[CF-Devel] Adding New Stuff (again) - Requests and suggestions

[crossfire-devel-admin at archives.real-time.com]

On Friday 25 April 2003 11:06 pm, Mark Wedel wrote:
>
     
        The compiling issue is one that can't be avoided - if you make code
     
     >
     
      changes, the code has to be compiled.
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
        I'd note that one issue is that there just aren't a lot of servers, so
     
     >
     
      you have a relatively small audience of peopel to try to run any changes,
     
     >
     
      whether a compilation is needed or not.  And of those, some number may want
     
     >
     
      to stick to stable code, just CVS code, etc.
     
     
Well, again, that's why I think it'd be nice to have more of the configuration
(particularly, e.g. names of spells and HtH attacks, order of preference
of HtH attacks, 'definitions' of extensions of standard spells, etc., which
currently are "hard-coded" into the source...)

I think people'd be more likely to try out new things if it just required
adding a bit to a couple of files instead of going through the whole patch,
recompile, reinstall routine.

>
     
        The archetypes and treasure files are text only, order is not important. 
     
     >
     
      so right now, something like 'cat arch_new >> archetypes; cat treasure_new
     
     >
     
      >> treasures' would do as you describe.  I don't really see the point of
     
     >
     
      having seperate external files from those.
     
     
Ah, okay, wasn't sure you could just tack on extra text to the end of those 
files - that takes care of that problem then...

Is it also easy to add graphics to the crossfire.0/crossfire.1 files "on the
fly" as well?  Also, is it possible to skip adding a new spell name to
the headers and instead just add it to the spell_params file?  (I imagine
not, from what I remember of the code...I think it'd be ideal to be
able to add a spell for testing with just an addition to spell_params, an
entry in the archetypes file, and new graphics...)

>
     
        It depends.  I personally don't want a bunch of config files each with a
     
     >
     
      unique format.  However, I do plan to move more of the functionality to
     
     >
     
      arch's (spell archs as per a mail a few weeks ago).
     
     
Okay, I missed that message - I did go back and read up on some of
the messages I missed while I was off of the mailing list, but I
hadn't gotten through ALL of them yet...I wouldn't want a bunch of different
configuration types either - the handful that exist already ought to be
plenty.

Basically, any spell (for example) that doesn't require new BEHAVIOR (just
different attack types, settings for range, duration, radius, list of possible
creatures summoned, etc.) seemed like it ought to be moved out to the
arch's and spell_params files instead of hard-coded as they are now.

>
     
        monsters don't use skill attacks.  So for example, while right now there
     
     >
     
      is a clawing skill, monsters don't use it - they just use the values in
     
     >
     
      their arch which defines to hit, damage, etc.
     
     
>
     
        However, at some point, one has to examine how many 'unarmed' attacks
     
     >
     
      there really should be.  In real life, given a choice, almost no one would
     
     >
     
      go unarmed - even a master of karate would probably be more effective with
     
     >
     
      katana in hand. So the unarmed attacks more add color, and not effective
     
     >
     
      attack methods (although the code may be generous with some).
     
     
That's not NECESSARILY true - although I must admit the MAIN reason for my
interest in the "biting" attack would indeed be for the appropriate messages.

Similarly, this would affect e.g. pets (as summoning spells improve in
variety, this may become and issue - although again it's more for "color".
["Your air para-elemental jolts zombie.  Your air para-elemental zaps
zombie..."...] it would make sense that a character with a pet wolf or
giant purple vampire frog would see "biting" type messages...or for that
matter a character who gets polymorphed into something else, or when someone
starts adding Were(whatever) races to the game, might end up
seeing that for his own attacks.)

On the other hand - Karate, for example, doesn't do as much damage as many 
melee weapons, but it has a higher "fire" rate.  "Biting" would be slower
than "Clawing" but have a substantially (though still reasonable) higher base
damage.  Properly constructed, the tradeoffs make for a bit of potential
strategy  (Karate is actually pretty handy when you're being mobbed by 
large numbers of fast but relatively weak creatures), and another bit of
potential "uniqueness" for characters, without danger of serious imbalance
being added or having the high "barrier to entry" of needing to understand the
crossfire source well enough to code a complex new set of behaviors into the
game.

