Crossfire Mailing List Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: CF: Long term experimental ideas
What about object checking/collecting ?
I would hate to be annoyed by whatever low level monster it is
while I am collecting stuff on the floor.
A limit on the monsters being generating would be fine.
On a more general topic, why move from the hacknslash model ?
This hacknslash is the main reason I play Crossfire. I don't like
the current standard RPG game, where you have to think... Uh. :-)
A bit AI for monsters is needed though, and I also like it very much
when the same fighting and mana and such system applies to both
players and monsters.
And yes I'm a great MUD fan. I like very much Crossfire as it is,
for it's a graphical mud.
Just my two cents...
From: Doug wilder <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: mercredi 15 septembre 1999 16:51
Subject: 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]
[you can put yourself on the announcement list only or unsubscribe altogether
by sending an email stating your wishes to firstname.lastname@example.org]