[CF-Devel] A brief introduction, and some thoughts

[Tim Rightnour]

On 16-Sep-01 Andreas Vogl wrote:

>
     
      Immunity to confusion, spell regeneration +1 and a holy word killing trolls
     
     >
     
      - are that really "minor things"? (And spiders don't attack with poison
     
     >
     
      btw.)
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
      However, I don't want to imply that the gods scheme is all perfect.
     
     
Ok.. I forgot about the spell regen when writing that, yes.. it's a bonus.  I'm
not convinced the confusion immunity is that great, as a few items can get you
pretty close to it easily.  Perhaps IMHO, the -40 should be turned down a bit.

>
     
      I personally favout the idea of all gods being available to all
     
     >
     
      races/classes, because restrictions would further complexify the balancing.
     
     
I can understand that.  I don't think it should be completely restricted, but
in the very least I would like to see some restrictions, such as an elf can't
worship a troll god, and vice versa.  Things that are diametrically opposed
seem to bother me, conceptually.

>>
     
      3) Weapon types.  Earlier someone on the archives had brought up the
     
     >>
     
      idea of classifying weapons, such as bludgeoning, slashing, etc. I think
     
     >>
     
      that is a really good idea [...]
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
      Yes, I think there was a common favour for classifying weapons/armour,
     
     >
     
      but nobody found the time to do that yet.
     
     >
     
      The original idea was to introduce an object "subtype" next to the
     
     >
     
      existing object's "type". The subtype would then further classify
     
     >
     
      weapons, armour and maybe other stuff as well.
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
      To my experience, the Crossfire community is very open-minded for
     
     >
     
      new ideas and features. However, we're only a handful of active
     
     >
     
      developers with limited time. So, if the originator doesn't
     
     >
     
      do most/all of the work required, new ideas usually have little
     
     >
     
      chance to get done anywhere soon.
     
     >
     
     
     
Well.. for weapon types and special messages for them, I am willing to put out
a certain amount of code for.  I don't understand all the nuances of the code
yet, so I really don't want to commit to the archetype modifications, or
wedging the additional subtype in, that seems like an invasive change.  But
initially I can promise to write up the new damage messages, and do 99% of the
work on some of my other weapon-class proposals.

I guess what I'm saying is, I'd really like to see it happen, but I don't
understand every peice of code in the server yet, so I'm not willing to break
it.  But I'd very much like to see this happen, so I'd like to volunteer to do
as much of it as possible to make it happen. (ie, give me the basis, and I'll
make it work)

---
Tim Rightnour <
     
     root at garbled.net
     
     >
NetBSD: Free multi-architecture OS 
     
     http://www.netbsd.org/
     
     
NetBSD supported hardware database: 
     
     http://mail-index.netbsd.org/cgi-bin/hw.cgi