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

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

Todd M. wrote:
>
     
     
     >
     
      Why working over the materials system is good for game play:
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
      Cast aside all preconceptions (including the material code which
     
     >
     
      was recently committed which is being discussed) and consider:
     
     >
     
      [...]
     
     
Yes, I can agree with what you said. I didn't mean to argue against
the new material system actually - that's quite fine and I do see
the benefits.
Maybe I'm not fully satisfied with the current implementation,
but that's not a big issue so let's cast it aside.

What I am primarily concerned about are the effects caused by item
deconstruction and especially transmutation (e.g. lead -> gold).

Now, you got me with one particular argument
pro item-deconstruction:

>
     
      3) Part of creating an object on a map consists of picking a
     
     >
     
      material, assigning an arbirtary value, assigning an arbirtary
     
     >
     
      weight and putting in a name. There is no consistancy between map
     
     >
     
      makers so for example if I were to make a gold bar:
     
     >
     
      I would make it material 1024, guess it has a value of 600 (?), say
     
     >
     
      it has a weight of 5000 and call it 'gold bar'
     
     >
     
      You would make a silver bar, assign it material 2 (it holds an edge?), 
     
     >
     
      assign a value of 900 (?) say it has a weight of 300 and call it
     
     >
     
      silver ingot.
     
     >
     
      The map maker is expected to understand the values of these fields even 
     
     >
     
      though the values are heavily modified in the game (well value anyway).
     
     >
     
      Further to this weapon and armour items have more arbitrary fields to 
     
     >
     
      modify their effectiveness and many standard weapon and armour items are 
     
     >
     
      subject to further modification when called into existance (artifact
     
     >
     
      code).
     
     
If I understand it correctly, you mainly say the current "value"-
system is bad and item value should better be based on materials?

That's a good point IMO. Of course it's hard to balance, but maybe
easier to balance than the current value system.

With item-deconstruction, any item has two values:
1. The item value (= value for selling the item "as is").
2. The material value (= value after de-constructing the item).

>
     
      Yes there is also a component of value that is based on the
     
     >
     
      'quality' of an object and not on the material alone, but this
     
     >
     
      is in addition to the material value modifiers and thus there is
     
     >
     
      no reason value couldn't also modified at this point in an
     
     >
     
      external system (artifacts file or similar set of lists or
     
     >
     
      whatever) as well.
     
     
The item value should always be higher than the
material value, except for raw materials and coins/gems for
which both values are identical.

Assuming that mapmakers are also playing crossfire, it is
likely that they will get a feel for material values.
They might have an idea what 1 kg of gold is worth,
much rather than knowing what "value 1500" means.

I'm not sure what you envisioned exactly, but I can
see two ways to go which seem interesting:

a) Dump "value" fields in the arches, and auto-calculate
   the item value in the server by summing up bonuses
   like resistances/damage etc.
   Item value is then material value + sum of bonuses.
   
b) Leave "value" fields in the arches, calculate:
   Item value = material value + "value" from the arch
   
   
So, after all, I can see benefits in item-deconstruction
too. However, I think it is very important to plan and
implement it carefully.
If done wrong it could just as well mess up our economy
worse than it is now.

To talk about material transmutation: I still think
we should not do it. If there are ways to convert
lead into gold - no matter what or how - that is definitly
going to screw economy.


AndreasV

-- 
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more  
     
     http://www.gmx.net
     
      +++
Bitte lächeln! Fotogalerie online mit GMX ohne eigene Homepage!


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