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
Re: [crossfire] Game change proposals
How do you envision the in-game lockpicking skill to change these minigames? It really should, shouldn't it? Also, even now, for higher-level characters it is still quite often easier to bash in a door than to stop to pick them (as you gain lockpicking skill levels really slowly). Adding fairly lengthy games like this will in their case just end up meaning more bashed doors... -- /* * * Otto J. Makela o...@iki.fi * * * * * * * * * */ /* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */ /* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27, FI-00100 Helsinki */ /* * * Computers Rule 0100 01001011 * * * * * * */ ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] Game change proposals
It's difficult to tell where each section ends; in the final version it might be useful to highlight the current segment. Yes, or make the connecting part a different color ;) How would breaking a pick be represented in the game? Will there be a separate item for each pick depicted, or will breaking a pick cause the single lockpick item to be destroyed/damaged? Break a pick, it's destroyed, probably. Yes, if used sparingly. I would not want to go through this entire process when picking every single lock. But, this would make sense when picking an important lock. Or let the player choose whether to manually pick, or automatically pick (or bash :)). 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
Re: [crossfire] Game change proposals
I also found it a bit hard to identify where each section ended, which made the minigame a little confusing in the beginning. It's a proof of concept, not a final product :) I'm also worried about the frequency of this and other minigames that might arise from these changes, while they can be fun when used in very specific situations, otherwise they just compromise immersion by forcing you out of the main game focus. Define main game focus :) Much like how modern games are plagued by quick time events, which are anything but a good thing, and I'd hate to see crossfire fall to the same trap. It could be optional, on a per player basis. 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
Re: [crossfire] Game change proposals
I know some other games have an idea of you can either play the minigame (at which point it is largely player skill and the character skill makes it easier), or a quick 'use character' skill type thing which is probably less prone to work, but also very fast (and in the case of failures, lockpicks break) That's a solution, yes. From the initial description, it sounds like each pick has 2 ends, and the player also has to choose which end to use. I also wonder if that complication is worth it - each pick having a single end so no rotation is necessary would seem to keep the game the same, but make the interface/play simpler Maybe... The rotation is to make some more challenge, sometimes you need to figure where the right pick is ;) (an as an aside, it would seem like this type of thing would need some client support, Yup, quite possibly. and I could certainly see a client basically breaking apart the lockpick into its two halves, rotating one of them, and when the player clicks on one, determines which pick that is and if an orientation change is needed) Of course, with all that talk, I then wonder how long until someone makes a 'lockpicking plugin' for the client which just figures out everything on its own. Though that becomes more a player choice thing, as with enough plugins, the game can play itself. Yes, see Zebulon. That part is totally out of concern for me - the game will probably be optional, so just skip it. One other question - in the example you give, there are 5 components that need to be picked. Presuming lockpicks need to be found/bought, if the character is lacking one of the picks, are they just out of luck? I'd say most locks are regular components, and you have the corresponding picks. But special doors could have special components, so you need to find the right pick through eg a quest :) 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
Re: [crossfire] Game change proposals
How do you envision the in-game lockpicking skill to change these minigames? It really should, shouldn't it? More time to pick the lock, less chance to break a pick when mistaking, probably? Also, even now, for higher-level characters it is still quite often easier to bash in a door than to stop to pick them (as you gain lockpicking skill levels really slowly). Adding fairly lengthy games like this will in their case just end up meaning more bashed doors... So the game could be optional :) 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
Re: [crossfire] Game change proposals
