[CF-Devel] Materials (was FW: DIAMONDS)

Tue Apr 22 00:41:04 CDT 2003

Todd wrote:
>

      Mark Wedel wrote:

     >

     >>

       Just a note, I think you are confused by what I mean when I say 

     >>

      'artifacts'.

     >>

     >>

      [..]

     >>

       In all my discussion in this thread about 'artifacts', I'm talking 

     >>

      about random artifacts above.

     >>

     >

      Nope I got the random artifacts thing.  The artifacts file will generate 

     >

      random variations (good and bad) of objects, but this occurs when the 

     >

      item is created and is well... random - if I wanted to place a dagger of 

     >

      Gnarg I couldn't.  This isn't good for me if I want I do think I see the 

     >

      real issue here however...

  Well, as m message to Tim says, you could create a dagger of Gnarg.  It just 
as it is right now, it is like th material - you'd have to make the adjustments 
manually.  As said, I don't consider that a good thing.

>

      Yes, this is a problem.  A better example still is a metal bow.  This is 

     >

      perhaps the crux of the entire issue.  Is this what you were speaking of 

     >

      all this time?  You can't do these bonuses/penalties universally, you 

     >

      have to have arbirtary lists because the distinctions are arbitrary, so 

     >

      you *have* to use the artifact file for this.

  Yes, this is what I'm saying.  global adjustments for all weapons isn't a good 
thing.

>

       _But_ thinking on this 

     >

      point, I believe that it doesn't mean you should use the artifact file 

     >

      for assigning materials to objects, it means that materials shouldn't 

     >

      contain this type of information. Weight, value, saving throws and other 

     >

      universal modifiers should be assigned based on the material, but the 

     >

      artifact file should match materials to objects to produce bonuses or 

     >

      penalties (so for swords some materials would be benificial, but the 

     >

      same materials would be detrimental to bows.) This may make no sense to  

     >

      but consider this.  No one is generally going to make a map and place a 

     >

      bow with material type 'metal' or 'iron', but a iron bow could exist, as 

     >

      a quest object (in which case the map maker placed it and perhaps 

     >

      magicked it right up), or as a byproduct of a spell or ability or 

     >

      alchemical transformation, or as an object (could be a model or a statue 

     >

      part?).  You can see the problem with accounting for such things as a 

     >

      metal bow or ruby slippers using the artifacts file and how the way that 

     >

      Tim did it  with mateial type is much more managable for item 

     >

      composition.  This is why I first disliked the material changes, I 

     >

      thought It was similar to the artifact file where he had made lists of 

     >

      what item was made of what - too many limits and it overrides the map 

     >

      maker.  This was already being done with the daggers of gnarg or cursed 

     >

      items.  What he actually did however is expand the material system in 

     >

      the arches, and by adding saving throw, weight and value modifiers made 

     >

      it meaningful (more than a just a name) to put objects like a ruby crown 

     >

      (as opposed to a 'stone material crown' called ruby and manually 

     >

      modified to add value and other properties if you had the patience) or 

     >

      silver dagger or lead pipe into the game.  Perhaps as a side effect to 

     >

      this because of the way it was implemented there is a random component 

     >

      as well so that there isn't a requirement to make an arch for each 

     >

      maiterial combination (which you would have to do to autogenerate 

     >

      items), but merely an arch for each material class (I can live with 

     >

      having a stone axe arch and a steel axe arch...)

  Ehh, I'm not 100% sure I agree with that.

  IT can be seen that a yew bow, which does 2 points more damage than a normal 
value, is more valuable.

  But should a yew club, which realistic should behave the same as a normal 
club, be worth more?  Probably not - if I can get an 'oak' club that is cheaper 
than the yew club but just a good, guess which one I'd buy?  So in a true 
supply/demand situation, almost no one would ever make a yew club, and even 
those that are, wouldn't really be worth anything more.

  Thus, a global value for all object which says 'items made of yew are 50% more 
valuable'.

