[crossfire] Party Support

Juergen Kahnert crossfire at kahnert.de
Sun Jul 29 12:13:58 CDT 2007

On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 11:09:50PM -0700, Mark Wedel wrote:
>   There are some multiplayer maps, but really, most of them only
> require multiplayer because two levers need to be pulled at the same
> time

Yeah, which isn't either challenging nor interesting.  We need real
multiplayer maps.

>   But would be nice, which may happen with class/race/skill
> rebalancing, is for parties to be able to handle tougher dungeons than
> they might otherwise be able to handle on their own, and thus get
> better items/more exp.

Yes, would be nice.  But again, be careful not changing the classes that
much, that multiplayer is necessary.

Re: healing items

>   But using such items takes some amount of time, at which point
> you're not casting spells or inflicting damage.

A rod of healing is very fast to use.  Much faster than any party member
is able to cast heal; especially if you have to fiddle around with the

And if you slow down such things, the single player ability may get
lost.  From my point of view would be very bad, because the focus of CF
is single player adventures in a multi player world.

Oh, and high level monsters are able to kill a character pretty fast.
Waiting for a party healer who has to take the mouse may be to late.

So we need to adjust the monsters, too.  And again, reorganization of
the entire world comes into my mind.

>   There has been a lot of discussion about rebalancing/redoing classes
> - that is completely unrelated to party support (the discussions about
> redoing it are really separate), but those changes may make playing
> with parties more desirable.

I don't think so.  But we should skip the idea of a "healer" class.
This leads into the wrong direction.

As you said, having more class distinctions may solve some of the
problems.  Having a character with level 50 in melee and another one
with level 50 in spell casting should be able to solve quests where two
character with equal level 30 in melee and casting won't.

This can also be combined with the reorganization of the world.  Having
such multiplayer maps in one region will offer teamplay as well as some
challenging maps for single player character who likes to hit the limit.

> > Make the "healer" getting xp from healing.  No xp sharing, please.  Let
> > it make more xp the higher the healed character is, or whatever.  But
> > make sure that xp comes out of the skill you use.
>   Things like that don't work very well.  Off the top of my head, I
> can think of numerous abuses that players would quickly come up to get
> healing exp up (players damage each other, etc).

As I said, the "healer" as a class will lead into the wrong direction.
But what about xp gaining from the amount of hp healed?  For example,
someone heals 20 hp of a party member will get 20 xp.  Player don't have
a huge amount of hp, so leveling up by abusing this will take some time.

> I personally think exp sharing should be part of the game.

I think that's not necessary.  But if you like to keep it, we should try
the idea of Juha.  Don't share xp between characters with to much level
difference, or reduce the shared xp the higher the level difference is.

Sharing xp offers a much bigger abuse than by damaging and healing each

The reward for party play should be the ability to solve a quest which
won't be possible on the own.

> if the only way to get exp is by killing creatures,

We don't have that.  You should gain xp by using your skill.

> pretty much means that every class must be something that goes and
> kills bunches of creatures, which I don't think is good.

Yes, with the focus on single player maps every class has to have the
ability to kill monsters...

Forget about the pure healer.  A paladin could get some good healing
spells, same for the priest.  Both are able to kill monsters by their
own.  No big deal.

> > Doesn't matter.  Count the damage each character made and divide the
> > xp pro-rata.  If not, won't hurt.  But I won't like to play a healer
> > if I need a warrior which weakens the monster that I get the chance
> > to gain a little bit xp...
>   That doesn't work for several reasons.  First, what do you do about
> creatures with fast regeneration?

Those are harder to kill, more slashing is needed. ;-)

> If you get damage for each hit, you now open up a way for infinite
> exp.

I never said that.  Only killing the monster will give you xp, but now
pro-rata of the damage you made.

If the xp for a monster is 1000 and (for the easier calculation example)
also have 1000 hp, but regenerates fast.  Now our party members have to
inflict 2000 damage.  Player A made 1000, B inflicted 500, and C and D
each 250.  Now the 1000 xp are diveded pro-rata.  Player A gets 500 xp,
player B 250 and C and D each 125.

No way for infinite xp.  No way to spoil fun for lower level characters.

>   The other thing is that IMO, killing the creature should be rewarded
> much more than damaging it.

Only killing will give xp, damaging not.  Same behaviour as right now.

Re: Travelling around with reduced speed

>   More use of transports could be added.

Yes, reorganization of the world pops up into my mind. ;-)

Making more island for the regions and you're able to travel between
them with ships.

> Note that right now, even for a moderate/low level character without
> high speed, unless going cross country through mountains, it never
> takes more than a couple minutes real time to get to any point.

Yes, you're right.  I'm unable to navigate my high speed character in
real time.  I always leave the pathes and hit mountains.  So really no
big deal.

Re: mouse vs keys

>   Aiming with keys would be difficult.

Yes, no idea so far for this.  Maybe lock on a monster and hit it as
long as in line of view and auto lock another one.

>   Aiming with a mouse would be easy, but as said, going between
> keyboard and mouse is a bit annoying.

This should be avoided, yes.

Party spells could be applied in two steps.  You have an overview of the
party, for example:

    a - Siegfried
    b - Kriemhild
    c - Gunther
    d - Hagen

Now you invoke "heal member" and a query asks you on which one: a, b, c
or d?

Hit the key and the member feels the effect.  Should be fast enough for

>   I'm not sure what it would take to make the game completely playable
> with the mouse (and completely may be a bit of an overstatement - some
> things may only be doable by keyboard, but if those are things you
> don't do in combat, probably ok)

Usually you have two hands.  One on the mouse, the other one on the
keyboard.  If you move and aim with the mouse and do other things with
keys, depends on the implementation, may work.

Combinations like aiming with mouse, moving with keys is bad, I think.

We may add identifiers over the monsters.  Similar to the "heal member"
query (see above) you could get an "aim monster" query.

Re: Create party quests

>   Presume you have party support (not that big a presumption).  And
> presume you have some way of recording the party members that
> completed a quest (killed the monster).
>   At that level, it then doesn't take too much imagination to think
> about when the party returns to town, how they get a shared reward.

Ok, the king sends you out to solve a problem.  You return to the king
with your party members.  Every party member gets the "quest solved flag"
who really participated into the quest.  Make some "milestone flags",
and only those with all the milestone flags receive the solved flag.

And for the rewards: The one who returns the quest item to the king will
receive a bunch of items.  For example, if it's a quest for three
players, the king will give away three items.  If you played with 5
players, the reward won't change.

If you ask for a plumber to fix your flooding, and 5 plumbers requesting
each 100$ per hour, you won't be amused.  Paying a bill of 100$ per hour
which is divided between those 5 plumbers won't bother you, isn't it?

If the quest is desinged for a warrior, a wizard and a priest and you
solved the quest with 5 warrior, the rewards won't change.

I don't like to see a party of 50 members ripping the king of. ;)

> if that NPC in town wants something done, he probably doesn't care how
> it got done - he just cares it did get done.  Now as programmers of
> that NPC, we should take into account that people may work in groups
> to get that task done.

Yes, everybody on the map with the appropriate flag collection will get
the quest solved flag.  But the reward won't change.

Make clear how the rewards looks like at the beginning that you're able
to form a party for it.  And than the quest should be best solved with
this kind of classes that the rewards will fit.

Or make a selection thing we discussed for single player quests.  But
only the first <n> characters should get a reward, not all to avoid


More information about the crossfire mailing list