Re: CF: more updates soon, comments/votes requested

[Mark Wedel <mwedel@scruznet.com>]

Steven Lembark wrote:
> 
> > Maybe if enabling experience restoration disabled player vs. player
> > drain, it could be set up as a switch, but I don't really like the
> > idea of making both of those optional.  Too hard to balance.
> 
> here's a theory.  i can set up a server w/ several ports active,
> each having different settings.  if people are willing to try
> thing and give feedback we might be able to get a result with
> fewer side-effects.
> 
> alternative is to have one or two methods and let people
> choose which one they want -- turning on player-to-player
> drain might, for example, turn on some other effect upon
> restoration to offset it.  that way people could try various
> things and see which ones work.

 If multiple ports connect to the same server, then that is more or less like
the second paragraph, as internally, crossfire would have to know to do
different behaviour based on port (which would most likely be done by setting
some flags in the player structure or something).

 Note that having players on the same server with different characteristics
could have strange affects.

 But really, my point is that the number of configurable options that affect
game play should try and be minimized in order to maximize ability to balance
the game.

 Now having several methods available for testing purposes might be a good
idea.  OTOH, if it involves extra coding effort to have those alternative
methods, it could be argued that the time is better spent on balancing/improving
the code than writing a bunch of code of which some will be removed at some
point.
-
[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]