Re: CF: Experiments

[Mark Wedel <mwedel@scruznet.com>]

 Many replies rolled into one message:

Steven Lembark wrote:

> also significantly reduces boredom.  as a 30+ level magic user i frequently
> spend 30% - 50% of my time sitting around behind earthwalls or doors wating
> for my mana to regen.  after capturing a bunch of the crystals i also end up
> spending quite a bit of time sitting around casting food and recharging the
> things.

 Even as a low level player, I seem to spend a lot of time waiting to regain HP
or SP.  I don't know if that is a bug or a feature of the game.

 OTOH, things like the spell crystal greatly reduce the need for magic power
potions - now instead of gulping one of those to get your SP back, you just
apply the crystal.  I only seldom use healing potions even.  One reason for that
is I can regain hp pretty quickly, and in the heat of battle, in most cases
damage is being dealt out so quickly that using a healing potion can be
difficult.

 As said, not every item in the game has to have a purpose.  But it seems to me,
things like healing potions and magic power potions should be somewhat more
useful.

 It seems to me that running out of HP or SP or Grace during combat is part of
the game.  If you can always be pretty sure that you will have SP around, it
seems to me that it makes mages much easier to play.  Especially if you are able
to get a small pile of crystals and effectively have 10,000 sp.

 I don't know how big a problem this really is.  But a couple interesting
changes would be to have different crystals with different storage capacities,
and also limit characters to have only one charged crystal at a time (the stored
magical energies interfere or something.)

 The other change I would do to this is have some method of recharing mana in
town quickly.  For example, you go to the mage shop, drop a hundred gold, and he
charges your crystal fully.  This at least removes the monotaneous task of
sitting in town for a while charging your crystal up.


> or:make the crystals like food.  when your SP goes to zero you absorb
> whatever you can from however many crystals you're carrying until none
> of them has any mana left in them.  this code could be lifted from the
> `you blindly grab a bite' section and re-applied to mana-crystal objects
> (this would be my favorite, BTW).   note that the existing code deals
> gracefully with having multiple food items, only real change is grabbing
> mana from teh first non-zero crystal rather than "using it up" and moving
> it off the stack.

 This would make things much easier.  I am unsure if it should be this easy - it
strikes me there should be at least some difficulty in playing the game. 
Whether that challenge should just be the creatures you meet up against or some
in controlling your character could be debated.

 But such a change above, I could also see a logical extension of 'if character
has less than XXX hp, dring potion of healing', with XXX being setable by the
player.  I think we can see that would make the game much easier, but at the
same time could be argued should be there.


> >  I think a better solution to this problem would be a client side approach.
> > Perhaps have a third window (split the current inventory window) which has your
> > 'important' or 'at hand' items in this seperate list so you can always find them
> > quickly.  The client has the necessary information (unique item tags) to do the
> > right thing when you click on them, and could perhaps even be extended to
> > keypresses (ie, quick use slot 1 is shift 1, slot 2 is shift 2, etc).
> 
> same keyboard problem: you have to hit the item in the `at hand' window.
> additional issue: the window trim would reduce the total amount of usable
> screen space for inventory.

 But less so.  If I have crystals in quick item slots 1 through 4, I hit shift 1
until that stops glowing, then hit shift 2 until that stops glowing, etc.  Sure,
you still have to hit the right key, but I would argue this is probably easier
than clicking the mouse in the right spot.

 Ideally, if someone actually does such a method, the area that this window
takes up would be setable - so you could just have it use a few lines, or a
bunch of lines.  I generally run on high res systems now days (1600x1200 or the
like), so inventory space has not been an issue for a long time for me - giving
up 8 lines of that display would be a small price to pay.

 If inventory space is a really issue, then a lot of it comes down to the
compactness of hte display.  Right now, you coul probably double the number of
items shown in the inventory display if you don't mind drawing over the other
items (immediately above and below) icons.


> gets back to old idea of giving random stats to items at generation
> time.  basically, if you get a staff of the magii then the values
> in the a'type are max and the generator rolls for the generated stats.
> result: every weapon is more-or-less unique.  also gives reason to
> re-visit dungeons in order to try for `better' versions of the high-
> power weapons there.