  The other reason I'd still like to see it in the artifacts file is one of the 
reasons I posted before - I'd really like to be able to control what material 
different items are made out of more than just a global 'if made out of metal, 
it may be any one of these metals'.  The global nature of the current method is 
both a plus and minus - its a plus in that you get a whole bunch of different 
material objects showing up.  It is a minus in that you get nonsensical 
combinations, or just too many combinations (there are 8 different metals as of 
this writing.  Imagine if this gets expanded down the road to 15 materials, and 
how much clutter you'd have in your inventory.  If I could at least say someting 
like 'lets limit swords to the 4 materials.  Lets have shields be these 4, armor 
these 4, etc'.  Don't have those 4 all be the same to get some variation.  That 
can still be made to allow all your different materials, but keep the number of 
material + object combinations to some sane level.

>

     >

      Well either in a list or as an arch it is the same, the difference being 

     >

      where and how it is stored- I dont' know about pointers.  I wasn't 

     >

      thinking of using these particular arches on a map if that is what you 

     >

      are saying, just standardizing 'objects' in one place.  If you wanted to 

     >

      actually see some gold on a map it would have to be put into a material 

     >

      field in an item (an ore arch, or a ingot arch, or a nugget arch...) 

     >

      Just like recipies and spells would be good in the arches too. Perhaps 

     >

      it would be a good way to fill out or otherwise work out other issues 

     >

      with the arch fields.  I don't have see a real problem with hp meaning x 

     >

      coord in a exit type and hit point in a creature, so I don't mind if it 

     >

      is a property in a material as well, but I do get the idea that there 

     >

      are other issues with the arches that are causing some headaches.

  Well, to some extent, I think having materials be archs wouldn't be a bad 
idea.  The more things that use the standard archetype format, the better - this 
simplifies the number of special loaders needed, makes it easier to integrate 
these things into the editor, etc.

>

     >

     >

      Yes.  Another thing is that hopefully there will not be so many 

     >

      materials that you are talking about making alloys.  There is no problem 

     >

      just *naming* something copper or bronze - they are close enough in game 

     >

      play that ther need be no physical distinction.  For materials to be 

     >

      useful they should be different enough.  That being said, there will be 

     >

      a greater representation of things such as precious metals and gem 

     >

      stones for atmospheric reasons, but I really don't even see the need for 

     >

      say iron _and_ steel, iron would be fine.

  well, I agree that different materials for objects to get randomly created 
from should be sufficiently different to be interesting.  This is basically the 
same issue with races and classes - if the races are too similar, they are not 
all that interesting.

  However, the problem is at some level, I think having a whole list of 
materials will happen - just look at the discussion about gem types.

  Now the gem types is a more specific case.  But suppose we remove 'bronze' 
from the materials.  I could certainly see at some point someone way 'I want to 
add a bronze statue to the game', so bronze is back in . And then the question 
comes, if that material is there, why wouldn't it get used?

>

     >

      I'm pretty sure you can use the herb code to place mines in mountains as 

     >

      well.

  I'm sure you could.  But a lot harder to know 'we should place a copper mine 
here, and a mithril mine here, etc' simply because if you have temparture and 
rainful, you can figure out what plants will grow.  Those two bits don't make 
too much difference for what minerals would show up.

  Could be more interesting to somehow modify the random map code - have mines 
show up, and in the mine itself, you find the appropriate type of ore for that 
mine (gold nuggets, iron ore, mithril crystals, etc).  Ideally, a new material 
theme would get chosen each time the map resets.  So at one time, that mine 
might be copper, next time iron, next time lead.

  Of course, the curent material stuff doesn't work great for that either - all 
the alloys are never really mined - you'd never actually mine 'steel ore' for 
example, but rather mine iron and turn it into steel in your blast furnace.

  But thats yet another can of worms.

_______________________________________________
crossfire-devel mailing list

     crossfire-devel at lists.real-time.com

     https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/crossfire-devel