[CF-Devel] RE: new red dragon image

Thu May 22 12:17:22 CDT 2003

On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 09:31:19AM -0700, Tim Rightnour wrote:
>

     >

      On 22-May-03 H. S. Teoh wrote:

     >

      > I think the different images we have for different dragons are the way to

     >

      > go. The new electric dragon, e.g., looks very nice; so does the chinese

     >

      > dragon. And Todd(?)'s bone drake is a nicely done dragon image as well. I

     >

      > wouldn't want to see the same image with different colors for these

     >

      > dragons.

     >

     >

      The electric, chinese, and bone drakes are very nice images, even though they

     >

      strike me as being in the wrong perspective.

That depends on your perspective :-) I use the alternate set images, and
they are in a perfectly fine perspective in that context (relative to the 
other alternate set monsters, that is).

>

       I suppose I wouldn't be so quick to get rid of them though, as they

     >

      aren't awful images.

They are MUCH better than the old images we have. The old electric dragon
frankly looks like a cuddly stuffed toy.

>

      However.. if you think a new dragon image is going to plop into our lap

     >

      so you can make an acid dragon anytime this decade, then I might remind

     >

      you we've been begging for someone to fix Mr Red for about 2+ years. 

I think part of the problem is that the procedure for adding new
animations is not well documented. For example, I still have no idea how
to convert some new images I have to a tile format that CF can use, nor
how to associate it with an arch.

>

      I'm not suggesting that we go and change the chinese dragon to a white

     >

      dragon, I'm just suggesting we come up with a panethon of dragons, and

     >

      make do with what images we have.  IMHO one of the most boring elements

     >

      of crossfire is the extremely limited fauna of creatures.

I beg to differ... I think the problem is with bad map design, rather than
lack of different creatures. There's no reason why orcs must always go
with kobolds, and why goblins must always go with gnolls and ogres.

Having said that, I do concede that some monster families aren't as
fleshed out as they can be. Currently, the orc/kobold/etc generators
already produce "leaders"; we should turn these "leaders" (which are
currently the "regular" arch with a replaced image) into full-blown archs,
and possibly add a few more to each family. Each of the kobold/orc/goblin
families should have enough variety that you can create an interesting map
with only orcs (of various types).

The recent skeletal mage/skeleton captain additions are a good example of
this. It's not that hard to produce more arches this way either; all you
need is to take current images and add them slightly. Eg. skeletal mage is
essentially a skeleton carrying a staff, and skeleton captain is
essentially a skeleton wearing sword and shield.

>

      Most places you go, you fight the same old thing.  I'd rather see the

     >

      red dragon occasionally yellow or green, then the red one over and over

     >

      and over. 

     [snip]

Again, part of the responsibility lies with bad map design. The typical
approach to map design goes like this: Hmm, this is my treasure room,
where I have Super Duper Artifact +9. Hmm, +9 seems very powerful, I need
to make it hard to reach. I know! I'll make a big room and put 25 red
dragons in it. And right, having just dragons is boring, so lemme make a
long map with increasingly difficult monsters. I'll start with kobolds and
orcs, and then giants, and then ... . There are a few fallacies here:

(1) the common perception that big monsters are harder, so big rooms with
big monsters are popular. Actually, bigger is not necessarily harder, as
any mid-level char who got the Shooting Star knows.

(2) Large numbers makes it harder -- this is usually not true, since once
you can kill 1 or 2 dragons, chances are you can kill 9 or 25 just as
easily. The way most big rooms are designed, there's a doorway where the
monsters can't pass ('cos they are too big) so you stand in the hallway
and take them out one by one. Places like Wizard Tower that dumps you in
the middle of 9 wizards with no way to back out is difficult precisely
because you have to face all the wizards at once. If they were lined up in
a corridor, it'd be a lot easier.

(3) Catalog effect: currently, there's a rough sequence of monsters in
increasing difficulty. While there's nothing wrong with this, too many
maps are like monster catalogues. You always start with kobolds or one of
the orc families, and then you get ogres and giants, and then undead, then
beholders and dreads, and then dragons, and then titans and wizards. Oh,
and throw in a green slime or two, plus a grimreaper, just to make things
nasty. About 70-80% of current maps are like this; so it's no wonder you
get bored quickly.

For (1) and (2), mapmakers (that includes me :-P) need to put a bit more
thought into the map, and design a powered-up version of an existing
monster.  E.g., if the map is all giants, I don't see the point in
sticking a titan at the end of the map. Chances are the corridors are only
2x2 wide because of the side of giants, and the titan will almost always
end up in a 3x3 room where he can't move, and makes an easy long-range
target. It would be much better to have a beefed up hill giant that is
unusually fast, e.g., to serve as a "boss monster" at the end of a map. 
Also, we should discourage maps where you basically wade through roomfuls
of monsters. Better have 3-5 well-placed orcs with special attacks or
movement types that makes them harder to kill, than to have 30-50 boring,
vanilla-flavored orcs filling a big room.

For (3), I'd *really* like to see more themed maps. E.g., a swamp map that
only has acid monsters, or a dragon map that only has dragons, etc.. I
still fail to see why titans and dragons occur together so frequently, or
why beholders and skulls *must* occur together (they're not even the same
race, dangit.)

This is why in an earlier message I mentioned that it'd be nice to have
different areas in bigworld, where a certain type of monster is more
common. E.g., Darcap area can have a lot of elementals, whereas the
mountains near dragoncave would have mainly (or only) dragons; SE of the
continent could be infested with demons from Fire Temple, etc.. There
should also be a central orc area where you find the most orcs; orcs in
any other place should be discouraged (though not excluded; we still need
variety sometimes). Then within each of these areas, we should introduce
more archs for that monster family, etc.. 

I'm currently working on a set of swamp maps with trolls and other
poisonous/acidic monsters (including at least one new monster). No orcs or
goblins allowed, nor demons, and definitely no titans! :-)

T

-- 
If you compete with slaves, you become a slave. -- Norbert Wiener

_______________________________________________
crossfire-devel mailing list

     crossfire-devel at lists.real-time.com

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