Re: Misc notes/thoughts.

[Tadah <link@alpha.pulsar.net>]

On Mon, 11 Dec 1995, Michael B. Martin wrote:

> 
> > Player interactivity I think is the biggest focus we should have on 
> > crossfire.  I love the fact we keep adding to it, it keeps the game 
> > alive, but as fun as new features are for us, we need to start cleaning 
> > up some stuff.  Make crossfire easier to install/upgrade/addto.  Make it 
> > available, like you just stated, on other OSes like WIn95 (I think Java 
> > is a superb idea!).  Optimize the the game for smaller bandwidth so we
> > can get modem players, etc.  Also lets put more into the party idea and 
> > other player to player interaction.
> 
> I agree with this.  I think the greatest feature of crossfire is its
> multi-player ability, and adding clients for non-UN*X OS's could help
> add a *lot* of new players (hopefully not appearing overnight, though,
> so those people running servers would have a chance to upgrade the
> memory on their machines ;).  To this end it would seem to make sense
> to have a well-defined client-server model (the server code being
> maintained in C or C++, say) with the clients relatively easily
> recodable in whatever language you want (having read the propaganda on
> Sun's Web site, Java does indeed sound like a good option for a
> crossfire client).

Happy to see you agree.  Like I said, from the programmers point of view, 
who has no trouble running it the way it is, has much more fun adding new 
spells, weapons, etc rather then making it more "user friendly".  Hey, I 
can use it now too, so great.  But its a hassle each time a new version 
comes out, or someone releases a addon (or in my case, recently found out 
about), you have to recompile etc.  First off, make easy installation 
scripts.  Or better yet in some cases, compress some already compiled 
directory trees for popular OSes, like Linux (I think thats what most of 
us use, or SunOS, right?), etc.  Some great documentation would be nice 
too.  Heck, I'd like to write it (Yes, I am very capable of writing 
better then this.  This is my "I've still got 400messages to go" writing 
style) myself but I'm still finding things out about the game.  Would 
love at least a brief summary text on all commands, spells so far.
Things like that would make this game extremely popular.
 
> Now, I admit to knowing practically nothing about how the current
> client/server stuff works.  However, IMHO, the client should handle
> the game window(s), including keeping a list of the players inventory
> and position.  When there is an input event (key, mouse, etc.), the

Actually.  I'm glad you brought this up.  I have an idea.. :>
ATTENTION all programmers..  Idea here.. :>
Why not have encrypted RSA player files kept on the players computer?
Netrek does something like this with its clients so that people can't mod 
clients and cheat.  Why not do this with player files, and to what 
advantage?  It would be great to be able to move your player to other 
servers should a server go down, become slow, or whatever.  No?
Well, anyway.  Just an idea.. :>

> event gets processed by the client and is forwarded to the server if
> appropriate.  The client should be in charge of managing map/item
> graphics and any scrolling of windows (as recently suggested--I think
> just making the spell list pageable like shop inventories would be the
> best quick (?) option).  Some people requested the ability to play
> over a modem.  I don't think that is reasonable unless the client has
> its own copy of the bitmaps/pixmaps (and sounds, if desired), the way
> many games like Doom achieve great multi-player speed).  Sending the
> pixmaps over the network is just too slow without Ethernet speeds
> (even with Ethernet it would make things faster).  The only data
> that should have to pass between the client and server include updates
> on positions, item pickups/drops, etc, i.e. information that
> corresponds to an interaction between the player and the crossfire
> world.  If a player resorts his inventory, for example, the server
> need not know this (have the client handle it).  Then if the player
> wants to apply an "Enchant Weapon" scroll to the weapon he just moved
> to the top of this inventory, the client tells the server that player
> such-and-such is trying to apply the scroll, and that weapon X is the
> first item in his inventory.  Does this sound feasible?  Right now it
> seems to me that the server has so much to do that a good client could
> handle instead that the server would not be able to support a very
> large number of players (when in fact it could if the client took on a
> much larger share of the work).

Exactly!  I am on a 57.6k direct connection and still feel everything is 
just too slow.  We are all using the same maps, aren't we?  Even if we 
weren't, what would be nice is some kind of one-time updating system.  
Maybe a directory for each server your on (In case the maps are different 
at all), in that will be stored all maps, pics, etc that are needed.  A 
file in that directory will tell the server when this directory has last 
been updated.  If there are newer items, maps, etc..  It would then know 
how much must be updated on the players side so that a whole resend need 
not be the case.  If every client carried their own load, play would be 
so much more faster!!
  
 
> > Also, why make the player disappear when you save for the day?  I 
> > remember playing RPG type games on BBSes, some of you might remember 
> > them..  "Land of Devestation (LOD)", "Operation OverKill", etc.  They 
> > were pretty fun, allowed teams, also allowed the build of forts which 
> > would be a cool idea for crossfire.  If a player saves in a inn, fine, 
> > can't touch him.  But allow for camping out.  Be able to save anywhere, 
> > but if your not in a well built inn (like in Scorn city, not like in port 
> > joesph where you have to watch your back <G>), leave some chances to at 
> > least get something stolen from the player if another player finds him in 
> > a not well protected area.  Also, allow fighting when the other player is 
> > not on, assign some AI values to the otherwise inactive player.  Sound 
> > cruel?  Not if its not made to penilize the player that is not on.  Make 
> > it so the active player can gain exp, etc from the player he killed, but 
> > still maintain the players save file, changing little if at all.
> 
> Well, for starters, crossfire is currently such that you must use a
> "bed to reality" to sleep/save your character.  So at this time you
> can't save your guy just anywhere (anyone tried carrying a bed to
> reality around?).  If people really want this feature, perhaps someone
> could create a "bedroll to reality" or something similar which you

Actually, it does work right now.  Ever messed with the client on just 
your local machine?  type "'save" and you'll see it acts the exact same 
way as if you applied the bed to reality.  I must confess to why I know 
this to be true..  I (In the spirit of learning the technical aspects of 
the game of course) typed the save command, then copying my .pl file to a 
backup file just before I did something major.  If I messed up, I copied 
it back then started playing again.  It starts right at the very spot you 
typed save.  So yes, it is very possible.  Its in there matter a fact. :>

> could easily carry.  But when you use it your guy would "disappear"
> under the current code while sleeping, so you couldn't steal stuff or

Well, I'm sure it couldn't be too hard to change it arround so that the 
character doesn't disapper.  Maybe simply make him disapper, copy the 
character file over to a temp NPC file, stick the NPC in a sleep state, 
wola.  Or something like that. :>

> kill him.  At any rate, I would not save *my* character in the woods
> if he could be attacked.  Supposedly, you do get experience for

Well.  I suppose we could get some incentives in there.  And sometimes 
its just easier to save near the area your working in.  The place your 
currently at may not be near anything safe.  Some of these dungeons are 
quite huge and its hard to imagine anyone completing them in one day.  SO 
why not be able to camp inside of them?  Which is ok as long as the area 
is secured first.  Also, what about the small towns/villages that don't 
have guards in them?  Any place with a guard could be deamed totally safe 
for the player.  Places without town guards, even inns, could be 
considered risky places to sleep.  But even then, why not make it no risk 
whatsoever for the player that goes to sleep?  When he wakes up, he would 
have lost nothing, or like I said, loss something small for getting 
killed (whatever).  The player who attacked and wins gets all.    

> killing other characters at this time, but not that much (and the risk
> may not be worth it--ever try to kill a 60+ level character?  It's not

Well, thats the players judgement on what he should, should not attack. :>

-Link