>
     
        And crossfire doesn't follow other game system model where a
     
     >
     
      claw/claw/bite attack would mean 3 attacks a round.  So if a player has
     
     >
     
      claw and bite, he doesn't get extra attack, he just gets more choices.  But
     
     >
     
      almost certainly, one will be better than the other.  So the question is
     
     >
     
      why add all these skills in?
     
     
Actually, I'm glad for that - one "style" of attack at a time is plenty.  For
HtH attacks, specifically, the only real purpose would be do add a bit more
color and strategy, and add another potential "uniqueness" to a character
without having to add anything really bizarre or complex.

>
     
        I'm also tempted to just roll all of these into an 'unarmed combat'
     
     >
     
      skill. One can think of this as kicking, punching, clawing, biting, etc.
     
     
The SKILL being rolled into one actually doesn't seem unreasonable to me,
though you then still have to deal with the messages (or just change them all
to "hit", which is boring...)

Of course, while we're at it, someone could do something about all that silly
redundancy of having daggers, shortswords, longswords, broadswords, sabers,
scimitars, cutlasses, falchions, katanas, and rapiers. After all, they're all
basically just "big knives"...

(kidding, obviously...I LIKE the "color" and minor differences that having
all of those adds to the game...I think the same can apply to a certain
extent to different "unarmed" attacks as well, though probably not THAT many.)

On the other hand, having them separate gives some potential to later add
items to the game that enhance a particular attack type ("boots of kicking",
"brass knuckles", "Amulet of the Weapons Master" (boosts Melee Weapons
attacks), "MithrilWhite(tm) Toothpaste" (bite-enhancing "potion"), etc...),
though what little I understand of the existing code makes me think
new code would have to be added to be able to modify the effects (damage, wc,
etc.) of only one type of attack skill at a time...

>
     
        My personal thoughts on this:
     
     >
     
      1) It must be sufficiently different to be added.  This is probably why the
     
     >
     
      northman lost out in the competition - not sufficiently different to really
     
     >
     
      care about.  similiar to the spruce/pine material discussion.
     
     
"Sufficiently different" is the part that I understand the least - not that
I don't know why there needs to be differences, but that I'm not quite certain
what constitutes something that would be considered a worthy "difference".

Different looking? (Graphic "sufficiently" different to make it stand out
from other [races|spells|monsters|whatever])?

Different "numbers"? (be really fast, really damaging, really slow, really 
long-lasting, etc. compared to other [races|spells|monsters|whatever])?

Does it mean that to be "different" there must be a new set of functions in
the source code to handle it?...(Is it, for example, "just another bolt spell" 
regardless of other novelty unless it has its own new function?  Personally, I
think there's a lot of untapped "uniqueness" potential sitting in the existing
"damage spells" and, perhaps, summoning spells code, waiting for only novel
spell names, graphics, and arches to bring it out...)

>
     
      2) It must be balanced.  Balance is a trickier issue.  Look at some of the
     
     >
     
      races - a lot of stat bonuses, but some other penalty to offset for it
     
     >
     
      (lack of ability to use some item, etc).  There are probably some things to
     
     >
     
      say, like more than a 10 modifier to a stat would be questionable.
     
     
I figure what's going to constitute "balance" is going to be something that
discussion will have to hash out enough to get viable new submissions into
playtesting (where we find out if the discussions were right...)  I tend
to be pretty conservative about what I guess is balanced, so it shouldn't
be an issue for me personally.  I hope.

>
     
      3) It must be complete, eg, have the arch, image if appropriate, treasure
     
     >
     
      file if appropriate, etc.
     
     
Well, I was thinking in terms of what specifically is needed to make a 
(whatever) "complete".  It's obvious in a lot of cases, but might be helpful 
to have noted down explicitly somewhere, e.g. for a new race:

Either 4 or 8 "facing" graphics (with rare exceptions, e.g. fireborn)
arch for the new race
treasure entry for new race

Anyway, just thinking about trying to offer new things for the game again, 
particularly the spells, skills, races, and monsters at the top
of the poll results...

(I think the new materials and item-creation systems are very promising)



_______________________________________________
crossfire-devel mailing list
     
     crossfire-devel at lists.real-time.com
     
     
     https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/crossfire-devel