>
> From: Mark Wedel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I'm also a bit reluctant to add tons of new movement types. After all, at
> some level, the movement type is the same, what is different is that some
> things
> may move through spaces better than others.
>
> So rather than adding a desert mo
With DD you can't go through things you can't see
through.
--- Lalo Martins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And so says Mitch Obrian on 10/20/2005 12:40 AM...
> > Please do not implement this passing through walls
> > stuff.
> > I /strongly/ oppose passing through walls. I do
> not
> > want my maps
Yes, and that's fine for that map. I don't want my
prisondemadness suddenly becoming worthless, or my
maps suddenly becoming easily traverable because OMG
WE SHOULD WALK THROUGH WALLS WITH WRAITHS (else
brain esplode!).
Why should anyone make maps if you're going to
implement this. I'm not goi
Ethereal travel should fail where Dimention door
fails:
No magic and can't see through areas.
(If I have a wall one cant see through it should fail,
same if I have a wall that has no magic set on it or a
no magic tile there).
--- Mark Wedel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Rivers are a messy ca
On 20/10/05, Mark Wedel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But I do think giving someone permanent or at will ethereal travel will be
> very powerful, even with some of the limitations. The fact is that lots of
> maps
> have enough wall space where an ethereal creature could effectively hide out
> aw
New arches are always good, should come with new pics
though aswell (shouldn't be too hard). Perhapse I'll
wip (or modify) them up (suggestions?) once the
movement code is all in and happy, unless someone else
want's to do it.
--- Todd Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I should clarify this -
Rivers are a messy case. Blocking swimming and flying over them doesn't make
a lot of sense if you can fly over lots of other stuff.
While they are often used to protect areas, I'd make the case that in most of
the bigworld map, allowing people to fly/swim over them wouldn't be that big a
And so says Mitch Obrian on 10/20/2005 12:40 AM...
> Please do not implement this passing through walls
> stuff.
> I /strongly/ oppose passing through walls. I do not
> want my maps to become worthless because someone
> decided we need to make the game worthlessly easy.
uh... ever heard of this th
I agree
> I think that mountains give the world more surface
> area - there more
> nooks and crannies to develop. They also make
> travel meaningful and to
> direct movement to areas of interest. Also over
> time the idea was for
> people to carve out areas in the mountains like was
> done wit
On 10/20/05, Todd Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brendan Lally wrote:
> >with reference to back to the future - hoverboards don't work over water.
> >
> But you can still fly over seas... until you tire. The reason I suggest
> we need to restrict rivers is because they are so often used to
I should clarify this - I meant we should consider adding new
'impassible' forest and jungle arches which only those with woodlore or
flying creatures could pass. This would be really dense forests but
elves and halflings and those with woodsman skills could get by. I
didn't mean to replace t
Brendan Lally wrote:
On 10/20/05, Todd Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A quick summary of ideas I have:
very high mountains (mountain_5) remains blocked
high mountains (mountain_4) require 'climbing' or 'flying' movement type
to pass
On a related note, whilst all these tiles need
On 10/20/05, Todd Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A quick summary of ideas I have:
>
> very high mountains (mountain_5) remains blocked
> high mountains (mountain_4) require 'climbing' or 'flying' movement type
> to pass
On a related note, whilst all these tiles need updating, flattening
the
On 10/19/05, Anton Oussik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 19/10/05, Todd Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I would also put forth an
> > addition to the suggestions, the idea that etheral travelers would not
> > be able to pass 'iron' either so it would only work against wood walls
> > and st
There isn't any real difference between walls and other blocked tiles
(like water) currently - everything is either blocked or not blocked.
This is all part of the changes Mark is making to the movement code.
Changing the blocking code has a lot of interesting repercussions.
That's why it's
On 19/10/05, Todd Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would also put forth an
> addition to the suggestions, the idea that etheral travelers would not
> be able to pass 'iron' either so it would only work against wood walls
> and stone and the like.
That may work. That would make some areas co
If there were an etheral movement type added it would not be implemented
in existing maps by default (they still have "block all") just like the
other movement changes. In archived movement related threads this
'ghostwalk' type movement was proposed. I would also put forth an
addition to the
All of them.
No player should ever beable to move through walls
(unless specified by the map perhapse).
Walls should remain no_pass. Now if you wanted walls
that things could pass through... up to the map maker,
but don't change the default behavior.
