Crossfire Mailing List Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: CF: Long term experimental ideas
I sort of like the idea of invisible indestructable generators too?
maybe instead of putting them behind the walls make them part of the wall
>From: Hwei Sheng TEOH <email@example.com>
>Subject: Re: CF: Long term experimental ideas
>Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 17:38:13 -0400
>On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, dragonm wrote:
>[snip--I don't like long intro paragraphs as much as you don't like long
>subjects... ;-) just kidding]
> > Implementing greater persistence doesn't have to be done all at once.
> > has already proposed modifying the random encounter code, so that
> > can be encountered in some general vicinity without an associated
> > I think that's the first and possibly one of the most important steps
> > that road. Right now, both Mark and David are right. The way dungeons
> > built, stomping on monsters is an end in itself. You may be working on
> > quest, but don't we all try to clear the dungeon while we're at it?
> > Implementing Mark's proposal is a step towards my proposal and it's part
> > parcel of our stated goal of moving away from the hack 'n' slash model.
> > Monsters become an obstacle to be dealt with along some longer road.
> > no longer POSSIBLE to totally clear a dungeon.
>Hmmm.. this will be interesting. Note that we will then have to
>between dungeons and other maps like houses, cities, etc.. But I must say,
>this is a very neat idea.
> > The theory is that a dungeon is a long and winding hole, and there's
> > some bolthole a kobold or a slime could hide in. After all, they've
> > living in that dungeon since time beyond memory. They know where ALL
> > hidey holes you can't find are located. So they'll always be jumping
> > you, even though you killed every one you could find and could catch
> > first time through. While you were busy messing around in lower dungeon
> > levels, the survivors crept out of their holes. After you've been
> > their area a few times, and you slaughtered every one which dared attack
> > you, they'll remember you and hide from you, so you'll stop seeing them
> > much. But another person who has never been there will be set upon just
> > you were.
>Hmm... I've never liked the idea of generators in CF, especially generators
>that you can "kill", and that ceaselessly produces monsters. I think,
>generators should either be made invisible (as is proposed), or made
>"indestructible" (what does it mean to "destroy" a dragon cave anyway?!).
>Then, generators should produce only limited numbers of monsters, like with
>max number (as is also proposed). I like the idea of "hidey holes" that no
>can reach -- we can put generators behind dungeon walls, (simulating
>unreachable caves where the monsters are hiding) and have them produce
>monsters on the other side of the wall.
>Another interesting idea would be to have players that choose to play as a
>monster of that type have access to that hole. (So that if a player is a
>kobold, he can lurk around the kobold holes). This may or may not be
>for mapmakers to do, though... so maybe the player can only access a few
>rooms where the kobold generators are. We can then explain the generators
>the holes where reinforcements are coming from. The kobold player can then
>use that hole to hide from other creatures in the dungeon.
> > In AI terms, there are any of several ways to handle it, and even a
> > ways that can be combined. The random generator, which is no longer
> > and can no longer be destroyed, and which the monsters it generates are
> > linked to, can have a list of characters who have murdered numerous of
> > kind, so the monsters linked to that generator will know to run from
> > character. Another way to handle it is to make monsters smart enough to
> > recognize when a character is powerful enough to slaughter them and run
> > it without even trying to attack.
>Hmm, keeping track of *every* player that had been in the dungeon, *per*
>generator, seems a little infeasible to me, unless we compromise somehow.
> > Some of the difficulty of the rework can be mitigated by yet another
> > proposal that's already on the table. Vastly increasing the number of
> > species available to the player, and allowing the player to play a
> > species fixes a lot of that problem. The monkey wrench thrown into the
> > works by making quest results persistent is compensated for by having
> > player-controlled monsters. The monster character wants the same
> > Super-Duper-Gold-Plated-Whatsit as the hero character. The tendency of
> > large fraction of the gaming population to indulge in player killing is
> > addressed quite well. If you want to kill players, be a monster. Then
> > you're actually ENCOURAGED to kill heroes. I'm astonished that the
> > commercial services haven't implemented that solution to the age-old
> > problem.
