Crossfire Mailing List Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CF: Long term experimental ideas

Very true, have you noticed that monsters never seem to run out of mana. 
they have little or no casting times when using wands or rods or staffs or 
scrolls. yet all of these affect players.

I kind of like it the way it is too. I not saying it can't be improved.

>From: "Nicolas Loechner" <>
>Reply-To: "Nicolas Loechner" <>
>To: <>
>Subject: Re: CF: Long term experimental ideas
>Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 18:01:04 +0100
>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...
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Doug wilder <>
>To: <>
>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
> >itself.
> >
> >>From: Hwei Sheng TEOH <>
> >>To:
> >>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.
> >>Mark
> >> > has already proposed modifying the random encounter code, so that
> >>monsters
> >> > can be encountered in some general vicinity without an associated
> >>generator.
> >> > I think that's the first and possibly one of the most important steps
> >>down
> >> > that road.  Right now, both Mark and David are right.  The way 
> >>are
> >> > built, stomping on monsters is an end in itself.  You may be working 
> >>a
> >> > 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 
> >>and
> >> > parcel of our stated goal of moving away from the hack 'n' slash 
> >> > Monsters become an obstacle to be dealt with along some longer road.
> >>It's
> >> > no longer POSSIBLE to totally clear a dungeon.
> >>
> >>Hmmm.. this will be interesting. Note that we will then have to
> >>differentiate
> >>between dungeons and other maps like houses, cities, etc.. But I must 
> >>this is a very neat idea.
> >>
> >> > The theory is that a dungeon is a long and winding hole, and there's
> >>always
> >> > some bolthole a kobold or a slime could hide in.  After all, they've
> >>been
> >> > living in that dungeon since time beyond memory.  They know where ALL
> >>the
> >> > hidey holes you can't find are located.  So they'll always be jumping
> >>out at
> >> > you, even though you killed every one you could find and could catch
> >>your
> >> > first time through.  While you were busy messing around in lower 
> >> > levels, the survivors crept out of their holes.  After you've been
> >>through
> >> > their area a few times, and you slaughtered every one which dared 
> >> > you, they'll remember you and hide from you, so you'll stop seeing 
> >>as
> >> > much.  But another person who has never been there will be set upon 
> >>as
> >> > you were.
> >>
> >>Hmm... I've never liked the idea of generators in CF, especially 
> >>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 
> >>Then, generators should produce only limited numbers of monsters, like 
> >>a
> >>max number (as is also proposed). I like the idea of "hidey holes" that 
> >>one
> >>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 
> >>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
> >>feasible
> >>for mapmakers to do, though... so maybe the player can only access a few
> >>small
> >>rooms where the kobold generators are. We can then explain the 
> >>as
> >>the holes where reinforcements are coming from. The kobold player can 
> >>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
> >>couple
> >> > ways that can be combined.  The random generator, which is no longer
> >>visible
> >> > and can no longer be destroyed, and which the monsters it generates 
> >> > linked to, can have a list of characters who have murdered numerous 
> >>its
> >> > kind, so the monsters linked to that generator will know to run from
> >>that
> >> > character.  Another way to handle it is to make monsters smart enough 
> >> > recognize when a character is powerful enough to slaughter them and 
> >>for
> >> > 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 
> >>
> >>[snip]
> >> > Some of the difficulty of the rework can be mitigated by yet another
> >> > proposal that's already on the table.  Vastly increasing the number 
> >> > species available to the player, and allowing the player to play a
> >>monster
> >> > species fixes a lot of that problem.  The monkey wrench thrown into 
> >> > 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 
> >>a
> >> > large fraction of the gaming population to indulge in player killing 
> >> > addressed quite well.  If you want to kill players, be a monster.  
> >> > 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 
> >>urges of the monster player, esp. if the server has very few "hero"
> >>players.
> >>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 -- 
> >>of
> >>differentiating between "heroes" and "monsters", why not we use the RACE 
> >>a
> >>distinguishing factor? So, elves and dwarves will be opposed to the 
> >>races, and either of them may or may not be players. This way, we won't
> >>need