Don't f**k up the existing maps or my maps pl
Please do NOT make anyone able to go through walls.
It would be better to remove the wraith player (I
don't recommend this though) then have a player that
can move through walls.
Why is this idea being considered? It would make maps
useless.
Please don't implement this.
__
On 19/10/05, Mitch Obrian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please do NOT make anyone able to go through walls.
> Why is this idea being considered? It would make maps
> useless.
How would this make maps useless?
___
crossfire mailing list
crossfire@metalfo
On 10/19/05, Mitch Obrian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please do not implement this passing through walls
> stuff.
> I /strongly/ oppose passing through walls. I do not
> want my maps to become worthless because someone
> decided we need to make the game worthlessly easy.
If it were a new movement
On 19/10/05, Brendan Lally <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/19/05, Anton Oussik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 19/10/05, Brendan Lally <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I'm inclined to say that at least there should be a /big/ hit points
> > > penalty as well (maybe 50% - though with a small ac
Yay, a let's break everything by allowing passage
through walls idea!
Crossfire should NEVER allow passage throug no_pass
tiles. No Pass means no pass, walls shoud _always_ be
no_pass (by default). Don't make the maps worthless
please.
--- Brendan Lally <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/19/05,
Please do not implement this passing through walls
stuff.
I /strongly/ oppose passing through walls. I do not
want my maps to become worthless because someone
decided we need to make the game worthlessly easy.
--- Anton Oussik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 19/10/05, Brendan Lally <[EMAIL PROTEC
On 10/19/05, Anton Oussik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 19/10/05, Brendan Lally <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Will rings/amulets remain wearable?
>
> No. They can not pass through walls as they are, and therefore you can
> not take them with you. I say again, nothing worn, nothing carried. If
>
On 19/10/05, Brendan Lally <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/19/05, Anton Oussik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > When activated the wraith becomes invisible, stealthy, can move
> > through walls, and can not cast spells, or hold items in inventory
> > (except invisible ones of course), The only att
On 10/19/05, Anton Oussik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When activated the wraith becomes invisible, stealthy, can move
> through walls, and can not cast spells, or hold items in inventory
> (except invisible ones of course), The only attack then avaliable is
> wraith touch, which deals ghosthit, de
On 19/10/05, Brendan Lally <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/19/05, Anton Oussik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I know this is now going off topic, but also if wraiths when naked
> > could become stealthed and invisible it would add an interesting game
> > style, where you would hide in walls, sne
On 10/19/05, Anton Oussik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know this is now going off topic, but also if wraiths when naked
> could become stealthed and invisible it would add an interesting game
> style, where you would hide in walls, sneak up to victims, and suck
> their life away, one by one.
Wou
On 19/10/05, Anton Oussik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Returning to original thread topic momentarily, ethereal movement
> should be allowed to all undead who are naked. This will only make the
> movement type useful for quests and will not give any combat advantage
> to most players (dragons being
Returning to original thread topic momentarily, ethereal movement
should be allowed to all undead who are naked. This will only make the
movement type useful for quests and will not give any combat advantage
to most players (dragons being a partial exception). Maybe wraiths
should get a special "wr
And so says Brendan Lally on 10/18/2005 12:13 PM...
> Yeah, I was thinking in terms of inside the game.
They are quite big. I have been thinking of ways to put them inside the
game - specially the Valriel/Gorokh ones, could go in the churches - but
didn't yet reach one.
> It certainly looks inte
I've found the lore very interesting. More would be
wonderful! Once it's in we'll add it to the ingame
random reading materials.
--- Lalo Martins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And so says Brendan Lally on 10/18/2005 09:19 AM...
> > On 10/17/05, Mitch Obrian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >>Ga
On 10/18/05, Lalo Martins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And so says Brendan Lally on 10/18/2005 09:19 AM...
> > Is there actually a proper set of lore for the various gods in crossfire?
> >
> > If so, where is it?
>
> It was a pet project I was working on, many, many years ago. It's on
> the wiki.
And so says Brendan Lally on 10/18/2005 09:19 AM...
> On 10/17/05, Mitch Obrian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Gaia is a diety who has it's own lore, other dieties
>>have other lore. We should not make one lore primacy
>>above other (_especially_ gaia's).
>
> Is there actually a proper set of lor
35 matches
Mail list logo