 I must have missed that message, as the above is an interesting idea.  Having
an artifact with some preset stats (just on the nature), but some others rolled
and tossed in would be a very nice idea.  To actually implement this would
probably have to wait until 0.96.x where the object structure can be expanded to
include this extra information (basically, a total to distribute, and a flag
saying what attributes to distribute it to)

David Andrew Michael Noelle wrote:
> 
> Mark Wedel wrote:
>
>     The glowing crystals already have a fair bit of item-specific code.
> They're the only object capable of performing either of their two functions,
> so they're singled out in several places.  Of course, that may just seem
> more specific than it is because they're rare and only occur in one form.
> Perhaps the reward at the end of the Wizard's Tower should include a glowing
> emerald with a maxsp of 3000 instead of the normal 1000.

 Could be an interesting change.  No reason for all crystals to be equal.

 But what I mean by object specific code in this case is that when checking to
merge, it is no longer an crystal->nrof=2, it is now a crystal->nrof=2,
crystal->power += .., and so on.  And likewise, when divided, some more clever
division is needed.

 This may not be a big deal.  It just could be the start down a slippery slope
if the same thing is done for other specific items.


>     They must be pretty small, since they only weigh three grams each, but
> even in a pouch full of them, how long could it take to grab one that's
> glowing brightly instead of one that is barely glowing at all?  Then again,
> in reality, how exactly does one apply a Glowing Crystal?  Do you just touch
> it and get recharged?  Do you hold it while you cast your spell so it can
> provide the power you need?  Do you replace the crystal in your staff with
> it?  Do you cast a seperate spell on it, like transferrence to charge it and
> magic drain to draw from it?

 I always thought it was more than just touching it, as otherwise picking it up
or dropping it should effectively apply it.  So in my mind, it must be something
like holding it against your forhead or concentrating on it.

> 
>     I'd settle for a way to specify the order things are listed in.  For
> example, I'd really like to keep my keyring from getting mixed in with my
> magic rings, and I find it terribly annoying that some weapons are listed at
> the top of the inventory and others are listed at the bottom.  And the fact
> that the order within each category is reversed every time I leave and
> return is really getting on my nerves.

 the item_types file in the client distribution is what is used for ordering
items.  Unfortunately, it is not a complete list.

 However, you are not required to order them by type.  So you could set up the
file so 'glowing crystal', 'potion of healing', ... and so on are listed at the
very top.

 The item reversal is something I can fix pretty easily.  The real cause is that
when crossfire loads inventory, it puts the newly loaded item in the first
position of the list, so it is sort of like a stack.  When it saves them, it
then starts first and goes down, which means the next time it is loaded, what
was the first item is now the last, and vice versa.

 It is a performance penalty, but it is not hard to change it so it adds things
to the end of the list.  this could perhaps be limited to just players to
minimize performance hits.


>     That's what I meant to say.  It appeared to me that artifact weapons
> were probably set to (nrof 0) to signify their uniqueness, when they really
> should have been set to (unique 1) for that.  The same way some were given
> attacktype: magic when the creator most likely intended attacktype:
> weaponmagic.

 unique is a slightly later invention into the code.  However, unique 1 for
random artifacts won't really do anything I don't think (at best, it just means
that the space the artifact was created on won't ever generate artifacts again,
at worse, it would just do nothing for random artifacts).  the unique values are
really meant/useful for non random artifacts/items, so that they do disappear
after they are picked up.



>     I threw these in because I wanted something that wasn't aligned with one
> of the three usual elements, fire, ice, and lightning.  Raw magic will harm
> any elementals, even in those odd places where you find a mixed group of all
> different kinds, ignoring each other in their all-out effort to make you
> dead.  It's just as effective against chinese dragons as it is against red
> dragons.  The big drawback is that it's much more damaging to most
> materials, too.  Except for adamnatium and those pesky magic-immune
> creatures, raw magic attacks reduce pretty much everything to its component
> atoms.

 Such a general purpose spell seems very powerful to me.  And as I think I said
elsewhere, my personal preferance is more unique/specialized stuff then overall
generic stuff that applies to everything (this was more for artifacts, but could
apply equally well to spells)


>     Apparently I was wrong.  I could have sworn I saw somewhere in the code
> a check for drain-only attacks that switched it to weaponmagic if the target
> was immune.  Judging by just how much sense that makes, I may not have been
> awake at the time.  I think maybe I should change Mournblade to (attack:
> weaponmagic, drain) so it will do _some_ damage.  You can't kill with just
> drain.  All you can do is reduce its experience and absorb half of it.
> Nasty against players, but does experience loss even hurt monsters?  I don't
> think they lose levels or hit points, and I'm pretty sure they don't lose
> abilities.

 Drain against monsters should probably added.  But the real effect would be to
drain their experience reward, so in the end, you would came out the same - it
is just a matter when you gained the exp.


