Crossfire Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: CF: continuous protection levels
From: "Mark Wedel" <mark@pyramid.com>
Subject: Re: CF: continuous protection levels
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 18:07:35 -0800
> I will just confirm what Brian said - this is a very large task to do.
Yes.
and it is specially difficult to tune playbalance.
> 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.
It is proper that monsters have 50% protection. But I think it is
abusive that every equipments with 'protected' have 50%
protection. Because importing multiple-protection, players can become
highly protected or nearly immune more easily than before(if
protections are calculated by the manner like 'armor'). Protection for
equipments might be lower than 50.(25 or lesser?) It's proper that
every equipment with 'immune' have 100% protection. And vulnerable =
some negative value. e.g. -50%
> 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.
really...
Players can get 99% protection (i.e permanent immune) to equip many
item which have the protection, but it is very difficult.
> 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.
each protection level of equipments are commutative on caluculation of
a total protection level. i.e. total protection level is determined
uniquely, and armor method is usable for negative value of protection.
e.g. 2 rings of -100%protection causes -300% protection.
It is true that the negative protection grows exponentially.
But I think it is ok.
The reason why we choose armor approach is that it is hard to get too
high protection level. it become close to 99% asymptotically.
> So maybe what will be best is:
> armor remains as is now, only applies for physical attacks (no change at
> all in this area.)
agree.
s-nisita and I are coding now.
and we will finish alpha version soon ,except for protection-spell
codes and tuning blance.
we have a question:
we modifyed only code what define NEW_HIT_PLAYER.
Is there anyone which use the code what undefine NEW_HIT_PLAYER?
> 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.
--
h-okuda@ics.es.osaka-u.ac.jp
[to unsubscribe etc., send mail to crossfire-request@ifi.uio.no]
References: