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

Re: CF: continuous protection levels

On Jan 31,  6:03pm, OKUDA Hisanobu wrote:
> Subject: CF: continuous protection levels
> We'll improve immunity/protection/vulnerable code to have varying
> levels. We intend that protection level is calculated in the same
> manner as 'armor'. Applying many items with protection(e.g. Firebland,
> ring of Fire ,dragonshield, and dragonmail), you can be highly
> protected (against fire).
> So, we would like other crossfire-er's opinions, because we can't
> decide ,by ourself, some parts of what protection system should be.

 I will just confirm what Brian said - this is a very large task to do.

 Just a note - from the TODO list with possible ideas:

- Redo immunity/protection/vulnerable code to have varying levels (maybe
  -127 to 127).  Have an index table for each value to determine how much
  damage you would take.  Multiple protection spells increase the index
  value, and thus increase protection.  Very high protection level (100+)
  may equate to an immunity.  In order to prevent getting immunities from
  casting a lot of lower level spells, limit protection to something like 99
  unless the protection being added is above that (thus, 5 +20 protectin get
  you to 99, but 1 100 gets you 100.)  To do this would likely mean all the
  archetypes need to be set up (although immunity could be 100 protection for
  that attacktype, protection is 20 or something.)  Also, instead of listing
  protection numbers on items, a verbose listing is probably better (0-10
  might be minimal protection, 11-20 low protection, 31-40 good protection,
  etc.)


> 
> 1. Should "weaponmagic" be distinct from other attacktypes?
>    We understand that "weaponmagic" is special attack type and its
>    damage must be calculated by some manner which is different from
>    other attacktype's. (We're sure that we can get a weapon with
>    weaponmagic attacktype extremely easily considering it is
>    special. We think they should be more difficult to get.)
> 2. Should "godpower" be distinct from other attacktypes?

 All attacktypes should be distinct.  While there may be some that appear
similar now, it is easier to just have the objects cover those multiple
protections and be flexible than hard code relations in the server code.
Otherwise, down the road, someone may end up wanting them seperate and
are forced to redo some of the code.

> 3. How should be protection levels of artifacts which have
>    already existed?

 All objects & monsters will need to be checked and possibly adjusted.

 As a first pass, you might be able to assume some generic things (ie,
protected = armor 50, immune=armor 100) - that would keep things effectively
the same.   However, there are many objects or creatures which grant
immunity and really should maybe be at 80% or something.

> 4. Should  a protection of 99 or 100% (same as immunity) be allowed?
>    We feel immunity is too powerful.

 Immunities should still be allowed in some special cases (ie, potions
granting immunity for a short time might be OK), but no permanent 
immunities should be granted.  Note that this relys and people making
balanced archetypes, but to me, the more that can be done outside the
code, probly the better.  Hard coding various things into the code just
makes life more complicated.


 But this done bring up the protection/vulnerable/immune issue again.
>From the previous thread (which is what that info above more or less
came from), there would be protection index for each attacktype which
gets adjusted by various things (ie, rings, potions, etc.)

 The armor approach might be interested, but what do we do with physical
protection & immunity then?  Right now, if you have armor 50 (half damage)
and protection from physical (half damage), you end up taking quarter
damage.  Also, the armor method is of diminishing returns - notice you
can get up to armor 50 pretty easily, 60 is a bit harder, and going above
70 is very difficult.  This is because armor values are not strictly
additive.

 I wonder if all of this should just be rolled into one thing, with some
flags or something to determine how it gets added in.

 For example, the physical armors (plate, shield, helm, etc) might be
of diminishing returns.  Then other special items (potions) might have
a flag set which says there value is applied absolute to that field. 
Although just thinking of that now, it probably creates a pretty
complicated method.

 Just as a note - if you use the armor method of calculation for other
attacktypes (ie, fire), handling of vulnerable might be pretty goofy, as
the current armor method doesn't make any allowances for negative armor
values.

 So maybe what will be best is:
 armor remains as is now, only applies for physical attacks (no change at
all in this area.)
 add a protection field for each attacktype, and these can get summed up/
subtracted with a few special cases for extreme highs.  The end sum then
refers to a lookup table that gives the actual reduction/increase in
damage.
 With such a method, something vulnerable can be assigned the protection
value to give the proper increase in damage, likewise for protection
and immune.  Tuning to better balance these can be done in the future.




-- 

-- Mark Wedel
mark@pyramid.com
[to unsubscribe etc., send mail to crossfire-request@ifi.uio.no]
Follow-Ups: References: