FWD: RE: [CF-Devel] PR (Partial resistance)
Michael Toennies
mtx93 at tzi.de
Wed Nov 15 03:18:23 CST 2000
>
> Thats the point why i want potions: I don't want a player which
>
have armor,
>
> rings and
>
> amulets on, giving him 99% prot in fire and cold and all the
>
stuff. Remember
>
> a char can wear&wield
>
> at the moment more than 13 items at the same time (yeah, count it!). You
>
> will come in some problems
>
> to balance it without a cap.
>
>
I agree this can be a problem. Even if you put proposed caps
>
for items at some
>
low value like 30, 4 items that have that level of protections
>
gives you 75%
>
protection.
>
>
>
>
> I want a value X you can maximal get with items, which gives you enough
>
> protection to avoid
>
> killing by fire for example of a red dragon, perhaps the
>
abillity (if you
>
> are fast) to kill the
>
> critter with a good weapon, but you should nearly dead then. To
>
boost your
>
> res to nearly immunity, you
>
> never should be able to do this permanent with armors or other tricks.
>
> Also, when he has about
>
> 80%-90% natural in all (that means you can cut through a row of
>
red dragons
>
> all times you want),
>
> i will call the char and the game then broken. We dont want this kind of
>
> super chars.
>
>
Agree. But I think that can also be a problem in the balancing
>
of the items
>
and not implementation. At one point, characters could basically
>
get all stats
>
up to 30 with the weapon improvement code. End result was to
>
reduce the potency
>
of that a bit
>
>
The problem here is that there are really only 5-6 attacktypes
>
you really need
>
to protect yourself again (fire, cold, electricity, physical). So that
>
protection of fear is really irrelevant.
>
>
>
> ** The protection spells in the game are really useless at this
>
point **!
>
> I never use them, because when i get them i always have items
>
which do the
>
> same.
>
> So, simply make potions and spells cap indepentend and you got the non
>
> permanent style
>
> we all want.
>
>
I mostly agree that the protection spells are useless. However,
>
I am getting a
>
little fearful of making this protection code too complicated.
>
>
>
>
> Real caps are shown to the player too and are simple to include.
>
> If you have a armor of fire res +30% and a amulet of 30% you
>
should not get
>
> automatically
>
> 60% fire res. Every point you got nearer the cap, you need more
>
points to
>
> get closer.
>
> If yur caps 60, you got 40 points for example. If your caps are
>
70, you got
>
> 44% from both or so.
>
> And if you caps are 20, you got 19.
>
>
The armor code sort of does this. If you have two 30% items,
>
you armor is 51.
>
>
One question is where do these caps come from?
>
>
I would think that one way this could be done is instead of
>
using the 100 value
>
in the armor code, you use this cap. I just tried this out on my
>
demo program,
>
assuming a cap of 60, and with 1 item, your protection is 30, two
>
it is 45,
>
three is 52, 56,58, 59, 59.
Yes, thats exactly how the protection should work too if we assume a value
between 0 (nothing) and 100% (immun). It fix 2 main problems:
- Items with many or to much protection. They get balanced automatically
- different characters / gods fits too
Simply assume a general res cap factor of XX. Like the 20 of all stats as
default
value. Now a fireborn has fire res caps +yy and cold res -xx. And so on.
The value should be a good balance between vulnerable and pretection. Btw,
vulnerable
can simply put in, the item with vulnerability give a -zz factor to the
caps!
To access from XX to 100% (immunity), you should use spells or potions.
Simply don't
count the protection value of the spell/potion over the cap.
This gives also a nice way for potions: A potion of minor protection of fire
gives xx%,
a potion of major res. zz% and so on.
>
One effect of the way it is done is that if you have an item
>
above the cap,
>
your ability is basically the cap (actually one side effect is
>
that if you only
>
have 1 item above the cap, you get full value, and each
>
additional protection
>
reduces you towards the cap, but that should be easy to fix).
>
>
At least from the fix_player perspective, to implement this
>
would require two
>
arrays within the function, and in one we fill in the values are
>
limited by the
>
cap, and the other has the spell effects. Then afterwards, we
>
apply the spell
>
effects to the item (capped) value, for a higher resistance that
>
can go beyond
>
the cap. Is that what you are describing?
Exactly. This give us the difference between permanent/non perm and
resistance/immunity.
>
>
> Also, all items automatically fits in the system, no one can give you to
>
> much. If they do, they get caped.
>
> Calculate also the numbers of items with a special res, so you
>
get more res
>
> >from 5 items with all 10% fire res
>
> as from wear one item with 50%. This will cap the "super items".
>
>
Unfortunately, the way the calculations work, you actually get
>
the opposite
>
effect. One item with 50% will give you more than 5 items with 10%.
Ah, this is not so bad, its a bonus for good items! In many games you have
the problem
that the best item/unit is the whimpy ( i remember games like C&C and
others, where
you buy the lowest units and use them in hordes).
>
It becomes more difficult if you want to cap values/make it
>
harder to get near
>
the cap and at the same time reward the player for having
>
multiple items of
>
protection. And I'm not sure a good way to implement that
>
without getting too
>
complicated or too easy for players to bypass. I mean I guess
>
you could take
>
the average value of all the protections (on a per item basis),
>
and increase it
>
by some point, but with that method, then a set of items that are
>
like 50, 1, 1,
>
1, 1 would appear the same as 11,11,11,11,11.
That should not be.
>
I think the real solution is to prevent the super items from
>
getting created in
>
the first place. If map designers put unbalancing items in the
>
maps, I really
>
don't want to try to have the code prevent that. Simply put,
>
that map should be
>
fixed. And some of that is that if a map maker really wants to
>
put unbalancing
>
items in, they will always be able to figure out how to get beyond code
>
restrictions.
>
>
Now it may be worth while to set strict guidelines on what
>
acceptable items are
>
(for example, can not provide more than 120% total protection, and no one
>
protection can be more than 30%).
>
_______________________________________________
>
crossfire-devel mailing list
>
crossfire-devel at lists.real-time.com
>
https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/crossfire-devel
>
More information about the crossfire
mailing list