On 07/ 6/14 11:57 AM, Bloody Shade wrote: I also found it a bit hard to identify where each section ended, which made the minigame a little confusing in the beginning. I'm also worried about the frequency of this and other minigames that might arise from these changes, while they can be fun when used in very specific situations, otherwise they just compromise immersion by forcing you out of the main game focus. Much like how modern games are plagued by quick time events, which are anything but a good thing, and I'd hate to see crossfire fall to the same trap. I know some other games have an idea of you can either play the minigame (at which point it is largely player skill and the character skill makes it easier), or a quick 'use character' skill type thing which is probably less prone to work, but also very fast (and in the case of failures, lockpicks break) From the initial description, it sounds like each pick has 2 ends, and the player also has to choose which end to use. I also wonder if that complication is worth it - each pick having a single end so no rotation is necessary would seem to keep the game the same, but make the interface/play simpler (an as an aside, it would seem like this type of thing would need some client support, and I could certainly see a client basically breaking apart the lockpick into its two halves, rotating one of them, and when the player clicks on one, determines which pick that is and if an orientation change is needed) Of course, with all that talk, I then wonder how long until someone makes a 'lockpicking plugin' for the client which just figures out everything on its own. Though that becomes more a player choice thing, as with enough plugins, the game can play itself. One other question - in the example you give, there are 5 components that need to be picked. Presuming lockpicks need to be found/bought, if the character is lacking one of the picks, are they just out of luck? ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] Game change proposals
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/05/2014 14:37, Nicolas Weeger wrote: Finally had time to make a small POC of a mini-game related to lockpicking :) On the top, your picks. Bottom, the lock components to pick (left to right). It's difficult to tell where each section ends; in the final version it might be useful to highlight the current segment. Aim: use the picks in the correct order to pick the 5 lock components. Sounds reasonable. Obvious improvements would be better graphism, and chance of breaking a pick if you use the wrong one! And of course removing the hints :D How would breaking a pick be represented in the game? Will there be a separate item for each pick depicted, or will breaking a pick cause the single lockpick item to be destroyed/damaged? Would thid kind of minigame be fun for CF? Yes, if used sparingly. I would not want to go through this entire process when picking every single lock. But, this would make sense when picking an important lock. Thanks, Kevin Zheng -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTuZmqAAoJEOrPD3bCLhCQ0sAH/3GdAJhDAtXg/ZZr1SRq9kOk 2TbnSPcdtJcaBEEVUVkwmhgY3YenBoEDUUFJ1lZAo7u+anV8oKvfsLYz89neb/10 sQYJgzMsbYxlPcsCupTpbuN7w5rTrmkpoT+ZiCBxIupRHkwauqAVI55h3pzCFRsh GajlKLimqpYvleYrIqCNyx9BneP4k/6Q2u3yFeKrOlpH3MgPw1BPx12MWkXCyXA5 imWdfTrCayvCOqwWsWfK80liz2WNxxJgUQ66SQd5/Ga0k1YR5kbqnCtqGq9QniA4 T4YKxY9fa5ASyZUfTgCdMNAM0d4xFvLlosrHpVs2C3ThETPyQdlpGRTi+AmFJns= =8JEC -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] Game change proposals
I also found it a bit hard to identify where each section ended, which made the minigame a little confusing in the beginning. I'm also worried about the frequency of this and other minigames that might arise from these changes, while they can be fun when used in very specific situations, otherwise they just compromise immersion by forcing you out of the main game focus. Much like how modern games are plagued by quick time events, which are anything but a good thing, and I'd hate to see crossfire fall to the same trap. On 7/6/2014 3:47 PM, Kevin Zheng wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/05/2014 14:37, Nicolas Weeger wrote: Finally had time to make a small POC of a mini-game related to lockpicking :) On the top, your picks. Bottom, the lock components to pick (left to right). It's difficult to tell where each section ends; in the final version it might be useful to highlight the current segment. Aim: use the picks in the correct order to pick the 5 lock components. Sounds reasonable. Obvious improvements would be better graphism, and chance of breaking a pick if you use the wrong one! And of course removing the hints :D How would breaking a pick be represented in the game? Will there be a separate item for each pick depicted, or will breaking a pick cause the single lockpick item to be destroyed/damaged? Would thid kind of minigame be fun for CF? Yes, if used sparingly. I would not want to go through this entire process when picking every single lock. But, this would make sense when picking an important lock. Thanks, Kevin Zheng -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTuZmqAAoJEOrPD3bCLhCQ0sAH/3GdAJhDAtXg/ZZr1SRq9kOk 2TbnSPcdtJcaBEEVUVkwmhgY3YenBoEDUUFJ1lZAo7u+anV8oKvfsLYz89neb/10 sQYJgzMsbYxlPcsCupTpbuN7w5rTrmkpoT+ZiCBxIupRHkwauqAVI55h3pzCFRsh GajlKLimqpYvleYrIqCNyx9BneP4k/6Q2u3yFeKrOlpH3MgPw1BPx12MWkXCyXA5 imWdfTrCayvCOqwWsWfK80liz2WNxxJgUQ66SQd5/Ga0k1YR5kbqnCtqGq9QniA4 T4YKxY9fa5ASyZUfTgCdMNAM0d4xFvLlosrHpVs2C3ThETPyQdlpGRTi+AmFJns= =8JEC -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] Game change proposals
