[CF-Devel] Change in equip method.

[Mark Wedel]

Todd Mitchell wrote:

>
     
      Mark Wendel said:
     
     
>
     
     
     >
     
      I agree that bows are underused but I don't think that making them two
     
     >
     
      handed would be too bad.  There is a bigger problem with missile combat in
     
     >
     
      general (see below).
     
     >
     
      Also there could be bows that incorporate defensive or resistance bonuses to
     
     >
     
      compensate for this.  Same as making two handed swords more powerful
     
     >
     
      for the same reason.  It is just weird having a bow and a shield equiped is
     
     >
     
      all.
     
     

  I agree.  but I'm sort of willing to let it slide as a convenience factor. 
But yeah, it then gets the problem that if the bow has benefits, the character 
gets them if they can hold onto it all the time.

  It would certainly be easy enough to make bows 2 weapons (weapon hand + shield 
hand).  But I have a feeling in this case, no one would really use the item. 
However, this can be tweaked - you could make bows use the weapon hand and 
change it to some other location.



>
     
     
     >
     
      I would have thought the problem with multiple weapons would be
     
     >
     
      multiple attacks (and all associated with that - seperate chance to hit,
     
     >
     
      seperate damage) not so much balance since most really powerful swords could
     
     >
     
      be
     
     >
     
      designated two handed, or creatures would also have the advantage of
     
     >
     
      multiple weapons
     
     
<snip>

  The basic problem is that weapons are an item that the player can more or less 
make the weapon give whatever cool stat bonuses they want - they can basically 
make them better than what monsters will have.  So a player that has a pair of 
really good improved weapons is nastier than really anything else out there.

  Now there are limits on how powerful weapon the character can used based on 
their level.  (basically, number of improvements to weapon can not be greater 
than some total).  You could change this so that the two weapons improvements 
are added up and can't exceed that total.  But this brings up an even better 
idea IMO:

  EGO - give each item an ego value.  Normal stuff (like plate mail, shields, 
swords) would have 0 ego value.  A players equipments ego total could not exceed 
that total which is based on his level.

  this has many interesting play balancing effects.  If you say each improvment 
(weapon or armor) counts as an ego point, players may now have to decide if it 
is better to improve that weapon or that armor.  Various artifacts could have 
ego values also (dragon armor 2 or something).  Great rings similar ego values.

  IMO, this has all sorts of good effects.  It abstracts to too powerful weapon 
to now be all items.  It gives an additional way to balance powerful artifacts 
(yes, this armor may be the best armor by far, but also has the highest ego. 
Maybe that other armor which isn't quite so good but has a lower ego is better 
so that I can use my extra powerful boots, etc). IT also means that high level 
players gifts of all sorts of artifacts to low level players isn't quite as 
useful.  The lower level players may be able to use 1 or 2 of the items at a 
time, but not all of them.



>
     
      Yes, I think it would be better to make a distinction between
     
     >
     
      locomotion method (noped, monoped, biped, quadraped, septaped...or maybe
     
     >
     
      none, feet2,
     
     >
     
      hoves2, claws2, hoves4, paws4, hoves6, paws6 or something) rather than count
     
     >
     
      the
     
     >
     
      number of feet, then create items for those other kinds of locomotion
     
     >
     
      (horseshoes of levitation, spider shoes +2, dragon spats of havoc) 
     
     

  The way I envision the code is should be very very easy to add new body 
locations.  So to start out with, we only need to worry about what we have now, 
and if horses are added, easy to add that they have hooves and whatnot.

  Now in terms of how to deal with this, doesn't make a huge difference.  For 
example, if you say humans have 2 feet, but all boots require 2 feet, that is 
basically the same has saying has 1 pair of feet, and boots require 1 pair.

  Similar for horseshoes - you could say horses have 4 hooves, but if all 
horseshoes come in groups of 4, same effect, you only wear one at a time.

  I personally sort of like the idea of saying the number of feet or fingers or 
whatever in real terms.  This allows for flexibility in the future - easy enough 
to just have all rings use 5 fingers and all boots use 2 feet.  But you could 
add some cool future things - some quest where you get one boot someplace and 
another boot someplace else so that you can then were this mismatched pair 
together or something.

  Its certainly easier to set it up that way now than say you have 1 pair of 
feet or 2 hands and then decide later that, well, setting things to have 5 
fingers would really have made more sense, that that may then mean updating 
quests, save files, whatever else.



>
     
      As for rings, it would be simpler to say one per 'hand' instead of
     
     >
     
      worrying about counting fingers.  This does not confuse with arm (as in
     
     >
     
      weapn_arm, shield_arm, and can be applied liberally to mean any 'active'
     
     >
     
      appendage or
     
     >
     
      (fireborn have 4 'hands' or something.)  By active appendage it implies that
     
     >
     
      rings would not work if worn on toes or other protruding apendages...
     
     

  Note that the counting is left to the code, not the player, so that aspect is 
really transparent - player just notices that they can put on 2 rings and thats it.



>
     
     
     >
     
      That is the current problem, which makes ranged weapons less useful.
     
     >
     
      Melee weapons should and will remain more powerful, but by building in a
     
     >
     
      pass flag
     
     >
     
      for some objects allowing flying but still blocking creature movement you
     
     >
     
      can create scenarios where the monsters do not/cannot close on the player(s)
     
     >
     
      but remain at a distance, or can attack with arrows oe spells while they
     
     >
     
      file through a narrow opening (coming across a bridge or down a stair) to
     
     >
     
      provide some pacing to the fight.  You can have the bridge of death scenario
     
     >
     
      where narrow walkways work to the players disadvantage rather than their
     
     >
     
      advantage.  You would have to modify the monster code to check if there
     
     >
     
      is a path for flying so the monster that are able to can still attack or
     
     >
     
      this
     
     >
     
      wouldn't work.  As you say this is the biggest part of the job.  I have not
     
     >
     
      gotten far enough in my learnin to really understand the code (but I have
     
     >
     
      been looking).
     
     >
     
      It ceratinly wouldn't replace melee weapons as the power items,
     
     >
     
      but it would make missile weapons much more useful (also flying, and
     
     >
     
      jumping).
     
     

  I agree - most of the movement stuff will have to get redone at some point. 
I'd like to even allow things like a swimming skill that lets you swim in 
shallow water, ships that can navigate deeper water, horses that give faster 
movement but can't necessarily pass over everything ,etc.


  But that isn't going to happen immediately.