF uses d20 for attack rolls, that amounts to a 10% advantage. But there is then the issue of artifact robes (midnight robe to be one). If I can wear that with other armor, that is pretty darn nice. If it gets tuned down so that it wouldn't be an issue to wear with other armor, well then, it probably becomes a pretty worthless reward/quest item. so I'd like to see some more reasoning on why this is really needed and how it will be used. ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] Proposal for better in-game information: client-side player books
Raphaël Quinet wrote: * A player who has collected a lot of information could get additional player books (binders) to organize this information. Another idea would be that each player starts with predefined binders, one for each type of information: one for monsters, one for religions, one for alchemy (or each sub-type: smithery, woodsman, ...) and so on. What is the actual effect of the books in this case? My personal thought is that we are trying to make the information presentable/easy to find for the player, as well as provide a record for it so they don't have to do it themselves. Because of that, the information should always be presented in the easiest way we can reasonably to do - I shouldn't have to need to pick up a new book to record information on that subject or be able to see it organized in a handy fashion. Otherwise, players will either not get that information well organized, or just keep recording it outside the game/client interface, which is annoying. (also, given that the client will present this information to the player, to only way you could make this information less useful is if the server doesn't provide all the needed info so that the client can't organize it, otherwise, players will just modify the client to do the right thing anyways) * Although the players would never drop any pages from their binder (unbinding pages would be impossible), those who have the writing skill (pen) and sufficient experience could copy the information into new scrolls or books and re-sell the result. I'd think in this case, re-sell would be to other players, and not necessarily shops - having shops try to figure value of such information could be hard. * As an added twist, the information copied from the books might not always be accurate. Depending on the player's writing experience compared to the number of pages of the book from which the data is copied, some errors could be introduced at random. In the copy, the description of an Ogre could be mixed with that of an Orc, for example. Or even worse: mixing up some spells and creating an incorrect copy that would result in a mana explosion when used. The player would not even know that she is selling or giving away some garbled information. The easiest thing for written information (I think) is to take bits of pieces from different entries. For example, for monsters, you'd probably have something like: attacks (what it attacks with - spells, etc) defenses (protections, other immunities) difficulty (hp/ac/level) other notes So you go and transcribe information about ogres for a friendly player, because he is having a hard time fighting them. So the server does your inscription check, and you fail, but not by a lot. So one of those 4 pieces of information is incorrect. Lets say defenses in this case. Rather than having the server try to figure out how to modify it (change resistance to vulnerability, which ones, etc), it just grabs one at random from another monster. Maybe devil instead. Easiest would be to take a random one from the character book - if he doesn't have anything, then maybe something from all creatures. These writing errors and their side-effects may not be easy to implement: if the server keeps track of what each player knows (maybe using a list of typeidpart for each character as described in my first message) then we have to find a way to allow these errors. The server must remember what kind of erroneous information the player has. It must also allow the player who got some incorrect information to replace it by a correct version if it is found somewhere. But on the other hand, the player who wrote it should not be able to tell the difference (otherwise it would be trivial to check it by trying to read what has just been written). This is a bit tricky... True - OTOH, it may not be unreasonable for the inscribing player to read what he wrote and see if it is incorrect. In a sense, this isn't really much different than proofreading something you write now. If inscribing actually takes some real time (lets say 10 real seconds), a player may decide he doesn't want to keep writing to get a perfect copy. And of course, you need blank paper, etc (another question is what does he do with these incorrect copies? Maybe the shop will buy them for a few silver, so a player seeing them in the shop doesn't have any idea that they are wrong. Maybe things like inkwells should be added, to add some real cost beyond just the paper and time to inscribe. In terms of correct errors, that is more difficult. In theory, the character won't really know what information is correct and what is wrong. On possibility is to allow both pieces of information to be recorded, and put up a note to the player saying 'conflicting information found, do you want to add it' or something. Then have