>     Thanks for pointing that out.  When I made those changes, I was still
> feeling cheated from finding these artifacts to not be what I expected.
> How's this:

 Changes look OK.


>     I think we need to make a decision there and be consistant.  Should the
> name of an item tell you its function, or should you have to examine it and
> get its stats to find out?  Skill scrolls are a one example: which is for
> jewelery skill and which is for bargaining?  Scroll of shopping or scroll of
> appraisement?  How does a scroll of literacy work, anyway?

 My personal preferance is the name should tell your its function if reasonable
(for example, some things function is too long to be reasonable printed in the
name field.)

 As for the skill scrolls, my desire would be the rename them to match the
skills they give you - especially since you can not examine them and see what
they do.  It can be frustrating not really know if that skill scroll will do you
any good, since the name doesn't really match the skill perfectly.


> 
>     I abandoned most of the name changes.  I still think some of them are
> necessary, like spelling aethereality the same way on each item.  Instead of
> changing weapon of Magic Hitting to weapon of Mostrai, both should be
> available, so that priests of other cults can use Magic Hitting weapons
> without offending their gods.  I'll make weapons of Mostrai a little less
> powerful and a little more common than the unaligned version.  Minimum magic
> 2 instead of 3 should do it.

 I don't have a problem changing the spelling to be consistent across item
types.

>     Yes, I know.  Slaying is triple damage.  But the x2.5 modifier is
> applied to the archetype, before any strength.  This means a dagger of
> Banishment would have a base damage of 5, a sword would have 15 to 22, and a
> poleaxe 32.  Even after you triple that, you'll have to get in several good
> hits to take down the undead, demons, and devils you'll be fighting when
> you've just found a +3 weapon.
>     I don't think the 2.5 is too high, but I could lower it a little
> anyway.  Would 2.0 be better?  Dagger *2.0 = 4, long sword *2.0 = 16,
> poleaxe *2.0 = 26.

 I think 2.0 would be better.  I guess it somewhat depends on how often it shows
up.  As it is, such an item would be pretty good random artifact (not a bad
thing).


>     I just checked the code.  Unfortunately it does use the weapon's level.
> For a melee weapon that's bad, since level has been assigned to mean how
> much it can be enchanted.  I'll have to change this one to just weaponmagic,
> at least until the object structure is redone.  No wonder there weren't any
> attacktype: death weapons.

 As said, such a weapon could be either very powerful or fairly useless.  IF the
level is low, fairly useless.  If high, very powerful.  The resolution of the
monsters levels is fairly low (much lower than player levels), with the bulk of
monsters ranging from 0->30 (chinese dragon is level 14 for example, big dragon
level 18).

 Monsters should perhaps be given more meaningful levels.  But as it is now,
death magic against those could be very useful.  This may be less useful if the
maps are cleaned out a bit so you don't have 60 of the same powerful create all
together.

David Andrew Michael Noelle wrote:
> 
> Hwei Sheng TEOH wrote:

> 
> > Of course, this might just throw the game completely off-balance... perhaps we
> > should start thinking on restricting such spells so that you need to be
> > attuned to a certain spellpath before you can use the more powerful versions
> > of a class of spells (eg. attuned Light to get sunstorm/sunflare). Otherwise
> > spellcasters that learn general spells will have too powerful a repertoire.
> > Simply making the mana cost higher doesn't really help much, because a
> > high-level wizard can easily collect many glowing crystals and/or magic power
> > potions to get around this limitation.
> 
>     Agreed.  Low-level mages have a shorter life expectancy than kobolds,
> but if they survive, they can get quite scary.  Should powerful non-attuned
> spells be impossible to cast, or just unreasonably expensive?  By
> unreasonable, I mean something along the lines of multiplying the spell
> point cost by the spell level.

 Assuming this is done selectively (ie, some field in the spell which says this
is a powerful spell), I don't have a big problem denying these spells to non
aligned casters.    This at least provides incentive for casters to be aligned
to something.


> > Hmm, I've always wanted to be able to manually `manufacture' enchanted
> > armour that has the same reduced weight as magical armour you find in
> > dungeons. (So that, for example, I can `make' the same robe +2 with the
> > lighter weight, rather than the heavier weight, which I think is what the code
> > currently does with Enchant Armour scrolls). So a Reduce Armour Weight scroll
> > will be good. :-) However, this may cause game imbalance, as high-level
> > characters will be able to make extremely powerful armour too easily. Perhaps
> > we can compensate by making such scrolls available only in some very difficult
> > dungeons, and not in shops?
> 
>     I've been thinking about that, too.  The way I figure it is, if you find
> a magical +4 armor that weighs 40% less, it's because some ancient smith
> with a magical forge and a good supply of pure adamantium spent a few months
> on it.  Or perhaps Mostrai willed it into existence or something.  Whatever
> the story, it was created by some means not available to any player
> character, regardless of level.  The Enchant Armor scrolls can toughen up
> existing armor, but they can't improve on its nature and craftmanship.  The
> scroll's magic makes the armor 5% thicker, and therefore heavier and
> tougher, and it adds a point of magical protection.

