[CF-Devel] faster portgate (context diff)

Tue May 18 00:36:31 CDT 2004

Palfy Tamas wrote:
>

>

      This I admit, tho it wasn't a bad thing for sure. Many-many games (some

     >

      examples: Final Fantasy and co., Baldur's Gate II, Temple of EE, lotsa

     >

      old good stuff) had the same issue. The idea behind this is, that we now

     >

      there are interesting places, and ones that are _not_. But we cannot

     >

      put the interesting places next to each other, it would be against our

     >

      illusion of reality. So we simply use another scale for by-pass areas, so

     >

      the feeling would be still ok, and we don't have to suffer boredom while

     >

      traveling from one "interesting area" to another. But I'm sure it's not a

     >

      new thing for you either...

     >

      I understand that the main idea was to make the world something like in

     >

      Wizardy 8, a continous field of gameplay. But without interesting

     >

      side-areas and/or random encounters, and with unrecognizable and

     >

      unmemorizable pathways it's just missed the point IMO. (Tho I've argued

     >

      this before, I made the mistake not suggesting some solutiona. So

     >

      here are some: )

  The other problem was that there were getting to be so many maps on the old 
world maps, they started getting cluttered (eg, a dungeon, ruin, temple, castle, 
etc, every 5-10 spaces).  So things needed to be spread out somewhat, simply so 
things that should be hard to find can be.

>

     >

      - New maps and/with new quests. It would be great, would bring new

     >

      challanges, new excitement - most important things in any game. (I fear

     >

      without new maps CF is doomed...)

  I agree.  I'm uncertain why there aren't more new maps showing up - as said, 
the java editor runs on any platform, and arguably, this is a less technical 
task to do compared to coding and so forth.

>

     >

      - Rearrange bigworld facade. Like make really memorizable large-sclae

     >

      landscape features, and put in some neat recognizable obstacles. Like a

     >

      real map and a real land. With real forests and mountains,

     >

      swamps, deserts and stuff. In it's current stage it's like a

     >

      random-generated messed up compound. Even some messages could help

     >

      orientation. (Like "Before you lies the magnificent Great Drake Mountains.

     >

      This far-flung highland separates Northwest Coursefall [here could be

     >

      the name of the World - Coursefall is just an example {Coursefall - CF

     >

      ;-) }] from the the Eastern Wastelands..." Or something like that, more

     >

      poetic descriptions could increase the game experience really much.)

  Certainly some rivers could get added to add landmarks.  Arguably, more 
terrain types also, so that you could have multipled forests, but one of jungle, 
one of connifers, one of oaks, etc.

>

     >

      - Idea of random encounters should be considered. (Random monsters are

     >

      _not_ good, for it could lead to many low-lvl players' deaths. Random

     >

      encounter could be things like this: Suddenly you teleport into a small

     >

      random map area with some random monsters. The maps and monsters could be

     >

      specific to the area you are at on the world map. And of course the map

     >

      would have an exit teleporter next to you, so you can flee if you want,

     >

      and it's good also for players who don't want to deal with too many random

     >

      encounters... Tho, I'm not sure it's a very good idea. Simple random

     >

      encounters on simple random maps could be simply annoying. Hmm, maybe

     >

      some _quests_ could be made which mark you as a player that can recieve

     >

      certain random or random-like encouters in certain places. Would be a

     >

      difficoult one to code, I admit.

  There used to be code that did this.  It proved really annoying - you'd be 
heading west, get tossed onto a random map, and had to find your way out.  Even 
if you place an exit near where the player enters, you get the problem of if you 
put it in the direction the player is moving, he is probably out of hte map as 
soon as he enters it.  If its not in the same direction, the player, hitting run 
  west or whatever, finds himself 5 spaces from it before he notices he is on a 
random map.

  I'd personally rather put the monsters on the world maps. Travel in theory 
should be dangerous.  I personally have two thoughts about how do this:

1) Create spawn spaces - sprinkle these on maps where you want monsters to show 
up.  This, low level areas near towns could be free of these spaces.

2) Add info to the map header about random encounters.  Once again, maps near 
low level areas/cities could be set with no such info.

  In both cases, I'd put logic in that limits the number of monsters (eg, before 
monsters are generated, so how many are currently on the map, and if above some 
threshold, don't make any more).

  Also perhaps record where the maps where generated, and put in logic so they 
don't wander too far from home (so nasty players can't lure the monsters next to 
the town.

  I'd note that most monsters are pretty slow, relative to players, so in most 
cases, the players should be able to outrun the monsters.

>

     >

     >>

       But it was a side goal to increase travel times some, so that it was no longer

     >>

     especially easy to visit every shop out there in 2 minutes flat.  while it may

     >>

     be a bit frustrating at times (I really want a book of XYZ, but this town

     >>

     doesn't have it), I think that is a reasonable part of the game.

     >

     >

     >

      Hmm, this sounds reasonable, tho I want to point out, that this is another

     >

      feature that makes differences beetween low-lvl and high-lvl players

     >

      deeper. (It much more frustrating for a low-lvl player than for a

     >

      high-lvl one. And it's not "of course, what do you want man, high-lvl

     >

      players have easier life, zat bad"! It's that high-lvl players can

     >

      _advance_(relatively)_)faster_ than low-lvl players... The two things are

     >

      different!)

  But it is less likely low level players will be hunting for specific objects 
(simply because there are few rare items that low level players can afford)

_______________________________________________
crossfire-devel mailing list

     crossfire-devel at lists.real-time.com

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