>Hmm, if we do things this way, we'd have to have AI heroes to satisfy the
>urges of the monster player, esp. if the server has very few "hero"
>Why not generalize? It seems, with the recent discussion, there's already a
>trend in making the races more distinct. Why not push it further -- instead
>differentiating between "heroes" and "monsters", why not we use the RACE as
>distinguishing factor? So, elves and dwarves will be opposed to the giant
>races, and either of them may or may not be players. This way, we won't
>special provision for AI heroes. I think this will make things a LOT more
>interesting. I'm sick of the traditional "hero vs. monster" philosophy. Why
>not we have something more general -- multiple races, each with likes and
>dislikes for the other races. Players may choose to play *any* race (or at
>least, most of the races, that are feasible to implement), and he'll play
>character according to that race.
> > In the heroic case, the quest isn't changed. The newly human wizard at
> > end of the obstacle course now amuses himself by controlling and editing
> > obstacle course, and still rewards the Silver-Plated-Whatsit, which he
> > makes, for successfully completing it. And he doesn't have to sit
> > twiddling his thumbs waiting for lower level characters to reach him,
> > either. He doesn't even have to be home most of the time, if his maze
> > well designed. When a worthy character reaches him, he can just use
> > Portal to get back. If he's willing to allow the character to wander
> > in his domain unsupervised, he doesn't have to return home at all. The
> > Whatsit can be sitting on a purple pillow, there for the taking.
>This works well in the case that the quest involves a fixed reward, like an
>artifact. Things are much harder if the quest has a storyline -- with many
>clues, and NPCs which tell parts of the story, etc.. You will no longer be
>able to have NPCs tell you "do such and such to the wizard at the bottom of
>dungeon xxx, or give him such and such, to get a reward." You'll be
>quests to interacting with static things like artifacts and objects; you
>have any clues that talk about the wizard himself (or whatever monster
>that role) since he may get replaced, nor any special monster/NPC that you
>may encounter on the way, since the new player-wizard may choose not to put
>the dungeon super-monster XXX which was originally the bodyguard of the old
> > I think this is a VERY good thing for online-only RPGs. The commercial
> > services suffer very much from being commercial. Business-oriented
> > always want to have CONTROL, and surrenduring control of their world in
> > way is fearsome. (Yes I know there are non-employees with Game Master
> > powers in some of the services. They get to sign a contract that limits
> > their behavior quite as much as the contract an employee signs.) The
> > is severe ennui. Players discover that the world they're paying for
> > to is just a pretty NetHack. Kill things, gain levels and equipment,
> > more things. There's no end, because the steps between levels become
> > exponentially farther apart in experience points. Player Killing sets
> > and enormously complex reputation systems that are STILL buggy are
> > implemented to try to compensate for it, and still fail. Ultima is
> > to compensate, and making headway, as near as I can tell, but their
> > are too limited, and they foolishly neglected the option of monsterous
> > players. Our options are wide open, and the proposal of monsterous
> > is on the table. Bring back the MUD Wizard, and a true GOAL becomes
> > available. To begin with, the server administrator fills that role.
> > Eventually, a player becomes powerful enough to take on much of the role
> > himself, and there's certainly no reason why there can't be multiple
> > Wizards, each intent on ruling the world, some by heroic means, some by
> > means necessary.
>Being able to take over a particular dungeon certainly appeals to me... I
>don't know how far you should push this Wizard thing, though; having the
>entire world dominated by one player seems a little too far (may cause vast
>imbalance in the game depending on what the player does with his power --
>we allow things like changing dungeons (like you described above), you're
>assuming that whoever manages to take over the dungeon has enough sense to
>keep that dungeon reasonable. Otherwise you may get total chaos on the
>CF world (whoever takes over will turn it into whatever he likes it to be)
>with unreasonable traps, map inconsistencies, strange combinations of
>monsters, etc., but on a worse order of magnitude (can't guarantee game
>quality at the map level).
>OTOH the idea of being able to "administrate" a dungeon that you just took
>over suonds really fun to me. We'll definitely need to think over the
>necessary restrictions and rules that the player needs to abide by.
>Now, of course, the ideal situation would be a server that actually lets
>dynamically create new maps that act as extensions to the "standard" area
>the game world, so that powerful characters can actually become King of
>part of the game world, and they'll be responsible for creating the
>things in their domain to attract players. But this does sound a little out
>the blue, though it's not impossible...
>[you can put yourself on the announcement list only or unsubscribe
>by sending an email stating your wishes to firstname.lastname@example.org]
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
[you can put yourself on the announcement list only or unsubscribe altogether
by sending an email stating your wishes to email@example.com]