Hello. Finally had time to make a small POC of a mini-game related to lockpicking :) You can see it at http://nicolas.weeger.org/lp/index.html On the top, your picks. Bottom, the lock components to pick (left to right). Aim: use the picks in the correct order to pick the 5 lock components. Red square is currently selected pick. Arrows move selection (wrapping on limits). Space rotate (active pick is the right part). Enter uses on lock component. To make it easier to figure, on the bottom you have a number (how many components you picked), then 2 numbers, currently selected pick's value and next lock component's value, so just match them and hit enter :) Obvious improvements would be better graphism, and chance of breaking a pick if you use the wrong one! And of course removing the hints :D Would thid kind of minigame be fun for CF? Regards Nicolas Le jeudi 12 juin 2014 20:35:55, Nicolas Weeger a écrit : Hello. I'd like to change various things in the game, to make it funnier (IMO) in non combat aspects. So here are random 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. [bonus points to who knows the old game I'm getting inspiration from :)] 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...? Then reduce the dropped items. I mean, so much junk! 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. Thoughts? Flames? Ideas? Regard Nicolas signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] Game change proposals
Hello. Makes sense - would the lockpicks be consumed (or perhaps break) on failed attempts? That might be another way to limit special door access - yes, you can pick it, but the lockpicks themselves are rare and/or expensive, so may not be worth it just for the sake of doing it. Yup, breaking chance, especially if you use the wrong one :) I had thought of the second treasure list - the problem, is you could get a case where the creature is firing arrows at you, but drops something completely unrelated. Other games do that (often getting items completely unrelated to what the creature is using), but IMO, it is nicer if what is dropped matches what the creature had. (snipped) Yes, that's indeed an issue... Though maybe we could make probabilities based on the item. If it's a standard item, low drop probability (so you don't get too much junk), but it's an artefact, or a special item, then 100% probability, or a much higher one. I guess it depends exactly how those chances work. Is it a level comparison + random factor? or you do the attack and it happens? Implementation details :) It really depends, not sure. Probably a random factor, maybe adjusted on level. Maybe - that has always been a bit of challenge - trying to figure out exactly what crossfire is or should be. Yes :) Which is why I'm thinking of doing something different ;) 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
Re: [crossfire] Game change proposals
On 06/14/14 02:17 PM, Nicolas Weeger wrote: Hello. I'm not familiar to the original game, but I'd be careful with anything that is too time sensitive. I'd also like a better idea of what you envision. Is it something like there are 10 (or 20) different lockpicks in the game, and the character has to use them in the right order? Presumably, the lockpick skill should still come in to play in some way for this also (amount of time to pick the lock, or perhaps some amount of not needing the precise lockpicks or something) Something like that, yes - you need to use the correct lockpicks in the correct order. So you could have special doors requiring a special lockpick found in a special place. Makes sense - would the lockpicks be consumed (or perhaps break) on failed attempts? That might be another way to limit special door access - yes, you can pick it, but the lockpicks themselves are rare and/or expensive, so may not be worth it just for the sake of doing it. That is a big change, and probably fairly simple to do - most other games do this (those creatures may be attacking you with axes, but you don't get all those weapons when you kill them). Likewise, even of the items that are out there, one could reasonably ask do we really need the number of different swords out there that vary by a minor detail. I know some games do this, but that is more related to skins (this sword looks cool) - with the way crossfire is, that really isn't the case. I was thinking of adding a second treasure list to monsters, which contains items to drop at death. Would need to figure how to make steal work, though. I had thought of the second treasure list - the problem, is you could get a case where the creature is firing arrows at you, but drops something completely unrelated. Other games do that (often getting items completely unrelated to what the creature is using), but IMO, it is nicer if what is dropped matches what the creature had. I know sometimes in crossfire you are fighting something and getting hit by some wand attack, and I think 'I want to kill that creature to get that wand'. With the proposed system, that might not happen, but would be nice to have a