> >>special provision for AI heroes. I think this will make things a LOT 
> >>interesting. I'm sick of the traditional "hero vs. monster" philosophy. 
> >>not we have something more general -- multiple races, each with likes 
> >>dislikes for the other races. Players may choose to play *any* race (or 
> >>least, most of the races, that are feasible to implement), and he'll 
> >>the
> >>character according to that race.
> >>
> >>[snip]
> >> > In the heroic case, the quest isn't changed.  The newly human wizard 
> >>the
> >> > end of the obstacle course now amuses himself by controlling and 
> >>his
> >> > obstacle course, and still rewards the Silver-Plated-Whatsit, which 
> >>now
> >> > makes, for successfully completing it.  And he doesn't have to sit
> >>around
> >> > 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 
> >>is
> >> > well designed.  When a worthy character reaches him, he can just use
> >>David's
> >> > Portal to get back.  If he's willing to allow the character to wander
> >>around
> >> > in his domain unsupervised, he doesn't have to return home at all.  
> >> > 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 
> >>artifact. Things are much harder if the quest has a storyline -- with 
> >>clues, and NPCs which tell parts of the story, etc.. You will no longer 
> >>able to have NPCs tell you "do such and such to the wizard at the bottom 
> >>dungeon xxx, or give him such and such, to get a reward." You'll be
> >>limiting
> >>quests to interacting with static things like artifacts and objects; you
> >>can't
> >>have any clues that talk about the wizard himself (or whatever monster
> >>plays
> >>that role) since he may get replaced, nor any special monster/NPC that 
> >>may encounter on the way, since the new player-wizard may choose not to 
> >>in
> >>the dungeon super-monster XXX which was originally the bodyguard of the 
> >>wizard.
> >>
> >>[snip]
> >> > I think this is a VERY good thing for online-only RPGs.  The 
> >> > services suffer very much from being commercial.  Business-oriented
> >>people
> >> > always want to have CONTROL, and surrenduring control of their world 
> >>any
> >> > way is fearsome.  (Yes I know there are non-employees with Game 
> >> > powers in some of the services.  They get to sign a contract that 
> >> > their behavior quite as much as the contract an employee signs.)  The
> >>result
> >> > is severe ennui.  Players discover that the world they're paying for
> >>access
> >> > to is just a pretty NetHack.  Kill things, gain levels and equipment,
> >>kill
> >> > more things.  There's no end, because the steps between levels become
> >> > exponentially farther apart in experience points.  Player Killing 
> >>in,
> >> > and enormously complex reputation systems that are STILL buggy are
> >> > implemented to try to compensate for it, and still fail.  Ultima is
> >>trying
> >> > to compensate, and making headway, as near as I can tell, but their
> >>options
> >> > are too limited, and they foolishly neglected the option of 
> >> > players.  Our options are wide open, and the proposal of monsterous
> >>players
> >> > 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 
> >> > 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 
> >>any
> >> > means necessary.
> >>
> >>Being able to take over a particular dungeon certainly appeals to me... 
> >>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 
> >>imbalance in the game depending on what the player does with his power 
> >>if
> >>we allow things like changing dungeons (like you described above), 
> >>assuming that whoever manages to take over the dungeon has enough sense 
> >>keep that dungeon reasonable. Otherwise you may get total chaos on the
> >>entire
> >>CF world (whoever takes over will turn it into whatever he likes it to 
> >>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 
> >>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
> >>you
> >>dynamically create new maps that act as extensions to the "standard" 
> >>of
> >>the game world, so that powerful characters can actually become King of
> >>their
> >>part of the game world, and they'll be responsible for creating the
> >>necessary
> >>things in their domain to attract players. But this does sound a little 
> >>in
> >>the blue, though it's not impossible...
> >>
> >>
> >>T
> >>
> >>-
> >>[you can put yourself on the announcement list only or unsubscribe
> >>altogether
> >>by sending an email stating your wishes to]
> >
> >______________________________________________________
> >Get Your Private, Free Email at
> >-
> >[you can put yourself on the announcement list only or unsubscribe 
> >by sending an email stating your wishes to]
>[you can put yourself on the announcement list only or unsubscribe 
>by sending an email stating your wishes to]

Get Your Private, Free Email at
[you can put yourself on the announcement list only or unsubscribe altogether
by sending an email stating your wishes to]