Re: [crossfire] Version bump request?
On 12/27/14 18:38, DraugTheWhopper wrote: > Now that some more time has passed with (I assume) more mainline > changes, is there a chance of cutting a new release again? Wouldn't hurt > to have a Windoze release this time too, since it looks the last one may > have been at 1.60. The latest release is 1.71.0, available from SourceForge. For some reason the JXClient is stuck at 1.60, I'm not sure why. We haven't been keeping up with Windows builds for various reasons. Windows support in the GTKv2 client has greatly improved since the last build. You can find some experimental client binaries here: http://partmedia.users.sourceforge.net/ They're not official because they're missing important pieces; in this particular client build it's because metaserver support is missing. > More thoughts: What is the current dominant client? I heard someone say > once that GTKV2client had fallen by the wayside in favor of JXClient, > but I hope that's not the case, as I much prefer the cfclient layout, > etc. Has any thought been given to using GTK vs QT? Are there any > thoughts on portability to Wayland/Weston? Both are well-supported. We generally point Windows users to the JXClient, but soon this will change. Best, Kevin Zheng -- Kevin Zheng kevinz5...@gmail.com | kev...@kd0lgh.mooo.com | PGP: 0xC22E1090 ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] Version bump request?
Now that some more time has passed with (I assume) more mainline changes, is there a chance of cutting a new release again? Wouldn't hurt to have a Windoze release this time too, since it looks the last one may have been at 1.60. More thoughts: What is the current dominant client? I heard someone say once that GTKV2client had fallen by the wayside in favor of JXClient, but I hope that's not the case, as I much prefer the cfclient layout, etc. Has any thought been given to using GTK vs QT? Are there any thoughts on portability to Wayland/Weston? --Nathan On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Richard Tanner wrote: > On 3/31/14 1:47 AM, Mark Wedel wrote: > > > > I'm pretty sure I wrote a wiki doc on > > the release process that describes all the steps. > > Yes, it was documented at: > > http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/crossfire_release_guide > > And some info on release numbers: > > http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/crossfire_release_cycle > > As always.. updates, clarifications and updates are always welcome. > > > ___ > crossfire mailing list > crossfire@metalforge.org > http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire > ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] Game change proposals
> > What about "mini-games"? > > For instance, instead of a mere lockpicking, you actually have to use the > picks in the right order in a limited time to pick a lock - if you fail, > you > trigger the traps, of course. > Don't think I like this. Maybe as some people suggested about using a minigame for important doors, but I don't think minigames are very conducive to CF's atmosphere. > What about changing alchemy (including the jeweler etc. variants)? > > For each formulae you start with a ~3% chance of success. You succeed? Get > 3 > to 5 points. Failure? Get 0-1 point (failure is a valuable lesson, after > all > :)). Capped to ~90%. And maybe not giving global experience. > > What about random (ie player-dependant) parameters? You have more success > during certain hours, or outside vs inside, or...? > Nice. I'm interested in ways to revamp crafting. Then reduce the dropped items. I mean, so much junk! > All part of the fun! After all, real adventurers would need to wade through corpses, body parts, and paraphernalia to find the valuables. > Then, slowing (a lot) combat, making it more tactical. Instead of a zillion > monsters, some hard to defeat monsters, where you can use all your skills > and > items, and attempt various combinations. > > Then various effects on weapons: stun, knock back, confuse, slow, etc. > > Reduce the zillion elemental attacks to a lower number (6? 8?), other > things > are side effects. > > Interesting, but I fondly remember the twitchy, fastpaced nature of CF in the old days(think monochrome cfclient). Granted, I was playing that on a LAN server rather than internet, and that was before spell casting took time, etc. Just my two cents. I have strong feelings about many things, so I have to be careful how I let them out. :) --Nathan ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