chance. So perhaps what could be done is the existing treasurelists modified with something like a 'drop_chance' value - if the item is generated, that represents that chance that the item actually drops. At treasure creation time, the item could get marked with a flag based on that (I think FLAG_NO_DROP might already exist) That chance may be low, but at least you have a chance of getting what the creature is using. For stealing, I think only allow items that will drop when the creature is killed to be stolen works, so that also fixes that problem. That would be good, but is also a major change - the vast majority of maps would need to be refactored (maps with gobs of monsters would just be unplayable). Yes. On the other hand, it'd make for a nice map review :) Right - in some ways, it makes sense to do a bunch of big changes at one time for that reason - while reviewing maps for monster density, can also review them for doors, etc. Seems reasonable, though than in itself creates yet different issues (if a player can use a weapon effectively enough to constantly keep a monster stunned, probably makes for an easy combat) Then the monster isn't that high level, is it? I guess it depends exactly how those chances work. Is it a level comparison + random factor? or you do the attack and it happens? Or make it so the time the player needs to launch the stun attack is longer that the actual stun. Yep - some games also have other melee related stats (fatigue, adrenaline, etc), and one could imagine that the special attacks cost more fatigue, and fatigue only really recovers out of combat - so you could enter combat, do a flurry of special attacks, but after that, are basically just left doing normal attacks or something. Agree - most of those are side effects. The trickier part on some of those is whether resistances should exist and how to then factor them in - the number of attacks and number of resistances sort of go hand in hand. While one could certainly come up with different logic to handle those, that solution may just be more complicated. Note that if you did all the above changes, that is some fairly radical changes to the game (attack rate and item drop). Though perhaps the second comes from the first - if combat is a lot slower, that would then suggest there are a lot fewer monsters, which should then mean a lot lower item drop. Yes, radical changes is what I'm thinking of. There are a zillion hack-and-slash games. So maybe we should try something different? Maybe - that has always been a bit of challenge - trying to figure out exactly what crossfire is or should be. ___ crossfire mailing list
Re: [crossfire] Game change proposals
Hello. I'm not familiar to the original game, but I'd be careful with anything that is too time sensitive. I'd also like a better idea of what you envision. Is it something like there are 10 (or 20) different lockpicks in the game, and the character has to use them in the right order? Presumably, the lockpick skill should still come in to play in some way for this also (amount of time to pick the lock, or perhaps some amount of not needing the precise lockpicks or something) Something like that, yes - you need to use the correct lockpicks in the correct order. So you could have special doors requiring a special lockpick found in a special place. Another easy thing would be to have most chests locked - the player could bash them open, but might destroy the items inside. Yes, could be done too :) That is a big change, and probably fairly simple to do - most other games do this (those creatures may be attacking you with axes, but you don't get all those weapons when you kill them). Likewise, even of the items that are out there, one could reasonably ask do we really need the number of different swords out there that vary by a minor detail. I know some games do this, but that is more related to skins (this sword looks cool) - with the way crossfire is, that really isn't the case. I was thinking of adding a second treasure list to monsters, which contains items to drop at death. Would need to figure how to make steal work, though. That would be good, but is also a major change - the vast majority of maps would need to be refactored (maps with gobs of monsters would just be unplayable). Yes. On the other hand, it'd make for a nice map review :) Seems reasonable, though than in itself creates yet different issues (if a player can use a weapon effectively enough to constantly keep a monster stunned, probably makes for an easy combat) Then the monster isn't that high level, is it? Or make it so the time the player needs to launch the stun attack is longer that the actual stun. Agree - most of those are side effects. The trickier part on some of those is whether resistances should exist and how to then factor them in - the number of attacks and number of resistances sort of go hand in hand. While one could certainly come up with different logic to handle those, that solution may just be more complicated. Note that if you did all the above changes, that is some fairly radical changes to the game (attack rate and item drop). Though perhaps the second comes from the first - if combat is a lot slower, that would then suggest there are a lot fewer monsters, which should then mean a lot lower item drop. Yes, radical changes is what I'm thinking of. There are a zillion hack-and-slash games. So maybe we should try something different? 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
