Re: CF: map exit with multiple destinations

[Hwei Sheng TEOH <hsteoh@cs.toronto.edu>]

On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, Mark Wedel wrote:

[snip]
>  2) I have a fear that either the random adventures/monsters run into could
> either be too dangerous for low level people, or just annoying for high level
> people.  There is the option for random maps in the server - aside from the
> problem of them too often showing up in dungeons, the other problem was they
> just proved annoying if you are going cross country.

Hmmm, the reason I intended to use maps rather than have the server generate
events (like pirate invasion) was so that the map designer can make a
(hopefully) reasonable decision on how hard encountered monsters would be,
based on the difficulty of the maps the ship goes between. I thought it would
give more hesitation to players when they travel, so that people are less
likely to run around between several cities hoping for something they want to
appear in a shop somewhere (which happens to be what I do sometimes). :-)

Also, I remember reading that we want to make travelling between cities more
of an adventure? I get the impression that we might have things like being
ambushed by orcs while on the road, etc.. It does seem to be a fine balance
between annoying and interesting when making journeying less than 100% safe.

>  3) In any case, I wouldn't really like to see such a feature until the 0.96.x
> rewrite is done, since adding the above feature needs additional fields in the
> exit structure, and I certainly would rather wait for the object structure to be
> cleaned up to better allow it.

The way I thought of implementing this was using contained objects instead of
adding more fields. It would be a special exit type which contains exit
objects that point to the different map alternatives. I certainly wouldn't
want to clutter the current object structure any more than it is! :-)

>  That said, I think transportation objects are definately something that will be
> added at some point post 0.96.0.  Now, exactly how they will work has yet to be
> determined, but probably something of the nature that the player will be an
> object within the container, but his movement requests actually move the
> container (transport) to the new space.  Movement properties are determined from
> the transport object (ie, fly, over water, can go through jungle, etc), as well
> as speed (ie, you could get a horse transport that allows faster movement over
> many types of terrain, but not over others, and can't even pass through some
> (ie, could not handle stairs, pits, or wells, so would not be useful in a
> dungeon, or perhaps would get trapped there).
> 
>  In my vision at least, that is how most all transportation will be done - there
> won't be instant teleporters/ships/dragon transports to take you from town to
> town - you'll have to get on a ship or whatever and navigate yourself there.

How about ships which are already on their own route? That sounds like
something to consider.

>  Now some transports, notably those that fly like perhaps dragon tranports of
> magic carpets, might greatly reduce travelling time compared to going by land. 
> There should probably be some disadvantage (ie, dragon transports are pay to
> board once (ie, bribe the dragon), and after you land, it disappears/flys back
> home, so you could use it to get yourself someplace, but not get back),  
> 
>  Whether or not multiple players can share a transport or each would need their
> own is something that would have to be determined (both are possible, but the
> former would mean one player is in control and the others are along for the
> ride).
[snip]

-
[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]