 But being the rate some magical items are generated, that can be sort of hard
to explain.

 A better explanation is that code was never added to crossfire to let players
make items of the same quality they can random find.

 It could be an interesting enhancement and also make alchemy more interesting. 
Add mithril or whatever as some random element you may find, and if you find
some, you can take it to a smith and he can make something good for you out of
it.

 One current complication on server side improvements is that maximum magic for
randomly generated items is in the treasures file, so it is difficult to go from
an given object and find out what the maximum magic allowed for it is.

>     The change I've implemented allows priests to beg their god to toughen
> up their armor instead of using those scrolls, and the god's blessing can
> achieve the same effect as a scroll, without making the armor any heavier.
> 
>      Unfortunately, the magical bonus is wasted on items with no ac value,
> like gloves and shoes.  Their armour value can be increased, even if it was
> zero before, but (ac: 0) means it will never help your ac, even if you
> enchant it up to +12.  I'm not sure whether that's good or bad, but I
> suspect that allowing armor (or bracers), helmet, gloves, cloak, boots, and
> shield to all be enchanted for +ac would be too unbalancing.  Unless perhaps
> those Enchant Armour scrolls were a little less common.  They're already
> limited to +1 per 10 levels, se even if you had some +ac armour of each of
> the six types, you'd be limited to +6 per 10 levels, which seems pretty
> reasonable to me, as long as you have to work for it.

 I agree - I think god consecrated item should probably only apply to ARMOUR or
the like (more interesting/realistic would be for gods to have various symbols. 
Ie, mostrai may be known to be using a hammer and chain mail, so that is the
only things mostrai may improve.  Where as some other god may use a bow, or
another leather, etc).

 Chance are, this may not play big into which god a player chooses.  But would
add a nice extra touch of flavor into the game. 

> 
>     Reducing armour weight through some seperate magical process would be
> tough to balance.  Anyone who wears armor, wizards and warriors alike,
> wishes it was lighter.  Maybe if armour had to be prepared before it was
> enchanted, and could only be enchanted as much as it had been prepared, then
> more different kinds of armor improvement could be allowed:

 I would personally argue that most all player controlled improvements on armor
and weapons be removed, and instead more limited by interaction with your god,
powerful wizards, and the like.  Such a system is likely easier to balance - the
improve weapon scrolls/effects has already gone through 2 major revisions to
improve playbalance - I don't really want to see having to do the same thing for
armor.

> 
>     Another thing that has been bothering me recently is the apparently
> arbitrary limits of what weapons can or can't be Prepared.  A weapon is too
> magical to be prepared further if it has any protection, immunity, or
> bonuses to speed, ac, or sp or hp regeneration.  Bonuses to stats are fine.
> So are attacktypes.  The stat enchantments could be done with scrolls and
> potions, but the rest can't be changed by players.  I recognize the need to
> keep limits on weapon enchantment, but I'd like to see some more
> variability.
> 
>     I propose that any magic weapon should be allowed to be improved and
> personalized, subject to the following restrictions:
>  1) each protection counts as an enchantment and requires an additional
> sacrifice of 10 diamonds of great value to Prepare
>  2) each immunity counts as two enchantments and requires an additional
> sacrifice of 10 diamonds of exceptional beauty to Prepare
>  3) each point of bonus to speed or ac counts as an enchantment and requires
> an additional sacrifice of 10 emeralds of great value to Prepare
>  4) each point of bonus to hp regeneration counts as an enchantment and
> requires an additional sacrifice of 10 rubies of great value to Prepare
>  5) each point of bonus to sp regeneration counts as an enchantment and
> requires an additional sacrifice of 10 sapphires of great value to Prepare

 See note about balancing above.  I will note that by the time players get
serious about weapons, the actual cost in diamonds or emeralds or whatever is
pretty insignificant.

 In any case, this is likely irrelevant since the 0.96.x releases will
completely redo protection code, so any attempt to map that now would be pretty
useless.
-
[you can put yourself on the announcement list only or unsubscribe altogether
by sending an email stating your wishes to crossfire-request@ifi.uio.no]