Re: [crossfire] Game change proposals
On 06/12/14 11:35 AM, Nicolas Weeger wrote: Hello. I'd like to change various things in the game, to make it funnier (IMO) in non combat aspects. So here are random 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. [bonus points to who knows the old game I'm getting inspiration from :)] I'm not familiar to the original game, but I'd be careful with anything that is too time sensitive. I'd also like a better idea of what you envision. Is it something like there are 10 (or 20) different lockpicks in the game, and the character has to use them in the right order? Presumably, the lockpick skill should still come in to play in some way for this also (amount of time to pick the lock, or perhaps some amount of not needing the precise lockpicks or something) Of course, lockpicking and doors in general could use a bit of a revamp - too much is 'you must do the dungeon in this order, meaning get key A, which lets you get key B, etc'. let those doors be pickable - perhaps they have really nasty traps if you don't use the key, or perhaps they are just really tough. This might require redesign of some maps (treasure room near the start that is protected by a locked door may not be a good idea), but would make more sense. Another easy thing would be to have most chests locked - the player could bash them open, but might destroy the items inside. 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. I don't mind so much the global experience, and I still like the idea of the alchemy skill itself having a level (until you get to level 10, some recipes may just not be possible). But tracking individual recipes and bonus for each seems like a fine idea. It might also be reasonable that common/simple recipes are globally known (or are automatically learned at certain levels), so that the alchemy recipes out there are for rare and unusual items. Otherwise, playing only with in game knowledge always seems very difficult. What about random (ie player-dependant) parameters? You have more success during certain hours, or outside vs inside, or...? Totally reasonable for different things - one could certainly imagine that scribing at a desk should be easier than out in the wilderness. Then reduce the dropped items. I mean, so much junk! That is a big change, and probably fairly simple to do - most other games do this (those creatures may be attacking you with axes, but you don't get all those weapons when you kill them). Likewise, even of the items that are out there, one could reasonably ask do we really need the number of different swords out there that vary by a minor detail. I know some games do this, but that is more related to skins (this sword looks cool) - with the way crossfire is, that really isn't the case. ] 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. That would be good, but is also a major change - the vast majority of maps would need to be refactored (maps with gobs of monsters would just be unplayable). Then various effects on weapons: stun, knock back, confuse, slow, etc. Seems reasonable, though than in itself creates yet different issues (if a player can use a weapon effectively enough to constantly keep a monster stunned, probably makes for an easy combat) Reduce the zillion elemental attacks to a lower number (6? 8?), other things are side effects. Agree - most of those are side effects. The trickier part on some of those is whether resistances should exist and how to then factor them in - the number of attacks and number of resistances sort of go hand in hand. While one could certainly come up with different logic to handle those, that solution may just be more complicated. Note that if you did all the above changes, that is some fairly radical changes to the game (attack rate and item drop). Though perhaps the second comes from the first - if combat is a lot slower, that would then suggest there are a lot fewer monsters, which should then mean a lot lower item drop. ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] Game change proposals
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 06/12/2014 13:35, Nicolas Weeger wrote: 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. [bonus points to who knows the old game I'm getting inspiration from :)] I like mini-games, and if there were more mini-games I would play Crossfire a whole lot more. My schedule no longer allows me to sit down for 4 hours straight hacking through a dungeon. I think short pickup multiplayer mini-games would be best. A handful of single-player games would be good, too. 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. I'm not sure, I'd need more time/discussion to decide. Currently a lot of ingredients are difficult to come by, so I'm afraid this will make alchemy too unattractive. This would at least help fix the issue of out-of-game knowledge of recipes, though. What about random (ie player-dependant) parameters? You have more success during certain hours, or outside vs inside, or...? YES! There should be a certain spot in the world where producing a certain recipe yields extra. Or, certain (hard) recipes should depend on the phase of the moon. Really, this would encourage alchemists to go explore the world for once instead of sit in apartments all day. Then reduce the dropped items. I mean, so much junk! Yes, and make more useful items appear once in a while. This will probably require balancing, too. 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. Yes, although I'm not entirely sure how to go about it. Many games that have combat involve clicking the enemy you want to kill, killing it, and then moving on to the next. I'm not sure if this suits Crossfire. Then various effects on weapons: stun, knock back, confuse, slow, etc. And certain special attacks that take time to recharge, perhaps. But this would definitely make other spells more useful. Reduce the zillion elemental attacks to a lower number (6? 8?), other things are side effects. This would make handling special attacks easier. Thanks, Kevin Zheng -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTmfq+AAoJEOrPD3bCLhCQpekIAIxj7AeJDa0MJhKCumPKZW7Z WHCFHlobVDLqeeHXSDWTRC+n07gRowEs2TEvRpmSntFw6WJGGp0H5Mbq/OGijKt2 PhXKR9/ZZgW4ViBOxqW/Qc9bzZswYKgSVA99skMVfrIAu2QHAhpJ7T6Cb46Sujwc MrTgEt80V7s2smbzndLE5Mw8rqWJgWBJfnEWhm67OkTM5cYQnzxkQzL70GETjR0p ryLOfPE3Hnd1/unPPO0SH61nS1OJ6dvk84d92TrkbDRr1UbveqqlbFk00OxvSJlr zUUkhHOcptgXTgW0JLMRoj0hf9GPQuuLwIItVrLtCkc+ECoVx+oZ7iOUBx6TTd8= =SmBt -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] Game change proposals
On 06/12/2014 09:08 PM, Kevin Zheng wrote: On 06/12/2014 13:35, Nicolas Weeger wrote: 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. [bonus points to who knows the old game I'm getting inspiration from :)] I like mini-games, and if there were more mini-games I would play Crossfire a whole lot more. My schedule no longer allows me to sit down for 4 hours straight hacking through a dungeon. I think short pickup multiplayer mini-games would be best. A handful of single-player games would be good, too. I agree. Also, some skills are pretty useless right now. This situation could be alleviated at the same time. 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. I'm not sure, I'd need more time/discussion to decide. Currently a lot of ingredients are difficult to come by, so I'm afraid this will make alchemy too unattractive. This would at least help fix the issue of out-of-game knowledge of recipes, though. Alchemy is right now rather static, so I agree that there should be added a little bit of randomness. Adding failure/success is one part of the story, another one could be to create more random item (properties) with alchemy. Thus, a high-level crafter could create completely new and unique items. In any case, I'd also like more discussion about the technical details. What about random (ie player-dependant) parameters? You have more success during certain hours, or outside vs inside, or...? YES! There should be a certain spot in the world where producing a certain recipe yields extra. Or, certain (hard) recipes should depend on the phase of the moon. Really, this would encourage alchemists to go explore the world for once instead of sit in apartments all day. Yes, adding more randomness is good. However, I suppose that this could lead players to exploit these events once they are found out (which shouldn't be difficult after all). It should be possible to turn this feature on or off via a server-side parameter (or compile-time macro), IMHO. Then reduce the dropped items. I mean, so much junk! Yes, and make more useful items appear once in a while. This will probably require balancing, too. Yes, please do! 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. Yes, although I'm not entirely sure how to go about it. Many games that have combat involve clicking the enemy you want to kill, killing it, and then moving on to the next. I'm not sure if this suits Crossfire. While I don't actually see a problem with an adapted user interface (e.g., the player automatically continues to attack the next enemy in melee), this idea really changes crossfire. I certainly would appreciate more tactical combats/magic since slaughtering masses of monsters becomes dull after a time. However, this change includes a lot of work and experimenting with balancing, modified maps, experience, pantheon, etc. I do support this if you really are going this way. But my feeling is, that it will be tough. Then various effects on weapons: stun, knock back, confuse, slow, etc. And certain special attacks that take time to recharge, perhaps. But this would definitely make other spells more useful. This makes only sense with the tactial change you proposed above. I like it :) Reduce the zillion elemental attacks to a lower number (6? 8?), other things are side effects. This would make handling special attacks easier. Sounds good to me. ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
